Tuesday, 7 November 2017

Inappropriate behaviour

Britain is currently in the grip of one of its periodic moral panics. This one is centred around the Palace Of Westminster and primarily involves allegations of insensitive behaviour by some male MPs against women. The chief casualty has been the former Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon who has not denied claims that he ‘inappropriately’ touched a couple of female journalists about 15 years or so ago. Sir Michael has admitted that his behaviour has fallen short of what might be expected adding that ‘what had been acceptable 15, 10 years ago is clearly not acceptable now’.

Sir Michael is clearly wrong when he assumes that this kind of behaviour was ever acceptable. Unsolicited advances of this kind by sex pests have never been considered acceptable in a work environment; although a more relaxed approach may be taken in a social situation such as a party. Some women have complained that it is an example of the power imbalance between men and women. In this respect it is certainly completely unacceptable for any man in a senior position to promise career advancement in return for the granting of sexual favours. So it must be admitted that some of the complaints that have been raised are justified. The question that needs to be addressed is what should be done about it.

The allegations appear to fall into two categories, the less serious and the very serious. The former consists of unwanted touching and suggestive remarks or messages; the latter involves accusations of rape. With regard to acts of clear criminality such as rape or a serious violent sexual assault the response is clear – the police should be informed as quickly as possible. One of the women alleged that she was raped by a senior Labour Party activist some years ago when she was nineteen. What is unclear is why she did not report this to the police at the time, rather than raise the matter some years later with a party official. The law is there for women to seek redress in situations such as this and it is inexplicable why this teenager failed to take advantage of her legal rights by reporting this assault to the police. It is absolutely no use for her to condemn the inadequate response of Labour officials, when she herself possessed the power to bring the perpetrator to justice by informing the police, but failed to do so.

The law can also be used for the less serious claims, for example Max Clifford was prosecuted for behaviour not too dissimilar to that indulged in by Sir Michael. However, most women are likely to consider the legal route to be an overreaction that is not worth the hassle and many juries might agree, resulting in a low probability of conviction. Effective alternative remedies are available. For example a woman called the BBC Radio 4 programme Any Answers to reveal how she dealt with this problem in pre feminist days. Her boss, with whom she had a good working relationship, followed her into the file storage room and proceeded to fondle her legs whilst she was on a step-ladder. Her response was swift, she threw a heap of files on his head which sent him sprawling on the floor. No words were spoken, she continued to have an amicable working relationship with him, but she was never again troubled with unwanted advances from this source. A firm response such as this can usually be relied upon to terminate the gratuitous attentions of these kinds of sex pests, and this includes bosses.

Instead of this kind of direct action, in which women take personal responsibility for challenging their more disreputable male colleagues, an agenda for a more intrusive and interventionist workplace disciplinary or grievance procedure is beginning to emerge. The problem with this approach is that is usually involves the word of one person against another, and the management is placed in an impossible position of trying to determine who is telling the truth. In any case it is not really the job of an employer to police workplace relationships, or to reinforce the dismal notion that women are always hopelessly vulnerable to male bestiality. So it is advisable for women to go easy on portraying themselves as helpless victims, and instead become more self-reliant and resilient in handling unwanted advances, rather than depending on officialdom and unreliable work procedures for redress.

The current furore has implications which extend well beyond Westminster. The BBC has been providing a platform for a stream of vocal feminists who are using the current uproar as a means of smearing all men as potential sexual predators, when the vast majority are well mannered and treat women with respect. In pursuit of their controlling agenda there are demands that innocent flirtatious remarks, complements and dating requests should all be deemed sexual harassment, and that such a wide interpretation of what is deemed ‘inappropriate’ should be rolled out in all workplaces nationwide.

Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have voiced comments which suggest that they have strong sympathy with this agenda, which will have the effect of massively increasing the power of disaffected feminist agitators to police and control the attitude and behaviour of male colleagues, leading to a situation where the most innocent of remarks could lead to disciplinary action. The pernicious effect of what can happen with such a policy has been demonstrated at American universities in which officially sanctioned kangaroo courts operate with impunity, in which female accusers are invariably believed and male defendants’ evidence is ignored.

Monday, 23 October 2017

Edward Heath – the spectral paedophile

How is it that our society has reached such an extraordinary level of collective delusion and paranoia that a chief constable can smear a former British prime minister as a potential paedophile without any real evidence, and very few people seem to find this surprising? The answer is that for decades we have all been the target of an agenda, promoted by children’s charities and feminists, to instil fear, concern and outrage in society over the relatively rare incidence of child sexual molestation.

