Rod Liddle

Why Boris is wrong to say that the children of jihadis should be taken into care

The mayor has a plan to take into care all children who are brought up with a bleak and nihilistic worldview. Does he include mine?

8 March 2014

9:00 AM

8 March 2014

9:00 AM

Do your children have a bleak and nihilistic view of the world? It’s hard to tell, really, when they spend 30 per cent of the day blamming away at those whores in Grand Theft Auto and the remaining 70 per cent asleep. How should one go about inquiring such a thing? Text them, maybe. ‘R U blk n nlstc lol? — Dad’. But they might well lie in response: ‘OMG no! (followed by five smiley emoticons)’.

I have to say I’d be a little disappointed if they were not bleak and nihilistic, seeing how things are. One usually finds with relentlessly upbeat and chirpy children that they are receiving additional help in many subjects at school and may even travel each morning on a special bus with other similarly afflicted youngsters. Rather, surely, that they were sullen when not out of their brainboxes on legal or illegal highs.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has an interesting plan for the social services departments to take into care all children who are brought up with a bleak and nihilistic view of the world — so I suppose I had better start packing their bags and taking down their posters of Kierkegaard. More particularly, he suggested that the children of radical Islamic militants should be taken into care, because the ‘bleak and nihilistic’ world view to which they were subjected amounted to child abuse.

I am not sure that, strictly speaking, jihadi maniacs are nihilistic at all — a bit on the bleak side, I’ll grant you, but also filled with a rather worrying sense of purpose. But that is beside the point. Boris went on to say: ‘At present there is a reluctance by the social services to intervene even when they and the police have clear evidence of what is going on.’

The mayor, more usually a libertarian, seemed to me one of the last people on this planet who would be in favour of social workers kidnapping children on account of their parents’ political beliefs, and I still sort of hope it was just one of those strange things he sometimes says without actually thinking about it.

A caller on his radio show then asked if the same process would be applied if a child was being brought up in a family of British National Party supporters. Boris’s response was yes, perhaps, ‘in extreme cases’. I am not sure what this means. Is he simply excluding from the equation all those members of the BNP who are decent, liberally minded and moderate?

You can make your own mind up as to whether it is a short or long hop from the BNP to the United Kingdom Independence Party; suffice to say I would have thought Boris would have been as appalled as I was to read of the couple who had their three foster children removed from their home by social workers on account of their support for Ukip. It struck me at the time as being grotesque almost beyond words. Indeed there is already evidence that social services departments vet prospective foster parents to make sure that they are not, for example, homophobic (i.e. subscribe to a fundamentalist Christian view of homosexuality which I would guess is shared by about a third of the population).

Politics and ideology should surely play no part in whether or not someone is allowed to raise a child — and yet Boris is clearly not an adherent of this broad and basic principle — he simply objects to people being allowed to raise children when they subscribe to an ideology which is at odds with his own.

Most strange. I thought his plan to pave over the Thames Estuary and construct enormous runways out of compacted wildfowl was fatuous in the extreme, but this is even more bizarre. It wouldn’t surprise me now if he planned to build another platform in the estuary, this time for the fractious and bleakly nihilistic offspring of jihadi lunatics, a sort of juvenile Narrenschiff, with the requisite retinue of social workers dedicated to expunging the political beliefs of their charges.

It is a little sad that the mayor seems to go along with the rather horrible trend of the last 20 years in which Parenting — now an upper-case subject which one can study at what used to be called polytechnics — has become the dominion of experts who decide not only what is the right and proper way to bring up a child, but also adjudicate upon who should be allowed to do so. Our social services departments have never been more militantly interventionist, and have been urged to become so by successive governments.

The intrusion of the state into what was, for centuries, a private realm is one of the less discussed or even remarked upon developments of recent times. It has happened incrementally and stealthily and nobody could possibly object because that would be tantamount to defending child abuse. And child abuse, these days, comes in an ever widening variety of forms. The Mayor of London believes that one of those forms is to hold political views with which the vast majority of the population do not agree. That, I would suggest, is a deeply dangerous state of mind.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Peter Cook

    Just another politician that’s trying to get his hands on our children ,a creep.

