Professor Sapient

Ray Gosling - The Man Who Never Stops Fighting - Euthanasia, Murder, False Allegations and Endgame

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 05:53:42 PDT

I am lucky enough to be able to say I know Ray Gosling, and for all his eccentricities he is a man of passion and conviction who exudes a quiet strength that is rarely seen today.

You can imagine then the shock with which I received the news of his part in the death of a suffering lover.

Not, I must add, so much shock that he had been part of this act of mercy, but that with all his experience of the UK justice system that he should open himself up to attack.

He has, of course, always been a fighter, all gay men and other disadvantaged groups, including myself, owe him a debt of thanks, although many younger folk would sadly not even know why.

His work, colleagues and the importance of CHE (Campaign for Homosexual Equality) has previously been recognised in 2004 by Manchester City Council. An important recognition no doubt, but I cannot help feeling that sadly, within 10 years, the very community that he and others like him laid the foundations for, will no longer know, or care, why the freedoms they enjoy, are available to them.

What is perhaps more galling than anything is that a 20 year relationship between CHE and Liberty has now ended, quite recently, and in response to the call for action on historical abuse claims CHE requested and Liberty stated was not even open to discussion.

This is a cause Ray Gosling and Alan Horsfall have passionately fought for this past ten years or more and it would be a shame if this was overshadowed by the revelation today has brought. I have to question whether there is a link between the two, Ray states on his site the following:

GAY MONITOR LATEST

Ray writes...
I am very depressed and wondering quite how we can carry on.
The cases keep coming in – trickle by trickle – and we have folk we’ve been with through their terribletimes to care for / keep in touch with.

We went quite strongly last year to push the case for some STATUTE OF LIMITATION – writing to the press and gay groups across the land. We have dear Antony Grey a stalwart on our side and the support of CHE.

But others are lukewarm to hostile including Peter Tatchell.

When it comes to Europe and the USA we don’t know what we are talking about in any real factual way and no one will come forward to help us. In fact we don’t know how many cases happen in the UK nationwide – and nor do any relevant departments of Government.

I am very depressed and I’m 71 years old with how much more energy?

The link may well be the need to call attention to his ongoing work, coupled with the apparent cry for help above, borne by the hardship Ray has suffered personally, and no doubt, the suffering of others he has witnessed, this may indicate that he is still as caring, thinking and socially conscious as he ever was, despite age and exhaustion.

I would have said long may that continue, but I can't.

This revelation, guaranteed to provoke a reaction in the semi police state of the UK will truly test the "no such thing as bad publicity" idea to the edges. This places Ray at the centre of a current and difficult topic, one that we cannot get our collective head around as a society.

Ultimately, I believe the right to die is singularly ours and ours alone, and that it should be easier. Ray obviously has sympathy with that view. The result of this furore may be disaster. He will know this all to well, media veteran that he is.

He has stated quite clearly that he does not wish to make a crusade of this, and already doubt is being cast on the veracity of the story.

I can only hope that his promise not to tell the police even if "tortured" is a true one. His continuing fight against current injustices has made him enemies politically and in the force and I imagine hands being rubbed with glee in some quarters, shamefully so.

There is a certain ironic twist that a man who has spent the best part of his life fighting a hostile system should hand himself over to that very system so seemingly easy. Beggars the question what is his agenda here?

Can this be an attempt to re-engage the public with a veteran reporter who in his own words fell victim to a paucity of glamour over substance, allowing him to bring to the front the types of injustice he historically and currently still fights for?

Perhaps his age has caused him to recognise the need for a change in the law in time to prevent him, like so many others face daily, the ignominy and cruelty of dying slowly and painfully in stages of despair?

I am sure as the events unfold all wil be revealed. He is a clever man, allowing me to take comfort from the thought that whatever the agenda is, he will probably come away from it in one piece.

Ultimately, for all his courage and strength over the years, his epitaph should read defender of human rights and gay campaigner not murderer, and it would be a terrible thing if it didn't.

Music and Film Companies Should Awaken to the Realities of 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:22:44 PDT

My interest was piqued today by the article in the telegraph and the times here and here. Its an old chestnut the issue of illegal downloading of content, but it appears that the capitulation of governments to the overweening and overblown music and film industry is set to continue as Europe and world wide initiatives swing ponderously into action.

I find this all a bit galling when in 2007 the US box office takings amounted to $9.6 billion up 5% on the previous year and part of a trend expected to continue.

Worldwide box office takings also rose to an all-time high of $26.7bn, a figure which only makes the whinging about piracy sound even more pathetic.

I think they should shut up and get on with it, especially considering the recently engineered format wars over Blu Ray and HD that echoes the old VHS/Beta squabbles of the eighties. The only loser in this is the consumer. As an avid collector of film I again see the writing on the wall with my nigh on 2000 DVD's being the equivalent of a bunch of VHS in a few years. Its so upsetting that once again an new format arrives, is grossly overpriced and gives the film industry another excuse to rehash old products that you can get for £2.99 on DVD but cost £24.99 on Blu Ray.

This is bad for a number of reasons. Firstly people will of course buy Blu Ray and replace favourite DVD's over time, but think of the waste! All that plastic, an environmental nightmare in the making.

The solution, retailers should be forced, along with distributors and film makers to organise a recycle facility where if you take in your old DVD of Mission Impossible then you get a copy on Blu Ray for a fiver.

Secondly, in theory you have already paid for the right to own and watch a particular film, so why have to pay for it again?

The solution, as above, with the prices reflecting the reality.

Thirdly, despite illegal downloading happening they are still making a profit and my time in the film business has taught me that people want to own the original. They will pay for it, even if they have seen it. So what's the fuss about in the first place.

Its about control, they want to milk the product by controlling the streams of income as and when they facilitate them. Of course they do and rightly so, but that only works if the realities of content availability in 2008 is taken into account. Whilst the major players fart around with region encoding (so only certain discs work in certain countries), staggered release dates and different windows of availability for different delivery structures (Cable, Satellite, DVD,Blu Ray et al) Joe public will happily download the film illegally in the sheer frustration caused waiting for the months away from release for the film they require.

An excellent example is House, the brilliant series with Hugh Lawrie, Season four is not out until October, nearly a year since season three and way after it's television premiers.

Like wise "The Mist" a fun adaptation of a Stephen King book that has yet to see the light of day in the UK but is available in the US already.

This appalling treatment of their core customers marks the film industry as a slumbering giant, resting on it's own laurels and not racing to be ahead of technological advances and differentiating their marketing strategy accordingly.

End region coding, standardise release dates, be brave enough to recognise that the person who goes to see a film at the cinema is not necessarily the same one who buys the Blu Ray or watches it on Sky and speed up the release to the home market of all films.

They also might wish to consider making some better product as well!

Meanwhile the music industry is experiencing the opposite and as this article in the times illustrates, it is new forms of music distribution that are giving the corporates such a headache.

It is a mess of their own making, as with film they have been cumbersome at addressing the needs of the new millennium and are now paying the price. They have ripped us off for years and now they have the cheek to act aggrieved? People have already bought the same songs numerous times on records, cassettes, eight tracks and CD's, it is hardly surprising that people feel comfortable with downloading songs illegally, they have a certain right to.

The music industry must wake up quickly to save itself from itself. If artists and bands, fuelled by the freedom an internet distribution centre offers them, see this as a chance to cut out the big guys, then they should. The big guys better get with the programme and find new ways of offering quality product at the right price.

The EU, Governments and ISP's should stop interfering and let the wheels of business grind on, the strongest will survive and the weakest will fall. Utilising legislative power to frighten and coerce people into compliance with these business behemoths is not their job, and if that is true then there is an ulterior motive, and its probably about surveillance and keeping checks on Joe Public, not on saving the bedraggled music industry from its own sorry self.

In 2008, we can download any content that can be made downloadable, now get over it, respond with a new business model that attracts us, your customers, back to you, or be prepared to sink under the weight of your own arrogance and ineptitude.

In the final analysis it seems that their is an easier way to force them forward. Instead of increasing the time an item remains copyrighted, we should decrease it. It's currently 100 years. Lets make it 10. A chance for all to make some good money but after that it is in the public domain, then they may sit up and take notice.

Time People Said No to the Nannying Ninnies of the Child Protection Industry

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:20:21 PDT

Three articles that seem to have some form of convergence to me. The Times on family courts and the Telegraph on child overprotection and the CRB fiasco in the making.

If the appearance of these three articles does not signify the inexorable slide into a police state that we are witnessing I am hard pushed to say what is. Beginning with the dreadful news that innocent people have been wrongly identified as having criminal tendencies by that quango the Criminal Records Bureau. Their response to this is as follows.

"The CRB is acknowledged as an improvement on previous checking arrangement, although checks which do not correctly reveal a persons true criminal record are still clearly regrettable - even if they do represent a tiny proportion of all CRB checks."

Regrettable! Of all the mealy mouthed responses. In our vengeance soaked current culture; shit has a tendency to stick, and I can only hope that those people who find themselves falsely identified can get redress quickly. This I doubt will happen, but when it does, large amounts of compensation should be paid for their troubles, and I mean large. It is not regrettable to those it happens to, I imagine it is devastating and this is not the first time it has happened. Over 3000 people caught in errors by bureaucrats. They should be ashamed.

This checking garbage has evolved into a money making scam, long past its original intention and now a divisive and dangerous virus that attacks social cohesion. The Telegraph readers observations of the paranoia of overprotection that we seem so singularly gripped by, highlights well the current mood in regards to this issue. Read the comments and you will see, hopefully with some surprise, that they too are fed up with it all.

The article continues:

"Ministers are planning a massive increase in the number of criminal records checks carried out on members of the public. The number of checks processed annually by CRB has risen from 1.5 million in 2002-04 to almost three million over the past year.

Under future plans, more than 11 million adults - one in four of the adult population in England - will have to be vetted and registered on the authority's database."

Has the UK fallen asleep, nodded off or gone to meet the choir invisible? The Home Office estimat e that a quarter of the male population have a criminal record of one kind or another. That figure was for 2001 and goodness knows how many there are now with all the legislation that has been passed and the erosion of justice we have seen. Certainly more, and certainly for less.

The checks reveal all, not just convictions, but suspicions and so called soft intelligence that are gathered by the police, social workers et al. This culture of suspicion has reached epidemic proportions and needs to be stopped. Paranoia and policy do not good bedfellows make and I suspect that a lot of people will simply refuse to work with children or the vulnerable.

The Telegraphs article reveals a horrifying situation in the family courts that must be addressed. The secrecy is strangling justice. Many cases have highlighted to me the failings in this division of our justice system, unfortunately they are all anecdotal and supplied by the likes of PAFAA and FASO who struggle valiantly against the over zealousness of some police and social services employees.

The convergence is in the common thread of suspicion and myth that allies the overprotective nature of the child abuse industry and the family courts. As Camilla Cavendish states in her excellent article:

Bill Bache, the indefatigable solicitor who acted for Sally Clark, explained it to me this way. “Court proceedings are initiated within a day or two. The local authority knows the ropes. Most parents, including the brightest and most articulate, are often too distressed and shocked to think straight. They may well turn up unrepresented. The local authority makes its case, often in lurid terms, stressing that the children are in acute danger and they are requesting an immediate interim care order. There is no time sensibly to evaluate the evidence, therefore, no doubt wishing to be safe rather than sorry, the court grants the order. Suddenly the children are gone.”

Here we have the classic storytelling scenario, make it lurid, dirty and damn the outcome for those involved. When it comes to the perceived safety of children it is again and again seen to be the cause of devastation and miscarriages of justice. For this to occur in secret is a double damnation for the innocent caught in the claws of the child protection industry.