The motive for the charities is quite transparent; it is a scam to mint money, lots of it, by manipulating the emotions and goodwill of a sadly gullible and trusting public. With feminism the incentive appears to be a combination of misandry and sexual puritanism. It should be remembered that feminism and femininity are a contradiction, the former in its 21st century guise being an aberration of womanhood, whose vocal agenda nevertheless has been embraced by the dominant politically correct ideology of our time. So women generally are not at fault, indeed some of the worst examples of paedo-hysterics come from men, who comprise most of conspiracy theorists with their wild unsubstantiated accusations, and the noxious paedo-hunters with their phantom teen girl bait.

The gutter press for its own alarmist motives has helped fan the flames of this campaign, whilst self styled ‘progressive’ media outlets have embraced it as a vehicle to promote the victimhood of those they deem ‘vulnerable’. As a consequence the general populace, the police, public authorities including the government, have all been indoctrinated into the belief that child sexual abuse is widespread, that those who claim to be victims of it must always be believed, and that anyone who questions this narrative must be engaged in a conspiracy to protect the paedophiles themselves, monsters who are widely believed to be lurking in every nook and cranny of our society.

Edward Heath, like Jimmy Savile before him, is disadvantaged by being safely dead, and thus unable to mount a defence against accusations of paedophilia. Both these men, during their lifetime, were subject to innuendo and rumours about their sexuality. In the fantasy world of child abuse paranoia this provides all the evidence deemed necessary to brand them as paedophiles and to dismiss any objections as an establishment cover up. The source of the Savile accusations has been thoroughly debunked and a summary can be found here. http://bit.ly/2dybGYs This post examines whether the accusations against Edward Heath are credible.

Before the recent Wiltshire police enquiry the main rumours about Heath swirling around the internet were that he abused boys from Jersey on his yacht before disposing of them overboard, that he sexually abused a youth in his Mayfair flat in 1961, that he was involved in satanic ritual abuse and that he was also part of the widely reported Westminster paedophile conspiracy centred around Dolphin Square. The latter featured the notorious fantasist ‘Nick’ whose claims were dismissed by the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Midland. The other claims were examined in the Wiltshire police investigation which concluded that there was no evidence to justify the Jersey yacht and satanic ritual allegations. The Mayfair flat claim is examined below.

The Wiltshire police investigation into Heath, known as Operation Conifer, was launched after a retired senior police officer claimed that in the 1990s the prosecution of a brothel owner was terminated after she threatened to reveal that Heath was involved in the abuse of young boys. In reality the prosecution was dropped for reasons unrelated to Heath, and the brothel owner insisted that she had never threatened to implicate him. The IPCC assessment concluded that the claims of the former senior police officer who caused all this alarmism were without foundation. However, before waiting for these findings to be made public, the police officer in charge of the investigation, standing outside Heath’s former Salisbury home in front of TV cameras, broadcast an open invitation to ‘victims and survivors’ to come forward, insisting they would be ‘believed and supported’. In short, this was a police trawling operation, purposely designed to build a case for posthumously branding Heath as a paedophile, in order to further boost and confirm what is best described as societal and now police paranoia on this subject.

The recently released Operation Conifer report of Wiltshire Police investigation into Heath, consists of virtually no evidence other than unsubstantiated allegations, and appears more concerned with providing a justification for the police actions. Its main conclusion is that in seven cases Heath would have been questioned under caution. No corroboration for these allegations appears to have been provided and the report dismissed the overwhelming majority of allegations against Heath. Virtually no information has been given about those making the claims, some of the more fantastical involving satanic rituals, a throwback to the NSPCC hysteria of the 1990s, which were thoroughly debunked in the Department of Health La Fontaine Report at the time.

The Conifer Report has justifiably been criticised for referring to accusers as ‘victims’ who provide ‘disclosures’, but this terminology has likely been imposed on willing police forces by the government, both anxious to appease the children’s charities lobby. This kind of malignant nonsense was castigated in the Henriques Report, and it clearly gives the impression of unwarranted credibility to those making accusations, an inference of guilt for those accused, whilst at the same time undermining the police’s reputation for impartiality.

The seven allegations where Heath would have been interviewed under caution relate to claims made covering the period 1961 to 1992. The earliest allegation concerns the previously mentioned Mayfair flat incident from 1961, four relate to opportunistic indecent assaults against three children and one adult in public places, another to indecent assault on an under age youth in a paid sexual encounter, and finally the indecent assault of an adult male who had withdrawn consent from a paid sexual encounter. The Mayfair flat story appears fanciful as Heath did not move to this location until 1963, in 1961 he lived in a smaller flat near St James Park. Close relatives of this accuser believe him to be a serial liar, and it has been revealed that he is himself currently behind bars for sex offences.

