Paedophile Plague

kids.jpg

To all those who worry about the paedophile plague ….they fail to understand the terrible damage that is done by this system of presuming guilt in the entire male population just because of the tendencies of a tiny minority

… the problem is the general collapse of trust. Almost every human relationship that was sensibly regulated by trust is now governed by law, with cripplingly expensive consequences

Come off it, folks: how many paedophiles can there be?

Really? I said, not quite able to believe my luck. There we were, waiting for take-off, and I had just been having a quick zizz. It was a long flight ahead, all the way to India, and I had two children on my left. Already they were toughing each other up and sticking their fingers up each other’s nose, and now — salvation!

Hovering above me was a silk-clad British Airways stewardess with an angelic smile, and she seemed to want me to move. “Please come with me, sir” said the oriental vision.

At once, I got her drift. She desired to upgrade me. In my mind’s eye, I saw the first-class cabin, the spiral staircase to the head massage, the Champagne, the hot towels.


“You betcha!” I said, and began to unbuckle. At which point, the children set up a yammering. Oi, they said to me, where do you think you are going? I was explaining that the captain had probably spotted me come on board, don’t you know. Doubtless he had decided that it was outrageous for me to fly steerage, sound chap that he was. I’d make sure to come back now and then, hmmm?

At which the stewardess gave a gentle cough. Actually, she said, she was proposing to move me to row 52, and that was because — she lowered her voice — “We have very strict rules”.

Eh? I said, by now baffled. “A man cannot sit with children,” she said; and then I finally twigged. “But he’s our FATHER”, chimed the children. “Oh,” said the stewardess, and then eyed me narrowly. “These are your children?” “Yes,” I said, a bit testily. “Very sorry,” she said, and wafted down the aisle — and in that single lunatic exchange you will see just about everything you need to know about our dementedly phobic and risk-averse society. In the institutionalised prejudice of that BA stewardess against an adult male, you see one of the prime causes of this country’s tragic under-achievement in schools.

I mention all this because the same absurd kerfuffle happened this week. Some child was put next to an ancient journalist and his wife on a flight, and the airline (BA again) went into spasm. As the hoo-ha raged, the press turned to the lobby groups, and someone called Pam Hibbert of Barnardo’s obliged with the usual bossyboots quote. The ban on sitting children next to adults was “eminently sensible”, said this eminently ridiculous figure.

I mean, come off it, folks. How many paedophiles can there be? Are we really saying that any time an adult male finds himself sitting next to someone under 16, he must expect to be hustled from his seat before the suspicious eyes of the entire cabin?

What about adult females? Every week there is some new tale of what a saucy French mistress is deemed to have done with her adolescent charges behind the bicycle sheds; and, disgraceful though these episodes may be, I don’t hear anyone saying that children should be shielded from adult women. Do you? Or maybe I’m wrong — maybe all adults will have to carry personal cardboard partitions with them on every plane or train, just in case they find themselves sitting next to under-16s.

Even as I write, I can imagine the lip-pursing of some of my lovely high-minded readers. How would you like it, they will say, if some weird chap was plonked next to your kids? And they are right that I would worry about some strange adult sitting next to my children, chiefly because I wouldn’t want the poor fellow to come to any harm.

To all those who worry about the paedophile plague, I would say that they not only have a very imperfect understanding of probability; but also that they fail to understand the terrible damage that is done by this system of presuming guilt in the entire male population just because of the tendencies of a tiny minority.

There are all sorts of reasons why the numbers of male school teachers are down 50 per cent in the period 1981 to 2001, and why the ratio of female to male teachers in primary schools is now seven to one. There are problems of pay, and the catastrophic failure of the state to ensure that they are treated as figures of authority and respect; and what with ‘elf ‘n’ safety and human rights it is very hard to enforce discipline.

But it is also, surely, a huge deterrent to any public-spirited man contemplating a career in education that society apparently regards all adult male contact with young people as being potentially a bit dodgy, a bit rum, a bit you know…

It is a total disaster. It is not just that both boys and girls could do with more male role models in the classroom. Worse still, it often used to be men who taught physics, and maths, and chemistry, and it is the current shortage of such teachers that explains why 80 per cent of pupils studying physics are now taught by someone with a degree in biology; and that in turn helps explain why the numbers doing physics A-level have halved, and why physics departments are closing all over the shop, with all the consequent damage to our science base.

It has tended to be male teachers who take contact sports. Even if they can find a playing-field, these days, the poor male sports teachers have to cope with a terrifying six-inch thick manual explaining how they must on no account shout at their charges, and above all, on pain of prosecution, they must NOT BE LEFT ALONE with the kids. No wonder our children are apparently turning into big fat Augustus Gloops.

It is insane, and the problem is the general collapse of trust. Almost every human relationship that was sensibly regulated by trust is now governed by law, with cripplingly expensive consequences.

I blame the media, I blame the judges, I blame the lobby groups, and in particular I blame the cowardly capitalist airline companies that give in to this sort of loony hysteria. If you happen to be reading this on a British Airways flight, and have quite rightly sustained a burst blood vessel, then I think you are entitled to an immediate upgrade.

233 thoughts on “Paedophile Plague”

  1. “There are all sorts of reasons why the…”

    Tautology!!!
    Boris is going off the rails!!!

    Call an ambulance.

  2. Boris,

    As a faculty head in a grammar school, may I commend you for your educational insights and inimitable deconstriction of the regulatory absurdities with which teachers find themselves confronted. There are indeed very strict protocols on dealing with children, and even more on external school visits. If my faculty wishes to take (say)6 boys on a visit, I may not take them, yet a female teacher may. If such a visit occurs, and I wish to go myself, the school must also be deprived of a female teacher to (presumably) ‘keep an eye on me’.

    It is no wonder that the frequency of such visits is diminishing; they are becoming a bureacratic nightmare.

    I hosted your Boss, Mr Willetts, yesterday, and he was grilled by the Sixth Form. There are very high expectations of what the next Conservative government will do for education, and we at Slough Grammar rest easily at night knowing you are part of David Willetts’ team. We wish you well.

  3. Hear hear. Imagine if the same kinds of assumptions were made about people from ethnic communities. Imagine a West Indian passenger being moved on the basis that he might be a thief. This sort of twisted thinking is dizzying. It is symptomatic of the dismal safety-first credo peddled by public agencies and the spineless courts that reward every witless claim of victimhood.

    Most of all it is the fault of a cretinous government that is so intent on inverting traditional hierarchies that it automatically dentifies all representations of power (including adulthood and masculinity) as inherently evil. When Blair’s junta is finally booted out, I just hope that the Tories have the stomach to unravel all their pernicious nonsense and consign it to the dustbin of history.

  4. Boris, I’m with you on the lunacy of BA, but don’t you think perhaps there’d be a lot less worry if the Government did their job and actually locked them up instead of given them token sentences and then leaving them free to roam the streets? Every time a sex offender gets a stupidly low sentence, it just feeds into the fear.

  5. Moral considerations aside, if BA can promise I won’t have to sit next to wriggling brat for the whole flight, I’m flying BA.

  6. I wish you were right Boris, I do, I wish I could agree with you, but I don’t. If you saw Panorama last night you will have some notion that even when paedophiles are caught and convicted their supervision is woefully inadequate. Getting that conviction is incredibly difficult, easier if the offender is a stranger but near impossible if the abuser is a friend of the family or worse, a relative.

    Some of these sickos are willing to forcibly rape a 3 month old baby. Most babies are around 6-7 lbs at birth. That’s little over 3 bags of sugar. You know how a grown man is built. As long as there is little or no restraint for these perverts, and we must remember their human rights and fathers for justice etc., then paedohysteria will not only continue but will be completely justified, nay sensible. You see, what about women? There are stories in the news of grown women being involved in such things but mostly they are doing it for a man that is also involved or they are encouraging the attentions of a teenager. I’m not saying this is right but there is more of an element of violation with a girl than a boy if the girl is raped and the boy allowed. Citation needed but I’m sure I read somewhere that the fact is that men make up 98% of sex offenders. Given that Fact Boris, as a mother I think a little discrimination totally justified.

    Could it be sour grapes on an important subject Boris – you’re miffed because you didn’t get into 1st class and got stuck being ‘Al the daddy’ instead of ‘Boris the VIP’?

