Well, how about that. In the last week it seems we’ve pretty much come full circle with regards to the paedophile issue. Child molestation, paedophilia, gays and other members of the LGBT community being targeted through a misconception that they’re paedophiles, child porn, priests, Jimmy Savile now the fear of a return to the gay witch-hunt. All brought about because of David Cameron saying what in his mind was the right thing but ending up with having it blown out of proportion: “There is a danger, if we’re not careful, that this can turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay.”
Honestly, as someone who does fit into one of the LGBT categories, I don’t think he meant any harm to the community with his comment. He was on the spot on live TV and, unless you’re someone incredibly gifted with words and finding the right ones to get exactly your meaning across first time round, his comments will always be criticised because at least one person will interpret them wrongly.
My meaning to his words would be more along the lines of: “We’re treading in dangerous waters here. If names of people presumed to be paedophiles are available on-line, it could easily lead to vigilantes taking the law onto themselves and going after these people. This could in turn lead to a return to the misconception that gays are paedophiles as these vigilantes search wildly for a new set of scapegoats, which is not what we want.”
As he also rightfully added and is rarely quoted or mentioned for saying, the police exist for this very purpose – citizens can go to them with possible suspects who will then be investigated by competent people, not by some guy who can barely understand how he came into being and can’t believe that The Only Way Is Essex is actually scripted. I know, that last one’s a shocker, isn’t it?
Moral of the story is, if you take sentences out of context all hell breaks loose. That’s what the mass-media thrives on. How many of you were actually watching This Morning? Here’s a video I found of the full discussion: