To interact with this page you must login.
Signup
6 Virtue Signalling Laws That Exist In Britain « Tynamite's blog (this blog has moved)
The government truly cares and listens to public because they pass laws that get over 100,000 petition signatures, right? Don't be stupid.
Do you want to post a comment on this article? To do so, you must login
Although the United Kingdom is arguably one of the best countries in the world, and the number 1 destination for immigrants website for hyperlink is down, I'll check later, and England is the most densely populated country in Europe [two], we are not without our fair share of problems. Poverty, terrorism, extortionate rents, shortage of housing, knife crime, acid attacks, first past the post instead of proprortional representation, and much more. A society evolves, the threats we face also evolve like a virus, much like the invention of new music genres or the flu virus. And not only must we be well equipped to deal with the problems, the government shares some responsibility to tackle those problems too, as the government has the monopoly on violence so that other people are not violent towards you.
However the way the government is implementing laws, they are really stupid or they are ingenious. So genius, that people don't realise the level of mastery that has gone on before their very eyes. I would go with the latter. Regardless of whether you agree with Theresa May's policies or not, you have to admit that the government is ingenious, if your eyes wake up to what is really going on. People have no idea.
No idea about what? That the government is implementing virtue signalling laws. Laws that give the impression that something is being done about a problem, when in reality nothing is being done, it's just to appease the masses. The horde of petition signers, social media activists and the media, to ensure that the dissent and rage does not spiral out of control to extinguish the pressure before it flares up into something greater. The government will loudly proclaim that they have solved the problem, when behind closed doors they know that nothing will change and nothing has been done. But they will surely be virtue signalling about how virtuous, moral and helpful they are. The public are appeased and fooled once again. And the cycle continues!
I will now explain six virtue signalling laws that exist in Britain.
#1 Challenge 25
In the UK, you have to be 18 or over to drink alcohol. What's funny is that a parent can legally give alcohol to a six year old, but let's not get into that. The way the law was in the 90s, is that if you were buying alcohol, and you looked under 18, the checkout assistant or bartender would ask you for ID. Rightly so. When parents, health charities and children's charities started noticing that children were drinking alcohol, even on a regular basis in parks in broad daylight, shops and restaurants started paying mystery shoppers who looked like children to try to buy alcohol and report to the mystery shopping company if the person allowed them to buy it or not. If yes, the employee would get in a lot of trouble to avoid the company getting a £5000 maximum fine or having an alcohol selling license revoked on the first offence.
Children found ways to get alcohol anyway, cheating the system. They would get adults to buy alcohol for them after giving them the money to buy it after waiting outside a shop asking adults walking past to buy them some alcohol (of which an adult is always guaranteed to agree). Shops tried to prevent this as they all now refuse to sell alcohol with adults if they have a child right next to them, which doesn't make any sense as the kids could be their children, there's no rational reason to believe they will give the alcohol to the child, and now when adults with children want to buy alcohol, even if they are not breaking the law, they now get their child to wait outside the shop while they buy the alcohol.
Still the parents, media and childrens and health charities were not satisfied with the government for "allowing" children to buy alcohol. They pressured the government to do something about it. So what did the government do? They created a Challenge 21 law, so a person had to look 21 or over (instead of 18) to buy alcohol without being asked for ID. Still children managed to get access to alcohol anyway, so the government changed Challenge 21 to Challenge 25 to make the petitioners and pressure groups happy, and happy they were. They thought the government solved the problem, when really the government appeased them. Children still have access to alcohol and there is practically nothing the government can do about it. However the government will forever be virtue signalling about what a good job they did to prevent underage drinking and the masses will lap it up with glee. The petitioners and pressure groups cannot think of a good solution to stop underage drinking, but if the government didn't implement the virtue signalling law, the pressure and backlash would have been too much for the government to deal with, crush or supplant.
#2 Friendly Wi-fi Scheme
Feminists are always complaining that sexual harassment is extremely high, when under feminist ideology, a compliment [one] [two] [three], writing a girl a love letter or cold approaching a girl is considered sexual harassment. Feminists are also always complaining that exposure to criminality in entertainment such as playing violent video games or watching porn causes murder and rape, which it doesn't, and also that 1 out of 4 women are raped, which is a false statistic [two] designed to weaponise rape for political reasons.
