Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Natalie Bennett met her partner Jim Jepps after reading his blog, revealing to her local paper how “he blogged something about me which was wrong so I corrected him”. Yet on that very same blog, Jepps, a far-left activist, makes a series of disturbing comments about rape fantasies, kidnap and murder fanfiction, paedophillia, “childhood sexuality” and sex between teachers and pupils.
In a blog about rape fantasies, the partner of the Green leader, whose party claim in their manifesto that they want to “work to change attitudes towards rape“, argues:
“Some people have rape fantasies, they do, it’s a fact. It does not mean they actually want to rape or be raped they are simply drawing from the deep, dark well of sexuality and if you are one of them it does not make you a bad person and you shouldn’t spend even one second feeling guilty about those fantasies.”
In another blogpost, titled “Even monsters have feelings”, about Natascha Kampusch, the Austrian girl who was abducted aged 10, held captive and repeatedly raped, Jepps claims: “even in the horrors of Natascha Kampusch’s imprisonment mundanity, kindness and laughter were still present… These are two people who had a long term and human relationship”.
Jepps also ran a poll on his blog titled “Sex with pupils – good idea / bad idea?”, writing “Personally I’m ambivalent”. Parents and the law however are not…
Commenting on a news story about a 16 year old girl who was banned from wearing a chastity ring at school, Jepps writes: “It will also make it so much harder for her to get educated about the facts of life, or learn how to f**k properly”.
And in a bizarre blogpost headlined “Would you drink tea made by a paedophile?”, Jepps argues that we should still be able to enjoy the books of a man convicted of sexually abusing girls as young as four. He wrote:
“We can burn these books as a public statement against the author (who is in jail for his crimes) or try to understand that whatever monstrous acts individuals commit they are still complex human beings for all that. Good, evil, interesting and banal by turns – not devils who can taint everything they touch with evil.”
Jepps also blogged about fan fiction featuring the pop group Girls Aloud. He describes the content as “about the famous girl band members being kidnapped, raped and murdered”. He comments: “Personally I didn’t find it that shocking”.
In another blogpost headlined “Childhood Sexuality”, Jepps describes his “sexual” feelings towards a six year old girl when he was the same age. He writes:
“I remember inviting [girl’s name withheld] to my birthday party (around the sixth I think)… I’m absolutely certain there was an unseen sexual element to my invitation, although I would not have been thinking beyond a light snog or perhaps even a spot of hand holding… I think this example shows is that even at a young age I was not adverse to hand holding, kissing the bride and generally being seen to hang around with girls… and I’m fairly sure my motives were not always so innocent… Whilst it’s clear I had sexual feelings as a child these were not the terrible all consuming passions of later life – and although they contained neither the intensity, depth nor carnality of adult life they were very real and important to me at the time.”
Natalie Bennett has refused to comment, despite having full knowledge of the blog. A Green Party spokesman says: “The party does not endorse the views expressed and would not want to be associated with them. Jim Jepps has not been a member of the party since 2012″. An apologist for rape fantasists and paedophiles just lives with their leader Natalie Bennett…
.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/20/barely-legal-sick-childhood-sexuality-shame-of-bennetts-boyfriend/#_@/n_aYNEY8gOO5VA
Just as well it wasn't someone from UKIP.
In a blog about rape fantasies, the partner of the Green leader, whose party claim in their manifesto that they want to “work to change attitudes towards rape“, argues:
“Some people have rape fantasies, they do, it’s a fact. It does not mean they actually want to rape or be raped they are simply drawing from the deep, dark well of sexuality and if you are one of them it does not make you a bad person and you shouldn’t spend even one second feeling guilty about those fantasies.”
In another blogpost, titled “Even monsters have feelings”, about Natascha Kampusch, the Austrian girl who was abducted aged 10, held captive and repeatedly raped, Jepps claims: “even in the horrors of Natascha Kampusch’s imprisonment mundanity, kindness and laughter were still present… These are two people who had a long term and human relationship”.
Jepps also ran a poll on his blog titled “Sex with pupils – good idea / bad idea?”, writing “Personally I’m ambivalent”. Parents and the law however are not…
Commenting on a news story about a 16 year old girl who was banned from wearing a chastity ring at school, Jepps writes: “It will also make it so much harder for her to get educated about the facts of life, or learn how to f**k properly”.
