Do we really want what we vote for?

Once again I find myself unable to choose just one news item for comment, and so here are three.

There has been an increase in shoplifting, which now stands at a nine-year high.  Apparently fewer than ten percent of incidents are reported to the police.  This cannot be blamed on Benefits Street, which was first screened only two weeks ago.  Nevertheless the lesson in shoplifting featured in its first episode may have encouraged people to go shoplifting who would not otherwise have done so.

It is perhaps easy to remove a can of beer from an off licence without the shop staff noticing, but Benefits Street showed us how to steal expensive clothing.  Nevertheless this is something the British people choose.  For many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on crime, and so we should not be surprised about the latest crime statistics.

Still on the subject of Benefits Street, children who appear in the programme are being victimised.  I do not condone this victimisation, and I would in fact welcome some prosecutions, but the fact remains that people are angry with what they see on this programme about the lives of people on benefits.  Nevertheless this is another thing the British people choose.  For many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on welfare as well as soft on crime, and so we should not be surprised about what we see on James Turner Street.

There has also been an increase in gender-selective abortions, which appear to relate to women from certain immigrant communities not wanting to give birth to daughters.  There is apparently a furore over whether or not such procedures are legal.  The people who maintain illegality are welcome to try to secure a criminal prosecution, but it is only fair to refer them to the prosecution sought by Joanna Jepson.

I have three more comments about this.  Predictably, the first is that this is something we choose.  For many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on abortion.  The abortion laws are worded so as to be vague and open to what might be construed by some as abuse.  For example, the term in good faith means what exactly?  My second and closely related point is that for many years now, the British people have voted for political parties which are soft on immigration.  Lax immigration laws have resulted in many people entering this country whose cultural values are different from those of the native population.  We should therefore not be surprised if women from some immigrant communities take advantage of our lax abortion laws for the purpose of gender-selective abortions.

My third point is that Dominic Lawson describes The Daily Mail as a cash-strapped newspaper.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  In fact I have no problem with it going out of business altogether.