It should be kept in mind that all these claims were prompted by the publicity generated by the false claims of the retired police officer, which occurred a decade after Heath had died. From 1965 until his death in 2005 Heath was accompanied almost continually by close colleagues, government drivers and police protection officers. Any claims made whilst he was alive would have been subject to much greater scrutiny, and the means of refutation would be much easier as the accused can provide his side of the story with evidence to back it up. Thus the temptations for making false accusations are much greater when the accused is dead as it is that much harder to provide evidence to refute them, a fact which Wiltshire Police would be well aware of when setting this hare running.

The Conifer Report is clearly unsatisfactory as it smears the reputation of Edward Heath without providing any basis to form a definitive conclusion about the veracity of the allegations. What is does reveal however is the willingness of a large number of individuals to come forward with accusations against a dead public figure, which even the overly sympathetic victim centred bias of Wiltshire Police, was able to dismiss as false. The seven remaining accusations could not be dismissed only because, unlike the others, there is nothing actually to disprove them. Since there is no positive corroborative evidence either, they cannot be construed as evidence of Heath’s guilt as some conspiracy promoters are claiming.

The report revealed that none of the police protection officers, drivers and work colleagues who guarded Heath when he was a prominent politician and in retirement, found anything untoward in his behaviour. It must be right that the calls for a review and greater analysis of the seven allegations are granted to allow the unwarranted stain on Edward Heath’s reputation to be lifted. If a former prime minister can be besmirched in this way then every man in the country is now at risk from investigators and prosecutors willing, and perhaps eager, to act upon malicious accusations, however delusional or fantastical they might objectively appear. This absurd madcap investigation demonstrates the extent to which the paedophile hysteria has taken root amongst the ruling authorities since the Savile furore. It is to be hoped that we do not have to wait much longer for the deceit of the ITV Exposure hoax to be revealed to a wider public, which might bring an end to this madness. .

Monday, 25 September 2017

Why Brexit must mean Brexit

There seems to be no limit to the attempts by bewildered and angry Remainers to overturn the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. This cabal of international minded corporatists led by the likes of Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Tony Blair, Vince Cable and Nick Clegg still appear to be completely mystified as to why they have lost the arguments over the future direction of Britain. They seem not to understand that there is more to a nation’s self identity and worth than access to a large trading bloc. Fortunately the majority of parliamentarians, some reluctantly, appear to have accepted that if the referendum decision of the electorate is to mean anything then we must exit the single market and customs union. Not to do so will leave us half in and half out of this anti democratic, technocratic, supra-national failing bureaucracy that is fast heading for collapse due to its unsustainable overreach.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is quite right to dismiss the pessimistic ‘Project Fear’ alarmism of the Remainers, and to stress the benefits and gains that will accrue to Britain outside the EU. Hard Brexit means leaving the EU. Soft Brexit means ignoring the result of the referendum and allowing Britain to still remain enmeshed in the tentacles the European Project, a messy attempt at a compromise which satisfies nobody. Under such an arrangement Britain would still be subject to the European Court of Justice and continue to pay vast sums to Brussels. Moreover, we would no longer have any say in the decision making process but would have to continue to accept freedom of movement of people from other EU countries. Remaining part of the customs union would prevent Britain from agreeing trade deals with nations outside the EU that comprise the majority of our international trade.

More important however than the economic and trade consequences is the reclamation of British parliamentary sovereignty that a Hard Brexit will bring. As has been revealed in recent parliamentary debates, over 12, 000 pieces of legislation have been imposed on Britain during the period of EU membership, none of which appears to have received any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. This contempt for democracy which the Remainers wish to preserve, motivated by their disdain of the nation state, must end, and only a Hard Brexit can deliver it. So let Brexit mean Brexit and let there be no shilly-shallying about the matter.

Monday, 21 August 2017

Gay Pride in the Summer of Love

Britain’s equivalent of Pravda, the BBC, mouthpiece of the ruling politically correct class, has recently been enjoying a field day celebrating the 50th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexual relations between men over 21. It was, of course, right to pass this legislation in 1967 to end such a grotesque intrusion into the personal life of British citizens. But although the target has changed, the invasion of privacy by the state into individuals personal sexual relations and behaviour continues, this time with the ideological fervour of self styled ‘progressives’, employing ever widening concepts of ‘abuse’ and ‘vulnerability’ to enforce their political agenda. This post examines how parliamentarians of the mid 1960s viewed the issue of homosexuality and whether there are any comparisons with today’s crusades against forbidden sex.

The sponsor of the private member’s bill which decriminalised adult male homosexual activity was the Labour MP Leo Abse. He reminded MPs that it was a decade since the Wolfenden Committee has recommended the abolition of this offence. He estimated the number of homosexual men to be about 750,000 and pointed out that ‘the law gives them a brutal choice. It offers them either celibacy or criminality, and nothing in between.’ He revealed one surprising statistic, that the number of convictions of adult men who commit homosexual acts in private was about 100 a year, thus ‘there was a 30,000-to-one chance of an illicit act leading to a conviction’ (his maths are a little shaky but his point is still valid).

