Rod Liddle - Revision history

Jim Burton at 17:13, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T17:13:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, 29 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[~~https~~:~~//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle~~ '''Rod Liddle'''] (born April 1st, 1960) is an English journalist and an associate editor of the politically conservative magazine ''The Spectator''. He was an editor of ''BBC Radio 4's Today'', and published works include ''Too Beautiful for You'' (2003), ''Love Will Destroy Everything'' (2007), ''The Best of Liddle Britain'' (co-author, 2007) and the semi-autobiographical ''Selfish Whining Monkeys'' (2014). He has presented television programmes, including ''The New Fundamentalists'', ''The Trouble with Atheism'', and ''Immigration Is A Time Bomb''.		[[wikipedia:Rod Liddle\|'''Rod Liddle''']] (born April 1st, 1960) is an English journalist and an associate editor of the politically conservative magazine ''The Spectator''. He was an editor of ''BBC Radio 4's Today'', and published works include ''Too Beautiful for You'' (2003), ''Love Will Destroy Everything'' (2007), ''The Best of Liddle Britain'' (co-author, 2007) and the semi-autobiographical ''Selfish Whining Monkeys'' (2014). He has presented television programmes, including ''The New Fundamentalists'', ''The Trouble with Atheism'', and ''Immigration Is A Time Bomb''.

	Regarding [[MAP]]s, [[AAM]]s, and related issues, Liddle has criticized UK law around [[child pornography]]. In his 2002 article for ''The Guardian'' titled "Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?," Liddle wrote:		Regarding [[MAP]]s, [[AAM]]s, and related issues, Liddle has criticized UK law around [[child pornography]]. In his 2002 article for ''The Guardian'' titled "Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?," Liddle wrote:

Prue at 16:26, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T16:26:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:26, 29 September 2025
Line 16:		Line 16:
	''At my old comprehensive school a few teachers were known to be schtupping the pupils; one of them, a female teacher who was extremely foxy [...] copped off with some fifth-form lad, and another teacher (a man with a guitar and a faux rebellious attitude) gained the affections of an extremely attractive fourth-form girl. As pupils, we didn't remotely mind about this and both teachers were very popular. But I knew, when I was considering my career options, that this sort of behaviour was definitely frowned upon by the authorities and that I would not last the week in my new job. Frowned upon, although not much more, I ought to say — certainly not the deranged howling that is kicked up these days''[.]<ref>Rod Liddle, "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" (''The Spectator'', 2012).</ref>		''At my old comprehensive school a few teachers were known to be schtupping the pupils; one of them, a female teacher who was extremely foxy [...] copped off with some fifth-form lad, and another teacher (a man with a guitar and a faux rebellious attitude) gained the affections of an extremely attractive fourth-form girl. As pupils, we didn't remotely mind about this and both teachers were very popular. But I knew, when I was considering my career options, that this sort of behaviour was definitely frowned upon by the authorities and that I would not last the week in my new job. Frowned upon, although not much more, I ought to say — certainly not the deranged howling that is kicked up these days''[.]<ref>Rod Liddle, "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" (''The Spectator'', 2012).</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

			==See also==
			*[[Miranda Sawyer]]
			*[[The Right-wing and Minor Attraction]]

	==References==		==References==

	[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:People]][[Category:People: British]][[Category:People: Popular Authors]][[Category:Art]][[Category:People: Artists and Poets]][[Category:People: Critical Analysts]]		[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:People]][[Category:People: British]][[Category:People: Popular Authors]][[Category:Art]][[Category:People: Artists and Poets]][[Category:People: Critical Analysts]]

Prue at 16:24, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T16:24:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 29 September 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:

	==References==		==References==

			[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:People]][[Category:People: British]][[Category:People: Popular Authors]][[Category:Art]][[Category:People: Artists and Poets]][[Category:People: Critical Analysts]]

Prue at 16:23, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T16:23:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 29 September 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:
	''The law prohibits, in theory, even an accidental visit to a child-porn website. But we are told that prosecution would be unlikely to occur if it could be proved that the visit was, indeed, accidental. How do you prove that? No, really, officer, it was all a ghastly mistake. Will that wash? [...]''		''The law prohibits, in theory, even an accidental visit to a child-porn website. But we are told that prosecution would be unlikely to occur if it could be proved that the visit was, indeed, accidental. How do you prove that? No, really, officer, it was all a ghastly mistake. Will that wash? [...]''