The slightest touch, inappropriate look or utterance could well have you branded as a danger to children and that suspicion could well grow to be so much more. As we have seen in the criminal courts the paranoia we have in regards to children and the vulnerable has led to miscarriages of justice through the undermining of rules of law that have stood us in good stead for years.

This appears to be happening in the family courts also, but when the government, the NSPCC and other players in this industry fail to recognise, even with the cases in the public spotlight for all to see, that a witch hunt is occurring, it will take years to change anything. In the family courts that change may never occur at all.

So a suspicion that you are unsuitable as an individual to work with the young/vulnerable, can see you arrested, detained and charged on the word of one person. Or as a parent/carer in general that suspicion will drag you into the Kafkaesque nightmare that the family courts are detailed to be.

That suspicion could be raised by anyone, anonymously if needs be, and for a variety of reasons from malice to an error in judgement of what was seen or believed to have been seen. Once tainted, never cleaned. Any CRB that follows will when requested exhibit this suspicion, and you are probably totally innocent.

So what exactly is my beef? Well, first off this idea of vulnerable people is simply too wide in its definition. According to the Law Commission:

The Law Commission have suggested a broad definition of a vulnerable person, as someone of 16 years or over who:

is or may be in need of community care services by reason of mental or other disability, age or illness; and

who is or may be unable to take care of him or herself, or unable to protect him or herself against significant harm or exploitation.

It is the last bit that does it, a charter for interference by any do gooder with a fanatical need to justify their own existence through aiding others.

Secondly the definition of a child is as follows

The Children Act 1989 states the legal definition of a child is ‘a person under the age of 18’. ‘Young person’ is not a legal term, for the purposes of the policy and procedures, a young person is someone who might not perceive themselves as a child, but who is still in the age range of the legal definition, and therefore fall within the term ‘child’.

Which is utter tosh of course. people over 16 are not by any stretch of the imagination children. They may behave childishly but that is a different matter. Requiring anyone who works with 16-18 year olds to be criminally record checked is a waste of time. Currently teachers, lecturers and others are criminalised for having sex with people in this age group whilst the rest of the population is not. So much for equal application of the rule of law.

We should call for an immediate change in the law so that people over 16 are no longer categorised as children, but adults. Then we can forget having to check anyone who comes into contact with them and save lots of cash all round. Now we can remove the passage from the vulnerable adults statement above. So far so good, or is it?

Next we must exclude irrelevant offences from the checks and only allow convictions to be reported. Not arrests, acquittals, successfully appealed cases and certainly not soft intelligence or mere accusations. In fact, lets make a criminal record part of an individuals right to a private life, so that they never have to disclose it unless the conviction has a direct correlation with the activity they are undertaking. You wouldn't be able to conceal a fraud conviction if applying to work in a bank for example.

That would allow focus on those who wish to make a life for themselves after conviction and would help ensure limiting re-offending by opening up possibilities for employment or learning.

Then we will have a purge of the records so that only verdicts of guilty remain on file in regards to CRB activities. I have no problem with the police keeping information, they obviously have to, they just cannot tell anyone about it.

We need to open up the family courts, and that's easy enough to do, the press can report the case detail without using names and perhaps with a little thought that is how all cases should be reported until conviction. Stop feeding prurient interests I say. Where required a judge could order the case an open one, protecting not only the public interest but those of the defendant.

Next, a full and frank investigation into the working of the NSPCC and other child advocate organisations who seem to be totally out of control and living in a world that is populated by Demons.

Finally, I look to you dear reader, it is time to say no to the nannying ninnies of the child protection industry, I do, have joined the Manifesto Clubs Campaign against vetting and would urge you to do the same.

Say no, next time you are asked to get a CRB when you are not directly involved with under 16's or vulnerable people for a significant amount of time.

Encourage other to say no, lets spread the word. You never know, we may be able to turn back the clock to times when we trusted each other, nurtured those in need instead of stifling them in cotton wool and actively encouraging suspicion and distrust.

We leave a legacy of fractured intergenerational relationships to our children and grandchildren if we do not, and avoiding that should be our goal.

Christian Chickens Come Home to Roost

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:28:53 PDT

There is something awfully delicious about the news that anti gay activist Stephen Green has had his prophetic ass kicked.

I know its terribly naughty, but I just cannot help taking joy from this whole thing, of course, I feel suitably guilty for doing so, but mmmmmm it's delicious. To add insult to injury there is this marvellous YouTube video where he interprets being shit on by a seagull as a sign from God, I kid you not.

In a statement from the website of Christian Voice the interfering god botherer whines about the state of affairs that has erupted from his pitiful attempt to charge the Director General of the BBC with blasphemy.

'It should be enough for Mark Thompson and Jonathan Thoday that they got away with blasphemy, insulting God and the Lord Jesus Christ, at least in this life. For these rich, powerful men to pursue me into the bankruptcy courts over money I don't have would be vindictive.'

What an arrogant chap he is! Firstly Mr Green, Mark and Jonathan did not get away with anything, they won you ninny, yes, beat you, roundly trounced your ridiculous action and in the process gave immense joy to the likes of me who find your anti gay activities distasteful and outdated claptrap.

Secondly, whether they are rich or powerful is besides the point. You wouldn't go to a top class restaurant, gorge yourself stupid then bet your mate on a toss of a coin the price of the meal unless you had the money would you? It just goes to illustrate the righteous cause mentality that drove you to believe you could not possibly lose the case, subsequently allowing you to do just that.

Thirdly, your definition of vindictive is obviously a one sided affair considering the hate you spout about gay people and I can only hope that this has taught you a well needed lesson. Unfortunately the tenor of your statement above seems to show otherwise.

He continues:

'How are people with limited means expected to bring actions of public importance against public bodies or wealthy people? It is outrageous that a public-spirited individual should be dissuaded from upholding standards of public decency in a public body because of the fear of adverse, grotesque costs orders.'

Public, the public Mr Greene? Surely you mean the latest group of noisy ne'er-do-wells blabbering on about their particular fairy in the sky, acting as if they have a messianic remit to impose a group delusion on the rest of us.

Public, public decency Mr Greene? Surely you mean the decency of a group of bigots obsessed with where, when and up whom a man puts his willy.

Public, public spirited Mr Greene? The action was anything but, God, whoever he is, whether he is and whatever he is; does not need your help. He has survived since time immemorial in one form or another. Mean spirited is the term you need, as in "Having or characterized by a malicious or petty spirit.".

Ergo, some would say it's actually a good thing that mean spirited bigots like you should be dissuaded from taking such actions. If you were right you would have won, wouldn't you?

Maybe a bit of bankruptcy will teach you some humility and with a bit of luck force the closure of your (in my opinion) vile site.

If that should occur and you do find yourself a bit strapped for cash can I recommend a career at Heinz, something makes me think you would fit right in.

Heinz Used to Mean Beans, Now it Means Bigots

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:53:14 PDT

I can imagine that just when the gay community begins to relax they are rather miffed that this can happen.

Coming right after the disgusting comments from Irish MP Iris Robinson this illustrates perfectly two opposites of homophobia, the obvious (rancid Robinson) and the not so obvious (Heinz capitulating to bigots and intolerance for the sake of a few pounds)

In truth, the latter is by far the worst as the PM can and will hopefully chastise this vile woman immediately. The link to the petition on-line shows a good number (over 7000) of names and that is heartening.

When we come to Heinz the case is not so straightforward and reeks of old fashioned ideology in regards to gay people. To whit:

"The corporation decided to withdraw the light-hearted Deli Mayo commercial within days of its launch because it was "listening to its consumers"."

It wasn't, not really, it was listening to the intolerant and embarrassed, consumers they may have been but that is a secondary concern.

"The ASA said viewers had complained that the Heinz scene depicting two men giving each other a quick kiss goodbye was "offensive", "inappropriate" and "unsuitable to be seen by children"."

Viewers? Bigots more like. There is nothing wrong with homosexual expressions of affection. They would not moan if it was a heterosexual display of affection would they? As to it being unsuitable for children this is simply hate in caring form. There are gay children, we do not want to deal with it but there are, and positive depictions of same sex relationships such as this are a great help all round.

The glorious, and most hidden vote for a homophobic agenda comes from Heinz themselves.

"Nigel Dickie, a spokesman for Heinz UK, said the Deli Mayo ad was intended as "a humorous take on a slice of life" but the company had decided to pull it last week, before the ASA complaints, because of "consumer feedback".

Mr Dickie added: "Heinz is a global company and we respect all universal rights. The advertisement was intended to be humorous, not designed to cause offence to anyone. Clearly it failed in its intent to amuse and that is why we took the decision to withdraw it."

He said the company apologised if the short-run campaign, which had been due to run for five weeks, had offended anyone."

Mr Dickie apologies for offending people when that which he is apologising for is not capable of offending people. To quantify that, two people kissing, as in this case in a quick peck, is by definition not able to be classed as offensive by society in anyway at any time and to anyone.

Clearly some people have taken offence, but we should treat them for what they are, bigoted, intolerant and quite frankly ridiculous.

What Heinz has done is bowed to pressure (for money or the saving of it by avoiding lost sales) from people twisted with hate . Heinz will profit from this insult to the gay community. If I paid to have a TV channel rant a hate speech against Muslims, Hindus, Blacks or any other minority I would rightly be vilified and arrested for a hate crime. If I did it to make or save money I would be even further lambasted.

This inverse and pernicious kind of homophobia harms, it does immeasurable damage to the young who are exposed to the bigots who are trying to protect them, and to the thousands of gay men and woman who still face danger on the streets and do not need to have their safety undermined further by the ASA, Heinz or the media's failure to recognise this for what it is.

Besides, gay people are equal or they are not, it cannot be both ways. What is acceptable from a straight point of view is also acceptable from a gay one, if not then we are being discriminated against as a group, and that is exactly what has happened here.

Another Innocent in Prison - When Will We Stop the Abuse Witch Hunt

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:05:47 PDT

Richard Webster hosts a link to the recent article by Mark Smith of the journal of the International Child and Youth Care Network.

Both Richard and Mark rightly express dissatisfaction and concern over the nature of the enquiries into historical and current child abuse cases that have plagued the UK for nearly 20 years as they seem to breed false allegations by there very nature. I have quoted Richard before in regards to the excellent articles on the Jersey case and also to praise the book "The Secret of Bryn Estyn"
(Once again get it if you have not yet!).

A number of organisations exist to help those who have been falsely accused, sterling work has been carried out at PAFAA (People against False Accusations of Abuse) a support organisation for falsely accused people that has been running for some years. It has any number of cases that do not relate to the care home business but do have similarities in multiple complainants, compensation claims, recovered memories and malicious accusations that are seen in Richards’s book and in his writing on the website.

In addition FACT represents falsely accused teachers and was set up specifically because of the North Wales care home cases, its remit remains quite narrow, but the work includes newsletters and demonstrations.

The BFMS (British False Memory Society) deals specifically with recovered memory syndrome but also offers support to anyone who requires it along with FASO (False Allegations Support Organisation) who seem to have a particular interest in the social services side of the issue.

These are purely UK based organisations, many exist world wide. In fact a peek at the world situation in regards to the entity that child protection has become can be quite illuminating. America is ahead of us with draconian punishments, particularly in the less enlightened states (stand up Georgia)) where an obvious vein of insanity has taken hold.

Australia seems a little behind, but a conversation with a friend over there revealed that the witch hunt has started and he will keep me informed as to its progress.

Ireland has had similar problems. Richard also discusses this on his website.