  7. I like this Tayles chap. The previous post under Iraq was magnificent and the quality continues .
    This nugget of PC lunacy has been extensively covered elsewhere so I like the section broadening the subject at the end .On the probability of a paedophile being sat next to child , though , it probably does not need saying, but these are not particles in Brownian motion . When the randomness of a flight seat does not apply, relying on statistics is insufficient. Look, for example, at what happened to the care facilities in Islington under Margaret Hodge. “Why”, he said wistfully , and apropos of nothing ,” is that woman still employed ?”
    Vigilance is required out of all proportion to the numbers involved. I would not like any Libertarian principles to interfere with strict monitoring in a number of contexts. I would be concerned if an adult male sat next to my young son if , for no obvious reason, he chose to. Perhaps this is irrational, it is more irrational to expect parents to be rational about it .
    I have heard much of the sort of thing Adrian Hilton complains about from teachers of my acquaintance, and he is obviously a very good egg . On the other hand I wonder how he would react to this suggestion.
    Nothing any government does to move the furniture around educationally is likely to work until teachers can be fired . Many consistently under perform and yet they stay, infecting schools with sub jobsworth cynicism. The Unions are resisting a suggestion that science teachers might be paid more on a simple supply and demand basis . This is the tiniest step in the right direction, but shows the role of the teaching unions in obstructing progress. Teachers may feel justifiably aggrieved when they are ritually harangued ,while other, worse cases , like the police , are described as wonderful. Nonetheless, it is worth remembering that any number of systems can and have worked well . With poor teachers, none will.

    What would Mr. Hilton suggest and does he agree with any of this ? I hasten to add that absolutely no offence is intended. I am well aware that there are plenty of teachers whose heroic dedication is not rewarded or respected enough. To me this is part of the same problem. His own school is doubtless a shining exception to the general disaster that is education in this country .If so , where is it ? I would like to move nearby. ( Do they play rugby ?)

  8. Newmania makes very important points.

    This is the first time I have posted comment on Boris’ blog. I have been waiting for an education topic to which I could contribute. In this post, he touches on the sort of madness with which teachers are confronted daily.

    When it comes to dismissing ‘bad teachers’, the reality is rather different from the fictional practice. Heads can and do get rid of bad teachers. Of course there is a process, and it may be lengthy, but ultimately the Head and Governors have a statutory obligation to educate children. ‘Bad’ teachers (ie those who do not or cannot educate), are (I assure you) removed. However, there are others – one might say ‘developing’ or ‘learning’ – who need support and guidance in their chosen career path. Government expects other teachers to do this, without any extra funding or incentive. There is a dearth of teachers in some subjects, and I can understand a Head’s desire that someone (not quite anyone) in front of the classroom is better than no-one.

    The tragedy is that teachers get sick of it, especially male primary school teachers (a species almost extinct) who are invariably made to feel observed, as if their vocation were somehow linked to sexual prediliction.

  9. A HILTON- I for one would be highly interested to know what direction you feel we should be taking and how we might get there ?
    Personally I find it infinitely easier to see the problem than to offer any solution.

  10. While I sympathise with Jaq’s fears, it is precisely this skewed view of the world which we need to challenge. It’s little wonder that we have the lost the ability to make a rational assesment of the risk posed by perverts when the government and the media have been exaggerating them to further to appear tough and caring in equal measures.

    The truth is that the number of child attacks in this country is remarkably low and has been for decades. The very reason that they receive such conspicuous news coverage is that they are so rare. Although individual cases are tragic, there is no reason to believe that the draconian regulation that the government and public agencies has introduced will do anything to protect a single child. All they have succeeded in doing is poisoning informal relationships between adults and children.

    The climate of fear and suspicion that this perpetuates further fragments our society, making us increasingly wary of other people. This does child safety no favours at all. We need to regain adult authority and return to the days when we thought of children as a public responsibility, rather than the care of individual parents or the state.

  11. Well said Boris. One point you failed to mention. Do BA allow children to fly alone? Well no they don’t so why isn’t it the responsibility of the (dare I say it???) Parent or Carer to ensure that these children are OK not a 20 year old trolley dolly who can only regurgitate the policies and procedures of BA and sell over priced perfume.

    Keep up the good work – Boris for PM

    Andy

  12. Tayles – I do NOT have a “skewed view of the world” thank you very much. You state “The truth is that the number of child attacks in this country is remarkably low and has been for decades. The very reason that they receive such conspicuous news coverage is that they are so rare.” and that’s the truth is it? Good grief I didn’t realise I was talking to God and that you’re omnipresent; in every home, and everywhere at all times and able to see every incident whether reported or not. And that you’re aware of the details of all the incidents that are reported. My apologies Sir.

    And if you’re not God my daughter would like a ‘glitterator’ for xmas, thankyou.

  13. Boris, as usual, makes two important points, one of which holds water and one of which is glossed over and trimmed to fit the word count for this article.

    He makes them very well, also as usual.

    Boris is right that there’s a degree of hysteria and gender-based demonization that is entirely inappropriate, not to mention ineffective. Pedophiles are a scourge, and they are inadequately contained, treated, and monitored, it’s true, but innocent men are being scapegoated for no good reason, nor does it diminish the number of real attacks.

    Now let’s talk about the second point he makes: that this societal prejudice reduces the number of male teachers (agreed) and, further, that this hurts the teaching of physical education, sciences and maths.

    Correct, with a caveat, and that is this: That the reason there aren’t adequate numbers of female teachers in the sciences and physical education is that they have been systematically discriminated against.

    I used to work with the Women Do Math conference here in BC, which encouraged teenage girls to stay in sciences and maths. We took the best female scientists available and let them run workshops all weekend with teenage girls who came from all over the province, and those girls, the best in their schools, told us some horrror stories about the obstacles they had to overcome to attend, or even to be called upon in class. Some teachers simply never called on girls to answer questions. Our president said she got involved in organizing the conference when, at a teacher-parent meeting, the math teacher said “your daughter’s not doing well in math because she doesn’t pay attention, but it doesn’t matter, since she’s a girl. She won’t need it.”

    Girls are systematically encouraged out of the sciences throughout school, and this results in a dearth of female scientists. I know a few, and the horror stories they have to tell are real eye-openers.

    So if the current prejudice against men means that women have to be the science teachers, perhaps we will see a correction and women will now be less discouraged from pursuing science. What a shame that there’s always a lag time.

    I must say, I’m highly for any airline policy that insists a parent sit with their children, particularly if the children are of the nose-poking age and type. But really, could the flight attendant not have looked at the passenger list and seen they were related? It’s not as if the kids made their own reservations. Failure of bureaucracy as well as a stupid policy.

  14. raincoaster – excellent point well made. If my daughter told me she wanted to study science I would, of course, support her, but I would also try hard to dissuade her from doing so, just as my mother did.

  15. I’m not sure how much of a new phenomenon this all is. When I was 15, in the summer of 1995, a couple of friends and I were playing cricket on the local primary school playing fields. After about half an hour some sort of summer holiday playgroup for primary school kids (they all looked about 5 years old) started up around one hundred yards away.

    One of the women taking the playgroup came over to us and told us we had to leave because of ‘child safety’. We innocently assured her that we were just having a gentle knock around and were not going to hit the ball far enough to hurt on of her kids.

    ‘That’s not what I’m worried about’ she said, ‘You can’t play here when the children are here’. So we left and went to play somewhere else. Even though we were 15 year old kids at the time she wasn’t going to have us anywhere near the group of 5 year olds, presumably in case we abducted one of them.

    As for sitting next to kids on public transport, as long as they look quiet, and don’t strike me as the sort to puke all over my trousers, I have no qualms whatsoever about doing it. It’s better than sitting next to someone who smells, or is so enormous you are cramped for seating space.

  16. Ouch! Quite a response, Jaq. Sadly I am not God. I’m not even a believer. However, I stand by my comments. If you are suggesting that we’ve no way of knowing how many unreported attacks take place on children, then you’re probably right. But if we don’t know then there’s no justification for fearing the worst, for treating all men as potential sex-offenders, and for encouraging us to treat each other with suspicion.

    My argument is that the culture of fear and loathing this attitude promotes only divides communities further, alienating people from each other and driving children further from the public gaze. If anything this will make it easier for attacks in the home to take place. I honestly cannot imagine how formalising relationships between adults and children, spooking people with ‘stranger danger’ campaigns, and allowing the state to mediate our contact with others is supposed to result in an open, trusting and safe society.

    No one is talking about playing down genuine risks; just getting things in perspective. It’s easy to read reports of heinous attacks of children and instinctively feel that drastic measures are needed. But we must also consider the wider social repercussions. We need to challenge the idea that questions of safety brook no argument and look at the bigger picture. I, for one, am sick of people treating masculinity as a disease to be cured.

  17. Even as I write, I can imagine the lip-pursing of some of my lovely high-minded readers. How would you like it, they will say, if some weird chap was plonked next to your kids? And they are right that I would worry about some strange adult sitting next to my children, chiefly because I wouldn’t want the poor fellow to come to any harm.