  • verity treacle

    please explain why is he allowed out to roam on the streets unattended?

  • Right Full Rudder

    So basically if you are a muslim from a dangerous 3rd world country where Islamism is the norm, first of all welcome to Britain, thank you for your richness and diversity and let’s not forget vibrancy. You are what makes London so Londony. If you could not try and blow us up, that would be grand. Please feel free to keep your culture because multiculturalism is just spiffing but on the other hand please do not pass on your culture to your children, otherwise we’ll send the social workers round. Thank you for listening.

  • dave_moon

    Boris Johnson is clearly a dangerous extremist with such totalitarian views. Should his children be taken away from him?

  • We don’t know the full extent of how many children were sexually abused by Muslim gangs throughout the UK because social services preferred to ‘look the other way’ for fear of appearing racist.

    The fact that at least 40% of Muslims in this country desire Sharia law, and a third back killing in the the name of Islam, both completely against our values, not to mention the continuing practice of female genital mutilation, ‘honour’ killings, and other abhorrent behaviours incompatible with our society, means proper scrutiny is required.

    It is because of our dhimmified media and politicians that this situation has evolved to this level. It’s a breath of fresh air that someone like Boris has the guts to speak out. It should be common sense, but alas we see today that sense is not that common.

    Liddle is either dim or dhimmi.

    • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

      The horrendous failure of social services to act had sod all to do with the perpetrators being Muslims (and clearly not particularly observant ones from the adulterous behaviour) and rather more to do with the deeply classist belief that that’s what 14 year old girls from deprived backgrounds do.

      If you’ve ever labelled someone a ‘chav’ congrats, you’re part of the problem.

      • Chris Bond

        I’m still waiting for people to connect the ideological dots between the grooming gangs and the Labour’s PIE.

        Social workers dreaming up ideological and theoretical justifications for ignoring sexual abuse?

        Don’t you love Socialists?

      • I see from this, and other comments you have made, that you want to appear trite and clever. You may succeed, but only with those who are even more ignorant than you.
        If you had any understanding of Islamic dynamics, or even just listened to the news on Syria today, you would know that infidels are regarded as meat, and it’s common practice for those women captured to be used as sex slaves.
        That social services had these girls from broken homes in care, and allowed them to get into the situations they did shows a very clear negligence. That you think it’s trite to blame these young girls, who any responsible human being would know are in dire need of help and guidance, shows just how much ‘understanding’ and care you truly have.

        It’s idiots like you that are part of the problem.

      • I see from this, and other comments you have made, that you want to appear trite and clever. You may succeed, but only with those who are even more ignorant than you.

        If you had any understanding of Islamic dynamics, or even just listened to the news on Syria today, you would know that infidels are regarded as meat, and it’s common practice for those women captured to be used as sex slaves.

        That social services had these girls from broken homes in care, and allowed them to get into the situations they did shows a very clear negligence. That you think it’s trite to blame these young girls, who any responsible human being would know are in dire need of help and guidance, shows just how much ‘understanding’ and care you truly have.

        It’s idiots like you that are part of the problem.

        • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

          The Syrian point is meaningless. Militia in wartime tend to view women as pieces of meat, whether that was Russians marching through occupied Germany, Americans in Vietnam or the ongoing atrocities in the Congo.

          If you think I’m in any way blaming the girls, you need some basic reading comprehension.

          • You continue to exacerbate your ignorance, whether purposeful or intended, by dismissing the Muslim element, like it’s a non entity.

            You’ve received enough replies to show that any organisation with the responsibility to care for vulnerable and disturbed girls from broken and dysfunctional families should understand the situations that they might get into and protect them. You’re excuse for them that they operate from a ‘classist belief in the loose morals of these girls’ is ridiculous.

            That you show the same kind of avoidance of seeing the elephant in the room, to dismiss how certain Muslims can view kaffirs to justify a whole host of actions that we find repugnant, immoral and illegal, makes you similar to the social services. Whether you do it as taqqiya, dhimmi, or just plain dim, I have no way to know for sure, but I think it’s the latter.

