Druglink Blog Pisses off Panda

[saramcgrail]

Its worth having a look at Martin Barnes blog on Tory drug policy and Kathy Gyngells somewhat heated and frankly slightly bizarre response to it here:

http://druglink.blogspot.com/2008/11/who-is-driving-tory-drug-policy-with.html

Sara

[saramcgrail]

And in her blog today you find Gyngell - who has a pretty strong record on writing some quite nasty stuff from a very far right perspective (see for example her 1993 article in The Mail on Sunday "Is this the price of feminism" in which she blames feminism and working mums for the murder of James Bulger - linking the murder of Baby P to methadone prescribing

"Back in 2003 it was estimated that some 350,000 children had drug addicted parents; in 2006 it was estimated that a further million children had alcohol addicted parents.  Since then the figures have gone up. Adult ‘problem drug users’ total over 400,000 and alcohol problems have got much worse. ‘Treatment’ entails another mass administration, the state sponsored drugging of some 200,000 adults with the prescribed opiate substitute, methadone, now added into the mix.  All of this is catastrophic for the increasing numbers of children involved.  At best addiction and substance abuse make for neglectful and irresponsible parenting; at worst for cruel and abusive parenting. Yet nothing is being done to protect these children in our progressively administered, morally neutral and non judgemental society. All that has happened is that the threshold of risk that social workers respond to has gone up.  It was back in 2003 that the Hidden Harm Report noted that substance abuse was the first thing that social workers met with in their problem families and that it was the last thing to be addressed. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Process demands neutrality and takes right and wrong, good and bad out of the equation. This is no where more apparent than in the treatment process this government has devised for drug addicts. Encouraged to ‘access’ the treatment administration process, addicts are not required to answer for their children or indeed to acknowledge whether they have any or who may be taking responsibility for them, for fear it may put them off.  The result is a culture in which drug addiction or alcohol abuse is no longer seen as an index of irresponsible or neglectful parenting; a culture of indifference to children’s most basic of emotional and physical needs.

 This is the new liberal fascism created by our process driven government - one which ensures that no one individual is ever responsible or held to account. It has created an anything goes society in which the most vulnerable, children and old people go defenceless."

sara

 

[willow]

have you got a link to her blog please?

[willow]

i found it......oh my god what a woman is there any evidence to suggest these people were drug users/ addicts .... no i did not think so its just a very poor attempt at adding fuel to her fire shame its the wrong sort of fuel. people like her are dangerous and it isturbs me to think she is involved in the substance misuse field albeit as a panda......however it does not surprise me she writes for the daily mail.

speaking of right wingers has anyone seen the latest offering from turdedore dalrymple ? he advocates the shooting of heroin addicts in this nugget. i will post the link but read it with caution it made me shake with anger
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-poppycock.htm
fitting its called poppycock though as that is what it is ....made me wonder if they use the phrase poppycock the same way that we do in uk

[will-c]

Read your article in the DDN today, your looking good sara mcg, younger and dare I say more petite...

[saramcgrail]

My you can read as well as gauge women's size from head shots.

[mcdermott]

Fuck me, Will, talk about tactless. Somebody goes to all the effort involved in writing an article, and all you can comment on is their looks?

There's nobody less politically correct than I am, but Sara is absolutely bang on the nail, smiting you here. You wouldn't do that with an article that a man wrote, so why do you think it's an acceptable response to an article written by a woman?

[will-c]

I do sincerely apologise for offending you, it was not my clumsy intention, I was more being tongue and cheek if thats the correct expression. Kind of commenting from Knowing Sara from a few years ago and thought she would get the humour in it. I did wonder what I had said when seeing I had been smited. (Know I knew, I will try and refrain from allowing what I deem as humour slipping on to the forum) 

[saramcgrail]

I do sincerely apologise for offending you, it was not my clumsy intention, I was more being tongue and cheek if thats the correct expression. Kind of commenting from Knowing Sara from a few years ago and thought she would get the humour in it. I did wonder what I had said when seeing I had been smited. (Know I knew, I will try and refrain from allowing what I deem as humour slipping on to the forum) 

Thanks very much Peter for making your points. I'm glad Will has apologised for offending you.