A note to Kath Viner and Patrick Butler

Patrick Butler propping up of Kids Company, while they swallowed all the funding locally(that should have been used for the many charities who face closure because there was no money for them or their service users) was one thing, but we need to clarify something.

ALL organisations who work with children understand child protection. They understand that child abuse allegations, allegations of sexual violence, largely do not meet the burden of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. That criminality and the ability to meet that burden of proof, is not really relevant to how they approach allegations which should be expected. They know that as organisations working with children they attract predators. So when allegations are made, they have procedures. One of those procedures is ALWAYS knowing that an allegation not meeting the burden of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is not necessarily untrue, and certainly not evidence of malice. No organisation describes allegations made by young people as malicious because they do not meet a criminal burden of proof. Because that would reabuse the majority of kids in care for their protection in this country.

Organisations that don’t know this, who dont know about the gap between the balance of proof ‘on balance of probability’ and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, are unsafe. They are not fit to work with children and are a danger to them.

Patrick Butler propping up this dnagerous organisation, founded on the premise that black single mothers having sexual autonomy is the root of deformation of children’s brains, was bad enough. It was shameful, and the Guardian should have stopped to reflect at the point at which Alan Yentob and Camilla Batmanghelidjh exposed the problem in front of a parliamentary committee.

This report is dangerous and demonstrates he should not be in post as editor of Society Guardian. You need someone qualified before he takes your newspaper down and you end up in the middle of a shitstorm you cant handle. Patrick’s laziness and his lack of knowledge about social policy, child protection is a problem. It is a problem in a newspaper that prides itself on being the half of political discourse that is not the right wing press. It’s dangerous. THis report demonstrates that neither Kids Company nor Patrick BUtler should be anywhere near child protection.

In addition I would like Patrick to be forced to read the judgement James Munby made, which stemmed a 26% rise in adoptions in one year. Many of those adoptions were women suffering domestic abuse, who lost their children because statutory agencies could not protect them or their children against abusers, and adoption was being used to cover that we have no safe system to remove children to. I sat with women like this as they grieved, I saw their children and the gross damage that was done, it was appalling.

The 26% rise in adoptions was news. In the context of austerity explicitly seeking to remove women’s ability to leave abuse it was big news. The 26% rise in adoptions in one year as a polital motif was a scandal.

The judgement is quite difficult to read, its troubling, and for ANY decent social policy journalist contains several lines of enquiry.

Patrick’s response was to commission repeated pieces from adoption agencies, and adopters, and like this one , whining about the baby supply being interrupted. Because according to Patrick, adoption is a consumer industry and it is right that women should have the means to leave abuse removed, and then their children packaged like a product. So right in fact that he did not read that judgement and think there was ANY point in investigating further, beyond complaining that product supply was interrupted.

When reporting on chlid protection, the child is at the centre, then the birth family, THEN adopters.

The problem is not that Society keeps social policy reporting in a silo, so it cant contextualise political editorial, although it does. The problem is not that Patrick appears to believe social policy is about his distaste or pity for the poor(and if he asks one more journalist for ‘more appealing case studies’ I will publish the communication-which I have). The problem is not that as a result of his lack of knowledge Society is shit. It is.

The problem is that his social policy editorship is dangerous. It is now actually harming, colluding with abuse, and covering up real crises that are unfolding. It needs to stop. You need to take him off that desk before he causes any more harm. While the people he reports on are nothing but objects to you and your staff, this has consequences, and it needs to end.

We have no way of holding you accountable. You make sure of it. But Patrick Butler is dangerous and he needs to be taken away from that job.

 

Advertisements

10.09.11 Facebook conversation between me and Owen Jones

  • http://lisaansell.posterous.com/apologies A blog post. I apologise if you were hurt that I called you a parasite. I read your book. Some of your analysis is outstanding. And the situation you describe is very real, with very real consequences for many of us. Who have no political representation and live with one issue all year. The same issue. You don’t understand why I am angry, because you dont live with one sole issue all year. You choose which issues you care about. For those of us who have had every turn in fighting what is happening to us, co-opted by the labour left- there is real anger. I apologise if my comments caused offence, but they are absolutely justified. Your book would have been outstanding, had you bothered giving your subjects agency, and not used them for your own career within the party doing this to them. Us. I won’t contact you again, but I did want to clarify= as your tweet seemed to be confused as to why I was so mean, and angry.