            Jeremy Vine had an interview on Radio2 following the sentencing of the Oxford paedophile gang. He had the Imam of the Oxford Mosque, Dr Taj Hargay, and head of the NSPCC sexual abuse programme, John Brown. He asked them both just how come that so many Muslim gangs had been found guilty of these abuses.

            The Imam was terrific and told it just like it was. It was truly refreshing to hear
            somebody finally speak out about some of the issues that have been
            troubling our society in such a frank and open way. He even refers to
            the ‘pussyfooting around’ and failure to call ‘a spade a spade’ by those
            who should have dealt with this abuse a lot sooner than they did

            other guy was a
            typical left wing moron who will never break out of his mindset to deal
            with this problem. If you heard the excuses he came out with, even
            arguing with the Imam – the
            EXPERT in front of him, rather than have to acknowledge the particular
            Muslim mindset that allows this scum to continue their foul deeds for so
            long. it was quite clear that this indeed WAS the real problem.

            I also suggest to you personally that the next time you want to debate a point, feel free to put your views, but do it in such a way that is not arrogant or insulting, you’ll get a better response. I suggest also on this particular discussion you research the background a bit better before you dismiss points being made.

      • chesters

        Disagree – I have lots of experience of working with, and teaching, social workers. The monumental failure to protect white (and sometimes Sikh and Hindu) working class girls certainly had a strong classist element (eg social workers’ view that the girls were ‘white trash’) But the Muslim factor cannot be ignored. I can assure you that social workers are terrified of doing anything which might be perceived as racist or discriminatory: if there is an ethnic or religious factor in a child abuse perpetrator situation, they walk on eggshells. They end up with perverse logic: for example, one of the social workers in Rochdale advised a victim to learn Urdu, so that she could ‘relate better’ to her abuser.

        • Scott Burns

          Maybe a strong type of discipline might’ve suitably cowed the girls enough to stop their gallavanting with men, but even parents can be prosecuted for laying their hands on their children or locking them up.

      • Kugelschreiber


        Young girls, of about 12 to 16 are very vulnerable & impressionable…………

        (& by the way, they are set a dismal example by today’s mass media, especially the pop world, which tries to impress on them that sex is the same as love etc)

        …….. & need adults that will treat them with protective guidance & tender loving care & not horrible adults who will abuse them sexually.

        If these young girls are not well-educated or perhaps their parents are not well educated & don’t know how to talk to & advise their little girls, then this makes the girls MORE VULNERABLE & in need of tender loving adult care, not abuse.

    • Rillian
  • Noa

    When he argues for kidnapping Boris Johnson is really describing and defending the society we have already become.
    The seizure of children from their parents, and recently the womb, by the state’s officials has now become routine. Sometimes the reasons are proper and known, in a growing number of cases they remain secret and are deeply troubling for a free society.
    Should we regard his support for this practice as an attempt to normalise the superior child rights of the state over the parent individual?
    We should.
    What we consider to be shocking and impossible today rapidly becomes normality tomorrow.
    We may consider also what may happen when the state decides that taking children into care is too costly. Is it not possible, as state medical and educational databases inevitably merge, that adults of reproductive age be screened for potential or actual ideological deviance and be treated ‘appropriately’ by a caring omniscient welfare state?

    • Icebow

      Social workers should be screened for what newspaper they take. Any answering ‘Guardian’ should be immediately sent off to re-education camps. I realize that this might mean a temporary abolition of the profession.

      • chesters

        yes it would mean temporary abolition of the profession. When I meet social work students (professionally) I always let them see my copy of the Telegraph. I’ve been trying to chip away at the Guardian dependency for years. I was heartened when a student said to me recently, in a bewildered tone ‘perhaps you don’t solve social problems by constantly throwing money at them’ so hopefully my re-education attempts are working in a small way. But I can assure you it’s an uphill struggle and a thankless task. I have to be very careful what I say

        • Icebow

          I dare say you’ve heard Clare in the Community. She’s a Leftie monster, of course; I only listen to it for her interactions with Narli.

        • Cogra Bro

          Please do tell us more.