I have not read Marks writings before but it certainly hit the nail on the head when it comes to illuminating how these cases are problematic. Not least because the story of an individual mans persecution and vilification is so horrifying, but in particular, referencing the current Jersey fiasco, because this passage struck a chord.

“One of the first questions that springs to mind for me is why on earth are the police bothering with the archaeological dig? Anyone with any knowledge of how cases of historical abuse are prosecuted knows that forensic evidence isn’t required. All that is required is the similar accounts of two or more alleged victims - and that’s what makes this whole business a scary one for those who have worked in residential child care.”

He is quite right in that assertion, except, in my opinion, two areas, in that it only requires one story to start the ball rolling and that this is scary for people who work in child care. It is of course, but I am afraid that the net spreads wider than that and although the brilliant work of Richard Webster, Frank Furedi and Mark himself cannot be faulted, it may be time to expand the discourse to take in cases that do not fall into the category of child care. I believe, though cannot yet prove that the insidious, witch hunt has more victims outside of child care than in.

It did not take me long to find examples from some of the support sites mentioned of men whose lives had been ruined, along with their families, because 25 years ago when they were 19 they had sex with a 15 year old, allegedly.

Like wise a fellow in his late 50’s whose boyfriend of many years suddenly left him for someone else and then returned a few years later and accused him of abusing him when he was underage. Subsequently it was revealed, he had accused four other men. It is astounding that the powers that be do not question this ridiculous state of affairs.

After reading some of the stories over at Gay Monitor I must say that I find the fate of gay men particularly concerning as they seem to have even more stacked against them, not least of which because of the old myth that all gay men are child molesters and that the mind boggles as to how they can get a fair trial with the amount of latent homophobia that still exists, despite societies protestations to the otherwise.

It is time we recognised that adolescent men have been fiddling with other men since time began. I have no idea why, nor do I care. I do care that we bring about an end to prosecution of the innocent or those guilty of little or nothing. Just because a 15 year old has a blow job off a twenty year old it does not mean they are damaged. The damage comes later on when they are ostensibly straight and family men. When they realise that compensation is payable, that the police always give a sympathetic ear, even if they were with the guy for years as a friend or lover.

They realise, that when the little secret that they have had sex with men more than once comes out and the only way to avoid their own downfall is to accuse the men of some sexual crime.

They realise when the latent homosexuality in them will not go away, and they do dreadful things out of loathing and self hate.

They realise all too late the consequences of the path they take, but by then the damage is done, they have to live with the destruction the child abuse industry perpetrates on others lives, they too become a victim.

It appears in many cases this could be the truth, the child abuse industry is a machine, voracious, gorging and bloated. As Mark mentions, why do the dig if you need no forensics? To feed the machine I believe; on stories that thrill the twitching curtain brigade and keep the gravy train running, that fuel the media, influence policy and maintain funding streams for dubious organisations and loathsome police bodies.

We too are to blame, the salaciousness about our culture allows us to be fascinated whilst disavowing the realities, to look but because of moralistic reasons not our truly prurient ones, another part of the fallacy.

So, is it time to put a stop to this nonsense? I know that many have already let their voices be heard and have done so with vigour and tenacity. I am just so sick of hearing about men who come screaming out of supposed “silent hell” after many years to state that they had a fiddle with someone older when they were fifteen and it has laid waste to their lives. Utter garbage.

We need a statute of limitations, an end to compensation, a review of all historic abuse cases, judicial power to set higher requirements for proof over and above oral testimony, an enquiry of all organisations that benefit from this in any way to ensure that they are not infected with “righteous cause mentality” and the return to some sense, before more lives are sacrificed to satisfy the current needs of the inadequate, who utilise their mistakes of the past as a contemporary excuse for their own weaknesses and crummy lives.

As a final note, we should consider lowering the age of consent and getting real about young people and sex, that way we can prevent this nonsense happening to this generation of children and all those that follow, our legacy of idiocy and vehemence will not be welcomed. I know very few will agree with me, but I did say consider, we owe it to the innocent and persecuted, particularly those children we find guilty of sexual offences. To quantify, the majority of the men who have been arrested in Jersey were underage when the abuse is supposed to have taken place, will they be tried as children? of course not, but they will pay the price as adults for doing what may very well have come naturally to many of their peers at the time, and I suspect many children today. Bear in mind the media didn’t tell you that did they, then ask yourselves why?

What if Witness Protection Was The Bastard Grandson of Child Protection?

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:52:02 PDT

I see the Law Lords have upset the legal apple cart and managed to give ex-home secretary bully boy Jack Straw a bit of a duffing up. Always a delicious prospect for me as the disagreeable fellow appears to be an authoritarian who constantly tows the party line, rather than a free thinker who should have used his place in power to stop extremist tendency in government instead of encouraging it. His record speaks for itself.

The need to urgently look into addressing the knock on effect of the ruling, which has led to anonymous evidence being brought into question, is not to be doubted, because it appears the justice may have been circumvented, not because some guilty men may go free as Mr Yates states.

"A lot of good work is being undone, and this will play out so badly in terms of those we are trying to reach out to in communities. It almost feels like we have broken our word.

"To see clearly guilty people walking free is just awful.

"Special measures are only used in the most extreme cases, which mean these are our most dangerous criminals, people who have been jailed for up to 40 years. And they could be walking free."

Some cases, where witnesses may be threatened and possibly killed if found to have testified, are in need of some sort of protection policy, but this should not be at the detriment of justice, ever.

Like it or not, agree or disagree, the Law Lords have clearly stated that this case went against the principles of legal justice that have been honed over centuries through laws enacted or repealed, appeal decisions and all the other elements of the machinery of Justice. The trial was unfair and prejudiced the defence. That's enough for me, but obviously not for Mr Yates who seems to be expressing the opinion that it is worth throwing out the principles of justice to reach communities, keep his word and when he sees the clearly guilty being set free.

This is symptomatic of the vindictive and clearly about face thinking of our establishment culture, and of the either absolute blind ignorance or deliberate avoidance of recognising what has been happening to our justice system. The response from the powers that be helps no one, frightens people and simplifies an already complex situation.

Mr Yates, who is assistant commissioner of the Met, appears to be more concerned about guilty men going free, than upholding a justice system that is not their to deal purely with the guilty, but also to protect the innocent. This is a terrible indictment of our systems and processes. Thankfully the police can still apply for this witness anonymity, it does not stop that happening, and each case must be dealt with on its own merits. It must be proved a requirement, and long may that remain so.

This whole situation raises many questions for me, why did it get this far, how did we let it and how in cases of historical child abuse (often years after the alleged event) or rape, that have no forensics, in fact, no other evidence at all, excepting one persons word over another and that is enough to convict, but here they needed seven witnesses?

What does that illustrate? A propensity for juries to believe one type of "story" and not another? Does this open up a whole can of worms about how juries make decisions? Perhaps the Police and CPS are more zealous when it comes to sex cases and know juries convict on the flimsiest of evidence.

I expect this individual (and others) has likely as not, been known to the police for a long time. Possibly a career criminal with an extensive record who did not start of by killing people but has worked his way up like a modern day Scarface.

The police must, of course, bring the strongest case they can but it does seem to indicate an extreme difference between how we see different types of cases, particularly in the distinction between the violent and the sexual.

Doesn't this symptomatic issue, of a society possibly confused between morality and justice, driven by the UK's cultural tolerance for violence and abhorrence of all things sexual, illustrate how wrong we get it?, I suspect so. It appears that statistics on violent crime back me up.

Whilst this lily livered excuse for a Labour Government has been known to harangue and harass protesters, noisy attendants at Labour Conferences and innocent people viewing images or taking photos it has singularly failed to get it right on violent crime. Particularly as this article shows, with young people.

Well that's where it starts, with the young, and this paints a grey and grim image for the future if this is how the young really are, feral and violence driven.

Bring on the comments from the likes of Mrs Olive Dorous-Whinger, "This is symptomatic of violent TV and games and films promiscuity in the young and drugs and drink and rock and roll and e-numbers and bad teachers and common proles and the web thing and mobile phones and(enter thought here) and (here)" (left for you to fill in).

If all the above were dealt with Olive, surely then this man would never have killed and witness protection would not be required? This is of course ass gravy of the first order. What is symptomatic is the tolerance for real life violence we still retain; symptomatic of a culture that has the canker.

If violent crime in the young has risen to such an extent, when we have a state that has the most caring and protective tentacles in the family unit in our history. Controls what parents can do by legal means, interferes incessantly with the private lives of individuals, and dictates what is and what is not the "correct or PC" way to behave, how come violent crime has gone up?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, a favourite phrase of mine states that "after this, therefore because (on account) of this" and is seen as a logical fallacy. Something does not necessarily correlate just because it appears linear.

So am I foolish in drawing the conclusion, that having an overbearing and borderline totalitarian state interfering and mediating in our private lives, linked with a culture that tolerates violent acts, has a direct causal link with the need to provide anonymity and protection for witnesses?

It is certainly stretching it, even for me, and my love of the Polemical.

At the least good reader, can we not research the possibility of correlation? We do it for Olives' violent games at great expense, so why not investigate the state, it's cohort of social service protectors and our policies on how we raise children to the state of crime in the UK.

Is it linked to our tolerance for violence and obsession with sex crimes?

Do we continuously fail to punish severely enough those whom are handy with their fists before they become handier with a gun or knife? This symptomatic spiral has to end somewhere, and I have for years said that it should be directly blamed on parents when their offspring turn out rotten.

This rather blind statement is negated when the state cleverly and surreptitiously dismantles the family unit’s cohesion and starts to play mummy and daddy with possible consequences that are not good.

So what to do, it needs discussion, lets be mischievous for a second and imagine one that takes place between two ill informed but well meaning folk.

So here's how the conversation in the pub may well go.

"Your wife's a witness in that case this week isn’t she?"

"Yeah, she asked for witness protection because Mickey Slack Jaw, you know the one with the limp, permanent Bels Palsy and the googly eyes, is a loon who may kill witnesses"

"Why is he still out and about?"

"Sentences were short."

"Yes, but that's symptomatic of a bad sentencing policy that the judiciary must follow surely."

"Oh, is it?"

"I thinks so, see because Mickey, well, he got banged up for 3 years because he knifed some bloke, it was deliberate as well, but he only got 3 years, it was his fifth offence for violence.

Yet old Bob got 3 years for having diddled with his girlfriend who is now his wife, when she was 17 and he was her teacher, 26 he was, and it was a first offence."

"Dirty git; throw away the key I say?"

"Isn't it a bit strange that Mickey only got 3 years or am I mad?."

"Well, he only stabbed a bloke, never diddled a kid did he, 3 years is about right I think, wonder why he stabbed him though?"

"Must have had a terrible home life to have turned out so bad."

"Well, funny you should say that, Mickey’s dad was a fine man, widowed unfortunately, and a lawyer by profession. Mickey told me when he was caught fighting at 10 he grounded him for 3 months, then when he was caught with a knife at school as a kid of 12 his dad walloped him one, trousers down and all, said it frightened him to death."

"Obviously didn't work though, Mickey’s been in and out of the nick for years."

"Perhaps, he was all right for a few years, buckled down, did well at his studies, then Mickey met a child protection woman at sixth form college a couple of years later when they came to talk about safe internet and sexual abuse as they do now. Mickey told me it was like manna from heaven as he realised what the woman was saying about abuse applied to him.

See, his fear of his father had kept him on the straight and narrow, the old man had been so pleased with his progress that he took him to Africa on Safari and all over the place to encourage him to fly straight, and I suppose he cared for him despite sexually abusing him that time."