Any man living in Britain would know that the newspapers we have in our country are feminist newspapers, as they sprout feminist talking points, hire feminist writers and have female sections catered for female interests and not for men. If they do have men's sections (which most British newspapers don't), they are very effiminiate, focus on consumerism and "lifestyle" like fashion, what they should spend money on, food and holidays, and they fail to give men any practical advice on how to improve their stature and footing in life. When they do publish a real article for men to help them better themselves as individuals or in life, or cater to their real needs as men, so the newspaper can virtue signal about how pro-men they are, the article is buried and given zero promotion on the website or twitter and zero column inches in print.
In the olden days, it was very clear which articles in the newspapers and news websites were news, and which were opinion. Also if an article was an opinionated article, it would be labelled with the word opinion or comment. Nowadays pseudo-journalists can't resist putting their own political and sociological opinions and bias in "news" articles, so what was once factual journalism, is now opinionated social commentary masquerading as journalism. Because these articles lie by ommission, manipulate the meaning of words to restrict the range of thought, use weasel words to make falsehoods appear true, and emotionally charged language, rather than use the words "I" "think" and "you" like what a genuine, honest and good-faith writer would do, stupid people with zero critical thinking skills accept these articles as factual journalism when they are just fake news and pseudo-journalism designed to promote an exaccebated version of reality. They are as real as "reality tv" is. BuzzFeed News is notorious for this. They always publish fake news. All of their news articles are baiting articles (race baiting, gender baiting, class baiting, sexuality baiting, feminist baiting), and all their employees are rage profiteering on Twitter. They use controversy and tragedy to boost their followers and influence by repeating the same controversial thing over and over again in unison. Whereas Gawker was honest that they were a gossip magazine like the online equivalent of Heat and OK Magazine, BuzzFeed News is intellectually dishonest, they are disingenous.
As nobody is buying newspapers any more, newspaper revenues decline every year, and world class media companies like The Guardian, The Sun, Daily Mail, New York Times, The Independant are not profitable as advertising revenue cannot pay for all the salaries needed for journalists to investigate and create all the content that the invention of the internet made what was once paid to free. Today the only newspapers that are profitable are the ones that put their content behind a paywall, like The Times, Financial Times and Washington Post. News companies only exist because they are propped up by a billionaire owner or because they are subsidised by the profits of other companies that the parent company owns.
So as the media, the news and blog industry needs something controversial to get the money rolling in. They don't write to be intelligent or to be thought-provoking, they write to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside or make you outraged because they write bite-sized articles for the social media generation with short attention spans, in order for every article they publish to go viral on social media. They need something that will go viral and get the views, shares (including retweets) and cross-posting (other websites and newspapers quoting and linking to your article) coming in. If they can't find something stupid, funny or evil, they have to invent something stupid, funny or evil. The media on a slow news day with no real news to report about, struck gold when they found a winning article idea. OMG KIDS HAVE ACCESS TO PORN!!!11!!! So the lamestream media went with it, talking about how kids having access to porn is so bad and causes rape, when there is zero scientific evidence to support this (and that scientific evidence actually shows that people with access to porn are less likely to rape as they have an outlet for their sexual urges).
Because the British media put pressure to do something to stop children from watching porn, they came up with a Friendly Wifi Scheme. This means that if you are using public wi-fi which usually is provided by a restaurant, bar, shop, bank or on the streets of city centres, adult websites (which includes porn, MRA and red pill websites) will be blocked. To make matters worse, there is no process for an adult wanting to browse legal content, to provide their ID to remove the filters.
When I was homeless I was living in supported accomodation sharing a five bedroom house with four other people. (Under the British government definition of homeless, if you are living in housing designed for the homeless, you are classed as homeless.) As it was a shared occupancy and none of the tenants name was on the utility bills, we could not get broadband. I had to resort to paying £40 a month for slow internet that kept cutting off which consisted of me using wi-fi that leeched off someone else's broadband connection from their house. When I contacted BT asking why me as an adult cannot access legal content on BT Wi-fi, I was told that it was because the media put pressure on the government to stop kids from accessing porn (to be specific, finding porn with Google). When I asked BT why I can't provide my ID to remove the internet filter, they said it could "easily be abused" because a child could provide their parents ID number and that I should stop using BT Wi-fi and get broadband, when because of my circumstances it was not possible for me to get broadband. That's the nanny state for you! The majority is punished for the sake of the minority. Me as an adult cannot access legal content due to the nanny state. Not only that, BT Wi-fi under the British government's Friendly Wi-fi scheme, also forces all Google searches to be made with SafeSearch and you cannot turn it off. When you try to turn SafeSearch off it instantly turns back on again. How am I meant to use the internet without access to the full Google? Google IS the internet!!! Bing sucks! I was forced to get a VPN just so I could use the internet. The nanny state punishes the majority for the sake of the minority.