He continued ‘therefore, we have an unenforceable Act, and it would require a massive recruitment of police and an invasion of privacy which all of us would find quite intolerable before the law could begin to be enforced. It is bad law because it is unenforceable law, and it is bad law because it is utterly random in its application.’ This criticism would apply to many laws today, not only those involving sexual relations, but also illegal drug possession, most notably cannabis. But there is no debate over whether such an invasion of privacy would ever reach the stage of becoming ‘intolerable’, or any concerns about randomness, although of course it still remains the case that laws of this kind, because of the sheer numbers involved, largely remain unenforceable.

Mr Abse drew attention to the effect of the law to ‘stigmatise thousands of our citizens as being outlaws and pariahs, large numbers of people who, apart from this particular aberration, are totally law-abiding.’ He pinpointed a concern of many MPs that there is ‘a dastardly effect of the present law which cannot be under-estimated. It is the fact that blackmail is the ambience which wraps itself around the existing law.’ Some MPs questioned whether blackmailers would disappear given the general abhorrence of homosexuality in wider society at that time, and the wish of many homosexuals to keep their behaviour a secret from their families. Others believed than men who were being blackmailed would now be able to go to the police without the fear of being prosecuted themselves.

The climate of the time was wholly hostile to the practice of homosexuality as demonstrated by Mr Abse’s belief that society ‘should focus on the question of how we can, if it is possible, reduce the number of faulty males in the community. How can we diminish the number of those who grow up to have men's bodies but feminine souls?’ There are shades here of the current transgender debate, but the message is clear from his speech that he considered homosexuality to be an aberration against traditional ideas of masculinity, and that more needed to be done to encourage correct notions of manhood in the raising of boys. Mr Abse concluded that the ‘continuance of the existing law fosters the illusion that solely by punishment we can prevent homosexuality. In my view, the passage of this Bill would free society from much of its morbid preoccupation with punishment. It could release its energies to the more constructive task of fostering family relations in which children can grow up certain of their identity and confident of their own role’. The current agenda for the undermining and confusing of sexual identity, through the promotion of ‘transgenderism’ in children, which dangerously gives encouragement to the delusional belief that the sex they were born into can be changed, was still a long way in the future.

One Conservative MP raised the often asked question ‘we have been told by many people that homosexuals are born. Surely the removal of the deterrent in the form of punishment, such as imprisonment, cannot cause more of them to be born. The reason is, in my view, that the majority of homosexuals are made and not born’. There was a widespread fear at the time, by those opposed to decriminalisation, that this measure would release a pent up desire by many men to engage in homosexual practices. In fact all the evidence since decriminalisation suggests that homosexuals are born not made, although a small minority of heterosexual men may engage in short lived youthful experimentation. As one MP put it ‘there is a hidden assumption among some of the opponents of the Bill that homosexuality is inherently very attractive and more enjoyable than normal sexual relations. They seem to think that once the present law is abolished a lot of previously law-abiding heterosexuals will shout "hurrah" and become homosexuals.’

Some MPs feared there might be some unintended consequences to changing the law, one observing that ‘I think it is worth considering the side effects of the Bill. We should, I presume, get a succession of plays on television and on the stage on the subject. We should get more books on it. We should get more clubs. I believe that the vice would be looked upon as a normal and natural part of our daily life, and all checks would be gone.’ His concerns about this development would in time be realised in full as the gay pride bandwagon rolled ever onwards with the enthusiastic support of the emerging politically correct establishment.

Another Conservative MP, a future cabinet minister, in support of the legislation observed that ‘the present law seems to have almost everything possible wrong with it. It is unjust, unenforceable, hypocritical, illogical and an invitation to further crime. It is unjust because it singles out, quite arbitrarily a particular set of people for their particular habits. It is unenforceable because there are too many of these people to enable the law to be enforced. It is hypocritical because everyone knows homosexuals and everyone knows that there are homosexuals in all walks of life. The law is illogical because it treats male homosexuality as more damaging to the social fabric or the nation's bloodstream than female homosexuality or adultery, as though it is uniquely anti-social.’ This summarised the conflict between the private behaviour of individuals and the collective values of wider society. It raised the question to what extent should the law invade the sphere of private life to police the concerns, often exaggerated, of those with a moralistic, ideological, scaremongering or controlling agenda on appropriate sexual expression.