And in a bizarre blogpost headlined “Would you drink tea made by a paedophile?”, Jepps argues that we should still be able to enjoy the books of a man convicted of sexually abusing girls as young as four. He wrote:
“We can burn these books as a public statement against the author (who is in jail for his crimes) or try to understand that whatever monstrous acts individuals commit they are still complex human beings for all that. Good, evil, interesting and banal by turns – not devils who can taint everything they touch with evil.”
Jepps also blogged about fan fiction featuring the pop group Girls Aloud. He describes the content as “about the famous girl band members being kidnapped, raped and murdered”. He comments: “Personally I didn’t find it that shocking”.
In another blogpost headlined “Childhood Sexuality”, Jepps describes his “sexual” feelings towards a six year old girl when he was the same age. He writes:
“I remember inviting [girl’s name withheld] to my birthday party (around the sixth I think)… I’m absolutely certain there was an unseen sexual element to my invitation, although I would not have been thinking beyond a light snog or perhaps even a spot of hand holding… I think this example shows is that even at a young age I was not adverse to hand holding, kissing the bride and generally being seen to hang around with girls… and I’m fairly sure my motives were not always so innocent… Whilst it’s clear I had sexual feelings as a child these were not the terrible all consuming passions of later life – and although they contained neither the intensity, depth nor carnality of adult life they were very real and important to me at the time.”
Natalie Bennett has refused to comment, despite having full knowledge of the blog. A Green Party spokesman says: “The party does not endorse the views expressed and would not want to be associated with them. Jim Jepps has not been a member of the party since 2012″. An apologist for rape fantasists and paedophiles just lives with their leader Natalie Bennett…
.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/20/barely-legal-sick-childhood-sexuality-shame-of-bennetts-boyfriend/#_@/n_aYNEY8gOO5VA
Just as well it wasn't someone from UKIP.
Show More
Im more shocked he isnt a labour Councillor or shacked up with one.
I don't think you could ever describe Natalie as a straight A student.
Zs more like ... not the brightest.
Zs more like ... not the brightest.
An interesting read.
I didn't think it started too badly but thought he put his points over badly however when you get to the teacher/pupil thing then that's dangerous nonsense.
Thereafter you have to wonder if he has an agenda and is trying to de-demonise paedophilia.
It also makes you wonder at why NB was/is attracted to him.
I didn't think it started too badly but thought he put his points over badly however when you get to the teacher/pupil thing then that's dangerous nonsense.
Thereafter you have to wonder if he has an agenda and is trying to de-demonise paedophilia.
It also makes you wonder at why NB was/is attracted to him.
Surely Jim Jepps should be the Green candidate for Rotherham or Rochdale.
.
http://jimjay.blogspot.be/2007/09/would-you-drink-tea-made-by-paedophile.html
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Would you drink tea made by a paedophile?
Just reading an interesting piece on the BBC magazine section on the call to withdraw music books written by a convicted sex offender. Brian Davey was a music teacher convicted last year of a string of sexual assaults against children.
The BBC says that he "wrote books on the recorder that many tutors regard as among the best textbooks for children" but that one victim of of abuse claims, quite feasibly, that "they were written with one aim - to get to children" and therefore should be withdrawn.
I suppose there are a number of questions to be asked here. Is Davey still in a position to profit from these books, either sexually or financially? The former seems unlikely, the latter appears quite possible.
Can the product of a person be seen as something completely separate from them once it is produced? Is it necessarily tainted by the hand of the producer? Heidegger wrote some very fine philosophy and was simultaneously a card carrying Nazi. Not only that but he was not above using his position as a university professor to undermine and expel Jewish academics.
It's possible to draw parallels with Heidegger's existentialism and fascism - but you have to go out of your way to do so. I think it's worth reading Heidegger and trying to crowbar some sense out him - it's difficult but rewarding no matter what the crimes of the man himself.
It seems unlikely to me that there is any subliminal abusive content in Davey's books on playing recorder. In fact it appears we are meant to turn away from these books because of their association with someone of the most reprehensible character. I'm not sure that this is entirely appropriate.