To make it worse, the government in future wants to implement a law that requires people to submit their ID to be able to watch porn, even if you have turned parental controls off using the settings page your ISP gives you (the government forced ISPs to add that settings page). Not only will you need to submit your ID, but you also have to join a "porn watching register", you will have to buy a "porn watching token" at your local newsagent or corner shop, just to be able to watch porn.
The irony with the Friendly Wi-fi scheme, is that it doesn't block porn websites, it only bans Google SafeSearch being off so you can still access porn on public wi-fi. And the tenant whose name is on the internet bill can control who in their house uses the internet as it's their house. So it's ironic that they want to block porn websites on broadband if you have ISP Parental Controls off that you specifically turned off when you setup your router (if you don't choose yes or no you can't access the internet), and they allow porn websites on public wi-fi and block SafeSearch being off on that. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to seem like they did something so people feel good. See how it works?
The British government implemented the Friendly Wi-fi law to make the petitioners and pressure groups happy, and happy they were. They thought the government solved the problem, when really the government appeased them. Children still have access to porn and there is practically nothing the government can do about it. However the government will forever be virtue signalling about what a good job they did to prevent underage children watching porn and the masses will lap it up with glee. The petitioners and pressure groups cannot think of a good solution to stop children from watching porn, but if the government didn't implement the virtue signalling law, the pressure and backlash would have been too much for the government to deal with, crush or supplant.
Don't think the Labour Party is any different. They believe in the nanny state and virtue signalling laws too.
#3 Sugar tax
Obesity is on the rise in Britain. Childhood obesity that was once rare is a growing problem here, and heart disease is the number one killer in the UK and has been for decades. The joke is that these people wouldn't be dying or having preventable diseases and be putting a humongous strain on the NHS if they stopped being lazy and ate less, or even excercised as well. Britain's number one fat shamer Katie Hopkins says that there should be a fat tax. I agree. Fat people should be taxed more for being fat for putting an unnessacary strain on the NHS that is of their own causing. Also if a child is fat then social services should investigate immediately and the parents should be arrested for child abuse, because it is parents who have all the money and buy all the food. Children can only buy food with the money their parents give them and their parents are enablers who have a co-dependancy with their children who are probably being abused or neglected in other areas of their lives as well.
So what did the British government do about the rising obesity problem that is putting a strain on the NHS, so people with real diseases, disabilities and injuries can't be treated? That's right! They decided to tax sugar, because it is sugar, not fat, that makes you fat. However the sugar tax only applies for soft drinks, which children love! When was the last time you saw a child drink water? Me neither! It's called the Sugar Tax, or as the government calls it, Drinks Industry Levy. It was only introduced because very talented chef Jamie Oliver made a petition on the government's very own petition website, asking for a sugar tax. Don't get me wrong, Jamie Oliver is a nice guy, he cares. He cares about children so much and obese children, that he calls the sugar tax a tax for love and a big moment in children's health. There was another petition asking for Jamie Oliver to be banned from talking to politicians and having a say on food and sugar laws. If you asked me, the sales tax of sugar tax should not have happened, and fat people themselves should have been taxed instead, and if children, their parents.
The drinks market is very competitive. So competitive that Virgin Cola had to quit the market because billionaire Richard Branson could not compete with Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
Emphasis on forecast. The British government does not understand economics. Also, how much does obesity cost the NHS a year?
The sugar tax was responsible for drink manufacturers to lower the amount of sugar in their drinks. Red Bull refused to reduce the sugar content of their energy drink, which moved Red Bull to the number one energy drink, of which was previously Lucozade that was number one. Also the drink manufacturers have felt the hit as they have reduced the sizes of their bottles and put prices up. They won't notice the difference, the CEO of AG Barr says, maker of Irn Bru. Notice they did, and their profits and sales went down and people said their childhood is now ruined due to the sugar tax.
Note that the infographic above is factual, but it is also misleading. Coca Cola did reduce the sugar content of their drinks, but they did it a year before the sugar tax was implemented. So Coca Cola claims that they didn't reduce their sugar content in their drinks, when they did so a year before, so they have good marketing so they don't lose money.