    Apologies.
    I called 4 prominent labour membersr of our professional Labour ‘left’ parasites last week. It apparently caused offence, and they didnt understand why I was so angry. Because of ‘whatever’ cause I had. So I thought I would clarify: A parasite is: 1. An organism that lives in or on another organism …
    lisaansell.posterous.com
  • 10 September 2011
  • Facebook User
    10/09/2011 15:00

    Facebook User

    Yeah, not quite sure what to say if I’m honest. I tweeted you not in reference to anything you tweeted at me – it was before you mentioned me, I was only aware of that because someone told me the other dat – but because of what comes across as your tendency to be pretty horrible to people, which doesn’t really help whatever cause you’re trying to further (and I’m not really sure what that is if I’m going to be brutally honest). The idea I’m trying to further any kind of political career is – I’m afraid – one of the most hilarious things I’ve ever heard – and to anyone who actually knows me. I have absolutely no political ambition whatsoever – what point would there being on the Labour left if that was true?! It might shock you but I wrote a book about an issue I cared about, and I want Labour to represent the people it was set up to represent. You might disagree with me tactically – fair enough – but the idea I’ve just leapt on an issue to further my career is a joke. I think your anger would be best directed against those who are waging war against working class communities, rather than trying to seek out and destroy people on the left you wrongly think are on some kind of power trip. Finally, I can’t make you be nice to people, but you’re only damaging yourself when you attack people in the way you do. Owen

  • Lisa Maria Idge
    10/09/2011 15:50

    Lisa Maria Idge

    Labour are waging that war Owen. Complicit with the tories. And am not seeking out anyone. Do you know what Sunny did to me? DO you know people are angry?

    Your analysis in that book was nothing short of outstanding, until you addressed Labour. And I responded because I got a tweet saying you thought I was being mean. I am not being mean Owen. People, including me are justifiably angry.

    In the past year the Labour left have gone out of their way to appropriate EVERY constructive means of protest against what is happening. Even though the policies that did it are, and always were, Labour policies. Do you know about the Unison activists who have been drummed out of their jobs and union for questioning the Labour affiliation-the one that demands they be hit hardest, first, and without discussion? Or the women across the country who aren’t allowed to say they have been forced out of work, and it was a Labour policy too? Or the mosques in your area of London, targetted by the EDL after they objected to the endorsement of EDL by Maurice Glasman? Does it not strike you as odd that welfare reform disapeared from politically affiliated pages and the line ‘women are disproportionately affected by the cuts’ was NEVER followed up by an examination of why the welfare reform and local authority cuts Labour were absolutely committed to would have this effect? I have not been mean Owen.

    I was called THick and described because I made this speech at netroots:http://grassroots.mirocommunity.org/video/2347/lisa-ansell-speaking-at-netroo He, Jessica Assato and Jennifer Mahony- couldnt have someone say that Labour were not the solution- so they decided between them that this-http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/netroots_the_lowdown/ Was the way to deal with it.

    Noone seeks out members of the left. The left decided that chavs, scroungers, and single mothers, werent welcome in their debate because Labour were committed to what was happening. Because peopel like you can talk for them and then they dont have to consider reality.

    I don’t believe it is intentional with you. But your book actually did show the problem. You understand fully the problem Owen- but your blindness to Labour means you continue to speak on behalf of people your party is waging war on.

    You are a blind young man, and I felt bad for describing you in the same breath as Ellie Gerard and Sunny- who both know EXACTLY what they are doing and dont care. Cos you clearly do care- but that does not change the effect of your blindnness. You operate in a ‘left’ bubble- and your blindness to the effect of all of your actions on others is the problem Owen.

    I am not mean. I am a person who has just found out precisely how political circles ensure that the subjects you pontificate about, are completely powerless to defend themselves against what is happening.

    Lisa Ansell speaking at Netroots UK
    Contribution to the workshop on Digital equality: how can women get engaged online? Filmed by Leah Borromeo (fryingpanfire.com)
    grassroots.mirocommunity.org
  • Lisa Maria Idge
    10/09/2011 15:51

    Lisa Maria Idge

    And Susan says you are a lovely young man. Which I have no doubt of.

  • Lisa Maria Idge
    10/09/2011 15:53

    Lisa Maria Idge

    And I don’t think it is a power trip at all. I don’t even think it is intentional half the time, although when people like Ellie and Sunny do it it is fully intentional and they don’t mind people knowing. For instance Sunny had no problem telling a woman on ESA, who was also facing housing benefit cuts that she was a loser for not believing in Labour- after she had clearly evidenced labour’s position.