This fear of a backlash by wider society was voiced by a Tory MP opposing the change in these terms ‘the trouble is that the law is accepted by the community, rightly or wrongly, as representing the moral standards and the strength of the social fabric. This House cannot right a wrong just by changing the law. It has to consider the psychological implications on society of this House coming forward, as the public will see it and saying that we are giving our blessing to sexual licence, and to a practice which you regard as abominable.’ With the arrival of gay pride as a pillar of the politically correct establishment, anyone rash enough to denounce the practice of homosexuality today as ‘abominable’ would be immediately branded ‘homophobic’, and could risk having his collar felt by the police for a ‘hate crime’. Society has moved from one form of state repression to another that is equally pernicious.

Some MPs feared a change in the law could lead to the public promotion of homosexuality (which is what soon happened), one doubting that ‘even the most doughty champion of the Bill would deny that many male homosexuals are of the proselytising type. Even they have very great misgivings about the propensity of homosexuals to try to spread their practice among others. I do not think that that can be denied. To make such a denial would be to go back on the principle on which the clauses increasing penalties for corruption of young people are based.’ The Bill included a provision to increase the prison sentence from two years to five years for those engaging in homosexual acts with males under the age of 21. The now sainted Alan Turing’s conviction involved a 19 year old, but although there is no talk now of the ‘corruption’ of young people by behaviour such as his, all MPs during the debate supported the increased penalties for acts of this kind which were then seen as predatory. This only goes to prove that paranoia over sexual expression and behaviour can change over time, depending on which groups are most vocal in promoting their agenda, and without necessarily being based on evidence or investigation into whether any harm is caused.

One Labour MP, a doctor, raised the concern ‘we all condemn the fact that many homosexuals contract venereal diseases’. Just over a decade later the rampant promiscuity of homosexuals would see thousands dying from Aids with many more needing permanent costly treatment to tackle the effects of being HIV positive. The BBC programmes celebrating the change in public attitudes to homosexuality rarely question whether homosexuals should accept responsibility for the adverse consequences of their behaviour, focussing instead on the traumatic effects that were tragically, unpredictably and unfairly visited upon the gay community by these kinds of infections.

A Conservative MP supporting the Bill raised the issue of privacy pointing out that the law ‘can be made effectively and universally enforceable only at the price of a police state, of a degree of supervision of private life which this country, even in its most puritanical periods, has never been prepared to accept.’ Whilst this observation is undoubtedly true, there are many parliamentarians and opinion formers today who are quite content for the state to micromanage private and personal relationships of the increasing numbers deemed to be ‘vulnerable’, and believed to be at risk of becoming a ‘victim’ of ever widening definitions of ‘sexual abuse’. But they never describe this intrusion into personal behaviour as a move towards a police state, which in effect is what this kind of crusade is now in danger of becoming.

The legislation allowing the change in the law was a private member’s bill but was supported by the Labour government. The Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, spoke during the debate, firmly supporting the view that ‘homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should no longer be subject to the penalties and processes of the criminal law’. He continued ‘I believe that whatever our views about particular forms of conduct, there has to be a very clear social purpose served before it is right to subject private conduct to the rigours of the criminal law. The present law is manifestly unsuccessful and capricious in its incidence. It certainly does not deal with homosexual behaviour, let alone stamp it out. There is certainly no evidence whatever that homosexuality has increased in those countries which have relaxed the law. The present law certainly does not discourage homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality cannot be described as a disease in the sense that it can be cured; it is a disability. The capricious way in which the law operates, ruins the lives of a relatively small number of homosexuals by subjecting them in a quite irrational and arbitrary way to the terrifying penalties of the law, terrifying not because of the criminal penalties, but because of the ruinous consequences.’

The Home Secretary’s views chimed with the humane outlook of the time based on the civilised notion that the state should stay out of the role of policing private behaviour, harassing its citizens and ruining their lives in pursuit of a political or religious agenda. In recent decades we have seen the rise of a zealous ideological stridency, this time led by self styled ‘progressives’, in which the target has moved from homosexual to heterosexual men, who now find themselves having to defend themselves against the ever increasing reach of legislation and propaganda that stigmatises normal male sexual attraction and behaviour as a dangerous pathology. There always seem to be elements in society who crave the need to target, demonise and humiliate artificially created scapegoats, against whom self righteous individuals can parade their superior moral virtues, this time through a crusade against exaggerated victimhood.

Tuesday, 1 August 2017

Policing teenagers

As part of the File on 4 radio series the BBC recently broadcast the story of a youth in his early teens who came out as gay and as a consequence became the subject of online approaches by adult men. The agenda behind the programme was to condemn the response of the police and to question ‘whether they have been slow to get to grips with cases of child exploitation when they involve boys’. The BBC has for decades been promoting homosexuality as a perfectly normal and natural, almost commendable, form of sexual expression. More recently the corporation has become equally zealous in furthering the hysteria over paedophilia that has become the main money-spinner for children’s charities. This programme brought together the agenda for the promotion of homosexuality with the paranoia over paedophilia that warrants some consideration.