Will the sugar tax work, asked BBC News? The answer is no. Soft drinks do not cost a lot of money like spirits do. People will just buy more fizzy drinks to get the same effect. To put it into perspective, Red Bull have not reduced their sugar content as they refused to, and now the small bottle costs £1.29 instead of £1.19. Yes some drinks are more expensive and some drinks are served in smaller sizes with the original larger size being gone, but it's not hard for children to have access to all the fizzy drinks they want, or all the positive effects of the drug sugar that they want. The access is still very easy, so the market distortion has little to no effect.
The British government implemented the sugar tax law to make Jamie Oliver, the petitioners, childrens and health charities and pressure groups happy, and happy they were. They thought the government solved the problem, when really the government appeased them. Children still have access to as much sugary drinks as they want and there is practically nothing the government can do about it. However the government will forever be virtue signalling about what a good job they did to prevent childhood obesity and the masses will lap it up with glee. The petitioners and pressure groups cannot think of a good solution to stop childhood obesity caused by child abuse and the strain it causes on the NHS, but if the government didn't implement the virtue signalling law, the pressure and backlash from Jamie Oliver's huge influence would have been too much for the government to deal with, crush or supplant.
It's funny how people are only fat in the west and nobody is fat in eastern europe or asia. I have a very good idea that will end all obesity including childhood obesity. End feminism! Thanks to feminism and it's fat acceptance advocates like Tess Holiday, we are being taught that there is "beauty at every size" and that thin or curvy glamour models such as Protein World beach body ready adverts should be banned. If a woman was fat in Ukraine or Japan, she would be fat shamed so much and no man would ever want her, that she would never dare to be fat. Feminism teaches women that fatness and ugliness is good and it teaches women that it doesn't matter how bitchy or vapid you are, there is always going to be a huge queue of men lining up professing their undying love for you calling you a 10 out of 10. Given that third wave feminism is not about equality and instead about increasing women's relative power in relation to men, and that fat women and feminists are ugly are ugly so they have very little power in society, it should be of no surprise, that most fat women are feminists. The fatter the woman, the stronger she is a feminist.
#4 Longer sentences for carrying a knife
Knife crime is soaring in certain places in Britain, such as in London. Some London schools have metal detectors because there would be a fight every day or week. People there not only carry knives to kill because they like killing, or because they're a drug dealer trying to defend their expensive goods from being robbed, but also for protection. Some places in Britain are so unsafe that if you don't carry a gun, you will eventually be acossted or stabbed sooner or later. Not just because someone wants to steal something off you or because you've done someone a wrong, but a lot of the time there doesn't even have to be a real reason why you get stabbed. People can be stabbed for no reason or for a pathetic reason. There is so much stabbings in some areas of Britain, that the country has run out of blood supplies and there is not enough NHS doctors to deal with the outpouring of people in A&E due to being stabbed.
People are looking at the government, wondering what is going on? I can tell you what is going on. Theresa May has cut the police and closed down police stations, which has caused an increase in crime (including violent crime). 60% of reported crimes are not being investigated. Even serious crimes such as rape doesn't get investigated as the police is intentionally underfunded. If a crime is classed a low-level crime, it is not investigated. It's not practical, Scotland Yard says.
Stupid or ignorant americans, take your pick, are always sprouting about how guns are banned in Britain which is a good thing because it causes less people to die from gun crime. What they fail to realise, is that banning guns does not reduce the murder rate, because knives exist, so if someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way. When you point out this fact to them, they will predictably say that a country where guns are banned has a lower murder rate than a country with a higher murder rate. Once you point out their stupid and flawed logic about how if their hypothesis was true, then the countries where guns are illegal, should all have a lower murder rate than countries where guns are legal which you can prove not to be the case by looking at the murder rate in different countries on Wikipedia - they will tell you that you are doing a strawman, which you are not. These people are closed minded, because once you tell them the fact that the murder rate is much better predicted by the Gini Coefficent which measures the rate of economic inequality in a country, rather than whether guns are legal or not, they will block you, troll you, tell you how guns only usage is for killing when knives have lots of good uses, claim you don't understand the context of what they said, or accuse you of being a crazy gun nut who loves shooting guns (and killing people).