    Ha Ha! This article is spot on Boris…well done for saying it!

    Have you seen this: [Ed: need for moderation on the site]

  18. Tayles – your implied critism of me is baseless, you will discover this if you read what I actually say rather than what you think I’ve said. (said in text that is) I am perfectly willing to argue about I do say but will not waste time fighting all the supposed wrongs that you imagine.

    You talk in impressive general terms: “getting things in perspective” and “consider the wider social repercussions” and of course “look at the bigger picture”. You didn’t vote New Labour by any chance did you??

  19. “Correct, with a caveat, and that is this: That the reason there aren’t adequate numbers of female teachers in the sciences and physical education is that they have been systematically discriminated against.”

    ??

    Hmmm. Typical feminist comment. It’s never because the women are crap at the job or just don’t want to do it. It is always because they are being discriminated against. Funny how few women there are lugging a hod full of house bricks up a ladder. Working down sewage pipes. Climbing about on roofs in all weathers on slippery tiles. Etc, etc. Discrimination? Nah. Hard, dangerous work. The perpetual victim mentality of the average feminist is evidence that most of them are nuts!

  20. I can still remember when paedophiles were first invented. It was probably sometime in the 1980s, when there was a sudden media storm about something called the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which were a bunch a of paedophiles (I had to look the word up in a dictionary) exchanging information on pre-web message boards. All of a sudden, we were presented with the vision of organised gangs of child molesters roaming the streets.

    I wondered what the fuss was all about. It was well known before this that there were men who preyed upon children. My mother used to warn me not to accept sweets from strangers, who might abduct me and abuse me in nameless ways. And I was myself once, aged 8 or so, lured into a gents’ toilet by one of them (he wanted to show me something ‘interesting’), and prevented from leaving, with it being perfectly visible to me that he was in a state of considerable arousal. This was, I supposed, what he’d wanted to show me. I only escaped when a large, middle-aged man in a pinstripe suit walked in, and I promptly ran out. I regarded the episode as instructive rather than traumatising. I didn’t even bother to report him (he was a steward on a ship, so wasn’t going anywhere), but simply decided to keep my distance thereafter.

    Such people exist, and have always existed, and always will exist. Indeed, in ancient Greece, a love of boys was regarded as quite normal. It no longer is these days, but I find it hard to see that such people pose a terrible menace to children, unless they maim or murder them.

    What we have these days is pure hysteria (as with almost everything else). And my mother’s simple advice still seems to me the best advice.

  21. Eric, if there’s one thing I detest it’s being condescended to by a person who is inferior to me, such as you.

    I have the numbers, and I have the experience. Boris himself has written about how few women are in the sciences, and I can tell you that there are systematic reasons for this. One of the reasons that biology degree holders are teaching the other sciences is that women are less discriminated against in biology, it being often a prerequisite for medicine.

    I also know several women who are in construction, so please don’t paint me or my friends or the people I’m talking about with the same brush. You’ve perhaps had dealings with some bog-standard doctrinaire feminists. It’s time to get over that and treat me and the other people who disagree with you as individuals, however hard that may be for you. Step up.

  22. I do not agree with BA’s (and I believe a New Zealand airline do the same) policy on this one in theory, especially since, as far as I am aware, most children are abused by someone who would be allowed to sit next to them anyway i.e parent, relative, mothers partner etc. However, I do agree with Jaq and Pete in that this is a symptom of the problem not the problem itself. If parents could be safe in the knowledge that their child would be safe then BA would not need to do the governments job. However, the government have failed in their duty to protect children from abuse by failing to provide a deterrant to would be abusers and failing to secure those already convicted.

    And Tayles, child abuse is extremely common, I know several people who were abused as children and not one of their cases has ever had any media coverage despite the abuser being convicted. Perhaps you might want to take a look at this weeks newspapers to see how common child abuse is.

  23. I am not so sure that the danger of men being left alone with children is putting men off working with children as it is becoming trendy for men to work as nannies and au-pairs, which involves being alone with a child far more than being a teacher does.
    I do think more people need to be encouraged to teach science, though. I think part of the problem is tution fees and the lack of grants while studying towards an undergraduate degree. What is the point of paying a fortune, getting in debt up to your eyeballs to take a job with rotten pay? The problem will only get worse if universities are allowed to charge their own fees, unless wages for teachers are increased.

  24. Jaq, I’m perplexed. I didn’t realise I was criticising you. I was only pointing out the inconsitencies in your argument. It’s called debate. We throw differing opinions back and forth and hopefully get to the truth of the matter. At the risk of offending you further, I think you might be taking these things a little too personally.

    Since this is an online forum and not the space to print a manuscript outlining my views, I have to use general terms. If you really want me to outline what I mean by these terms, let me know and I’ll start writing.

    In the meantime, let’s look at what you DID say:
    “Good grief I didn’t realise I was talking to God and that you’re omnipresent; in every home, and everywhere at all times and able to see every incident whether reported or not. And that you’re aware of the details of all the incidents that are reported. My apologies Sir.”

    Aside from the sarcastic tone, your point is quite clear: that no one can possibly know the extent of abuse that takes place in the privacy of the home. This is precisely what I picked up on in the first paragraph of my last post. The final two paragraphs diverged from your comments are were not intended to allude to anything you said, imaginary or otherwise.

    Shall we move on?

  25. I also once used to know, some 30 years ago, a one-time teacher. He taught at a state school, and some of his pupils were teenage girls.

    He was quite good-looking. And he told me that teenage girls would quite regularly walk up to him in school, and say, “Please, sir, will you f*** me?”

    “And what was your response?” I inquired.

    “Well, eventually, I did,” he said. “What would you have done?”

    Eventually, the school authorities found out about it, and he was fired. And he was not only fired, but he was never able to get a teaching job again.

    When I knew him, he was a drug dealer, living just across the road from a police station. The last I heard of him was that one day the police came over and arrested him, and he was sent to prison.

    I still occasionally mull over the question he asked me. What would I have done? Clearly the right thing to do would have been to tell the girl to wash her mouth out and go away. But, really, how many men are going to repeatedly turn down such explicit offers from pretty young girls in mini-skirts? Not many, I imagine. Probably not me either.

    I wondered afterwards how many other teachers had lost their jobs in similar circumstances.

  26. It is not the man in the next seat that is a threat to children but those who sit on the new labour benches of Parliament with their deliberate destruction of the nuclear family, nausiating spin and propaganda pumped out ad nauseum.

    The constant hype and misinformation about domestic violence, terrorism, bird flu, exploding baby bottles, phoney kidnap plots to destroy fathers groups and so on… and on … all to distract from the problems they cause and the moral cesspit this country is sinking into.

  27. I have no wish to sully Boris’s blog with pointless arguments with feminists. (I say pointless, because I have yet to meet a single one of those creatures who was capable of admitting fault in anything) so this will be my last word on this subject. (The perfect cue for you to get a quick stab in without fear of reprisal raincoaster).

    “Eric, if there’s one thing I detest it’s being condescended to by a person who is inferior to me, such as you.”

    Very interesting! There is a word in the English language for someone who believes themselves to be superior. What is it now? Supremacist? Narcissist? Or, is it, SEXIST? No wait. It cannot be sexist. Women are never sexist. Only men are sexist.

    Men are “sexist” whenever they are critical of female behaviour. This also makes them, misogynists. Females however, are never guilty of sexism, or Misandry, (hatred of males) no matter how cutting, ruthless, rude, or “superior” they think they are to men. Now, who was it that made up these rules again? Ah yes. Feminists. Therefore, when a feminist says, “A husband is just a rapist that buys you flowers.” As Marilyn French once did. That kind of remark is simply the “oppressed” fighting back against the “patriarchy” and the fact that it implies that all men are rapists (also said by Ms French) is by the by. Nothing “sexist” or anti male about it at all.

    Hmmm.

    The wave of protest from women when men are discriminated against on TV, in Adverts, movies, millions of women’s periodicals, magazines, on chat shows, daytime TV shows etc, etc, is deafening for its silence. That rather suggests an agenda and a double standard is operating.

    “I also know several women who are in construction, so please don’t paint me or my friends or the people I’m talking about with the same brush.”

    “Several” bricks will not a high wall make! Pointing out that a few women have braved the milder ends of the construction business does not make my point less valid. I do not see a rush of females wanting to walk the slippery slopes of a high roof in the rain. But then again, I do not hear much female praise for the men who do so either. I do, however, hear the sound of bitching females who would not recognise happiness if it was to run them over in the street disguised as a large bar of chocolate with the words, “Eat me. You know you want too.” written on it.