"You've lost me, sexual abuse?"

"Well, this woman advertised this telephone line to help abused kids and a few days later Mickey and his old man fell out over Mickey wanting money to out with his mates to town. Was a huge row, Mickey said. So he rang that line and told them what was happening at home and he was referred to a child protection team.

They asked him all sorts of questions and eventually he told them about the knife incident and that was when it all started, they arrested his dad and charged him with sexual abuse of a child! Mickey then discovered he could get compensation for his abuse, you know, money off the state, and he did get lots of it, he told me he elaborated a bit so he would get more. He always was a bit of a devil when we were at school together."

"Bloody hell, what happened next?"

"Well by this time Mickey was 18 and so he got a place of his own with the compensation money, then it all went wrong, his dad committed suicide in prison. Mickey never forgave himself and turned to drugs, end of. He was high when he stabbed that bloke and went back in jail. When he got out he fell in with the wrong crowd again, subsequently he shot a chap, in front of quite a few witnesses, including the wife. Like her they all knew him and his mates so are too scared to give evidence. They have offered them this anonymous business so they can testify."

"But if their all local and Mickey’s mates know who saw what how does that help?"

"Dunno, probably makes em feel better at least"

"So let me get this straight, Mickey was going off the rails at 12 so his dad gave him a thrashing, and then a few years later the child protection team get involved as they have been recruiting at the local school. Mickey gets paid, his dad goes to jail and subsequently kills himself, Mickey goes off the rails, becomes somewhat of a mini Al Capone in the area and then embarks on a life of crime, stabbing and killing along his way. Despite being caught numerous times the judges don't sentence him to long enough because we have problem with accepting levels of violence we shouldn't"

"Yep, on target so far"

"Subsequently your misses, along with the six other folk who can help put him away for long enough, need witness protection to testify against this obviously damaged man"

"That about sums it up"

"Blimey, that's a tale and a half, where did we go wrong as a society to let this happen I wonder?"

"Oh that's easy, it wasn't society it was Mickey’s dad. He bought him a play station 3 at 11 and he had the internet in his bedroom. The child protection team found horror films in Mickey’s closet and porn on his laptop. He was obviously a "wrong un!" and all the good parenting in the world wouldn't have helped would it?"

"So it was the parent’s fault, well how comforting, that explains it all then, drink up, we better get going, I left the squad car on the double yellows and I am in court in an hour over that kid who had S & M pictures on his laptop at university."

"Little bastard, hope they throw the book at him"

EU Commission to Propose Ban on all Discrimination - Am I Missing Something Here?

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:08:25 PDT

I must be, because this article seems to make sense (The first part anyway, not all that twitter about children and predators) but I cannot help but have the niggling feeling something is rather amiss!

I am a staunch supporter against any sort of vicious discrimination and have been for many years once I realised how irrational it is as an idea ( I was about 8). However, discrimination seems to have become interchangeable with giving offence or upsetting someone, confused with hate speech I suppose and that is more than a little worrying. Some people need to be offended, grossly in some cases, and it should be a pleasure not a crime.

Having read this article in NME I wondered whether Tescos motivation was commercial or because they did not want to offend the touchier elements of society. I suspect both, but would like to know the ratio.

Not more than a few weeks after a teenager was arrested for calling Scientology a cult the EU announces the above initiative and with only one exception I can see that the whole thing makes sense. Its the protection of religion I have a problem with. It should say "status" surely (though perhaps that is equally unworkable), then any discrimination against anyone would be technically illegal be they fat, a smoker, Muslim, Christian, gay or otherwise. Why specifically religion?

I am confused by the element of choice, that is what's causing me the jitters, you choose your religion, and when we are unable to take the piss out of them, keep them out of our schools and away from children or banish them from the political process via directly verbally attacking, an often horrendous group of organisations that hide under the banner of religion, then free speech is curtailed at the expense of causing others pain and suffering in the name of some God or other.

My previous blog outlining the Irish attitude to homosexuality could be a case in point, how much stink would have been caused if she had stated that a nice psychiatrist friend of hers could help you not be Muslim?

The problem with setting aloft ideology as something in need of protection does little to unwind the mass of problems that the PC brigade have caused in the UK over the last decade. It also does nothing for the ideology it is protecting. I find it hard to believe that Islam, Christianity or any other of the major faiths cannot stick up for themselves after thousands of years and there is a certain arrogance about our society thinking they cannot.

That said Britain is a secular society on the whole and we must distinguish between discrimination that is direct and damaging, from perceived discrimination because something someone has chosen to believe in is given a good kicking by an opponent of that ideology.

Whatever ideology it be, I want to see a continued and robust attack upon the most extreme elements that many have a tendency to display. The extremists (or haters, take yer pick)that use scripture to peddle nonsense need to be pulled to pieces, and we must not allow laws that are designed to protect genuine peaceful people of faith to become a tool used by extremists to provide legal cover for otherwise easily dealt with lunacy.

Likewise the application of faith in the political and educational process should always be treated with the utmost scepticism and monitored to the hilt.

I heard a Rabbi say, about the most extreme statutes of the Talmud, that what was written was done so with the best wisdom available at the time, that having learnt from history and experience, stoning people for planting the wrong crops is now plain lunacy. A wonderful message, and a statement that some could do well to heed.

So let's not hear any more from Christian extremists about how we must allow them to discriminate against gay people in employment matters, or from Muslim extremists who wish to inspire Sharia Law and oppress British citizens. They, along with any other haters who believe, that because they have made a choice about which fairy in the sky to worship, they somehow have a right to affect, rather than just comment, on other peoples lives, need taking to task.

So by all means express your dissatisfaction of gay people, black people, red people and pink people, I want you to, but be a grown up, be post-emotional, and be ready for a verbal fight, able to defend your corner and happy to sit and have a cuppa afterwards, because that is what the response should be, not stifling by political mandate.

And woe betide those who do try to interfere in others lives because of what they believe, when it goes beyond discussion and into the realms of oppression your freedom ends and you should be found guilty of just that, oppression, so do not expect any favours for your chosen ideology, none whatsoever, you survive or you do not and we should not be protecting you, not from speech.

So lets enact a law that covers attempting to oppress, then the next time someone does not like a cartoon, a book, film or speech, instead of calling for "protection by banning, censoring or killing", they might stand up and provide a cognitive and clear argument why they are right, and if they cannot, perhaps they will just simply belt up and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

Amen to that.

Banning Words and Brainless Talk - A Campaign Begins

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:29:33 PDT

Thank you Lucy Kellaway for a great article today on the BBC Website, readers will want to read the explanation by Paul Ireland, Managing Editor, IDeA Knowledge that appears at the bottom of this page before examining the list so here it is.

The phrase 'banned words' is perhaps misleading. The LGA doesn't have the authority to ban words, and I'm sure has no wish to do so! As Richard Stokoe points out above, the intention of the list was to start a debate about the language we use. This was also our intention in publishing the list and opening it up to comment.

Secondly, the context of the words is crucial. Of course no-one is suggesting that the word "welcome" be expunged from the dictionary or from everyday use. Rather, there are certain phrases and linguistic conventions that can make council writing hard to understand for the uninitiated. "We welcome the new place-shaping initiative" is a very different usage from "you're welcome" in conversation or "Welcome to Councilford" on a town sign.

Thirdly, the list was primarily about how councils communicate with residents, not with each other. Here at the IDeA we're very aware that we use a lot of jargon and 'banned words'. But we're also aware that we're usually talking to an informed audience who are likely to be familiar with much of the language. The balance is not always easy, and we are the first to admit we don't always get it right. We do believe that, whatever the context, it's important to know who your audience is, know how you want them to respond, and then put yourself in their place when deciding what language to use.

Finally, please note that the list was accumulated by the LGA and others as a by-product of their ongoing work with local government writing. Rest assured that public funds have not been squandered on a vast research exercise!

The LGA's top 100 'Banned Words'

1. ambassador
2. agencies
3. beacon
4. best practice
5. bottom-up
6. CAAs
7. can do culture
8. capacity
9. capacity building
10. cascading
11. cautiously welcome
12. champion
13. citizen empowerment
14. community engagement
15. conditionality
16. consensual
17. contestability
18. core message
19. core value
20. coterminosity
21. coterminous
22. cross-cutting
23. customer
24. democratic mandate/legitimacy
25. distorts spending priorities
26. early win
27. empowerment
28. engagement
29. engaging users
30. enhance
31. evidence base
32. external challenge
33. facilitate
34. fast-track
35. flexibilities and freedoms
36. framework
37. fulcrum
38. good practice
39. governance
40. guidelines
41. holistic
42. holistic governance
43. improvement levers
44. incentivising
45. income/funding streams
46. initiative
47. joined up
48. joint working
49. LAAs
50. level playing field
51. localities
52. meaningful consultation/dialogue
53. MAAs
54. menu of options
55. multi-agency
56. multidisciplinary
57. outcomes
58. output
59. participatory
60. partnerships
61. pathfinder
62. peer challenge
63. performance network
64. place shaping
65. predictors of beaconicity
66. preventative services
67. priority
68. process driven
69. quick hit
70. quick win
71. resource allocation
72. revenue streams
73. risk based
74. scaled-back
75. scoping
76. seedbed
77. service users
78. shared priority
79. signpost
80. single point of contact
81. slippage
82. social contracts
83. stakeholder
84. step change
85. strategic/overarching
86. streamlined
87. subsidiary
88. sustainable
89. sustainable communities
90. symposium
91. synergies
92. tested for soundness
93. third sector
94. top-down
95. transformational
96. transparency
97. value-added
98. vision
99. visionary
100. welcome

Now admittedly some of the words on the list amount to little more than managment speak bollocks, but that does not detract from the fact that many are useful, usable parts of everyday language. As the explanation states the purpose was to make life easier for communication with members of the public and it beggars belief, that the powers that be can seem to hold many of them in such contempt, that they reckon on the average person not being able to understand what they mean by an ambassador or transparency!

This was of course not the aim of this exercise, but it goes to prove that as Lucy Kellaway states in her super article on the misuse of language, this type of thing is felt often in good old Blighty, not least of all in the business sector. To quote:

"One of the big banks is seeking 'passionate banking representatives to uphold our values' - this is a lie. It wants competent people to follow instructions and answer the phones"

Absolutely correct Lucy, unfortunately, the reality of this type of job means that an honest advert may go as follows, and I base this on many years experience in call centres.

Wanted, people with the ability to work in a white collar satanic mill for little pay with bonuses linked to unachievable targets. You will be able to put up with stifling heat in a non air conditioned workspace and having your every move, including how long you take to have a shit, monitored. You will report to an inexperienced and under trained team leader who was promoted because they happened to be able to stand working here longer than anyone else and not because they have any competence with people.

Training will be provided in the shape of a script which you will read word for word in a continuous nightmare of repetition that is akin to mental prawn peeling. For more information..."

Well you get the point.

I suppose in actuality I like all the "blue sky thinking" and "competency based interviewing" speak of the business world. Besides, it is not like any other profession does not do it. We not accuse educationalist of talking balderdash when they rattle on about "immediacy" or "multiple intelligences" do we?

I suspect that every profession could do with less "verbal Artex and more flat plaster simplicity" (snigger) and would be all the better for it. To me, however one word that we could eradicate from our beautiful language would save masses of time, raise expectations and inspire to greater things. I hear it more now than I ever have and by implication it implies that you are dumb, disinterested due to time constraints or unable to practice coherent and cognitive thought. Know what it is yet?

Basically

Hate it, hate it, hate it.

In conversation with a chap just this week he used the blasted word instead of full stops,I kid you not, I had murder on my mind I can tell you.