If you believe that everyone is an individual who acts independantly of society (which I do not believe), then of course you would believe that guns are the problem and that murderers are evil sociopathic people who deserve to be locked up for the rest of their lives. But when you are talking about society, sociology, how murder can be prevented among an entire country, it is inequality, not guns that causes murder, as banning guns doesn't reduce the murder rate. However these idiots should be banned from voting or entering politics, because they would base authoritive decisions that affect the future 10 years down the line on muh fweelings rather than facts, in a job where you cannot afford to be wrong. Facts don't care about your feelings. They will always be offended every time you generalise, because it spoils their delusional hippie dippie bullshit fantasy that everyone is an individual who acts independantly of their genetics or socioeconomics, because to accept that, would make them sad that we do not have as much control over our behaviour, as we think we do, so we do not have as much free will and agency as we think we do. They argue with emotion not logic.
What is the government's solution to the rise in knife crime? It's not banning guns, guns are already banned. It's not banning knives, surgeons need knives to save lives and people need knives to cook. It's to make sentences for carrying a knife even longer. What a genius idea! What could possibly go wrong? There's nothing wrong with that, because criminals already care so much about what the law says, and the punishment for carrying a knife isn't already a harsh and severe punishment, is it?
Ban ban ban! Punish punish punish! The British government has gone so haywire, that the High Court declared a butter knife to be an offensive weapon. Well guess what? There's no need to download physibles to create a 3D printed knife, you can turn aluminum foil into a knife as seen in the video below.
The British government implemented the longer sentences for carrying a knife to make the Department of Health, health organisations and charities, and pressure groups happy, and happy they were. They thought the government solved the problem, when really the murder rate will stay the same or increase. Any reduction in knife crime will only be temporary. Children and adults still have access to tools for murder and there is practically nothing the government can do about it. However the government will forever be virtue signalling about what a good job they did to reduce knife crime and the masses will lap it up with glee. The petitioners and pressure groups cannot think of a good solution to stop knife crime and the strain it causes on the NHS and suffering it causes to them and their loved ones, but if the government didn't implement the virtue signalling law, the pressure and backlash from pressure groups would have been too much for the government to deal with, crush or supplant.
#5 Upskirting law
Sexual assault and sexual harassment has been happening from the beginning of time despite people's and the government's various attempts to stop it. Some attempts worked, some did not, and feminists say that more education is needed so PSA's teaching men not to rape now happen in schools, universities and public transport adverts. What was happening in Britain, is that there was a rise in upskirting, and the feminists were complaining to the government that something should be done about it. A feminist made a petition calling for upskirting to be banned by politicians making a law that bans upskirting and it got a lot of signatures and media attention. The problem? Upskirting is already illegal. That's right! Under Section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, upskirting is already illegal. Problem solved! No further discussion needed! Did you think that men on masse could freely film under a woman's skirt without facing a punishment from the government? Well if you did, you are retarded.
So the government passed the upskirting law which makes something illegal that is already illegal, and now the feminists and media are happy, stopped ranting and raving and are quiet. You know what I say, A dosile population is a happy government. Also the punishment for sexual offences are already severe, but to any feminist who thinks that nothing is being done about sexual assault, capital punishment is always an option. Oh and they made the punishment for upskirting more harsh on the request of feminists, because that will sure deter a sex offender for a crime of which the punishment is already harsh.
The British government implemented the upskirting law to make the feminists and media happy, and happy they were. They thought the government solved the problem, when really upskirting was already illegal under British law. Any reduction in upskirting will only be temporary. Sex offenders know that there is a high chance of them being found guilty for their crimes and that their lives will be forever ruined if found guilty in court, but they do it anyway and there is practically nothing the government can do about it. However the government will forever be virtue signalling about what a good job they did to reduce upskirting and the masses will lap it up with glee. The petitioners, the media and pressure groups cannot think of a good solution to stop upskirting or even reduce it, but if the government didn't implement the virtue signalling law, the pressure and backlash from pressure groups would have been too much for the government to deal with, crush or supplant.
#6 Badly worded anti-grooming laws
Wherever children congregate, there will be adults trying to have sex with them. Adults having sex is children is illegal as we have age of consent laws, as you know. As paedophilia is taboo, people think that child grooming would happen underground behind closed doors in secret communities where no one is around and where no one else is privy to the conversation. People expect the child grooming to happen on the darknet. Imagine people's surprise when they discovered that child grooming happened on the clearnet on YouTube. Yes YouTube of all places, owned by Google. Paedophiles got children to perform sexual dances with clothes on after befriending them on youtube, and later getting them to send them nudes of themselves. As these paedophiles have social intelligence, they are intelligent, they didn't need to force, coerce or blackmail children to do so. They just merely asked, and the children said yes, so as far as the child was concerned, it's all good because they wanted to do it.