    You see, as long as there are women there will be few happy ones. No matter how “ideal” the world is made for them, they will always find a reason to excoriate men because therein lies their power. They are, in the main, genetically programmed to see themselves as poor little victims whilst claiming to be strong. Which is why you find so few of them shouting that abused men ought to have a refuge or two to go too with their kids. To say that, is to be forced to admit that maybe, just maybe, they do not have the majority share of the victim market after all. Such reality would be too much to bare.

    “I have the numbers, and I have the experience. Boris himself has written about how few women are in the sciences, and I can tell you that there are systematic reasons for this…”

    For some reason I imagined this spoken out loud in those bossy tones women adopt when they want to try to prove their superiority over the rest of us. I have the numbers, and I have the experience..

    I, I, I, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine. These are feminist words that mean, I AM ALWAYS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING! But, also words that reveal just what they really are. As I said before, NUTS.

  28. Tayles – you didn’t realisie you were critising me? You should pay more attention. There were no “inconsitencies” in my argument. And the charge of “I think you might be taking these things a little too personally” is an easy refuge for a weak point.

    Since this is an online forum and not the space to print a manuscript outlining my views, I have to use general terms. If you really want me to outline what I mean by these terms, let me know and I’ll start writing.

    This is a blog which welcomes detailed and well constructed views – start writing!

  29. Eric, I believe myself to be superior to you not because you are male (this is the Internet; we really have no way of knowing) but rather because you fail to analyze my remarks, preferring to categorize and thus dismiss me.

    You are not inferior because you are male; you are inferior because you do not think analytically, you do not treat other people as individuals, and you are desperately mistaken and only dig yourself in deeper, rather than support your argument with facts or logic. I welcome your lengthy remarks here, because nothing I could say could possibly prove me as correct as your own testimony.

    Welcome.

  30. Those here who seem to agree with barring men from having any ad hoc contact with any children should remember that this does untold harm to our sons who are being brought up solely by women, who do not understand them, often do not encourage them to take part in household tasks, do not look upon them as friends like they do with daughters (and why would they) and who, at least the feminists amongst them, see men and boys as inferior thereby disadvantaging them.

    Does a modern woman have her sons’ interests at heart when she believes she is held back by men.

  31. Eric Poad
    Is your problem with women or feminists, you seem to switch between the two? By the by, exactly, what do you mean by “as long as there are women, there will be few happy ones”. Are you suggesting if women did not exist, more women would be happy? Now I am just a girly natural scientist, but that would seem to be a metaphysical (ooh get me) imposibility.
    I also think if happiness was in disguise as a giant, walking chocolate bar feminists (and all other beings) could be forgiven for not recognising it. Especially if it was a giant, walking chocolate bar that had run them down, as we feminists do not associate being run down with happiness, sorry.

    By the way did you mean “to go to with their kids”?

  32. Actually Raincoaster, I think it is you that has misunderstood Erics point. He was not trying to make an analysis of all you said. He was simply pointing out that women (well, some women of a feminist persuasion) always see discrimination in every place where women are unrepresented. Eric pulled out one sentence from your remarks to make that point and I think he did very well.

    We are always hearing about how political parties must have quotas for women. Is that because there are no women standing for election? No. There are women standing. Maybe not as many as feminists would like though. So, they put pressure on to get quotas adopted as a way of short circuiting merit. To do this, they claim sexism and discrimination.

    It is not only in politics that the double standards mentioned by Eric operate though. We see these double standards everywhere. I work in an office. Just a week ago, a female emploee at my firm thought it would would be funny to grasp..[Ed: need to moderate here]and shout Pwhooor! As I passed her desk. Everyone, men and women, laughed loudly. All enjoying the “joke.” I looked at her and said, loudly enough for all to hear, “Shall I sue you now for sexual harrassment and get you fired and have your name splashed across the papers the way men are when they do things like that?” She seemed at a loss. Finally she said, “Whats the matter. Did I hurt the poor little thing” and then [Ed: unsuitable commentary]. Everyone laughed again. I seriously thought about reporting her and have made up my mind that I shall do so if another female acts in this way in future.

    My point, and I believe, Eric’s point is, that you women cannot have it both ways. You talk non stop about how bad men are but you never look at yourselves. The smell of self righteousness is nauseating.

  33. k said:

    Feminists can always be replied upon to miss the humour. I see your aim is as wild as the rest of your “sistas”

  34. Well, we can have it both ways if men like you do not stand up for yourselves in the workplace and report women.

  35. LondonLad, Eric’s own remarks prove your support of him misguided. And if I’d have been you, I’d have filed. I’m all about an even playing field, not protectionism. If we’d had that twenty years ago, we’d have enough capable, trained and experienced female scientists, math teachers, and politicians by now.

  36. I did not say one thing you attributed to me in your last comment Eric. For one think I know the difference between replied and relied!

  37. ‘I wondered afterwards how many other teachers had lost their jobs in similar circumstances’ (idlex)

    We had a geography teacher at high school who was sacked for sleeping with a sixth-former. She was 18 at the time, I wouldn’t have said he was a paedophile, just predatory. He was hated by most of the students as a ‘nonce’ though.

    Anyway, this was back in my rebelious days, and a girl I went to school with and I grassed him up to a tabloid. We wanted to see him named and shamed, preferably on the front page, rumour had it that it wasn’t the first time, and that the other girls were more like 16 when he dipped his wick.

    It was all very exciting. The girl I knew did some digging around for gossip in the Sixth-Form Centre, I called the newsdesk. They sent a reporter up to our school, we sneaked out on our free period to meet him, he drove us up the road in his sporty Peugeot 306, and we dished the dirt.

    He managed to get a photo of the teacher that evening and a statement from County Hall to confirm he had been dismissed for gross misconduct. He never managed to get a photo of the girl in time though and the story never got in. We still got £75 each for the ‘tip and info’ though.

    Last anyone heard of the teacher he was doing those door-to-door vacuum cleaner demonstrations.

  38. I have noticed that whenever a feamle wishes to avoid answering a question she will put up a smokescreen by either, changing the subject, picking a flaw in a sentence a man utters and thus avoiding the larger issue, or take the piss in the hope of being able to create an argument on another issue. Amply demonstrated by the cabal of women ganging up here.

    I believe that when women rush to each others aid — regardless of the rights or wrongs of the argument but simply because of misguided loyalty to their gender and an inability to face the facts — it is called, “mobbing.” Mobbing is something birds too when a dangerous, bigger bird, comes into their territory. Is that why women are called “birds” I wonder?

  39. k – I thought you hit the nail on the head in your 6:04 PM comment and made a very good point in your 6:14 PM comment: there is a male assistant in my local nursery yet no male primary teachers in my local school. The Head and assistant Head teachers are male however.

    A relative was offered a Head teacher post recently and refused it – it really was too much stress for too little pay. The increase in salary was not in proportion to the increase in responsibility. So is the answer to increase pay? Hmn, there are such things as ‘protected salaries’ in education. This means that it doesn’t matter what the person does, they will get the same money. I know of many ex teachers who work in local council positions, for which they have no experience or expertise, and happy to do an admin job with no stress for around 30K pa. (not my relative I hasten to add, who is still teaching) So, I think a lot of past decisions need to be addressed and the sorting out is going to take time.

    However, I am not at all worried about my son being taught by women – it’s not the messenger I’m most concerned about, it’s the message. Have you seen some government initiatives?

  40. k said… you misread my remarks. Allow me to help you out.

    Read them like this: Imagine your name is June and not Bitter, as I have nicknamed you.

    (June)….Feminists can always be replied upon to miss the humour. I see your aim is as wild as the rest of your “sistas.”

    Do you see now? No? Oh well. Take something for the PMT and have a lie down.

    “I did not say one thing you attributed to me in your last comment Eric. For one think I know the difference between replied and relied!”

    Ahh. There is the self righteousness again! I made a slip in typing and you pounce for the kill with all the evil glee of the witches in MacBeth. Yet fail to notice that you hoisted yourself on your own petard. “For one THINK I know…..” one THINK? Hmm. Well, no one is perfect, even feminists.

    Well, I am off now. Your misdirections, ganging up, spitefullness, inability to see the point and nit picking over typing errors is boring and I have a life to lead. So, bye bye girls. Hope we meet again when you grow up.

  41. “We had a geography teacher at high school who was sacked for sleeping with a sixth-former. She was 18 at the time, I wouldn’t have said he was a paedophile, just predatory. He was hated by most of the students as a ‘nonce’ though.

    Anyway, this was back in my rebelious days, and a girl I went to school with and I grassed him up to a tabloid. We wanted to see him named and shamed, preferably on the front page, rumour had it that it wasn’t the first time, and that the other girls were more like 16 when he dipped his wick.

