Rachel Bull and Mary Beard

“Many of the postings are aggressive and sexual and include a photo of her face superimposed onto a picture of female genitalia.” Such has been the fate of professor Mary Beard’s

MARY BEARD, THE CAMBRIDGE classics professor has been the victim of internet trolling after appearing on the BBC’s  Question Time. She has now become the heroin of the liberal feminist sisterhood who are appalled at the way she has been treated – especially by the likes of A A Gill and Rod Liddle.

            On Question Time the topic of immigration in Boston, Lincolnshire, caught the programmes attention. Ms Beard had looked into the problem by studying an academic report which seems to have said everything is hunky-dory in Boston, and the local economy had prospered by the influx of East European immigrants.

As an academic, this was all that Ms Beard needed to know about the subject because of  her residency in a Cambridge University Ivory castle, which, being a short journey from Boston; she has never been to see for herself - she has never felt the need to see for herself if this report she had read bared any resemblance to the truth of a truly empirical investigation conducted by herself.

            No, for Ms Beard, an academically produced piece of research says all there is needed to be said on any subject; and so it prove when she used it to reassure the Question Time audience. But unfortunately, sitting before her in the audience, there was a an empiricist who told a different story to that of Ms Beard. Someone who had lived and breathed Boston and the county of Lincolnshire; someone who had experienced for herself, over months, years, and decades, the reality of immigration on Boston.

            Rachel Bull spoke up for those whose ivory castle is an housing estate, not a nice escape from reality that Oxbridge  provides for its academics. Rachel Bull spoke for many other parts of the country when she said, “Go down to Boston high street and it’s just like a foreign country”. She spoke of immigrants overburdening the NHS: she could have added schools and housing.

Boston is not unlike many other parts of the country, and Rachel bless her, told of what many millions of indigenous people already experience…a deliberately socially engineered over population that puts pressure on our NHS, education and housing. The reason, or the one the liberals like Ms Beard trot out, is that the indigenous population in these areas would not do the poorly paid work.

The great influx from Eastern Europe occurred (due to Tony Blair’s good office) in 2004. Before then, we are supposed to believe, the nation was left bereft of cabbages, sprouts, Swedes, and a whole greengrocery of vegetables, because our indigenous  people would not work for the minimum wage by doing such backbreaking work, often in a dirty and cold environment; so such tasks were meted out to East European immigrants.

Until 2004, I am supposed to believe that I cannot ever remember eating so much as a Brussels’ sprout…even at Christmas. But of course, there were never any shortages before 2004 due to a shortage of indigenous labour willing to do the job: and if there were, it would have been because of the last Labour government’s willingness to reward those who turned their backs on such employment with an unemployment pay cheque.

What happened I guess, was that those willing immigrants were being paid by unscrupulous farmers below the minimum wage, illegally – either that or the gang masters were taking their cut. Either way it produces a liberal dilemma  when it came to exploitation. The only possible commercial use that such immigrants have, is to be exploited; yet the liberal, in seeking to object to such a use of human labour, would face the only course left to them; to send them packing back to Poland; or from wherever else they  emerged upon our shores. But they cannot bring themselves to do so as adherents of the canon of political correctness.

MARY BEARD is scooping up her support not for what she said on Question Time, but for the way she has been treated since as an aged women of little practical use to the modern youth orientated media.

Trolling is an ugly practice. It uses the personal over the rational and can cause terrible mental and physical damage to those targeted. So as far as those who used such vile rhetoric in attacking Ms Beard; then I condemn them wholeheartedly as any sane person should.

            But I do not include in this, as many liberal journalists do, either A A Gill or Rod Liddle in this attack. They are not to be compared to the venal cruelties of the truly bigoted that is the hall mark of trolling.

            My critique of this woman has nothing to do with her gender or age; but with her liberal arrogance that sought, in the BBC programme, to say to the audience that it is all right: I have read this report and it agrees with my liberal views in almost every detail; and given that I am an academic, and you are the audience, as well as the viewer, you should all feel reassured by the report’s result.

            No wonder Rachel Bull felt herself driven by anger to reply to Ms Beard. For her experiences demolished Ms Beard’s  argument. Why does Ms Beard not escape briefly from her academic entombment and visit Boston to see for herself rather than rely upon the statistical conundrums conjured up by academia into a world they have little understanding of apart from spending a day or two among their samples?

            My guess is that Ms Beard fits most comfortably into the cosy academic climate in which she sits; only emerging to drill into the proles and plebs the apotheosis of  her liberalism as she displayed on Question Time.

BUT THE LIBERAL feminists in the media who took Ms Beard to their breasts; had better concentrate upon Rachel Bull and her objections: for hers are the objections of all the indigenous  British people: and as Rachel Bull is a women determined to slay the ghost of political correctness when giving vent to her feelings; she has opened up and challenged the liberal academic conclusion that multiculturalism is in some way seen as ‘progressive’.

            Mary Beard may comport herself as a misogynistic victim; but she is no such thing. Rachel Bull is a women; a woman riddled with experience of the kind of world that Ms Beard seems to need some academic study to fully comprehend. She does not have anything of value to say on the subject of immigration into Boston or any other part of the country. Her idyll are her books, which, as I have found, are a major part of life’s reason to be alive. But she needs to take a holiday from the comfortable cloisters of Cambridge and expose herself to Mary Beard’s world.

            To the Guardian,  Ms Beard’s experience after her appearance on Question Time mattered far more than what she or Rachel Bull said, and more to do with the trolls; and in particular, about what A A Gill and Rod Liddle had written about her. The argument about the way immigration was impacting on Lincolnshire was never entertained by the Guardian.

            Rachel Bull did a service when she spoke out. No liberals could have possibly described her as  a ‘bigot’ or ‘racist’; or, for that matter, any other element of the liberal nomenclature that seeks to put what they regard as none-progressive types, into their thesaurus of  right-wing demonology.

            We have a major catastrophe on our hands as a nation. We are over-populated; and such bounty is down to Mary Beard’s soul brothers and sisters on the Left, whether in academia or parliament . Only Rachel Bull spoke for the indigenous people of these isles, and it is her contribution to the immigration debate that the feminist’s should be applauding. But unlike the many feminist journalists that jumped to Ms Beard’s defence, Rachel Bull was not part of the liberal elite and therefore could be ignored.