The media had a field day, but what they got wrong, is that they blamed YouTube and Google for not doing enough to stop it. What the media does not realise, is that it doesn't matter what preventative measures technology companies implement to stop adults from asking children from nudes and them receiving nudes, they will always find a way to get them anyway. Microsoft already has a technology called PhotoDNA which is like YouTube's Content ID that scans all images transmitted on social networks against a database of known child porn images. The government wants to go a step further and use artificial intelligence to identify naked images of children and scan all images transmitted on social networks against that AI system. Do they not know that end-to-end encrypted messaging apps exist? What makes the government think that the child porn images were transmitted through Google and Youtube in the first place?
When famous "money saving expert", the creator of moneysavingexpert.com, Martin Lewis discovered that scammers were using his face (likeness) and brand to endorse scams (particularly binary trading scams) that were using Facebook adverts and pages to operate, he discovered four things that made shutting people impersonating him for scams, impossible. First, he discovered that under a copyright law called DMCA, the burden falls upon the copyright holder to report copyright infringement. Second, he learned that advertisers on Facebook can use "targeting" to limit the scope of people who see an advert, and can also use "custom audiences" to target a very minute range of people (a minimum of 30) based on very precise parameters - all meaning that he cannot see the adverts that use his face. Also, he learnt that all the scammers impersonating him are located offshore, so British law enforcement and Interpol are of no help. What does this have to do with paedophiles cheating the system? Well if every social network did use artificial intelligence to scan every image transmitted or stored to look for nude children, paedophiles would just get kids to take the conversation outside the website or app before being sexual. Lastly, when he sued Facebook in order to prompt Facebook to act against adverts that impersonate him (and other people), when the Chief Technology Officer (the person in charge of all the technology) of Facebook spoke in British Parliament, after being asked by a politician why they can't use artificial intelligence to detect images of Martin Lewis or any other celebrity, the CTO replied that it is very complicated because faces look very similar to each other and because they have millions of faces in their database, that if an uploaded face was queried against every other face in their database, there would be so many false positives to go through, that a user or staff member would not have the time to go through every face and mark it as a false positive.
I'm sure that you don't need me to tell you, that every child online has been asked by an adult in pm (private message) for nudes, even if they are male. It really is an epidemic! And it happens on every social network. When I used Experience Project, a social network, adults also asked children for nudes. Experience Project shut down in 2015 because they didn't want to comply with a blanket warrant from the government, made worse that they didn't have the resources of a huge company like Facebook and Google to fight against law enforcement's overzealous behaviour. Overzealous as in, allowing the government direct access to everyone's account (which is what a blanket warrant is), for the sake of what the minority do, which violates everyone's privacy. History has shown, many times before, over and over, what abuse, totalitarian and orwellian behaviour happens once a government starts to assert a blanket warrant over a company. Edward Snowden showed with the NSA Files that the US government spied on innocent people, such as journalists, activists, charity workers and others of which there was no suspicion that they had committed a crime. Mass survelliance to prevent terrorism is an euphamism for oppressing people who dissent against what politicians want - dissenters. Experience Project did not want to sell out their users so they would be cucked by the cuckmaster, so they shut down. The abusive people on the social network, not intentionally, caused Experience Project to close down. This is also why MSN Chat and Yahoo Chat shut down in the 90s, and MSN Chat was amazing as they had a chat room for every city in the UK.
A British charity aimed to prevent and stop cruelty (or any sort of abuse) to children, NSPCC, which has a lot of influence, that is a a pressure group (well all charities are pressure groups), rallied the media to support a new law that they said would prevent children being groomed. There was not a single media outlet that said it was a bad, badly written or misguided law. The law makes it illegal for an adult to send a sexual message to a child. As you can imagine, the law was passed. How is that a virtue signalling law? Stopping child abuse and child grooming is good, right? To understand why it's a virtue signalling law, you have to first understand what sexual behaviour is already illegal. Before the law was passed, it was...
So the NSPCC, government and media will say that child abuse has been prevented or reduced because the law has been expanded (as everyone knows it already is illegal), but what exactly has been expanded? The laws that prevent sexual imagery and acts with children, already exist, are well defined, and harshly punished as it is a serious crime. What the law will do, is make things illegal that have nothing to do with grooming children.