The programme centred around Yorkshire schoolboy Ben who at the age of 13 announced on Facebook that he was gay. This came as a shock to his parents who thought that he was a bit young to make such a decision publicly. However, they accepted the situation but warned him to be careful ‘as there are some nasty people out there’. Previous to his announcement Ben had many school friends but they all melted away when his homosexuality was revealed. We are constantly being told by the politically correct class that attitudes to homosexuality have changed out of all recognition in recent times. However, the response of Ben’s schoolmates suggests that many people still take a different view to the establishment line on this matter.

Because he had been shunned by his school fellows Ben felt isolated and started to search online for youths of about his own age who might be gay. At no time in the programme is Ben ever criticised for the many foolhardy and irresponsible actions he took. Instead he is presented as a helpless victim of events beyond his control. Quite soon Ben is sending out naked photos of himself to an older teenager, and is being contacted by adult men looking for sex. As a result Ben contacted Childline who in turn informed the police. Two police officers visited Ben and advised him not to send out naked photos again, the issue which Ben was mainly concerned about as the older teenager had started to blackmail him. The police took no action on the advances of the older men as Ben himself was less concerned about this. In the words of Ben ‘he did not think this much of an issue’.

So Ben continued to chat online with the older men and agreed to meet up with some of them. Ben’s behaviour started to change and his relationship with his parents began to deteriorate, and there was also a detrimental impact on his schoolwork. However, at this stage the parents were still unaware of the extent of Ben’s activities. They would soon find out as his school had discovered that he had been meeting up with men for sex during his lunch breaks. The police were called and his mobile phone and laptop were confiscated. Ben claimed that his mental state began to deteriorate and he started to self harm. He blamed the men whom he was meeting for ‘brainwashing’ him into this sexual activity, in so doing absolving himself of all responsibility for his potentially deleterious actions.

By now all the major safeguarding agencies had become involved but according to the programme ‘had failed to get a grip’. It was alleged that these agencies didn’t treat the sexual exploitation of boys with the same seriousness as that against girls. The parents started to blame themselves for what happened and warned the men contacting Ben to keep away from him. Ben however was still meeting them and even travelled to London to stay the weekend with one of his contacts. On this occasion the police were called who tracked Ben down, taking him to a police station where his parents had to make the long journey to London to collect him.

The police informed the parents of the large cost of the operation to find Ben involving several police forces. At the same time the police warned Ben that he was the ‘facilitator’ and that if it wasn’t for his age they would not be investigating the matter. They also threatened him with being placed in a ‘secure unit’ if he did not change his behaviour as he was wasting police time and money. In the programme the parents are outraged by this police response, failing to acknowledge that Ben’s reckless behaviour could be a contributory factor. Ben himself stated that the police ‘didn’t want to help him and just considered him to be a nuisance’. Ben, like his parents, takes no responsibility for his own behaviour, describing himself as ‘vulnerable’.

Although Ben’s parents now start to take more responsibility to prevent Ben seeking out men, Ben himself still manages to continue seeing them. Another meeting is arranged between the parents and the police, where Ben is again accused of being a facilitator and that they do not have the resources to monitor him until he reaches the age of 16. This response appalled the parents, who still viewed Ben as a blameless victim. According to a police memo the case officer recorded that ‘I get the impression that the family only see Ben as a victim, and are blinkered to the fact that he is partially responsible for instigating the offences himself.’ A ‘child protection expert’ recruited by the BBC blamed this outlook on police prejudice against ‘gay young men who want to experiment with sex and go out looking for it’. The BBC’s expert denounced this as a ‘dangerous’ viewpoint, without providing any evidence, analysis or arguments to back up this opinion. Despite the police’s concern about Ben’s behaviour and the impact on time and resources, in practice, the police continued to investigate the ‘grooming’ behaviour of men targeting Ben, covering a period of several years.

It should be realised that this radio programme was a one sided piece of propaganda in which the BBC controlled all the information provided to the listener. For example, we never get to hear how Ben presented himself on social media and whether he notified his contacts of his true age. There was plenty of criticism of the police for failing to investigate the men who were supposedly ‘grooming’ Ben, despite Ben himself not being much troubled by their attentions.

Grooming is a 21st century legal term coined as a result of the spreading paranoia over teenage sexual activity. In popular parlance it is called ‘chatting up’, a preliminary ritual in which young men flatter reluctant young ladies in the hope of eventually ‘scoring’ with them. However, homosexuals rarely do chatting up, since both parties being promiscuous they pretty soon quickly get down to business. The criminalisation of chatting up teenagers now means that it is an offence for an 18 year old youth to ask a 15 year old girl for a date, as the authorities now deem this to be ‘evidence’ of ‘grooming’ and thus a sexual offence.