    It was all very exciting. The girl I knew did some digging around for gossip in the Sixth-Form Centre, I called the newsdesk. They sent a reporter up to our school, we sneaked out on our free period to meet him, he drove us up the road in his sporty Peugeot 306, and we dished the dirt.

    He managed to get a photo of the teacher that evening and a statement from County Hall to confirm he had been dismissed for gross misconduct. He never managed to get a photo of the girl in time though and the story never got in. We still got £75 each for the ‘tip and info’ though.

    Last anyone heard of the teacher he was doing those door-to-door vacuum cleaner demonstrations.”

    You nasty, sad little person!

  42. LondonLad – k and raincoaster are right; don’t brew resentment, report her. She was out of order, stick up for yourself, you don’t have to take that in the workplace any more, that’s the point, it’s your choice.

  43. Steven_L – yes, LondonLad was right, that bloke you told us about was a “nasty, sad little person”. Serves him right!

  44. ‘You nasty, sad little person’ (LondonLad)

    It probably was a bit out of order wasn’t it, but I was a bit off the rails at 17.

  45. Oh, wrong end of the stick obviously but i still stand by that thought. I’ve known of many a good-looking married man who preys on stupid young girls and it’s wrong. I think the attitude towards this carries over to the issue of rape and the rape laws have been amended recently I understand. There seems to be an urban myth that a man can’t help himself and so should be forgiven for.. helping himself. That’s not true. A man can and does make a choice.

  46. Jaq said: “Citation needed but I’m sure I read somewhere that the fact is that men make up 98% of sex offenders. Given that Fact Boris, as a mother I think a little discrimination totally justified.”

    You clearly value statistics. As a mother, could you quote me the ratio of the number of sexual assaults by adult men on children who were not known to them on British Airways flights to the total number of passenger journeys flown by such men. You can add in other airlines if it helps your case. That’ll give us some idea of the risk, don’t you think.

    Thank you very much.

  47. How disappointing that a debate around an article that raises an important point has degenerated into a petty, steriotypical battle of the sexes argument.

    I studied maths, physics and chemistry A-levels followed by a masters in Applied maths. I never in any institution encountered any sexism. A physics teacher did ask why I thought more girls didn’t study a-level physics, as the ones in his class achieved high grades and he wanted to encourage more. I replied that it was only chosen by girls who were genuinely interested in, or excelled in, the subject and not those that were not sure what to study. But boys may be more likely to study physics when they are not sure what they wish to study. So if you managed to encourage more girls to study the subject, you’d probably get a wider spectrum of achivement amoungst them, as already existed amongst the boys. Personally, I don’t see the point in trying to encourage more people to study a subject just to make up numbers. If those girls who want to take it can (as is the case) then surely that is enough, if more boys like the subject than girls, so what?!

    Simillarly all women shortlists are sexist. I would not want ever to feel I had only got a position because half the competition was eliminated. I would want to know I had got it as I was most suitable for the job. Real equality is being considered on a level playing field, not one that assumes you need an unfair helping hand. I would go so far as to say that an all women short list would put me off applying for a post. As long as anyone can apply, that is enough, and if the majority who apply for a certain type of role are men, then it is not odd that the majority who are sucessfull are men.

    lastly, I agree that there is now an accepted sexism against men, whilst many women remain hypersensitive to percived predudice- it is most hypocritial, and as a woman I find it embarassing.

  48. Eric Poad
    Just because a person points out the idiotic nature of your rantings does not make them bitter. Ranting about how nasty all women are does.

  49. I am with you too Jaq, just because a person can abuse his position does not mean he should. A teacher is in a position of extreme trust and is working with people who by their youth are more vunerable. An abuse of that trust (whether the teacher be male or female) means that the teacher should no longer be put in such a position. Perhaps when teachers start complaining that they are not allowed to be alone with their pupils they will blame the men and women who have in the past abused the trust of parents instead of accusing parents of over-zealous behaviour.

  50. k said: “Perhaps when teachers start complaining that they are not allowed to be alone with their pupils they will blame the men and women who have in the past abused the trust of parents instead of accusing parents of over-zealous behaviour.”

    Perhaps when over-zealous parents stop and consider what sort of world they are wishing for they’ll realise that tainting 50% of the adult population was a bit of a wrong move. And if some scruffy sod hoiks your children off to the bushes and a regiment of men ignore their screams, who are you going to blame then? The parks department for not cutting the bushes down?

  51. k: “Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a lot more new names here than usual? hmm.”

    Do say what you mean. Hmm

  52. Bob Doney
    If you read the comments preceding mine you will see that we were talking about teachers who have abused pupils. You will also see that I believe it is the teachers who abuse children (and again I will make the point that I refer to both men and women) who taint all teachers not the parents who are trying to stop their fifteen year old from being preyed upon.
    Why is it when I say women should be able to get drunk and wear what they want without being raped I am told by certain men that women who do that are asking for trouble (i.e that all men are potential rapists), but when I say I cannot blame parents for being slightly over-zealous I am accused of being sexist? Then I am accused of having double standards.

  53. Abc – Oh dear , do we all have to be serious then , I was rather enjoying the girls v boys stuff .

    I must say I think Tayle has been attacked with disproportionate aggression . He has posted several times and , as I see it has an insight into victim culture that I rather agree with . Possibly not on this occasion.
    I have been awed at the spectacle of normal men hauled out of their happy homes on the basis of new DNA evidence . They look like me , they seem unconcerned , but they have raped and killed . Colin Wilson`s history of crime charts the rise of the sex crime and sees it as a culturally specific phenomena . It may be tempting to dismiss paedophile hysteria as a media invention but I am not convinced . I suspect there is a real rise and it is mostly men . I will not be taking any chances . Tayle signalled that he sympathised with such concerns so I can’t see that he has said anything to justify such rage , in response . Not at all.

    My sense of the current state of play between the sexes is that we are in a post feminist period . Amongst my friends there are beleaguered teams of two. They struggle to balance needing two incomes , child minders , guilt , interrupted careers ,vicious taxation and much more . Women have specific problems but so do men . I feel there is a lot more pragmatism than either feminism or sexism.

    I think as men we have to show women some compassion .There can be little doubt that they have lost out in the chromosome stakes . As a man , you can run and jump better , drive competently , dress in the same ensemble for twenty years . Look good in it . Not care if you don’t . Grow hair in interesting places . Get to the toilet at theatres. Cast you eyes heavenward and cease to discuss “the matter” . Get out in ten minutes( unless you are waiting for woman )Have a few friends you like instead of a hundred you don`t . Be in to music( women can’t be in to anything). Get better with age and best of all….. Have sex with women

    No wonder they envy us

  54. I’m with Boris – and Ogden Nash – on this, children would be less in danger from the wiles of a stranger if their own kin and kith were more fun to be with.

    Most of these vile attacks on children are carried out by their family and friends. So political correctness must have a motive other than child protection here. My guess is that this motive is largely stigmatisation of men.

    Having said all that, on one, never to be forgotten, business trip, I was one of just 5 adult passengers on a shuddering turbo prop, flying from Paris on my way to a one croissant ville in the French back of beyond. The other passengers were a plane load of French children aged about 5-8 years old. I spent the entire nightmare flight either trying to cheer up the many enfants who cried for their mothers or holding sick bags. I would have given anything to be told I was not allowed to fly on that nightmare trip because I was an adult.

  55. k: “Bob Doney is Eric Poad”

    What, in the sense that Boris Johnson is Graham Norton?

    Still looking forward to your explanation of “hmm [Ed: abbreviated, raincoaster]” …

  56. Melissa, could you abbreviate Bob Doney’s M’s? They’re stretching the screen to the point where I have to scroll back and forth. [Ed: point noted and acted on raincoaster]

    It’s too bad that such an interesting thread degenerated into “all feminists are this, all women are that” so quickly. I’m pleased it wasn’t reciprocated in the same spirit.

    And, click and save this for posterity, I agree with newmania. We’re in a postfeminist stage of society now. Quotas have long since outlived their usefulness; it’s time for an intellectual market correction to bring about social change. If there aren’t a lot of men teaching science, that at least means there are a lot of women doing so, and presumably that sexism won’t be a negative factor on girls going through the school system now.