          • chesters

            CB- I could write a book! In my experience, social work education in the UK does not prepare students adequately for difficult child protection work. Instead, it undermines them by demanding a ‘non-judgemental attitude’, automatic respect for ‘different’ cultures and values, the promotion of multiculturalism and ‘anti-oppressive practice’, and working ‘in partnership’ with service -users (including abusive parents)
            This toxic mind-set will no doubt have contributed to the localised grooming scandals, and lately, the failure to protect the sad life of Baby F (Bexley Local Safeguarding Children Board report) – where the parents were Zimbabwean Seventh Day Adventists, and father was a nurse. One very influential textbook for social work students is ‘Anti Racist social work’ by Prof Lena Dominelli, of Durham University. She argues that all whites are racist. Says it all, really

          • Cogra Bro

            Thank you for this illuminating but depressing contribution.

      • Kugelschreiber


        I have to disagree with you on the Guardian. I find it to be a paper that is full of wisdom, understanding & compassion about people.

        And it is the possession of the above qualities that generally helps us to bring out the best in people.

        I don’t agree with ALL of the Guardian’s various stances on things though.

        • Icebow

          Do you really (find it so)? I have long recognized it as disgustingly subversive of human nature. I would not touch it without rubber gloves.
          Our disagreement here may well seem so entrenched as to be congenital; yet, once, perhaps when I was a student, I might have subscribed to it.

          • Cogra Bro

            Yes most people grow out of adolescent idealism / wishful thinking when they have to grapple with the realities of life including what people can really be like, and I don’t mean naturally good.

        • Cogra Bro

          Lefties are compassionate in theory, not In personal practice, They want a ‘caring society’ because if society is ‘caring’ this means they don’t have to be personally ( so they think).

          This leaves them free to be as selfish and anti social as they please by indulging in drugs, casual relationships etc, with a clear conscience, or what remains of one.

          The net result of this attitude is the disintegration of society and of civilised life .

          The Guardian is full of compassion, but their compassion generally involves the state, ie someone else doing the nitty gritty with taxpayers’ ,ie someone else’s, money, or with a few quid by way of a donation,

          Guardian compassion is a sham and a fraud. Don’t fall for it.

    • Kennybhoy

      Indeed. Dates back to the 1980s at the height of the Thatcher era…

      • Noa

        Yes, it’s not new. Increasing technological sophistication makes the nomenklaturas’ dreams all too possible.

  • ohforheavensake

    I think Boris was floating something which was illiberal and unenforceable, certainly: but your article really bears no relation to anything he said.

  • Crumbs

    Sauce for the indigenous is sauce for the Islamists.

  • VitaBrevis1

    On what does Rod Liddle base the assertion, regarding those who support the BNP, that they hold ‘political views with which the vast majority of the population do not agree’?

    According to the one opinion poll that I know of whose results have been made public, that by the hard left ‘Searchlight Educational Trust’ ( February 2011), said to be the most wide ranging ever, the level of backing (48% of the population) for a far-right, patriotic anti- immigration party which would confront Islamism could equal or even outstrip that in countries such as France, the Netherlands and Austria. The only caveat was that it should not be associated with violence and fascist imagery’.

    ‘Anti-fascist’ groups said the poll’s findings challenged the belief that Britons were more tolerant than other Europeans. “This is not because British people are more moderate, but simply because their views have not found a political articulation,” the Searchlight Educational Trust report stated.

    According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that “immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country”. Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that “Muslims create problems in the UK”.

    The poll also identified a majority keen to be allowed to openly criticise religion, with 60% believing they “should be allowed to say whatever they believe about religion”. A very substantial minority – 42% – said that “people should be allowed to say whatever they believe about race”.

    If people don’t vote for the BNP, this isn’t because they dislike its policies. It’s because they don’t like the kind of people who run the party, who, whatever their present policies (and they are a good deal more moderate than they used to be), tend to be people with unsavoury pasts in Neo Nazi movements with which associations they can be successfully smeared. This dislike has allowed the growth of the somewhat more moderate but more middle class UKIP.

    For one reason or another, the political class, publicly at least, seriously underestimates the level of support for these views in the country at large. This has been useful to it in furthering its agenda of the free flow of Capita and Labour, ie the obliteration of Britain in any recognisable form.