  • 10 September 2011
  • Lisa Maria Idge
    10/09/2011 23:10

    Lisa Maria Idge

    Ellie gerard. Not mae.

  • 12 September 2011
  • Lisa Maria Idge
    12/09/2011 18:43

    Lisa Maria Idge

    After I sent you these messages your status updates started coming onto the new facebook notifications sidebar. I am assuming you don’t want me to have access to that, so will block your account so I can’t see them. You may want to notify facebook or something

Timeline of being a woman

Baby dressed in pink. Little girl placed in dresses, told to play nice and give way. Sugar and spice and all things nice and don’t hit back. Taught to please and placate. Teenage girl attractive to grown men, told to shove it down as they grope, harrass or abuse you. You are so powerful they have no control but are not allowed the power to decide they cant do that. You will be blamed when they do. Sexual autonomy assumed is the privilege of a small percentage of women on this planet.

You will be taught this way how to perform womanhood and it will include clothes and make up you may want, but will have to have even if you dont. Periods start. Calendars were probably not invented by men, because men have no need to count a 28 day cycle, that’s yours. And that 28 day cycle punctuated by bleeding and pain will mark out your life until you are deemed useless. You become sexually active. Artificial hormones to control your reproductive cycle if you are lucky, repeated pregnancy if you are not. This will be so normal you don’t notice it like a fish doesn’t notice water. Refusal to be ashamed of any and all parts of this timeline, mark you out as troublesome.

You can choose not to have a baby but you will be abused for this choice. You may retain your earnings potential but you will still suffer discrimination because women have babies. You can’t opt out. You may be unable to have a baby, and this is felt like death while society judges your selfishness and failure to perform womanhood. You will be expected to compete with and hate women who made choices you didn’t as the norm. Solidarity with women discouraged at every turn.

Then comes trying to have a baby. Understanding ovulation, and how that cycle of bleeding and pain creates life. Carrying a baby that appears from nothing after sex you are supposed to be ashamed of. Hips dislocating to hold it, your organs squishing up so your stomach is at the top of your chest and you have permanent indigestion as well as the vomiting morning and night, the piles, the acne, the vulnerability to kidney infections, and pelvis dislocation. A human being appearing inside your body. Pregnancy is the point at which your body becomes the site of three people’s interests, the father, the baby, and you are from now on the last person to be considered in discussions of your body. Which belongs to everyone. You have a childs lifetime before you will be allowed autonomy over your own life and body again.

Labour. Praying for death while a babies back lies on the inside of your spine, not just for minutes but hours. You will have to fight for any ounce of autonomy over your body and choices from the moment you get pregnant. THat fight teaches you to be a parent. Birth. Nature takes away all control over when you sleep and eat. You will not choose this for yourself for a long long time, and if you breastfeed, your breasts will guide this process and even if your baby is not there they will tell you that baby needs to be fed or has woken up. Only the love for your baby will allow this process to happen, because its the chemical that says you love them that produces the milk they need to grow.

The first year of that babies life is learning that your needs are truly not important in the slightest and if you are ill, that baby does not know and you will not be ill because they need you not to be. Suppression of your basic needs becomes the norm. Your need to eat, your need to sleep, your need to be ill, will be decided by whether a baby or child’s needs have been met first. This does not stop. Ever. There is no off switch on a baby. The offswitch on a pregnancy will see you treated as a murderer.

This is viewed by economists as distraction from the labour market that really doesn’t like mothers. You will have to manage this responsibility 24 hours a day and the hours that you are at work you will have to pay someone to take on PART of that responsibility. That labour and that lack of participation in the labour market will mean you are first port of call for other unpaid labour and are likely to end up with care of others, and are more likely to end up caring for elderly relatives than your male relatives. This unpaid labour creates poverty and not only impacts your state pension but your chance of having a private pension. You may get full earning years until you procreate, you will not for a long time after and the rest of your life will be playing catch up. For the period you cannot earn, the state will abuse if you are not married because your only worth is as someones dependent. This dependence at the root of why 2 women a week die at the hands of partners or ex partners.

You will throughout your life be vulnerable to assault, male pattern violence, and constantly told that your identity has to be dictated by the men in your life, and you will have to fight against this. Your baby will create your identity as a mother and the men in your life, from your employer to your partner will dictate how you are seen by others.

