Yesterday on Russell Brand's "Trews News" he had ago at Thatcher for covering up paedophiles within parliament, and quite rightly too.
But then I realised he's never criticsed Labour for covering up for Rotherham peado's.
Let's face it, party politics doesn't come into either, both are just as sick and vile, however there is one major difference.
During the time of Thatcher, women were just becoming more equal, it wasn't like it is today.
Recently I watched the very first episode of Eastenders, firstly I was shocked at the language of only 30 years ago!
Secondly, in the pub was a picture happily sitting on the wall of a topless woman, in a rather prerogative manner.
It just proved where women stood within the circle at that time.
Nurses who were witnessing that scum Jimmy Saville were being silenced, so why would Thatcher be listened too?
Thatcher may have been the Prime Minister, but it doesn't mean she would have been listened too, just like the nurses who were ignored, and silenced when they tried to stop Saville from his vile attacks.
But Rotherham is a different case. It happened in the 21st Century, and lasted 16 years.
The reason that the social worker, council, and local police ignored the 1,400 girls sexual abuse? Because they didn't want to be branded racists.
The paedo's were Pakistani, Muslim men. Not that I think that's got any relevance, people in Thatcher's government were white, fat old men, who thought the world was their oyster.
However, not a word from Brand on Labour's failure to protect children. These pigs abused roughly 88 girls per year!
88 children every year for 16 years, were being sexually abused, all because Labour wanted to prove they were "multicultural".
Brand doesn't want to be as bad as they hypocrites within Westminster, but he's already just as bad.
He fails to show equality in all manners of life, he only ever shouts at Tories, and for bloke who doesn't vote, why not shout at Labour?