Although physically now an adult, in the programme Ben is repeatedly described as either a ‘boy’ or a ‘child’, and the message is repeatedly conveyed that he is a helpless victim who requires the open ended involvement of the safeguarding authorities, regardless of the time, cost or effort involved. Coming out as gay was presented in the programme as being nothing more than a label, or a badge, supporting a favoured minority group, with the implicit message that Ben had demonstrated honesty and courage in publicly displaying his sexual orientation. What the programme failed to realise however was that coming out as gay meant in practice that Ben now believed that he had reached an age when he wished to engage in sexual relations with other males. So it should have really come as no surprise that as soon as he was provided with an opportunity to do so, he quickly put his sexual orientation into practice by willingly engaging in sex with the men who had contacted him. This is what being gay is all about and Ben through his recklessness, willingly and repeatedly assumed the role of a rent boy.

There is no doubt that Ben behaved foolishly in engaging in sexual relation with men he hardly knew, as he could easily have become infected with sexually transmitted diseases (STD), which because of their often rampant promiscuity, homosexual men are much more likely to suffer from than the general population. But the BBC showed no concern about the risk from STDs since it would stigmatise homosexuals, and thus be contrary to their agenda of always presenting gay people in a positive light. Instead they focussed on the ‘abuse’ that Ben was supposedly facing. However, the police in a rare display of realism, rightly recognised that Ben was a willing participant in the sexual activity with older men, and because of this they were castigated for the crime of telling the truth and not sticking to the approved script of combating the ‘abuse’.

The safeguarding authorities take the view that all instances of sexual activity involving teenagers below the age of consent constitutes ‘sexual abuse’, regardless of whether they were willing participants, or whether they were harmed in any way. Enormous publicity is given to middle aged adults claiming that they were ‘abused’ ‘over a period of years’ when they were in their teens. They can do this safely under cover of anonymity and it is impossible to challenge or investigate their accounts. We are never told why they continued to collude in the ‘abuse’ without taking the obvious and easily achievable steps to put a stop to it. In conformity with this agenda the wider media never investigate or challenge the collusion of these often compensation seeking ‘victims’.

During the programme Ben, against all the evidence, continued to insist that he was a blameless victim, a vulnerable teenager brainwashed by these demonised men. But we were never told what harm he experienced through his willing sexual encounters, just a repetition that he had been a victim of ‘abuse’ in conformity with children’s charities money minting agenda that sexual activity becomes a psychological pathology whenever engaged in by young teens. The degree to which state authorities now consider it appropriate to micromanage the personal lives of young teenagers is invasive, intrusive as well as pointless given the vast numbers of individuals involved practicing this state disapproved behaviour.

Monday, 12 June 2017

Election 2017 blues

The outcome of Teresa May’s snap election has come as a big disappointment to those on the right of British politics. Far from achieving the landslide predicted at the time she called the election, the Tories have been left without an overall majority. Her authority as Conservative leader has been seriously diminished. So what went wrong?

To look on the bright side the Conservatives achieved nearly 60 more seats than Labour, they won both the largest share, and total vote, of any party in recent elections, and they ended all talk of a second Scottish independence referendum for the foreseeable future. Although the Tories lack an overall majority, the parliamentary arithmetic is still in their favour as the seven Sinn Fein members will not be attending parliament. In addition, she can count on the support of the ten Democratic Unionists, so in practical terms she has the backing of about 328 members, whereas the combined strength of the opposition parties can never exceed 315, thus giving the Tories a working majority of around 13.

With the benefit of hindsight it becomes easier to see the folly of Teresa May and her party becoming beguiled by favourable opinion poll ratings, and underestimating how they could melt away in the heat of a campaign. What has now become apparent is that Teresa May’s political style is managerial, lacking the human engagement with the electorate to win them over when the going gets tough. She appeared robotic and uncomfortable in interviews, and by ducking the leadership debates she gave the impression of being both ‘frit’ and arrogant at the same time. In contrast Jeremy Corbyn proved adept at campaigning and winning over audiences, in contrast to his often plodding parliamentary performances.

The ostensible reason for calling the election was to strengthen Teresa May’s hand in the negotiations on leaving the EU. However, in practice the focus on this objective was quickly overtaken by other issues, in particular Labour’s stress on ending austerity, the under-funding of public services and the failure of the Tories to raise living standards for ordinary people. The two terrorist atrocities allowed Labour to point the finger at Tory cuts in police manpower. In their complacency, the Tories alienated older supporters with ill thought out proposals for the funding of social care and the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment for most pensioners. In contract Labour could entice young voters with the abolition of tuition fees. At the end of the day little positive reasons were provided in the manifesto for people to vote Tory. Their strategy can be summarised as trust Teresa May as she is clearly more competent than the unelectable extremist Jeremy Corbyn, whom they proceeded to demonise with the aid and support of their press backers. Unfortunately for the Tories insufficient members of the electorate were persuaded by these negative tactics.