	''How absurd the law is. But at least it is an appropriate reflection of our collective neurosis and confusion about paedophilia generally. The one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse - has become warped by our consuming, obsessive hatred for those who find children sexually attractive. There is no causal link between viewing child porn and abusing children. And even if there were, it would not be sufficient, within the philosophy of our judicial system, to simply assume that an unpleasant penchant for the former presupposes guilt of the latter.''		''How absurd the law is. But at least it is an appropriate reflection of our collective [[Moral_panic\|neurosis and confusion]] about paedophilia generally. The one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse - has become warped by our consuming, obsessive hatred for those who find children sexually attractive. There is [[Research:_Child_Pornography\|no causal link between viewing child porn and abusing children]]. And even if there were, it would not be sufficient, within the [[Debate_Guide:_State_hypocrisy\|philosophy of our judicial system]], to simply assume that an unpleasant penchant for the former presupposes guilt of the latter.''

	''No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things. The law should be above the blind, howling, rage of Rebekah Wade's moronic vigilantes. But there is the whiff of Salem about it all.''<ref>Rod Liddle, [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?] (''The Guardian'', 2002).</ref>		''No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of [[Pedophilia\|paedophiles]], we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things. The law should be above the blind, howling, rage of Rebekah Wade's [[Vigilantism\|moronic vigilantes]]. But there is the whiff of Salem about it all.''<ref>Rod Liddle, [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?] (''The Guardian'', 2002).</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Prue at 16:16, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T16:16:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 29 September 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	The law prohibits, in theory, even an accidental visit to a child-porn website. But we are told that prosecution would be unlikely to occur if it could be proved that the visit was, indeed, accidental. How do you prove that? No, really, officer, it was all a ghastly mistake. Will that wash? [...]		''The law prohibits, in theory, even an accidental visit to a child-porn website. But we are told that prosecution would be unlikely to occur if it could be proved that the visit was, indeed, accidental. How do you prove that? No, really, officer, it was all a ghastly mistake. Will that wash? [...]''

	How absurd the law is. But at least it is an appropriate reflection of our collective neurosis and confusion about paedophilia generally. The one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse - has become warped by our consuming, obsessive hatred for those who find children sexually attractive. There is no causal link between viewing child porn and abusing children. And even if there were, it would not be sufficient, within the philosophy of our judicial system, to simply assume that an unpleasant penchant for the former presupposes guilt of the latter.		''How absurd the law is. But at least it is an appropriate reflection of our collective neurosis and confusion about paedophilia generally. The one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse - has become warped by our consuming, obsessive hatred for those who find children sexually attractive. There is no causal link between viewing child porn and abusing children. And even if there were, it would not be sufficient, within the philosophy of our judicial system, to simply assume that an unpleasant penchant for the former presupposes guilt of the latter.''

	No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things. The law should be above the blind, howling, rage of Rebekah Wade's moronic vigilantes. But there is the whiff of Salem about it all.<ref>Rod Liddle, [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?] (''The Guardian'', 2002).</ref>		''No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things. The law should be above the blind, howling, rage of Rebekah Wade's moronic vigilantes. But there is the whiff of Salem about it all.''<ref>Rod Liddle, [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?] (''The Guardian'', 2002).</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Line 14:		Line 14:

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	At my old comprehensive school a few teachers were known to be schtupping the pupils; one of them, a female teacher who was extremely foxy [...] copped off with some fifth-form lad, and another teacher (a man with a guitar and a faux rebellious attitude) gained the affections of an extremely attractive fourth-form girl. As pupils, we didn't remotely mind about this and both teachers were very popular. But I knew, when I was considering my career options, that this sort of behaviour was definitely frowned upon by the authorities and that I would not last the week in my new job. Frowned upon, although not much more, I ought to say — certainly not the deranged howling that is kicked up these days<ref>Rod Liddle, "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" (''The Spectator'', 2012).</ref>		''At my old comprehensive school a few teachers were known to be schtupping the pupils; one of them, a female teacher who was extremely foxy [...] copped off with some fifth-form lad, and another teacher (a man with a guitar and a faux rebellious attitude) gained the affections of an extremely attractive fourth-form girl. As pupils, we didn't remotely mind about this and both teachers were very popular. But I knew, when I was considering my career options, that this sort of behaviour was definitely frowned upon by the authorities and that I would not last the week in my new job. Frowned upon, although not much more, I ought to say — certainly not the deranged howling that is kicked up these days''[.]<ref>Rod Liddle, "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" (''The Spectator'', 2012).</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	==References==		==References==