    In this connection, It has been very useful for the BBC in excluding from its programmes we all pay for any real representation of these views (except to vilify them as ‘extreme’ and ‘racist’) for decades,

    • Peter_In_Wanstead

      Well said. Regarding the anti-White racist BBC it’s a disgrace that Nick Griffin MEP – representing some 943,00 UK voters – has only ever appeared once on Question Time. But BBC favourites like Greer, Say-Michell, Chakrabati S. and Batmanghelidjh who represent no one with their poisonous anti-English agendas each appear several times a year. It looks like Platell is now a BBC favourite, especially after her comment to an African audience member this week: “When Joel first asked that question the first thing I was struck by is that you are a beautiful young Black man”. That’s not a view many of her ethnicty hold in their own country where Blacks often don’t even get on the bus never mind sit at the back. (,7340,L-3760647,00.html)

      • Cogra Bro

        Jack Straw the one- time Home Secretary, has an unsavoury past in Stalin worship. He actually declared his admiration for the methods of the late mass murderer and tyrant in a letter to the National Press, when he denied being an ‘Old Trot’, and laid bare his real thinking.

        He was mentored by the British Communist Party, where he learned the covert methods which enabled he and others of his ilk to lie their way into power so that they could ‘rub the noses of the right’ I mass immigration,

        Notwithstanding all thus, I have never heard Straw, who appeared with Nick Griffin on that infamous Question Time programme, or any other of the Communists and other Marxists who people New Labour bring rubbished the way Griffin was.

        • Peter_In_Wanstead

          Jack Straw? Calling the BNP liars and racists about racially-motivated Muslim paedophiles for a decade who then, once out of office, admits “Muslims see White girls as easy meat”.

          How similar to Barnardo’s chief Martin Narey who denied the racially-motivated Muslim paedophile epidemic until….err…he was no longer working for Barnardo’s.

    • rodliddle

      I was referring to the jihadis, you mentalist.

      • Terry Field

        Are you suggesting Boris should adopt a Jihadi??
        Poor little Bo
        You are a Rod of Iron.

      • Cogra Bro

        I did think you might be, but I enjoyed sounding off any way.

  • Doggie Roussel

    The point of this article could be taken seriously if it wasn’t centred around the serial adulterer and professional buffoon, Boris Johnson.

    When, if ever, the Mayor of London establishes and demonstrates his parenting and family obligations, might be the time for him to shoot off his large and noisy mouth.

    Meanwhile, good luck to him in the quest for his next serial bonk and the consequences thereof.

  • Cogra Bro

    I have always thought that sociology was on the whole merely an extended rationalisation of leftist prejudices.

    The thought that booted individuals of either sex, sorry, of whatever gender, are In control of this nation’s children to an increasing extent by virtue of possessing a degree in this pathetic excuse for a science and reading the Guardian ought to fill us with dread.

    • Alexsandr

      sociology is not the qualification or social work.

      • Cogra Bro

        Social Work , Social Care – same old same old.

        The very notion of ‘social care’ is leftist. The idea is that that the caring of individuals for individuals can be offloaded onto an impersonal state which cannot care, so that selfish, self – centred liberals can get on doing selfish things without personally getting to grips with the nitty gritty, and with a clear consciences, or what remains of them.

        The consciences of the West have been shaped by Christianity. As the grip of this is loosened, thanks in part to the efforts of liberals, so will die even the desire for ‘social caring’.

  • Clive Mather

    Boris ‘First Secretary’ Johnson seems to have been inspired by the childcare policies of the German Democratic Republic. See the link below for an interview with the delightful Margot Honecker, widow of Erich:

    Of course, taking peoples’ kids way is a very powerful weapon in the armoury of totalitarian government, as the Stalinists of the GDR were well aware. Is Boris thinking of combining totalitarian control of the population with unfettered free-market capitalism, something like the Chinese model?

  • Terry Field

    Nothing can or should be done.
    The horde of the dysfunctional should remain entirely undisturbed.
    Otherwise where will the supply of domestic servants come from in the future??

  • Antonovs

    He probably had some deal made with fascists foster agencies / Social workers.