There is an organisation called Buddy Project which is designed to help children who are feeling sad, low, suicidal or have mental health issues. It pairs a child with an adult, based on common interests, so they become buddies. The pair of buddies can choose to talk about low brow or high brow topics if loneliness is the issue behind their mental health issues, or they both can talk about the child's mental health issues at hand if need be. Below are three things that would be illegal under the law that the NSPCC passed. Update: Buddy Project blocked me on Twitter, its CEO Gabby Frost doesn't like me. LOL.
As I said before, the laws to prevent and punish the grooming of children already exist and are clearly defined and well written and well executed. The law the NSPCC got passed will not expand the protections of children and prevent childhood sex abuse, as it doesn't make any underage sexual acts or imagery illegal that was previously legal. The law is badly worded, and it does not expand any protection for children or prevent anything that should be prevented. The law is a virtue signalling law, as the laws that protect children already existed before that law was made. What the law that got passed does do, is criminalise behaviour which has nothing to do with being sexual towards children or grooming children. You would think that a charity aimed at preventing and stopping child abuse, that has millions of pounds in funding, would have someone intelligent enough to write a law that is written well. In case you didn't know, but you can probably guess, the law before it was passed in parliament, started out as a petition that got lots of signatures. Why am I not surprised?
The British government implemented the NSPCC's law to make the parents, pressure groups happy, and happy they were. They thought the government solved the problem, when really what behaviours they want to make illegal was already illegal under British law. Any reduction in child grooming will only be temporary. Paedophiles know that there is a high chance of them being found guilty for their crimes and that their lives will be forever ruined if found guilty in court, but they do it anyway and there is practically nothing the government can do about it. However the government will forever be virtue signalling about what a good job they did to reduce child grooming and the masses will lap it up with glee. The petitioners, the media and pressure groups cannot think of a good solution to stop upskirting or even reduce it, but if the government didn't implement the virtue signalling law, the pressure and backlash from pressure groups would have been too much for the government to deal with, crush or supplant.
Conclusion
The Greeks in the BC times were very intelligent, and that was before the internet. Not only were they the first to record history in a written format, but they also invented modern medicine, philosophy, and the first democracy in the world. However when the Greeks invented democracy, they were not stupid. They had the right idea to have the general public vote for people to represent them, of which those represntatives vote on whether a bill should become a law or not, instead of allowing the public to vote on every bill as if it was The X Factor or The Voice. The Greeks thought that direct democracy causes mob rule, and they are absolutely right, as you are seeing with the virtue signalling laws that petition justice, or social justice, causes - which also gives rise to social justice warriors.
When I was younger, I believed that anything and everything should be voted upon by everyone using consensus. That if there is a concensus, then we should always go along with the concensus. Now I am older and I have more life experience and have done my own independant research to read blogs, forums and news to learn about the world, I now believe that we should not go by consensus, but we should instead go by convictions. We should go on our convictions, because going by consensus is what causes a direct democracy, where everyone votes on every thing, which causes stupid people to cause absurdity. We do not live in a direct democracy, we live in a republic, because the former causes mob rule. Mob rule causes the 51% to violate the rights of the 49% (or 10%), retribution justice instead of reconciliation justice, it causes virtue signalling laws and it causes people to make major decisions on big things that those people have zero understanding of.
Virtue signalling laws is a prime example of what the petition justice causes. Because anyone and everyone can make a petition, and anyone and everyone can go viral and be an influencer online, you don't need to be intelligent to get 100,000 people to sign your petition - the amount of signatures required to have your petition debated in British parliament. Anyone can do it. Anyone can get any petition to reach 100,000 signatures, and anyone can get 100,000 people in the country to agree with them on anything that can be done.
However what cannot be done, is that you can't stop misinformed, closed minded, ignorant or stupid people from knowing the facts and figures of what causes what, and what will happen when any such things happen. Most people cannot think for themselves. Most people are not their own person. Most people have never had an original thought in their life, let alone original opinions! If someone has never had an original thought, they are not intelligent. Most people are sheep. Only the minority of people have critical thinking skills who are free thinkers. You know what I say, You can't fix stupid. As long as we keep rewarding stupidity, virtue signalling will never end, it will only get bigger, and worse.
Further Reading
Virtue Signalling Gone Wrong
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8LN2F7sm6yM/
Support Compesh by buying from my shop