    Boris has previously mentioned his fears that this might mean it’s a negative factor for boys, but that is for another thread…

  57. Doney /Poad – Why are you so angry. Have you personally suffered at the hands of some woman or other ? You have to admit surely that taken all in all women are a good thing .K of all people is about the last person I would accuse of the sort of 1970s man hating you are railing against.( IMHO)

  58. I agree that the airline’s policy is over the top. I’m afraid I have to disagree that paedophiles aren’t as numerous as feared. I live in a village of less than one hundred people, yet had one living just two houses away. He is now in jail but nobody suspected a thing before two neighbor boys came forward to report being molested. According to the national sex offender registry there is another one a few blocks away who was convicted for raping little girls (6 and 7 year olds). As a mum I consider these people to be a real threat and it’s my duty to protect my son and educate him to protect himself.

    Regarding the male/female teacher ratio…three of my son’s eight teachers this year are men.

  59. k: “If you read the comments preceding mine you will see that we were talking about teachers who have abused pupils. You will also see that I believe it is the teachers who abuse children (and again I will make the point that I refer to both men and women) who taint all teachers not the parents who are trying to stop their fifteen year old from being preyed upon.”

    I did read your comment. I thought the thread was about over-regulation regarding child safety having the opposite effect of what’s intended.

    “Why is it when I say women should be able to get drunk and wear what they want without being raped I am told by certain men that women who do that are asking for trouble (i.e that all men are potential rapists), but when I say I cannot blame parents for being slightly over-zealous I am accused of being sexist? Then I am accused of having double standards.”

    I don’t know. My own view, irrelevant as it is to this topic, is that women should be able to wear and behave how they like without getting raped, but that in practice this is entirely unrealistic. I would imagine that thousands of women every week have sex without their consent under such circumstances. On the other hand as far as I’m aware there haven’t been thousands of children being sexually assaulted on British Airways flights. I’ve seen lots of TV programmes about child abuse, and none of the victims have ever said they were assaulted, or even groomed, on British Airways’s flights.

    I will just reiterate my view that, over-zealous or not, the parents who fret about their children’s security to the extent of not enabling to function independently and intelligently are increasing the dangers to them, not lessening them. I have seen many situations where if a child had run away from a man trying to help them they would have been in greater peril.

  60. “Melissa, could you abbreviate Bob Doney’s M’s?”

    Sorry about the mmms. Please forgive me. I’m a relative stranger here. I thought I only had a few mmms in my raincoat pocket, but they all came tumbling out.

    I blame the site’s programmer. Or the parks department.

  61. I `m quitting whilst(briefly) ahead. I do hope that tayle will not be put off contributing. His views on Iraq were one of the best posts I have ever seen.

    ( This screen is wierd?)

    Cheerio

  62. newmania: “Doney /Poad”
    Watch my lips. Doney <> Poad. Now stop being silly.

    “Why are you so angry.”

    I’m not.

    “Have you personally suffered at the hands of some woman or other?”

    It’s absolutely none of your business.

    “You have to admit surely that taken all in all women are a good thing”

    I can think of examples for and against this proposition. But as it’s not the subject under discussion I don’t think I’ll take your bait. I might be accused again of Poad-like tendencies.

    “K of all people is about the last person I would accuse of the sort of 1970s man hating you are railing against”

    Is that what I’m doing? Could you give me an example of where I’ve done that?

  63. Sorry should have been

    “Doney <> Poad”

    I was trying to avoid the “m” key, and missed completely.

  64. Ah, OK. I didn’t miss it. The site’s editing program doesn’t pick up the “less than” symbol.

    Try again:

    I’m not Eric Poad. Got it now?

  65. I think you will find that between a quarter to one third of paedophiles are females as suggested by the Manchester Evening News which published details about the conviction of a woman care worker for children suffering mental illness who was sexually assaulting several of the boys.

    [quote] ‘It is only during the last 10 to 12 years that the
    establishment has begun to seriously study the extent of female
    paedophilia, but the results of so far limited research shows it is
    much more widespread than thought, suggesting women could be responsible
    for a quarter of all sex abuse involving under 16s. Some estimates are
    higher. ‘[/quote]

    There have been several articles in the press about women seducing young boys and getting off very leniently ie. a Canadian teacher working in the UK was sent back to Canada.

    Another woman seduced a schoolboy of 13 and then later in life when she found he run a plumbing business, set the child support agency on him.

    I only discovered this blog as I searched for Boris’s article because it is of interest to me, so I think the ‘gang member’ who suddenly appears suspicious because there are new posters may be suffering from paranoia. As a divorced father I am concerned about my daughters welfare and safety in what is the most dangerous situation for sexual and fatal child abuse – living in a household with a mother who is cohabiting with a boyfriend. Mothers boyfriends have more rights to children than their biological father. ( see Broken Homes & Battered Children by Robert Whelan ) Also CIVITAS quotes similar as does Heritage Organisation in the US.

    Feminism is a con which has persuaded those dumb enough to believe ‘freedom of the home’ was being chained to the kitchen sink. They are now chained to office desks from 9 ’till 5 with stressful rush hour travel in between. Both parents working now means they have three jobs between two parents – a day job each plus maintaining a home too… and looking after the lodgers, known as children, when they have time.

    Conned into a career, women feel the need to go to university. They leave university with a large debt ( student loan ) and marry a fellow ex student with a huge debt to pay back. Add the debt of a mortgage and these careerists cannot afford not to work which in turn means they don’t have time to nurture their children. Instead of enjoying parenthood, they dump life’s treasures to imprint on strangers.

    It is no wonder society is falling apart.

    Raincoats used to have epaulet’s on the shoulders, but my impression from some of the ‘superior’ messages above, it would appear they now have chips on their shoulders!

  66. Newmania – don’t run away now! Tuh! I was just about to take you to task for the accusation that I have somehow frightened Tayles. I have in fact invited him to “start writing” and reminded him that we welcome his comments, all of them. And I did it with some humour so you may run away Newmania but you can’t hide. I will chase you! (but judging by the time Tayles left us he could well have gone out for the evening – or be spending it covered in the female of his choice??)

  67. Dove – you make a mistake in citing speculation as fact. You state that “I think you will find that between a quarter to one third..etc” when the quote you kindly supplied states that only limited research has been undertaken that suggests women could be abusing more than first thought. But the thing I found most interesting in your post, well two things actually, the first was the mental illness link to paedophilia – you mentioned “the conviction of a woman care worker for children suffering mental illness who was sexually assaulting several of the boys” I think this point most important in that the care and supervision of the mentally ill has suffered under this government (and it was never that good) If someone is mentally ill and a danger to themselves or the public but no treatment can be given to them, they are beyond help, then they are mostly delivered into the care of the community nowadays, ie. let out and ignored.

    The other point, which I touched on in my first post, is that you rightly pointed out the vulnerability of lone females, especially those caring for children. I focus on the vulnerability of the female (rather than the obvious vulnerability of the child) because the first thing a predator will do is strike up a relationship with the mother and if she feels something is not quite right he will accuse her of being paedo-hysteric.

  68. Dove, I’m generally quite peaceable until attacked, and when someone ceases to react to me as an individual and lumps me into a category in which I don’t belong, I stick up for myself. If this doesn’t fit your idea of femininity, I suggest you expand it.

  69. There have been several articles in the press about women seducing young boys and getting off very leniently (Dove)

    Quite rightly too. All the men I know would have just loved to have been seduced by older women in their boyhood. I know I certainly would have, and I was already strongly attracted to women by the age of 10. If nothing else, it would have made adolescence a far less gruelling experience.

    And anyway is seduction a form of ‘abuse’? If so, then it must also be abuse when a adult man seduces a woman, or vice versa. But it seems to me that abuse only takes place when one party does not want or does not consent to some sexual act (or any act). I do not see what abuse takes place if both parties fully consent.

    This raises questions about the distinction between children and adults. At present some entirely arbitrary age (e.g. 16) is said to mark the division. And yet it is manifestly obvious that both boys and girls are frequently sexually adult long before this age. Whether this is due to improved nutrition or public health, or because of our highly sexualized culture, I do not know. What it does mean, however, is that as children mature earlier into sexual adulthood, and yet the legal age of consent remains unchanged, then there is bound to be an automatic increase in cases of ‘child abuse’ or ‘statutory rape’. Just as there would be if, for example, the legal age of consent was raised to 25.

    I think the use of a fixed, arbitrary, legal age of consent should be abolished, and instead children should be assessed throughout their education for their sexual development and sophistication in exactly the same way as they are assessed for their ability to read and write. Some children will obviously ‘pass’ earlier than others. And some may never ‘pass’ at all.

    But I suspect that there are a some people for whom more or less any sexual activity whatsoever, consenting or otherwise, is ‘abuse’. Such people simply hate sex, and they are always omnipresent in society, forever seeking to criminalise everything they possibly can.

  70. I might add that I know several women who have engaged in ‘sexual tourism’, and headed off to North Africa in search of teenage boys.

    One of them gave me a quite vivid account of her several exploits, one of which ended with her fleeing the country when she found a boy’s parents were looking for her.