So I have a solution and I need your help to get it working. Whenever someone begins to explain or expound by saying "well, basically..." you should hold your hand in front of their face (silences anyone) and in a clear voice say "No, I would like it complicatedly please, are you implying I am an idiot?"

If this fails to work, offer them money for every sentence in which they do not use that blasted word and watch them go from semi coherent to textbook gobbledegook in last than 5 seconds. It's like kicking the crutches from under a cripple (excuse that dreadful but absolutely spot on phrase and apologies to those on crutches, and the crippled).

When tested on an unsuspecting verbally challenged individual, it was a mischievous joy to watch them babble a few words then revert to "basically" or "bas...." as it became whilst they tried desperately not to say a word that has become so ingrained in our vocabularies that it is as natural as farting.

Go on try it, hours of fun for anyone, it also inspires the unsuspecting to rather good impressions of Ronnie Barkers' Arkwright character from Open All Hours without them realising they are doing it.

We should try to film it if possible and place it on Youtube under the heading of "Basically an Idiot" and locate the biggest offender in the UK.

Then summarily execute them for good measure.

So the "Keeping Note of the Overuse of Basically" (KNOB for short) campaign begins, and if your game, be aware of your usage and drop me a comment letting me know if you are anywhere near purging it from your inner Webster's.

Try to KNOB daily if you can, encourage others to KNOB and make sure the fact that you KNOB comes up in conversation as often as possible.

I promise to begin in earnest today.

That Was The Week That Was

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:26:47 PDT

There are times when I simply have no idea where to begin. This week of ours has been one of them with so many things going on it makes it hard to decide on what to blog about. The list is a mighty one over the last few days.

42 day detention without trial, David Davies resignation, the Irish cure for homosexuality, the appalling incident for the two Iraqi visitors and some moody tart on Big Brother starts another furore that the press will gobble up and the sheep headed watchers will gawp at then support through the telephone call rip off.

Phew, take a breath man.

To me, the notable thing about all these cases is the intrinsic presence of stupidity and the obvious absence of common sense. Yes, even Davies, brave though his actions are, they are just to late. So many liberties have been taken from us by now that he must have been at least a little daft to have not done this before. To be so close to the action, able to influence those in power, and he waited till now? I admire what you did David but to not do it before when you can provide such a long list of what has been eroded from our liberties is a tiny bit stupid.

The 42 days detention will not make it through the lords I envisage and thank goodness for that, the stupidity and lack of common sense being shown by so many MPs is extraordinary. If the public believe this will only be used for terrorist then they are equally stupid. Remember good old Walter Wolfgang at the Labour conference?

The extraordinary arrest and subsequent invasion of the two Iraqi's privacy beggars belief. The two officers involved should be dragged before a jury to answer for their crass stupidity and to explain the fear they had from threatening Arabic music!

Furthermore the comments from Assistant Chief Constable David Morris, of South Wales Police are hollow and heartless in tone when he should be apologising, not rattling off standard police speak rhetoric.

“Two men were arrested on Wednesday under anti-terrorism legislation, following reports they were acting suspiciously in the centre of Cardiff.

“Both men were detained while enquiries were undertaken to establish their backgrounds. Once we were satisfied they posed no threat to the safety of the public, they were released from custody and no further action was taken.

“South Wales Police has a duty to thoroughly investigate all suspicious incidents to protect all communities throughout the South Wales area.”

Yeah Right. Filming or photographing anywhere is not illegal, use some common sense stupid.

Well England and Wales obviously have there fair share of lunatics this week and Ireland is no exception. Step up to the podium Iris Robinson MP for Strangford. Whom, not content with using the classic bigot ideology that "being gay is a psychological condition" then goes on to justify herself like some rabid 13th century female Torquemada!

"I stand by my faith and the word of God that man was created in the image of God and that woman was created from the rib of Adam to be his help mate and companion. That is the natural progression of procreation."

"The word of God says that procreation is through a man and a woman."

"We are moving mountains to facilitate immorality and to bring the rights of lesbians above all others in this country."

"It is a shame, and honourable Members ought to hang their heads in shame."

All this religious verbosity and grandiloquence (yes I do that too!) used as a political and personal punt for her own agenda which seems to be against Lesbians in particular.

The real shame is that she has done this on the back of some chap who suffered a homophobic beating. Some would say the stupid woman should use some common sense and resign. Lets hope she does soon because god only knows how the nutter ever got in power in the first place.

So finally to Big Brother, stupid on every level, stupid people, stupid ideas and a stupefied audience to boot. Stop watching it. Then it may go away.

Unfortunately that is more than can be said for the control freaks, warmongers, bigoted zealots and incompetent police storm troopers that litter the landscape of 21st century Britain. It will take more than an off switch to deal with them.

The Retired Policeman, NO2ID and Sapients Crass Generalisation - An Apology

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:09:54 PDT

stu2630 took the time to comment on yesterdays Blog and pointed out quite correctly an error on my part. Here is his comment.

You said: "a visitor over at NO2ID is quick to point out, quite sensibly that this is not the purpose of the database".

It was me you quoted. Then you said:

"...and an already voracious appetite by the police for criminalising all and sundry at the drop of a hat."

I am a recently retired police officer and I can assure you that neither I, nor my colleagues, had any such appetite to criminalise members of the decent, law-abiding majority. Our only interest was to lock up the bad guys who make life a misery for the rest of us and many officers I knew were as uncomfortable about keeping the DNA of unconvicted people as I was.

My response.

Firstly stu2630 thanks for taking the time to read my blog, and secondly for pointing out quite rightly that a generalisation such as the one I have made is just that, a generalisation. I thought about changing the original text but felt that it would be unfair to myself and you if I simply did so without offering some form of apology so that those who have already read and perhaps revisited could see that you had cause and good reason to comment as you have. So I apologise for any insult you may have felt due to my wording, it is amazing how the simple word "some" can make a difference.

I am heartened that you are able to state so clearly the views which echo my own, especially in your position as a retired police officer. I only wish that my and others experiences with the police could show that they had the common sense and decency you advocate. Unfortunately, that has not been the case and I have a fervent wish that we could return to the old values of policing. Perhaps with the latest refusal of some forces to bow to the target culture will help in restoring the faith I believe so many have lost.

I wish you and the chaps over at NO2ID the best of luck in your continued fight.

DNA database, a Brilliant Idea or a Tool for Suppresion?

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:09:11 PDT

The Times report that examines the situation with regard to the DNA database that the police use offers us another chance to be wary of the Human Rights act, the real possibility of criminals getting away with serious crimes and the dangers of filtering our databases. Thankfully a visitor over at NO2ID is quick to point out, quite sensibly that this is not the purpose of the database. To quote:

The purposes of a small yet effective DNA database are to deter persistent and dangerous offenders from re-offending and to increase the chances of their apprehension and conviction if they do. A person who has not been convicted or cautioned is not an offender so far as the law is concerned and they should be considered to be people mistakenly suspected of a crime they did not commit. Retaining their DNA carries with it an implication that they were really guilty and they managed to get off with it, but we'll get them next time.

I am forced to agree, not really for the same reason however. In a perfect world to have everyone on the database and everybody carrying ID cards would be great and it would do all we could expect, deter crime, identify the miscreant and ensure justice where possible, unfortunately it is not a perfect world.

The arguments against the holding of DNA of those who are arrested and subsequently not prosecuted come in many shapes and size but to me boil down to one simple one.

We cannot trust those in power, and even if we changed those in power who is to say we can trust them.

Unfortunately the social myopia that afflicts most of our society is so far spread that it appears that those in power are able to get away with far to much already, let alone playing into the hands of future potential dictators or ne'er'-do-wells who will, in the case of the former, pro-actively target a minority and obliterate it or the latter, simply be to lazy to bother with the checks and balances that are in place to protect the public and will make an enormous mistake that will cost lives.

We lay the foundations of the nanny and police state by our current actions, a nightmare dystopian future will be come reality for our children and their children if people do not wake up and smell the coffee. The aftermath of 9/11 and the London bombings have already seen unprecedented headway made into the often long fought and hard won freedoms that people used to enjoy. The undermining of Habeas Corpus and the abandonment of double jeopardy all together should at least give pause for thought.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the admission of similar fact evidence and previous convictions in court that undermine the very tenet that states a man is innocent until proven guilty.

All legal issues of course, but when we look at the more cultural or societal influences we have the irrational fear of teenagers, terrorist and paedophiles standing side by side with schools that will not let parents photograph their children and an already voracious appetite by the police for criminalising all and sundry at the drop of a hat.

In such a climate of emotionality and fear it is all to easy for those in power to manipulate an already scared and myopic public to believe anything they say. So to return to the issue at hand it is illustrated well by the quote from the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire.

“People will accuse me of playing the emotional card. Well, I don’t do emotional blackmail. You have to think the unthinkable. I would not like to be the officer who has to look a parent in the eye and say, ‘We could have prevented this’.”

You obviously do do emotional blackmail sir, its blatant to all who choose to see it. So at the risk of appearing callous, but aware that this is a devil and the deep blue sea option at any rate, I can think the unthinkable Mr Lake, it is not saying to a parent "we could have prevented this" that is unpleasant for the officer and devastating for the individual parent.

No, the unthinkable is that when we approach our dotage, and are no longer a force to be reckoned with, at 85 we read that the mood of the country has changed and a fascist or communist government has come to power. That all criminals, gay people, the disabled and undesirable will be asked to provide or confirm the DNA on file, oh and "while your here can I just tattoo this number on your arm, that's it, good good, now go take a shower."

Formula One's Nazi Fun

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:17:59 PDT

Well well, Max Moseley, head of Formula One's governing body, seems to have got himself in a bit of a pickle in a Nazi Orgy!

Thankfully The Guardians Tanya Gold is on hand to provide some much needed sanity as the cogs of the morality machine grind into action and draw the usual contemptuous grumblings from the prudish and easily offended.

I fail to understand why this is even news! What he does in private with consenting adults is nobodies business to begin with and this just highlights the media's continuing obsession with all things sexual and says little nice about the fools who buy and read such dross. Including me I might add, although I add the caveat that if I was not blogging I would have never read it.

Once again we can see in action a strata of society that would like to regulate the goings on of adults in this country. Unfortunately the good and the great who watch over us seem intent on helping them. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2008 contains proposal for prosecuting those who pay for sex, and in Scotland they are using cameras to catch curb crawlers. Meanwhile, reports of thousands of women and girls trafficked into the UK for sex purposes each year are bandied about with seemingly little proof. Along with terrorism and child abuse, human trafficking is set to become another moral panic in the UK if we let it. We can be sure that a large amount of expensive police activity and probably many organisations and quangos will be needed to shore up the mythology. Thanks to the book Sex at the Margins: Migration, Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry by Laura María Agustín you can evaluate the facts yourself.

Max may be a dirty old devil for his game playing, but unless anyone was violently coerced or forced against their will to engage in his Nazi naughties, it strikes me that the police, media and us have a lot bigger things to worry about. Not least of all that printing this type of prurient interest nonsense is liable to arouse more nutters with a personal agenda of control and censorship. This puritanism and the nutters that subscribe to it, have manifested in our culture strongly over the last few years and as a collective they enjoy exploiting any sign of veering from their idea of normality, especially where men are concerned.

So, be they feminists, religious extremists of all hues, terrified parents or the victims of crime that seek justice over and above what the law has to offer we must be careful that little organisations do not start popping up all over the place with the sole purpose of curbing the often strange, but private behaviour of many of us.