I'm assuming we're not calling for the work of Leonardo da Vinci to be withdrawn nor the works of Andre Gide, Walt Whitman, Michelangelo, or Byron. Yet all of these figures were known to engage in sexual relations with children. Where are we to draw the line? Is it the fact that these were recent offences that should make the books beyond the pail? If so can we reprint them in thirty, forty or fifty years time?
The article points towards the artist Eric Gill (pictured, right) who, it appears, was a truly vile human being - but produced wonderful works of art, many of which were for the Catholic Church. Whilst the church refused to remove Gill's work from their buildings many worshippers found the idea of praying in front of works he had produced highly abhorrent. i find both sides understandable, although in this case because of the specifically "moral" nature of the works I'd certainly side with the worshippers against the Cardinals.
For me the case would be cut and dried (the works stand on their own) but for one thing. The feelings of the victim who described the banning of the books as a "marker of his abuse, a tangible, public statement that we find what he has done horrendous". This is a difficult statement to ignore but one I think we should resist, as sensitively as we can.
Currently we have a set of useful, educational books. Not the greatest contribution to world culture for sure, but a step forward none the less. We can burn these books as a public statement against the author (who is in jail for his crimes) or try to understand that whatever monstrous acts individuals commit they are still complex human beings for all that. Good, evil, interesting and banal by turns - not devils who can taint everything they touch with evil.
http://jimjay.blogspot.be/2007/09/would-you-drink-tea-made-by-paedophile.html
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Would you drink tea made by a paedophile?
Just reading an interesting piece on the BBC magazine section on the call to withdraw music books written by a convicted sex offender. Brian Davey was a music teacher convicted last year of a string of sexual assaults against children.
The BBC says that he "wrote books on the recorder that many tutors regard as among the best textbooks for children" but that one victim of of abuse claims, quite feasibly, that "they were written with one aim - to get to children" and therefore should be withdrawn.
I suppose there are a number of questions to be asked here. Is Davey still in a position to profit from these books, either sexually or financially? The former seems unlikely, the latter appears quite possible.
Can the product of a person be seen as something completely separate from them once it is produced? Is it necessarily tainted by the hand of the producer? Heidegger wrote some very fine philosophy and was simultaneously a card carrying Nazi. Not only that but he was not above using his position as a university professor to undermine and expel Jewish academics.
It's possible to draw parallels with Heidegger's existentialism and fascism - but you have to go out of your way to do so. I think it's worth reading Heidegger and trying to crowbar some sense out him - it's difficult but rewarding no matter what the crimes of the man himself.
It seems unlikely to me that there is any subliminal abusive content in Davey's books on playing recorder. In fact it appears we are meant to turn away from these books because of their association with someone of the most reprehensible character. I'm not sure that this is entirely appropriate.
I'm assuming we're not calling for the work of Leonardo da Vinci to be withdrawn nor the works of Andre Gide, Walt Whitman, Michelangelo, or Byron. Yet all of these figures were known to engage in sexual relations with children. Where are we to draw the line? Is it the fact that these were recent offences that should make the books beyond the pail? If so can we reprint them in thirty, forty or fifty years time?
The article points towards the artist Eric Gill (pictured, right) who, it appears, was a truly vile human being - but produced wonderful works of art, many of which were for the Catholic Church. Whilst the church refused to remove Gill's work from their buildings many worshippers found the idea of praying in front of works he had produced highly abhorrent. i find both sides understandable, although in this case because of the specifically "moral" nature of the works I'd certainly side with the worshippers against the Cardinals.
For me the case would be cut and dried (the works stand on their own) but for one thing. The feelings of the victim who described the banning of the books as a "marker of his abuse, a tangible, public statement that we find what he has done horrendous". This is a difficult statement to ignore but one I think we should resist, as sensitively as we can.
Currently we have a set of useful, educational books. Not the greatest contribution to world culture for sure, but a step forward none the less. We can burn these books as a public statement against the author (who is in jail for his crimes) or try to understand that whatever monstrous acts individuals commit they are still complex human beings for all that. Good, evil, interesting and banal by turns - not devils who can taint everything they touch with evil.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539