Prue at 16:14, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T16:14:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 29 September 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Regarding [[MAP]]s, [[AAM]]s, and related issues, Liddle has criticized UK law around [[child pornography]]. In his 2002 article for ''The Guardian'' titled "Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?," Liddle wrote:		Regarding [[MAP]]s, [[AAM]]s, and related issues, Liddle has criticized UK law around [[child pornography]]. In his 2002 article for ''The Guardian'' titled "Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?," Liddle wrote:

			<blockquote>
	The law prohibits, in theory, even an accidental visit to a child-porn website. But we are told that prosecution would be unlikely to occur if it could be proved that the visit was, indeed, accidental. How do you prove that? No, really, officer, it was all a ghastly mistake. Will that wash? [...]		The law prohibits, in theory, even an accidental visit to a child-porn website. But we are told that prosecution would be unlikely to occur if it could be proved that the visit was, indeed, accidental. How do you prove that? No, really, officer, it was all a ghastly mistake. Will that wash? [...]

Line 8:		Line 9:

	No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things. The law should be above the blind, howling, rage of Rebekah Wade's moronic vigilantes. But there is the whiff of Salem about it all.<ref>Rod Liddle, [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?] (''The Guardian'', 2002).</ref>		No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things. The law should be above the blind, howling, rage of Rebekah Wade's moronic vigilantes. But there is the whiff of Salem about it all.<ref>Rod Liddle, [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?] (''The Guardian'', 2002).</ref>
			</blockquote>

	Later, in 2012, Liddle penned the article "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" for ''The Spectator''. In it, he is critical of moral panic around [[Debate_Guide:_Teacher-Student_Sex\|mutually willing relations between highschool students and school staff]], with Liddle joking that "the one thing stopping me from being a teacher was that I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids." "It seemed to me virtually impossible not to," Liddle explained, "and I was convinced that I’d be right in there, on day one." Similar to Dr. [[Pat Sikes]] who looked back to her own schooldays to provided positive testimony of a consensual student-teacher relationship, Liddle wrote that		Later, in 2012, Liddle penned the article "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" for ''The Spectator''. In it, he is critical of moral panic around [[Debate_Guide:_Teacher-Student_Sex\|mutually willing relations between highschool students and school staff]], with Liddle joking that "the one thing stopping me from being a teacher was that I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids." "It seemed to me virtually impossible not to," Liddle explained, "and I was convinced that I’d be right in there, on day one." Similar to Dr. [[Pat Sikes]] who looked back to her own schooldays to provided positive testimony of a consensual student-teacher relationship, Liddle wrote that

			<blockquote>
	At my old comprehensive school a few teachers were known to be schtupping the pupils; one of them, a female teacher who was extremely foxy [...] copped off with some fifth-form lad, and another teacher (a man with a guitar and a faux rebellious attitude) gained the affections of an extremely attractive fourth-form girl. As pupils, we didn't remotely mind about this and both teachers were very popular. But I knew, when I was considering my career options, that this sort of behaviour was definitely frowned upon by the authorities and that I would not last the week in my new job. Frowned upon, although not much more, I ought to say — certainly not the deranged howling that is kicked up these days<ref>Rod Liddle, "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" (''The Spectator'', 2012).</ref>		At my old comprehensive school a few teachers were known to be schtupping the pupils; one of them, a female teacher who was extremely foxy [...] copped off with some fifth-form lad, and another teacher (a man with a guitar and a faux rebellious attitude) gained the affections of an extremely attractive fourth-form girl. As pupils, we didn't remotely mind about this and both teachers were very popular. But I knew, when I was considering my career options, that this sort of behaviour was definitely frowned upon by the authorities and that I would not last the week in my new job. Frowned upon, although not much more, I ought to say — certainly not the deranged howling that is kicked up these days<ref>Rod Liddle, "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" (''The Spectator'', 2012).</ref>
			</blockquote>