Perhaps it is time we strengthened privacy laws so that what Max got up to could not even be published. A good start would be to give everyone copy write on their image and name. That way it could not be reproduced without permission or if there was a pressing public interest. Difficult to define I know, but lets start with privacy and work outwards, not the other way. The media may be forced to deal with the facts of a given situation rather than emotionalising issues and using images to influence a gullible public with little or no understanding of how manipulative the media can be.

.

Drunken Teenagers, The Home Secretary and the Loss of Intergenerational Cohesion

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:50:26 PDT

Sip this will you.

I see that the pigeon-holing prats in the government are on the "bash the parents" band wagon again, this time it's that all time favourite drunk teenagers. As they always do when faced with a problem, real or perceived, the jump for the legislative gavel is immediate. Parents who allow their children to drink are going to be prosecuted and sent on parenting classes. In the words of the queasily caring Home Secretary Jaqui Smith

"Groups of under-18s drinking in public is an all-too-familiar sight

"This type of drinking increases crime, puts young people in vulnerable situations, and I want to put a stop to it."

"These new measures are designed to set clear boundaries."

Under the plans, teenagers persistently possessing alcohol in public will be subjected to anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) and acceptable behaviour contracts.

Thank you Ms Smith for assuring us that you personally want to put a stop to it, I feel so much better knowing that. The fact that you sound like a petulant school teacher convinces me that though you might wish to put a stop to it, you simply do not have the first clue how to.

As if this is anything new! When I was a teenager of 14 I spent many a blissful night in the park pissed as a rat on Martini Rose as did many of my peers. Thankfully I have developed some taste since then and prefer a decent red wine, but still of course get regularly bladdered and have a wail of a time while I am doing it.

The most annoying part of this continual trend of demonising young people is the dogged insistence from Smith and her ilk that the perceived vulnerability of young people means the action they take is actually going to help. They believe they are doing good guys! They believe in the cause, saving these children from themselves. Hooray and Hurrah, thank goodness for the safety net of government parenting. You set those boundaries m'dear, we need you to for all our sakes.

I jest of course, this particular issue is a symptom of a far bigger problem that Ms Smith would dare not tackle, after all it underpins the whole agenda of social control that Labour have been executing over the last decade.

Undermining parents, criminalising vast swathes of the population and in particular young people makes for excellent headlines for the "string em up brigade" but does little to actually address the fact that although bad parents exist, alongside bad teenagers, they are not necessarily a natural pairing on every occasion. Good kids have bad parents and vice versa.

As for the increase in crime that comes with this, that is an issue of good old fashioned respect. The police used to deftly handle situations like this and I recall clearly a friend as a teenager being dropped off home pissed by the local bobby and later being thoroughly chastised by his parents. He respected the police and his folks, primarily because he was afraid of both. Nought wrong with that either.

I wonder if she is equally vehement in condemning overzealous public schoolboys who are lucky enough to have private schools with vast grounds where getting pissed up is a matter of hiding in the farthest reaches of those grounds and avoiding detection as she so obviously is in catching the council teens who have no where to go and nothing to do.

Admittedly both examples are caricatures but it illustrates to me that this has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the vulnerable children (why are they always labelling people vulnerable?) but is about pandering to those who whine about groups of hoodies or drunken teens being rowdy nearby. I live in the town centre so it is an every night occurrence for me and it is always adults and not children doing the noise making. I learn to live with it, and that really is the nub of the issue.

We should learn to live with it, or rather them, who would be a teenager these days, the oft despised generation that seems to get bashed from all sides? No one by choice I suspect, and when we look at what has happened to the intergeneration cohesion since Labour arrived on the scene we may notice a pattern.

Removal of parental responsibility and power has to be first on the list and I use the word power specifically because raising children has an awful lot to do with it. You can include under this heading the removal of the right to give em a good old fashioned wallop.

The insane situation that exists where no adult would intervene to stop rowdiness or bad behaviour because they may get stabbed or god forbid, done for assault of some kind certainly does not help.

Up next is the proliferation of state mediation in personal and family matters coupled with the emotionalisation of almost every sphere of private life. There is an army of counsellors, psychologist and social workers that now have unprecedented powers to interfere, intrude and seriously damage families and individuals. They attempt to cajole those who do not conform to the state sanctioned idea of what a parent and a family are with the same ideology as those who dreamt up the notion of compulsory parenting classes.

Is there nothing these days that does not require their intervention to solve, have we become so hopeless that we must rely on the quasi religion of psychologist to sort it all out?.

The answer appears to be yes sadly, but could there be a solution that would help stem the perceived tide of teenage binge drinking and subsequent crime? Seen as it has been going on for years it is highly unlikely, and I suppose I am being unfair to Ms Smith if I criticise her for having no clue but then do not offer any solution so here goes.

We do need to learn to live with our teenagers. Yes, people bemoan their lack of respect et al but they are after all us, and the way we treat them now will have a terrible knock on effect when they reach adulthood, and currently we nanny them.

This has to stop, and it is easily done in my mind. We need to make them adults sooner.

"But wait" you cry, "they must have a childhood, they must remain innocent, be allowed to be a child."

Bollocks to that, you obviously have not seen an episode of the dross that is EastEnders and its drip drip of depressing messages or rubbish such as The Steve Wilko Show on daytime tv with every topic imaginable and fists fights for all to see.

You must be ignorant of what kids are passing around on their mobile phones or via Facebook if you imagine that the concept of childhood innocence fully exists any longer. At least in any Peter Pan and Wendy kind of way, that is as dead as a doornail.

Other cultures such as the Jewish culture and in Egyptian communities where I had the good fortune to see it in action have got the right idea. We need a point of adulthood that comes before they emerge as teenage terrors, we need to stop believing that rebelliousness in teenagers is a natural event that has to happen and we need to start fighting against the compulsion to protect and to let them go sooner.

So, in essence, at 14 we make a big deal (like a barmitzvah) about them reaching that age and we integrate them fully into adult society. From that point forward they live in the adult world to all intents and purposes. The hows, whys and wherefores can come later, but this is a start.

Schools would be restructured so that upon reaching fourteen they then move to a different school and the line is drawn between adult and child at that point.

Interaction between them and younger children would be frowned upon, they are now an adult. They should be given responsibilities, social ones, voluntary work and for the non academic a chance to work and be paid adult wages and be given vouchers for a number of years further education at any point in their life.

Actively encourage them to make adult non familial friends and experience different views and cultures. Teenagers rebel against the parent first and authority second, older friends can give them a perspective that can motivate and prevent them from entering a life of crime or achieving less than they are capable of.

Culture and social mores are passed from one generation to another in most cases informally and all this should be just that.

This informal education worked for generations until we placed a wedge between adults and children the way we have, it can work again. Not through molly coddling as we currently do can they learn, but through hard experience as most of us did and who are none the worse for it.

Next we need to address our tolerance for violence between people. This has got to be seen as intolerable. Stiffer penalties for any violent act must become the norm. The message that being nice to each other is a good idea must be paramount. When a criminal assault can get a shorter prison term than someone who looks at a so called "dangerous picture" we have got it assy backwards.

Finally, we need to scare children earlier, no, seriously, I want them scared of adults, I want a scared non criminal teenager over a bolshy criminal one any day, and next time an adult dare intervene in preventing bad behaviour and is sadly forced to use restraining or controlling tactics then we give them a medal not a prison sentence.

As adults we are the ones who are wiser, more knowledgeable and sorry, more important. When they are adults it will be there turn. Until then they must learn humility, the world is not theirs yet, it is ours, so stand in line kiddy's, like the rest of us did.

But the single most important fact is that this must be done by us, in our communities and social circles, it should not involve the state or organisations with a step by step process designated by faceless bureaucrats with an agenda of control. It will just be people, getting back to basics and rebuilding communities and encouraging the intergenerational cohesion that keeps us safe and draws a line between a pure child and those who are old enough to start to get involved. A community that prepares the young for a life free of state interference or mandated ideology and truly encourages spontaneity of spirit through exploration and discovery alongside self reliance and self responsibility.

The government should do what it does best, collect my rubbish, manage the economy and represent me on the world stage. It should not be locking up parents for the acts of legally responsible teens. It should back off and let us get on with it.

As for you "Mr and Mrs Jones" if you truly believe this is how it should be then you could start by asking one of the local hoodies if he fancies a cup of tea. He may surprise you and be a decent chap. Then the next time he is being rowdy with his mates a bang on the window and a quick smile and a wave may be all it takes to calm the situation down. That has to be preferable to calling in the state and has the added benefit of giving you someone to rope in and cut your lawn or clean your car for a fiver on a sunday.

UPDATE Its official, I am Psychic, snigger.

Would Sketched Stick Figures Depicted Having Sex and Labelled Billy Aged 6 and Freda Aged 9 Be Child Abuse Imagery?

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:46:48 PDT

Apparently so if Brown and his loony counterparts get to pass another crummy law in the name of child protection.

Mark Lawsonwrites in the guardian on this lunacy, the latest plan to close a loophole and criminalise images of children. Criminalise images of imaginary children that is, well not imaginary, that's already illegal so get off Photo shop now you dirty pervert. This is to criminalise sketches of children being abused. No I am not kidding, my jaw hit the floor too, so close your mouth and read on.

Mr Lawson, a man I respect greatly, really seems to lack the courage (perhaps it is the editor) to call a "spade a spade" in his article. In fact he raises the spectre of other myths in order to add gravitas to his argument. "Snuff films", to be exact, oh and by the way they do not exist. Difficult then to see how he can use that to illuminate the differentiation between what society has predefined as acceptable and that which is not. This sloppy approach blunts his otherwise excellent point that this legislation is bad, plain wrong, horrendous and an affront to freedom of speech and expression, and I just wish he had said so with more vehemence.

Further on he raise the question of Nan Goldin, the darling of the Heroin drenched nightscape and NYC post punk new wave. Never one of my favourites but her image of a carefree childhood, "Klara and Edda belly-dancing", resulted in all sorts of kerfuffle over whether or not they were child abuse imagery. They are blatantly not, just beautifully evocative of innocence and childhood freedom. Those who see it otherwise should learn to look with better eyes.

I fail to see how references to already controversial subjects aid in his argument at all. It simply is not enough to argue, as Mark does, that this is wrong for logical reasons; when the "nutters" (and that is what they are) he aims at have such an absolutist doctrine that logicality has little or nothing to do with it.

Absolutism cannot be fought with logic, I wish it could but the kind of zealot's that now litter the child protection landscape make this a fight against extremists. Extremists who in regards to any other subject would be rightly be scorned, laughed at and hopefully prosecuted for disturbing the peace or incitement to hatred. Make no mistake, that is what we have here, the constant stoking of the public mind with nonsense designed to scare them, and in turn encourage them to further scare their children who they frantically, and quite rightly would like to protect. The offshoot of this is a dissemination of distrust and hate against individuals in communities, particularly men, again!

So which Zealot can we thank for this latest "nugget of nuttery" stand and take a bow, Justice Minister Maria Eagle Mp.

Now this women has voted very strongly against a transparent Parliament, voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban, voted strongly for introducing ID cards, for Labour's anti-terrorism laws,for the Iraq war and against an investigation into the Iraq war. Control freak alert! A pro secret state, pro war Gordon Brown apparatchik as far as I am concerned.

Obviously the word "pencil" is so close to the word "penile" that she believes something must be done. These perverted sketchers deserve a long stretch in prison to cure them of their horrendous proclivities.

Mark Lawson is kind enough to state that she is not mad just wrong. Well I beg to differ Mr Lawson, she is both wrong and mad, blindly aiding and abetting the decline of a country with a proud and inspiring history replete with enlightening examples of free expression and speech. This is very much at risk as this case illustrates.