    I asked her what she found so attractive about her sexual tourism, and she replied that it was “total control”. She decided what would and wouldn’t happen. By contrast, sexual relationships with adult men were, in her view, far too complicated.

    Did I think she was going to North Africa and sexually abusing boys? No. Not at all. I took it as read that the boys, whatever their ages, were consenting partners.

    And it seems that the Islamic countries she was visiting took a pretty relaxed attitude to such female sexual tourism. I once read an Muslim cleric’s remarks upon the practice. He said that it really didn’t matter if foreign women came looking for sexual adventures. But, he added, “We cannot possibly allow our own women to behave in such a manner.” A very nice example of a double standard, if ever I saw one.

  71. idlex, I don’t have children, but if I did I would certainly consider “not going to [Ed: inappropriate] the children” a prerequisite for any teacher. In fact, I consider it so now. It’s certainly not as if there are a shortage of willing adults.

    As well, anyone who’s had an intimate relationship knows how difficult it can be to be objective. This is hardwired into us, and pretty universal. In the context of a competitive academic environment, you can see that a teacher having a sexual relationship with one student could negatively affect the future chances of the rest of the class, or, if the teacher overcompensates in an attempt to be fair, could hurt that one student’s chances to get into the university of their choice.

    So, for moral, societal, and educational reasons, I say that not [Ed: unsuitable language] the children is a reasonable minimum standard for teachers.

  72. Newmania – thanks for the words of support in my absence.

    Jaq – Yes, I did go out last night. Very nice it was too. It just occurred to me that I needn’t go into any greater depth on my generalisations, because they were not in fact generalisations. My talk of the bigger picture was a referece to something I had described earlier in the same post, which was “The truth is that the number of child attacks in this country is remarkably low and has been for decades. The very reason that they receive such conspicuous news coverage is that they are so rare. Although individual cases are tragic, there is no reason to believe that the draconian regulation that the government and public agencies has introduced will do anything to protect a single child. All they have succeeded in doing is poisoning informal relationships between adults and children.”

    In case that is too vague for you still, allow me to elucidate. Despite anecdotal experiences of remembering a pervert who lived up the road, or knowing someone who was abused, we can’t possibly know enough people (or paedophiles) to make a rational assessment of the risk these people pose. And while it may be true that 98% of sex offenders are men, it doesn’t follow that 98% of men are sex offenders. That is perverse logic and vaguely offensive.

    In my experience, people choose to see the world in a way that legitimises their own defining characteristics. If you get a kick out of being a caring person, then you probably choose to see the world as a troubled place, full of danger, and people as fundamentally vulnerable. If this version of the world is true, then your paranoia is justified and your sympathy is much-needed. In the face of hard facts, this subjectified view of the world should crumble, but it is propped up by the weary ethos of non-judgmentalism. This tells us that no opinion is more valid than another and that what we think is right in its own way. This gives people a licence to believe what they like, regardless of the facts. The genuine risk posed by a situation becomes irrelevant; it’s how people perceive it that now matters. This goes some way towards explaining the risk-averse culture we have today.

    I’d love to go into this in greater detail, but work beckons. And incidentally, feel free to insult me. No one has the right not to be offended.

  73. Some figures:
    The vast majority of the children in the study (82%) “were suspected of being abused by a man or a woman who was, or had been, in a heterosexual relationship with a relative of the child.” And the review concluded that in this sample, “a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than [the risk of being molested] by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual.” Jenny, C., & Roesler, T. A. (1994).

    1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes one study that determined that 90 percent of pedophiles are men, and that 98 percent of these individuals are heterosexual. Holmes, W.C. and Slap, G.B. (1998). “Sexual Abuse of Boys: Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae and Management.” Journal of the American Medical Association. 280 (21): 1855-1862.

  74. More numbers, this time pederast-specific.

    The average number of boys a pedophile claims to molest is between 120-135, prior to incarceration. (Men who molest girls select fewer victims, average between 73-85.) With the high number of pedophiles in prison, and out, registered as sex offenders; the equation of males having been touched is either incorrect or astronomically quiet. In the state of Texas for example, 11,000 men were in prison during the 1990s for sexual assault. It is believed that 93-96 percent of them were molested as boys.

    If those 11,000 men represent pedophile victims, in other words they admitted to being molested as children, even though they acted out as adults, they are part of 120-135 per pedophile. They are within a group of about 1,300,000 male victims in Texas — a snapshot in time.

  75. How disappointing that a debate around an article that raises an important point has degenerated into a petty, steriotypical battle of the sexes argument.

    I studied maths, physics and chemistry A-levels followed by a masters in Applied maths. I never in any institution encountered any sexism. A physics teacher did ask why I thought more girls didn’t study a-level physics, as the ones in his class achieved high grades and he wanted to encourage more. I replied that it was only chosen by girls who were genuinely interested in, or excelled in, the subject and not those that were not sure what to study. But boys may be more likely to study physics when they are not sure what they wish to study. So if you managed to encourage more girls to study the subject, you’d probably get a wider spectrum of achivement amoungst them, as already existed amongst the boys. Personally, I don’t see the point in trying to encourage more people to study a subject just to make up numbers. If those girls who want to take it can (as is the case) then surely that is enough, if more boys like the subject than girls, so what?!

    Simillarly all women shortlists are sexist. I would not want ever to feel I had only got a position because half the competition was eliminated. I would want to know I had got it as I was most suitable for the job. Real equality is being considered on a level playing field, not one that assumes you need an unfair helping hand. I would go so far as to say that an all women short list would put me off applying for a post. As long as anyone can apply, that is enough, and if the majority who apply for a certain type of role are men, then it is not odd that the majority who are sucessfull are men.

    lastly, I agree that there is now an accepted sexism against men, whilst many women remain hypersensitive to percived predudice- it is most hypocritial, and as a woman I find it embarassing.

    THE SANEST POST I HAVE READ HERE. BANG ON THE BUTTON.

    Back to being a lurker.

  76. Some figures:
    The vast majority of the children in the study (82%) “were suspected of being abused by a man or a woman who was, or had been, in a heterosexual relationship with a relative of the child.” And the review concluded that in this sample, “a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than [the risk of being molested] by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual.” Jenny, C., & Roesler, T. A. (1994).

    1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes one study that determined that 90 percent of pedophiles are men, and that 98 percent of these individuals are heterosexual. Holmes, W.C. and Slap, G.B. (1998). “Sexual Abuse of Boys: Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae and Management.” Journal of the American Medical Association. 280 (21): 1855-1862.

    With all due respect to the authors of this, it is highly misleading. If hardly anyone is studying female sex offenders with respect to their attacks on children, then how can anyone say, “90 percent of pedophiles are men” I suspect this means that 90% of studied paedophiles are men which is a whole different ball game. Am I making sense here?

  77. Not really. The studies looked at who actually committed child sexual abuse; when you say “hardly anybody studied female sex offenders” you are not talking about this study; it did.

  78. Do you have to be an intellectual with perfect typing skills and spelling to take part in this forum? I am worried I might express a “man in the street” opinion and get my head bitten off for being a “plebe.” At the risk of doing that. I just want to say that I think you people have been very harsh on poor old Poad. I think he made some very good points and was shot at because they raised some uncomfortable feelings in those that read them.

    I stumbled here out of the ether because I thought Boris had written a mighty fine article and I enjoyed it. Just wanted to say thanks Boris.

    Then I started to read the posts.

    Oh dear. Bullying, whether in print or real life, is never pretty to see.

    Personally, I have found that when someone takes a view that is opposite mine, or even on a different topic from the one that I wish to discuss, it is always worth listening to that person. Engaging with them. Understanding why they hold their view. That is what discussion is all about.

    If they are angry about something they see as unjust, or hurtful to them, then I listen ever more closely. I encourage them to tell me why they are angry. This tells them that I am not afraid of their anger and I am not judging them for being angry. They may have a perfect right to feel as they do. Because their experience is not mine, does not make their experience less valid. I do not judge them based on what school they went too or background they come from, because, in the end, I know that those who place great store in those things are the very same people failing to solve our crime issues and leading us to war in strange lands we should keep away from. Therefore, the level of education does not bring wisdom. Wisdom is not the gaining of knowledge but the application of knowledge. I have met people who have almost never been to school, but who have a rich vein of wisdom.

    In my years of searching the Internet and talking on many boards like this one, I have learned that often a clique builds up. Made up of people who have hung around and chatted together, sometimes for years. The get to know each other very well. They understand each other, often to great depth. Then, when someone comes along who thinks differently and has another perspective on life, it ruffles their feathers. Makes them feel as if their party has been gate-crashed. The urge to chase off the interlopers overcomes their need for civilised thinking about the strangers point of view. It becomes a textual equivalent of xenophobia.