Trans women are women, if they are taking the shit to live like women, they are. That trans women need feminism does not mean that trans women now have earned the right to dictate the identity of the world’s women by virtue of ruling feminism. Women are the producers of children and are required to make sure that children are not used as an extension of people’s needs. Mothers are the last line of defence for children, because noone else will do it. Trans women needing feminism doesn’t make children objects in their identity to be changed at will. This includes when people try to normalise drastic medical treatment that kids don’t need. Trans women needing feminism does not make possessing sperm pregnancy, and erasing a surrogate doesn’t become reproductive justice.

You are legally obliged to protect and provide for that child and as a mother to put their needs first, always, and it is assumed that legislation should not be required because mostly it is not. The full force of the state will be down on you if you cannot do this even if it is the state that removed your ability to do so to encourage you into the bed of a man. You will be required to protect your children from male violence and you will be blamed for any harm that is done by men.

It does not mean that this timeline stopped that trans women are learning to perform aspects of womanhood in much the way you were taught, only acceptable if they pass to men. Feminism cannot be rewritten to pretend this isn’t the case because this is women’s lives and what feminism is about.

This timeline never stops because this is how the economy, society and the human race is produced, reproduced, and maintained. Because the world actually ends if it doesn’t happen. Women’s fight for autonomy within this timeline has barely begun. Women claiming the power this gives them as nameless a fear as the monster under the bed. If you have a daughter this is what her timeline will look like and you will guide her through it and prepare her for it. For many women this has been the cruellest part of their timeline. The demand that this is erased from feminism is the same demand women have faced for millenia. Put up, shut up, and have your identity dictated by whoever chooses while you remain silent about the role imposed on your sexed body.

You deviate from this, you question your role, you refuse to be a doormat or refuse to be ashamed, assert the power it gives you, not only will you face the wrath of the world, but right now you will face the wrath of ‘feminism’. Which has morphed in a male media to another way to silence and abuse women so this timeline is not discussed and we pretend that this is nothing to do with womanhood.

The limits of identity

How you identify yourself is important. Massively. Our identity is at the core of who we are, it is who we are, gender and class are small words which do not fully explain the complexity of who we are. The thing we are most likely to fight for is our identity, its the most powerful force at a politicians disposal.

Most of us live in the distance between how we view ourselves and how others view us, and this is uncomfortable sometimes. I think as you get older the gap narrows and you become more at ease with it. When you are living gendered roles that may not fit who you are, as most women are, this gap is often where violence and coercion lie, and the unpaid labour that makes the world go round.

I can’t imagine gender dysphoria, I don’t have to which is a privilege I know. It’s a serious condition, and way beyond what most of us experience even if our lives are a constant struggle between others expectations and what and who we are.

It is a sad fact that your identity doesn’t matter to anyone else. You can identify yourself as you choose, but you cannot make other people see you that way. You can identify as you choose but that doesn’t impact anyone else. You may identify as a woman but it does not mean you get to define other peoples identity as a woman, and you changing your identity affects noone but you.

The belief that your identity changes other peoples reality is narcissism. Pure and simple. I would go out on a limb and say the belief that women should identify around your identity is a uniquely male trait and the one that patriarchy is built on.

Earlier today I got into an altercation with a woman I have spoken to for a long time. A trans woman. Although the trans has always been secondary to woman for me. If you are taking the shit to live like a woman you are one. That is my view now, that has always been my view.

I can’t be arsed going through how the discussion started, but the general crux of it was that your gender identity is sorted at 3, and that children should be offered gender reassignment therapy as young as possible to stop puberty. To refuse to do this is an act of cruelty, and to question this is to say trans women are mutilated. Which is nonsense.

I said that when deciding when children can consent to medical treatment on their own is a matter for the Fraser guidelines and Gillick competence, and I would not sanction hormone treatment for a child, on the basis of the twitter definition of ‘trans’. Which currently stands not at ‘has gender dysphoria’ or intersex, but at ‘I say I am this and therefore I am’.

First of all gender identity is not sorted at 3. At 3 you are likely to want to wear a tutu and welly boots all the time and if given the choice of how you identify are likely to choose batman or Peppa Pig. Even without gender dysphoria, if your gender identity is sorted by 30 you are doing great. Most of us learn about womahood continually throughout our lives as our gender creates walls around those lives.