			==References==

Prue: Created page with "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle '''Rod Liddle'''] (born April 1st, 1960) is an English journalist and an associate editor of the politically conservative magazine ''The Spectator''. He was an editor of ''BBC Radio 4's Today'', and published works include ''Too Beautiful for You'' (2003), ''Love Will Destroy Everything'' (2007), ''The Best of Liddle Britain'' (co-author, 2007) and the semi-autobiographical ''Selfish Whining Monkeys'' (2014). He has presented tel..."

2025-09-29T16:12:44Z

Created page with "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle '''Rod Liddle'''] (born April 1st, 1960) is an English journalist and an associate editor of the politically conservative magazine ''The Spectator''. He was an editor of ''BBC Radio 4's Today'', and published works include ''Too Beautiful for You'' (2003), ''Love Will Destroy Everything'' (2007), ''The Best of Liddle Britain'' (co-author, 2007) and the semi-autobiographical ''Selfish Whining Monkeys'' (2014). He has presented tel..."

New page

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle '''Rod Liddle'''] (born April 1st, 1960) is an English journalist and an associate editor of the politically conservative magazine ''The Spectator''. He was an editor of ''BBC Radio 4's Today'', and published works include ''Too Beautiful for You'' (2003), ''Love Will Destroy Everything'' (2007), ''The Best of Liddle Britain'' (co-author, 2007) and the semi-autobiographical ''Selfish Whining Monkeys'' (2014). He has presented television programmes, including ''The New Fundamentalists'', ''The Trouble with Atheism'', and ''Immigration Is A Time Bomb''.

Regarding [[MAP]]s, [[AAM]]s, and related issues, Liddle has criticized UK law around [[child pornography]]. In his 2002 article for ''The Guardian'' titled "Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?," Liddle wrote:

The law prohibits, in theory, even an accidental visit to a child-porn website. But we are told that prosecution would be unlikely to occur if it could be proved that the visit was, indeed, accidental. How do you prove that? No, really, officer, it was all a ghastly mistake. Will that wash? [...]

How absurd the law is. But at least it is an appropriate reflection of our collective neurosis and confusion about paedophilia generally. The one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse - has become warped by our consuming, obsessive hatred for those who find children sexually attractive. There is no causal link between viewing child porn and abusing children. And even if there were, it would not be sufficient, within the philosophy of our judicial system, to simply assume that an unpleasant penchant for the former presupposes guilt of the latter.

No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things. The law should be above the blind, howling, rage of Rebekah Wade's moronic vigilantes. But there is the whiff of Salem about it all.<ref>Rod Liddle, [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?] (''The Guardian'', 2002).</ref>

Later, in 2012, Liddle penned the article "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" for ''The Spectator''. In it, he is critical of moral panic around [[Debate_Guide:_Teacher-Student_Sex|mutually willing relations between highschool students and school staff]], with Liddle joking that "the one thing stopping me from being a teacher was that I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids." "It seemed to me virtually impossible not to," Liddle explained, "and I was convinced that I’d be right in there, on day one." Similar to Dr. [[Pat Sikes]] who looked back to her own schooldays to provided positive testimony of a consensual student-teacher relationship, Liddle wrote that

At my old comprehensive school a few teachers were known to be schtupping the pupils; one of them, a female teacher who was extremely foxy [...] copped off with some fifth-form lad, and another teacher (a man with a guitar and a faux rebellious attitude) gained the affections of an extremely attractive fourth-form girl. As pupils, we didn't remotely mind about this and both teachers were very popular. But I knew, when I was considering my career options, that this sort of behaviour was definitely frowned upon by the authorities and that I would not last the week in my new job. Frowned upon, although not much more, I ought to say — certainly not the deranged howling that is kicked up these days<ref>Rod Liddle, "A teenage girl, a maths teacher and a righteous tabloid fury" (''The Spectator'', 2012).</ref>