So what of the future? The main task remains a satisfactory outcome in the negotiations to leave the European Union. The election outcome should have no impact on this as the only parliamentary vote will be on whether to accept the final agreement reached. The Tories will need to do more to end low pay, improve public services, reverse the fall in home ownership, and make a more determined effort to reduce uncontrolled immigration, in particular of Muslims through arranged marriages. Unfortunately, the Conservatives commitment to introduce more grammar schools now looks a lot more problematic, given the lukewarm approach of some Tory MPs.

With regard to the other parties, Jeremy Corbyn should be congratulated for increasing the Labour vote by nearly ten per cent when many pundits, including the majority of his MPs, had written him off at the start of the campaign. Although sincere and straight talking he remains a deeply unsavoury character with his past sympathy for IRA terrorist objectives, toleration of Islamist fanatics, and admiration for repugnant or dysfunctional Marxist regimes such as those of Castro and Chavez. He would be more than happy to flood Britain with immigrants from all parts of the globe, and his reflex public obsequiousness towards ethnic minority people and their often regressive practices, and sometimes degenerate culture, is nothing more than nauseating virtue signalling.

Despite all this Labour still managed to produce some sensible policies. Gas, electricity and water are all natural monopolies, and their privatisation has provided only fake competition and negligible benefits. It cannot be right that young people are saddled with huge debts for a university education. Unfettered globalisation appears to have enriched those who caused the financial crash with obscene telephone number bonuses, yet impoverished still further those with the least skills at the bottom end of society.

As for the minor parties, UKIP is clearly finished having served its purpose. It may have a residual role as a pressure group for a clean British EU exit if Nigel Farage is prepared to resume the leadership. The Liberal Democrats plan to scupper Brexit with a second referendum thankfully gained no traction and the party remains an irrelevance. The Green Party continues on the fringe of British politics where it belongs. Although environmental protection is important the Greens’ infatuation with the ludicrous and discredited climate change hoax means they cannot be taken seriously about anything.

In conclusion, the Tories should make the best of the hand they have been dealt. There should be no backsliding on leaving the European Union, including withdrawal from the single market and customs union and ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Until the Brexit negotiations have been successfully completed, nothing would be gained by a change in the Conservative leadership, and an early general election might lead to still more support for the Labour party. So the Tories should stay united, get on with governing the country and demonstrate that they can deliver administrative and economic competence.

Monday, 5 June 2017

President Trump gives a lead

Politicians sometimes like to proclaim that it is necessary for them to provide a lead in order that an outcome that is ultimately beneficial to society is achieved. President Trump has shown in no uncertain terms his willingness to demonstrate such a lead when he pulled the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement. It is to be hoped that other countries follow suit, in particular President Putin of Russia who has always appeared lukewarm over the global warming agenda.

Needless to say Trump’s wise decision to confront reality on this matter has provoked predictable howls of outrage from European Union leaders, who have been the most vocal supporters of the failed theory that increases in CO2 emissions lead to a rise in global temperatures resulting in uncontrollable climate change. In fact the reality has been that for the past two centuries, since the end of the ‘little ice age’ which saw frost fairs held on the Thames, there has been remarkably little change in global temperature despite a considerable increase in CO2 emissions. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the next couple of centuries will similarly show little change in global temperatures.

Supporters of the climate change hoax point out that 95% of scientists believe that climate change is a ‘reality’. What they fail to point out is that in the 1970s 95% of scientists believed that CO2 emissions were not a problem that would lead to rising global temperatures. Indeed some of the more vocal climatologists, as shown here http://bit.ly/27RaoNr, were concerned instead that we were heading for a new ice age, on the grounds that global temperatures had been on a falling trend during the previous thirty years. It should also be remembered that the discovery that CO2 was a greenhouse gas took place in the late 19th century, but only became problematic for scientists a century later.

Promoters of climate change alarmism invariably cite more extreme weather phenomena, which always occur, albeit infrequently, as ‘evidence’ of climate change. For example a few years back Britain was subjected to a prolonged drought which the alarmist pundits blamed on global warming. But later when the problem was reversed and severe flooding occurred, these same pundits also blamed global warming as the cause. Climate change means that the climate of a country is gradually moving in one direction, in this instance either becoming drier, or wetter. It cannot be both and constitute a change in climate. So the alarmists are confusing extreme weather variables as supposed evidence of a trend towards a changing climate. It should never be forgotten that the motivation for the climate change hoax is political one, not a search for scientific truth.