Secondly, the treatment involved in gender reassignment is not the equivalent of wearing make up or having an aspirin.  As I understand it, and am no expert, the treatment we are talking about is hormone replacement therapy, puberty suppression, surgery to remove the penis, possibly cosmetic surgery. Now I am sorry that this is difficult to hear but that is actually very very drastic treatment. Very serious treatment. Adolescence is a period where your hormones shape your development and no, we don’t just give children that kind of treatment on a whim. Adolescence is also  period of identity formation, and children and adolescents change rapidly from day to day, month to month. At 12 I thought I was a lesbian, at 15 I wanted a boob job, and the things I thought I wanted and thought I was at that age were the delusions of a child who I no longer am.

It is lunacy to suggest that puberty suppressants should be given to a child or young person on a whim, to suit trans ideology on twitter. It is deranged.It is lunacy to suggest that a 3 year old is capable of making that decision or that, in the absence of a clear intersex diagnosis, it should be made for them.

Let’s talk about the limits of identity. If you have had gender dysphoria and decided that you are in fact not the gender you are born, your identity is important to you. Not to anyone else. Your identity does not change anyone elses identity. Gender dysphoria is quite serious. To label anyone who does not have it is the equivalent of labelling anyone who doesnt have a cold. It is ridiculous. Your gender identity does not give you teh right to decide every woman’s gender identity. While it is a distinctly male trait to believe you have that right.

Your gender identity does not change childhood or the complexity of adolescence. Nor does it mean that every child who struggles to come to terms with their gender will identify as trans. That is projection of your needs onto children. Children do not exist as a projection of your needs. And demanding that they do is really an unpleasant thing to do.

Now IF I had a child who struggled with their gender, there is no question that I would support them in lving as who they were. As a parent I would not support drastic hormone treatment in a child, until they were adult enough to demonstrate they understand it. Using Fraser Guidelines and Gillick competence as my guide, the way doctors do.

The sheer fucking nonsense of online trans activism, the utter stupidity of the debate being had, the genderqueerfluidtranswhatever, is narcissism. Pure and simple, and its abusive and distinctly male.

So lets be clear one last time. Women do not have to change their identity to suit you. You have the right to define your identity but not how people perceive you. Your identity does not change ANYONE elses reality. And abusing them and becoming paranoid about what their failure to do so means, is a sign that something is wrong. Not wrong with them. But you.

I will not entertain this nonsense. And if you find realty to be violent and triggering, avoid me. Because I won’t pretend for you.

It is violence to expect other peoples reality to change to suit your perception of yourself. It is not violent for people to refuse.

The treatment discussed for children is drastic and no amount of online tribal delusions makes that treatment less so. Because it is drastic, and because however much you wish it were not so, that treatment is about taking you from one physical state to another. The physical state it took you from, does not cease to have been real, because you have adopted another.

That is not cruelty to children, it is not violent to trans women, it is not wishing trans women did not exist. To say it is is paranoia and it is about insecurity in your own identity which is not my fault or any other womans. Women are not responsible for maintaning your fragile identity and they are not responsible for the fear of male violence that is the water you swim in as a woman. And nor are children.

A reminder to Jess Phillips about the Labour Leadership contest

I don’t buy Corbyn mania, but this was the women’s issue at stake in the Labour leadership bid.

Do you believe that the benefit system should be transformed so that all financial independence is removed, not just from this generation of mothers earning the national average or less, but every generation from now on? Do you believe that we should use the financial crisis as an excuse to do this? Do you believe that women should die and children should be hurt as a solution to the financial crisis. THese are the positions of the candidates.

Burnham- yes

Liz Kendal- yes

Yvette Cooper- yes if I can use their corpses to cry about domestic abuse and make myself look like a feminist.

Corbyn- no.

Every candidate in that race was absolutely clear they felt women should die and that every generation of women from now should have the ability to leave domestic abuse removed, under the guise of welfare reform. This affects not just this generation of millions of women, but every generation after. Except Corbyn. The only candidate not firmly anti-women.

 

Dear Jess,

Your working class feminist bullshit is not actually enough to gloss over the fact that you know this, and you just declared that Jeremy Corbyn was a misogynist. There is a special place for women like you. Feminism 101, when you want to do that to women and will as Harriet Harman tried to, threaten your party to make sure t happens, you are a misogynist. When you will do this crying feminism you are a sociopath.