Gloriously the good folk over at They Work For You have kindly pointed out that "Maria's speeches are understandable to an average 17–18 year old, going by the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score." I do wonder if the converse is possible, that she is unable to communicate at any level higher than that to begin with.

This legislative abortion will follow on from others that have begun the inexorable slide into censorious hell that Britain is becoming and you do not have to look far for examples of this in action. It all started with the best of intentions, but as is oft said, history is littered with the devastation that the best of intentions can cause. Censorship is not and never will be an either or. Once you give them an inch these nutters will take a mile, and that is what they have done.

Child abuse imagery, (I call it that specifically because child porn gives it a legitimacy that it little deserves) is abhorrent and disgusting. However, the ideology and rhetoric that surrounds it is equally so. To state that every time someone looks at a child abuse image the child is re-abused is nonsense of the first order, every time someone looks at the beating of Rodney King, is Rodney beaten again? The problem with the incredibly broad definition we have given to a child means that pictures of Sam Fox from her early career are now classed as child abuse imagery.

Another case in point is currently being fought out in Australia over artist Bill Henson's work. Unhappily for the Australian people they are far further behind in the child protection industries witch hunt to be able to see the wood for the trees yet and it is a shame that they cannot look at us and the USA for examples of how not to do it so they can help themselves before it is to late.

Any image of a 16-18 year old, whether naked or having a bit of rumpy pumpy with the girlfriend or boyfriend that they then photograph and show to others, opens them up to prosecution and labels them child abuse image makers and distributors alongside the usual possession charges. It has happened already, probably at the behest of a righteous cause mentality copper, but happen it has. Are we aghast at this? No, vindicated, the emperor does have clothes on after all, we insist that he does. Come on people, we are not talking 12 year olds here, but fully fledged sixteen year old strumpets and their hulking male counterparts. As a nice aside, if they are married its ok, as long as they do not show anyone!.

How did this bad law ever get through the scrutiny of parliament and the lords? Fear, and plain and simple cowardice on the part of people who should lead, but instead readily and gladly capitulated to the slavering press, child protection industry propaganda and the howls of an often misinformed and frenzied public. This has led to the arrest of young people and children, the ones we are supposed to protect in the first place.

We gave them the right to do this, our apathy against the zealotry of the sex haters and censorial nutters provided an invitation to push for whatever they wanted and this was just the start.

Not content with imagery, the child abuse industry shows its cannibal teeth and its absolute hate of sex by setting on pre pubescent children for practising normal childhood activities like "Doctors and Nurses" and pursuing randy 14 year olds experimenting with all and sundry (Hoovers, cucumbers, hairbrushes along with friends, neighbours and strangers).

This was followed by the introduction of the law to criminalise looking at pseudo images of children, just massively wrong and plain lunacy, but in our rush to be seen to protect the children we have allowed this to become a crime and played into the hands of the "nutters" who would like to control every aspect of how we think and live.

Then came the criminalisation of viewers of extreme sexual imagery and the slippery slope incline begins to increase, and next of course we have the latest lunacy that was the subject of this article before I began ranting.

It will not end with this, see some sense, please. Once sketches and artistic representations have fallen to these people, text will be next. Imagine life without Nabukovs Lolita, Laurie Lees Cider with Rosie, Angela's Ashes and any other number of books that dare utter anything about children and sexuality, positive or negative.

How much have we already given up and how do we go about demanding it back? The discourse that has infected our society in regards to children and sex has all but silenced anyone who dares criticise or question by vilifying them a sympathiser with the perverts who prey on our kids. How Pythonesque, "If she weighs the same as a duck she must be a witch" and I do despair that no satirical genius or luminary has adequately attacked this mythology since the brilliant Brass Eye

This oh so slippery slope was started with the best of intentions, to prevent child abuse imagery, but as sentient and intelligent beings it is time to ask ourselves whether it was worth it. How much will we give up for the sake of the child, how much for the pseudo child, the drawn child? As food for thought realise that the information the public has about child abuse imagery is from the police, courts and child abuse industry. What if for one horrible moment this issue was not as big as it has been made to seem? Then we have given up much for very little.

Protect the children by all means, (strangely enough Maria Eagle MP and your "nutter" friends, parents are rather good at that on the whole.)but when it comes to challenging what we have been told and what these lunatics intend to do, I expect the likes of Mark Lawson, The Guardian and the media in general to have the foresight and the balls to take them head on and denounce them for the utter garbage mongers they are.

Update - David Hockney steps up to the plate

We Are a Nation Confused - Boot Camps and Child Protection

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sat, 31 May 2008 05:24:40 PDT

Have your say on the BBC website today postulates the question should the young unemployed go to 'boot camp?'. Not literally of course but for "re-training". I am singularly unimpressed with any of the replies so far but it does tie in nicely with some reading I was doing yesterday about an organisation called the The Manifesto Club.

A number of luminaries make up this organisation (Frank Furedi being one), and a quick scan through the website reveals a quite interesting selection of ideas all of which have a distinctly humanist flavour.

The Have Your Say piece is saying that if the Tories get in, the unemployed under 21's are likely to be forced into some sort of training plan if they cannot get work.

Sounds like a neat little package and may be ok for those 19 and over but is highly unlikely to help those below that age. The child protection industry has seen to that with their latest vetting regulations endorsed fully of course by the labour quizzlings.

The Manifesto Club point out quite correctly the dangers of such vetting. especially when it goes beyond sense and seriousness

Under the new vetting regime a charge of £65 or thereabouts will be made for the necessary checks and balances to stop the ever present "vile perverts" from getting their grubby hands on the nations children and/or vulnerable people.

So far so "have to agree if not to be labelled a pervert yourself".

What the general public seem blissfully unaware about in regards to vetting is the sheer size of the net that is about to be cast over the UK. In essence, any business, organisation, charity or educational establishment that has people 18 and under will have to vet all staff in the organisation. So an employer with 35 employees at one site will have to vet all 35 people if 17 year old johnny is given a job there.

The cost, approximately £2275, no small amount to any business.

The cost to society, enormous and climbing. This is the end of work experience, jobs at weekends for younger people and any chance of 16 year olds getting an apprenticeship at a given firm. Imagine the cost for a large department store with 350 employees.

Then we have the distrust this harbours and the damage to relationships that are intergenerational. Who can young people now trust?

Another knock on effect will be the outing of those with a criminal record who did not tell their employer. They will simply have to resign, adding to the ever burgeoning underclass of the criminalised. To not tell ones employer is an offence, it shouldn't be I suspect and there are those who would say that this is a bad law that deserves to be broken. Personally I would like to see it taken to the court of human rights as a violation of privacy. Until then, the principle of you have done the time and should now be allowed to get on with your life is a dead one.

This is a desperately sad situation, compounded by the continual bleating of a child protection industry that wants to extend vetting to the entire country. How will Cameron's plans help 16-18 year olds if the financial cost is to great or organisations simply say, and it would be sensible to do so in my mind, "we will not have under 18's on the premises."

I read somewhere that Cambridge University has already done that. In my work we have a strict policy of not working with under 18's or vulnerable people, under any circumstances whatsoever and have turned down contracts because of this. With the current climate no one in their right mind would spend any time alone with anyone under 18 or vulnerable. The risk is far to great.

I should say (imagine the e-mails if i didn't?) no one wants dangerous people working with kids or vulnerable people, but the vetting is so broad it is unable to distinguish between gradients of offending and as such is virtually useless. And in the particular case of sex offences, there are so many false allegations and miscarriages that the government and the child abuse industry fails to recognise that the innocent are being penalised along with the guilty.

The answer to ending all this nonsense is easy. Unfortunately there is not one person in power with the guts or the gumption to stick their political noggin above the parapet and announce the reclassifying of the age of adulthood to 16. In one foul swoop we can alleviate the cost on businesses, open up the gates of universities to talented youngsters and send the message that at 16 you are expected to make your own decisions, live with them and learn to interact in an adult world.

Providing they are not breaking the law, what and where a 16 year old person decides to be is nobodies business but their own. It's time to stop infantilising an entire generation at the pyre of abuse, just simply because we are scared of our own shadows.

Young people must be able to experiment, learn and interact with all types of people, but most of all they must be able to fail in their own right and then learn how to pick themselves up without the clammy hand of child protection clamped firmly around their necks.

I can see the usual suspects lining up to say "but the young people welcome the protection" and I have no doubt many do, who wouldn't? It allows them to shirk responsibility, blame others for their own mistakes and treat the older generations with the disdain and disrespect that being so protected and "iron clad" as the law now allows.

I am sure many of them would like an ounce of dope if you gave it to em, doesn't mean its a good thing does it, likewise this overprotection is not a good thing either.

In essence at one end we have Mr Brown, the NSPCC et al wrapping cotton wool round responsible 16 year old men and at the other Cameron and his Tory cronies promising that if they get in, we will send you away for re-education because you are obviously incapable of sorting yourself out.

Two polar opposites to me, and a disaster for young people either way.

Obviously we are a nation confused.

For more in formation on The Manifesto Club and vetting click here.

An Instructional Guide on How to Accuse Someone of Abuse. Who Would be an Uncle?

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:48:08 PDT

Illness has unfortunately curtailed my blogging recently but back on my feet now and what a nice juicy way to start with this little gem from the child abuse industry.

Not content with demonising men in general, this little leaflet of hate targets Uncles as the new monster in the midst and its message is dangerous propaganda that will encourage false allegations and should scare any right thinking parent with young children.

Children are susceptible to ideas, lack a real adult conscience and will tell stories if it will get them off the hook and/or obtain a desired outcome. Providing literature that could feed a narrative painting familial relationships as suspicious and malevolent is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to do. The child abuse industry, particularly in familial cases, enjoys the cloak of anonymity that the family courts allow and it would be very hard indeed for us to see the resultant increase in false allegations of abuse that trash such as this leaflet could cause.

The odious organisation that the NSPCC has become does a disservice to an area of work (child protection) that attracts a lot of caring and socially concious people who genuinely want to help kids or families in trouble. They themselves should be encouraged but is it not time the NSPCC were brought to task by the charities commission?

The comment by the Childline representative states:

"The NSPCC produced this magazine because our research has shown that significant numbers of children who experience child abuse or bullying tell nobody and suffer in silence. We want to raise awareness so that children speak out sooner and, as necessary, receive the help and support that they need."

I have to suppress a yawn, the same old mantra trotted out as justification for the outrageous spin and marketing activities they continue to carry out. When charities such as this become pro-active recruiters in such a way then they have joined the ranks of lawyers who actively recruit historic abuse cases with the lure of compensation as the pay off. The pay off in the case of the NSPCC and Childline is that any miscreant child with a grudge or simply a fit of pique at not getting their own way, can now receive all the lavish attention they want by simply targeting Uncle Bill.

The usual suspects will of course remind us that children do not lie about abuse. Well time to wake up and smell the roses, children will lie about anything, not necessarily maliciously, but because they are children, impressionable, living in a world filled with mental flights of fancy and quite capable of starting a band wagon with one foolish lie that will mean they have to keep lying to save there own skins.

Once the child abuse industries cogs begin to grind they are almost unstoppable. A friend of mine recently told me that when he attempted to chastise a lad who had been bullying his son, the lads first words were,

"Touch me and I will say that you abused me"

Lovely indeed, and if he had told that lie what would have happened? Would he get a deserved wallop from his parents, a good telling off perhaps? Not likely I am afraid, the NSPCC and its ilk would have shot into action and like a pack of slavering hyaenas pounced on my friend who would have quite possibly had his life ruined.