I dont thnk Jeremy Corbyn is electable. But the reason people wont vote Labour is because you are cunts, ad while he may not be electable, he is nowhere near the levels of misogyny you demonstrate and couldn’t touch Creasy, Harman, Cooper and Kendal on that score. When you are demanding that women pay for the deficit lie at the ed of a fist, knowing how many women die at the hands of partners and ex partners, that isn’t actually feminism. Ever.

But you already know that and don’t give a fuck.

Terrorist colour chart

When I encountered the ‘radical’ left around Laurie Penny and James Butler, the thing that really stood out was that this was the first time I had EVER met people who could openly discuss their intention to use violence and could call it ‘activism’. I come from a world where conspiring to commit acts of violence makes you a criminal and the justice system views you harshly. I used to watch amused as they dissected protests and discussed their assaults on police officers, and the black masks they wore that didn’t hide their accents. Pondering living in a country where the rules were so different according to class and where an Oxbridge link and the right family, mean you do not abide by the rules everyone else does.

This is the clearest example of this I have seen in my life in the UK. Like most kids who have spent time in the Looked After System, I know that breathing the wrong way can get some people a criminal record and was astonished to see these young men and women who walked in a world where you were just enttled to be violent if you wanted and you could call it tactics.

That isn’t a reality most of us have. It’s a reality that would lose me my child and get most people I know locked up.

In the US being black makes a broken tail light something that puts you at risk of loss of life at police hands. A boy with a toy gun can be shot for being threatening. You skip a few shades on the colour chart and you can shoot up an abortion clinic in a massacre egged on by the mainstream press, and you are fighting for the unborn. An armed group of white terrorists have taken over a wildlife sanctuary and are not seen as a threat.

It’ amazing the differnce class, race, gender make.

Entitlement. Funny business.

 

 

Simon Danczuk

Many moons ago I wrote a letter  to Simon Danczuk which Artist Taxi Driver ended up reading out loud in his cab.

I wrote it because I was watching Simon Danczuk put girls who had been groomed at risk, exploiting child rape to suit racist ends. I said there was no cover up. There was just a reflex. When it comes down to it its an equation, who is worth more, the abuser or the the person they groomed. It looks like a cover up, but its really not. Very rarely is that person even seen as a person. As someone who grew up in care I know viscerally the way the damage we do to vulnerable children is used by abusers to act with impunity.

When Simon Danczuk and his ex wife Karen separated, I was horrified to see the Daily Mirror actively abusing her on his behalf, accusing her of affairs and god knows what else. They are adults. While watching a political newspaper actively engage in domestic abuse on behalf of an MP told me a great deal about the way our political cultures operate, I didnt care that much.

Now I care. Simon Danczuk took note of the processes involved in grooming, and used his position as an MP to attempt to sexually exploit a 17 year old. A 17 year old so vulnerable that she apparently was already at risk of falling into sex work and had put her toes in that water. In one of the poorest towns in Britain. When his dirty little spankweasel texts made the papers, I wasn’t surprised that a he had done this. I was very interested to see that the PR strategy he presumably paid for, which the Daily Mirror helped to deliver, had taken note of what Mr.Danzcuk learned about sexual abuse.

The Daily Mirror (on his behalf  and presumably as part of a PR strategy he paid for) said that the girl(it is absolutely confirmed Mr.Danczuk groomed) is a slag and this means that its ok for Mr.Danzcuk as an MP to groom her in this way. Because vulnerable 17 year olds are unabusable. That is what they are for, and grown men dont have to resist the urge.

The first wife of the erstwhile member for Rochdale has come out and been clear that she believes Mr.Danczuk raped her, and has detailed an abusive life consistent with a victim of a narcissist. We have all witnessed him using the Daliy Mirror to abuse his second wife.

My local mayor Steph Booth thinks that the threat to Labour culture from Mr.Danczuk being a self confessed danger to women, is not very fair and that both the wife and the victim of his grooming are the problem. I’ve watched deranged Blairites decide that the only possible reason Mr.Danczuk could be a serially abusive sexual predator is Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyns followers appear deligted that women were exploited and harmed, because it suits their needs to have Simon expelled from the party.

I thank Mr.Danczuk for demonstrating the point I made in that letter. I thank the Daily Mirror, my local Labour Party, and the national Labour Party for demonstrating why they have to go. Why we must never let them near power again.