With the help of the NSPCC and the child abuse industry generally, we have demonised men in all their guises and tainted sex, a wonderful thing that is now seen as nothing more than a negative to many children and young people. Who would be an Uncle? If you take my advice very few of you, stay away from the children, unless you are naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you.

Jersey Care Homes - Seems Peculiar To Me

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Mon, 19 May 2008 01:07:10 PDT

Here
and here
and here

I smell a rat! is it just me? Obviously not as Richard Webster, author of the excellent Secret of Bryn Estyn the riveting account of the miscarriage of justice that took place in North Wales Care Homes and left a trail of devastation in it's wake(if you haven't read it yet then get a move on!)also seems to have noticed. Thankfully his eloquence is far superior to mine and probably easier reading but nevertheless after reading the article on the BBC led me to the three further articles in the links at the top of this blog I felt a bit of comment was in order. Looked at as a quartet, these four BBC pieces certainly cry for some thoughtful analysis at least. I am sure Richard will be doing that this very day and to some of us who have retained some healthy scepticism about the latest "House of Paedophile Horror", the announcement that the supposed bones are part of a coconut goes some way to justifying our sceptical stance.

It is hard however to say that this vindicates the thinking, it does not. It just makes it all the more sad that the lessons of past historic investigations seems still not to have been learnt and I foresee more people falsely accused. more ruined lives and whole new round of storytelling for the Media.

Man claims abuse at Jersey home This is a particularly illuminating article in that it manages to imply everything and say nothing. A grand example of what seems to surround this bizarre case, and just another example of where it can all go wrong. A quote from today's article is equally revealing.

In a lengthy statement released on Sunday, States of Jersey Police responded to allegations in a Sunday newspaper that the likely origin of that initial "bone" fragment was purposely kept from the media.

Police say the initial find - whether it turns out to be bone or not - had already been ruled out of their investigation after experts agreed that it dated from before 1940.

They say to highlight its origins would have distracted from their investigation.

The statement goes on to say that the officer in charge of the investigation, deputy chief officer Lenny Harper, "takes full responsibility for the decision to curtail the debate on the item which had already been ruled out of the enquiry and which would have indeed distracted attention from the victims of abuse".

What does that mean? Sounds dodgy and smells rat like. Also, notice the use of the word "victim", before anyone has been found guilty, a trait of historical cases that is such an obvious precursor to miscarriages. With emotive issues such as these the choice of words is important if people are to be found guilty when they are or left alone when they are not.

The outcome of this will be interesting to say the least and I will leave the final word to Brendan O'Neil of the Guardian in his excellent article.

The CPS and Second Guessing Jurors

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Sat, 10 May 2008 08:05:25 PDT

I used to believe that the whole point of trial by jury was to decide whether or not a crime had taken place. They would add up the evidence and examine witnesses in an attempt to decide the issue of guilt or not based on the charges. What a shock and surprise to find out how wrong I have been.

Now the primary horror has to be the fact that the poor fellow is dead, secondarily when there where four of them you have to question the use of the the old spray and thirdly the words of the pathologist on the case who stated "asphyxia during restraint" as the cause of death...

What does that mean? Weasley words indeed I say and certainly in need of further interpretation. At one end I suppose that some would say he was he was strangled by a group of overzealous state storm troopers with too much power and too much money. On the other that if he had not resisted he wouldn't be dead and so on, I do hope there is not to many of them, callous bastards. I fall somewhere in the middle, he should not have resisted of course, that is if what they were asking him to do was reasonable and within their power to insist upon. No mention of that I see (as usual) god forbid we should get some facts in a newspaper report.

However, even taking into account that they were right all down the line , how come four trained armed officers of our majesty's finest could not get the better of one man?

This opens all sorts of avenues to discuss the level of training, type of training, and the state of mind of these four servants of justice that meant they could spray a man in the face, get him to the ground, stand on his neck and asphyxiate him without knowing they were doing it.

Apparently he "wailed like a dog" while this was going on and told them he could not breath so what was going through their minds? Had they seen red? Where they incapable of rationalising because they were so intent on controlling and subduing the man? I for one would like to know. Unfortunately, we never will, because the real shocking epilogue to this human tragedy is the quote from the Crown Prosecution Service which goes like this...

No prosecutions will be brought as the CPS decided "a jury would find that the restraint was not unlawful" as there was not sufficient evidence that the officers had breached their duty of care.

This should terrify any right minded person, the CPS, who, using the flimsiest of oral evidence and here say, will happily hurry to court any allegation of terrorism, child abuse, under-age sex, human trafficking or whatever else happens to be flavour of the month with the tabloids, have decided in their wisdom what a jury would think before they have seen the evidence.

Second guessing juries is not their job, and in a case which in the worst scenario could be a racially motivated hate murder and at best a tragic accident for all concerned the verdict (that is rightfully a juries to decide), should not be left to some pen pusher hiding behind a desk and the anonymity the CPS are afforded. It should be aired in open court where the police (whom I believe are now greatly out of favour with the British people),their tactics and procedures can be scrutinised and revealed.

A man has had his life taken by the very men who are meant to protect us and the chance of finding out why has been removed by the state that is supposed to uphold justice and liberty. My heart goes out to his friends and family and I imagine echoes of Jean Charles De Menezes will be stirring in many readers.

In the words of V... "There is something terribly wrong with this country
How did this happen? Who is to blame?
If your looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"

Shame on us all.

God Help Us All

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:54:57 PDT

Well, here is a fine pickle indeed

Is it an unerring sense that all bosses are honest that allows this sort of Orwellian rubbish to go on or simply any excuse to list, categorize and label people for some later grand master plan?

It got me thinking about my reaction to other lists, such as the ones that are used for credit checking. If I fall out with a company who give me shoddy service I may refuse to pay them, it does not mean I will refuse to pay the next, so why blacklist me?

I am sure the answer is just in case, but that really is not good enough by any standard. Let's do it to him just in case, quite chilling really.

If sense is to prevail in this country we need to awaken to the dangers this type of thing already causes. The most famous example being the Sex Offenders Register, now has some 30000 plus people on it for offences ranging from having sex with a bike to the most vicious child rape and murder. Being on any list implies a homogenised, one size fits all way of thinking that the current government seems to love so dearly, oh for a little nuance, just the slightest glint of grey.

We already know that miscreants and mountebanks have benefited financially from lying about rape and other offences with the myriad false accusations exposed in the media, so what makes the Home Office and the Retail Consortium thing the same is not going to happen here. The National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR)as it will be called, will provide openings for unscrupulous malcontents, spiteful or bitter co-workers and bosses on the fiddle to simply set up a member of staff with no recourse to a court and without the police being called. More ruined lives on the pyre that has become New Labours oh so caring nanny state. But the behemoth grinds on.

If, as with the reclassification of Cannabis the message is that one problem individual is too much to keep it at level C, then why does this thinking not apply elsewhere? One ruined innocent life, and perhaps their friends and family is one to many, it may be time to abandon lists all together Mr Brown.

Alternatively, perhaps the best idea may be to set up a list of people not yet on a list, then they can set up businesses, marry,socialise, live with and near others on the not yet on a list list.

Sex offenders can do the same, with 30000 that could easily be a small thriving community on its own.

The non creditworthy could become the new underclass (if they are not already) and we could house all Daily Mail readers in a twee bubble covered town on the outskirts of London.

Oh bugger, I just made a list!

Two Blogs on One Day - God Forbid

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:53:17 PDT

Well, just came across this and had to blog. Jonathan King, self confessed vile pervert has made a movie.

It's shocking, laugh out loud funny and a total fuck you to the abuse industry and it's supporters. Give it a go.

The tunes are catchy, the production quite slick and the points made far more important than his normal warbling over his false accusations. You can begin to understand that the juggernaut he was caught in could catch anyone. False accusations are not a joke anymore and need to be taken seriously. In the end I cannot help wondering why we have not got floods of cases of 15 year old boys moaning because the got shagged by a woman of 25 30 years ago. Oh hang on, of course not, wasn't gay was it. More power to you Jonathan.

Welcome

noreply@blogger.com (Professor Sapient) — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:54:11 PDT

Another day in paradise sigh...

Was watching the horrifically annoying Tanya Byron on the BBC player last night and it proved to be the last straw in my continuous fight to avoid starting a blog. So as you can see I lost!

The premise of am I normal seems to be one based on the idea that normal as Tanya Byron seems to see it, actually exists. From dogging to Gaydar via mens lavatories and glory holes our Tanya politely and with suitably squeamish behavior (nose holding, sniffing and looking all psychologist serious at the correct points) guided us through the peccadilloes and delights of the odd queer, some dogging pervs and and finally the whorey old chestnut that is the paedophile so we are all left in no uncertain terms the amount of disgust we are required to show when faced with the question of children and sex.

Andrew Billen in the Times kindly elucidated much of my sentiments in his short but sweet article.

and I do believe his closing statement which reads:

"It struck me that these days we deal with the range of human sexuality rather well by having established-in-law the principle that what consenting adults do in private is their own affair. It is psychologists who confuse matters."

However I think that it is somewhat more than that. They don't just confuse matters they positively stoke the fire and make things worse. Witness her chillingly shallow attempt to brand the poor gay fellow as abused because he had random sex in a toilet when he was fourteen. Hinting that his entire sexual persona is a direct result of this one insignificant and no doubt quite randy event. She placates us further by being kind enough to explain that gay men often had sex furtively in toilets (and in general) due to societies intolerance.

Her target, Martin, seemed to agree that the idea of furtive sex is driven by the way gay men were treated, and i concur. What they both seem to have misunderstood is the depth to which the furtive and clandestine nature of gay mens sexual acts has been affected by the criminalization that they suffered for over a hundred years. It strikes me that this is now so ingrained into gay culture that it is certainly normative for many and an interesting dalliance every now and again for the rest.

As for the inclusion of dogging, why? Most heterosexual behavior is already pre-defined as normal because heterosexuality; despite our enlightened times is still seen as normal, or to be vaguely Orwellian "more normal.". Nobody generally questions the activities of straight people in terms of normal or not, just in how shocking it is and how many papers it is liable to sell, which of course depends entirely on the status of the celebrity.

Tanya, oh so understanding Tanya, assures us that dogging is neither perversion nor disorder, yet bemoans the loss of her clinical surroundings that force her to evaluate how she will react. As what? A human being perhaps? The schizophrenic nature of this statement is quite chilling, as a psychologist she can handle this or that, but outside the clinical surroundings who knows.

The vocabulary of abuse raises its ugly head as she describes dogging as firstly predatory, then sinister. When it comes to the stripper she hearkens back to the childhood of the chap in a way to explain or try to understand the psychological underpinnings of why he carries out this sinister, predatory, oh and by the way neither perversion nor disorder act. Within minutes he has picked up the same vocabulary and is describing other activities as sinister himself. Just for your interest he is apparently punishing his mother. Its all such a psycho bore.

Scat, pissing, fisting et al were on the menu for discussion, and the usual root cause psychological cover alls like divorce, abuse and low self esteem trotted out regularly, just so we did not feel we were on to unfamiliar ground.

It was nonsense the majority of it, and the addition of the conversation with the deluded paedophile at the end was really only their to stop this BBC production from being more suitable for Channel 5 late night showing. It also gave us a get out clause, you may be gay, practice fisting, pissing, stripping, dogging or any other manner of activity but don't worry, your fine, that fucker over their is a paedo!

Wonderfully, whilst discussing sex in toilets in a toilet (why?) someone was smart enough to take a shit in the cubicle while she stood by horrified holding her nose. Give that man a medal.