    By the way. Did you realise where the name Eric Poad comes from? It raised a smile on my wizened old face to hear (read) that name again. Steve Wright (of Radio One fame a few years ago) would have loved it. Perhaps Eric Poad was smarter and more subtle than you have given him credit for?

    [Runs back to his trench and places steel helmet on his head to protect him from the shrapnel that may come for daring to stick up for Poad.]

  79. Not really. The studies looked at who actually committed child sexual abuse; when you say “hardly anybody studied female sex offenders” you are not talking about this study; it did.

    Where can I get hold of this study?

  80. Longstreet and Abc , I must say I felt a bit guilty about moving swiftly on . Abc has an interesting perspective, but she does not speak on behalf of women with any special authority. . She knows a little more about the experience of women than I do , but not much . I do not speak on behalf men. I wouldn’t be quite so bowled over by point of view that is exceedingly unusual myself .

    (People are always pretending they speak on behalf of a group of which they are actually only a member; Dianne Abbot is always speaking for Black people which does not go down very well in my house.)

    A list
    I do not agree that there is not systemic discrimination against women getting into parliament . There is also systemic discrimination against practically all men , especially on class lines and a number of other problems with the system
    CLASS
    . I am concerned that class differentiation is a form prejudice that is actually getting much worse. When George Walden went to Cambridge 30% of its students were privately educated , now that figure is 50%. Given that this institution bends over backwards not to allow such narrowness to develop I think we are looking at a deeper change is British society. I see it around me every day . David Cameron is doing nothing to address this except at the very bottom “disadvantaged” end.
    CLASS and FEMINISM
    In discussing feminism and post feminism and the supposed hysterical over reaction ABC detects she should look out side a narrow class view and notice that life for many women has not changed a lot . Yes they work , they always did . There is still much scope for what used to be called consciousness raising and alertness to brutalizing sexism .
    WOMENS Representation
    No , in theory I would like to see more women in parliament and I would accept that the system may need positive ordering to correct its tendency to lurch the other way. In practice because such women have are “patronised” by the current C Mair `roon faction they will be yes -women,. In fact such moves area a deliberate attempt by David Cameron to stifle the true nature of the Conservative Party. Nonetheless s formulas should be found and another to allow working people a chance. In general the notion of the “expert” the professional politician on a continental model has taken root. I would like a more sacramental parliament .People who look and sound like the people they represent . Given the class warp in across all parties , I scent the nasty wiff of a “ruling class” making a most unwelcome return.

    JAQ – oh yes you were being funny weren`t you.

  81. Login Noggin – I know what you mean about cliques. When I first arrived in this spot , feel down the well as Idlex brilliantly described it , I was brutally bullied . I cannot tell you how I secretly cried at the cruel disdain that of a K one liner , or the emasculating flamethrower that is Raincoaster . The nastiest thing anyone has said is that I write badly ; diddums . You on the other hand are being quite unforgivably patronising. I think this Poad was probably having a bit of a laugh and may well have been drunk. I seriously doubt he is emotionally damaged in any way You seem to be excusing him on the basis of his ignorance , inferior class and some darkly imagined hurt . Balderdash.

    Please never excuse me.

    I found Poad a bit boring that’s all
    .
    Don`t remember Steve Wright ( I did listen ) . The Burkiss Way?

    This series saw the debut of Eric Pode of Croydon played by Chris Emmett. Pode was a rather seedy and revolting character, similar in many ways to J. Peasemold Gruntfuttock in Round The Horne

  82. Note from Ed:

    No long “mmms” or similar in future please as it clogs up our settings and unwittingly expands the margins to over the edge!

    Thanks and cheers from all @ Boris Johnson’s Office

  83. “Login Noggin – I know what you mean about cliques. When I first arrived in this spot , feel down the well as Idlex brilliantly described it , I was brutally bullied . I cannot tell you how I secretly cried at the cruel disdain that of a K one liner , or the emasculating flamethrower that is Raincoaster . The nastiest thing anyone has said is that I write badly ; diddums . You on the other hand are being quite unforgivably patronising.”

    Yes, there it is. Sarcasm and wounded pride mixed with misunderstanding and inferred superiority. Exactly what Eric Poad was talking about.

    “I think this Poad was probably having a bit of a laugh and may well have been drunk.”

    No! You don’t “think” you rush to judgment. You have no idea if he was drunk or not. You have no idea if he was “Having a bit of a laugh.” He may have been (I think he was very grave in his observations. I clicked his link and watched his rather disturbing video) very serious.

    “I seriously doubt he is emotionally damaged in any way”

    I have heard bullies say similar things about their victims. “He was not really hurt miss! I only kicked him twice.”

    “You seem to be excusing him on the basis of his ignorance , inferior class and some darkly imagined hurt . Balderdash.”

    “Ignorance.” “Inferior class.” “Darkly IMAGINED hurt” Even in jest, such opinions as these sit better with Mosley or Hitler than they should with you. Have you any idea how offensive, prejudiced and uneducated you sound? Do you realise that by daring to express yourself in this way, even if it is in some perverted “humour,” you have revealed yourself as thoroughly unpleasant and deeply foolish. These are the sentiments of the football thug.

    “Please never excuse me.”

    No! I am afraid I will not excuse you. Excusing people like you leads to the kind of society I would rather not have to live in.

    “I found Poad a bit boring that’s all”

    That is fine. A perfectly acceptable sentiment to have about anyone. I myself am often bored with having to deal with people like yourself. What is it that makes you feel this way?

    “Don’t remember Steve Wright ( I did listen ) . The Burkiss Way?

    This series saw the debut of Eric Pode of Croydon played by Chris Emmett. Pode was a rather seedy and revolting character, similar in many ways to J. Peasemold Gruntfuttock in Round The Horne”

    Actually. Eric Poad goes back further than that. When Steve Wright was a DJ in a local radio station in Reading, Berks (If my memory serves me correctly) the character of Eric Poad, along with Mr Angry and others, first made their appearance. They were superb comic creations. That he chose that name was ironic in view of the subject he brought up and his subsequent remarks. As I said, very subtle.

  84. Newmania – I understand what you are saying about class, race, women in Parliament and so on, but I think we need to avoid the temptation to treat people as if they could not cope on their own and need a helping hand. This is a tendency of the Left, who always think ‘the system’ is tilted in favour of a certain type of person and try to counter this perceived bias through positive discrimination. What we should be looking to achieve is equality of opportunity, and then if there are fewer women or minorities in certain positions, there can be no complaint.

    As for the question of the percentage of public school kids entering Cambridge, bear in mind that Cambridge aims to accept the top 2% of students. The fair percentage of admissions from private schools depends on what portion of the most able students are educated in them. If it is 50 per cent, then Cambridge have it right. It’s not Cambridge’s high standards that are the problem here; it’s the inability of state schools to produce students of a sufficiently high standard.

    Unfortunately it is a fact of life that what is paid for is of a higher quality than something that is free. So it should come as no surprise that private schools offer superior level of education to state schools. If we try to undermine this principle, we remove the benefits of wealth. And that would only be fair if we assume that all wealth is ill-gotten. This is a well-beaten path towards the politics of envy. Here there be tigers.

  85. Newmania,
    I am really sorry if I have ever hurt your feelings.

    Logginnoggin
    The reason why people were upset with Poad was not because he disagreed with us, but because he was nasty about women in general for no reason whatsoever.

    Dove,
    I agree with you about the concerns of your ex’s live-in partner. It is a mystery to me that as a parent you have the right to have a criminal record check on someone who spends a few hours a day with your child at school, but no right to check the history of a person who has moved into your childs home in a position of even greater trust.

  86. Newmania: “DONEY-If you subract the Poad from the Doney then you get a different impression. The rest is redundant. Got it? Hmmmm etc.”

    I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

    Hello, k. Still waiting for an explanation of last night’s “hmmmmm” … By the way, are the rumours true that you are really “l”?

  87. The explaniation was given, but I will repeat it for you. I think eric poad and you are the same person. The way you write sounds extremely similar.
    The use of hmmm, in this case denotes a sense of suspicion.

  88. To k:

    You are wrong. Eric Poad and I are not the same person. I have never written under that pseudonym. In fact I have never written on any website under any pseudonym.

    “The use of hmmm, in this case denotes a sense of suspicion”

    Who and what are you suspicious of?

  89. Logginnoggin
    The reason why people were upset with Poad was not because he disagreed with us, but because he was nasty about women in general for no reason whatsoever.

    “…nasty about women in general for no reason whatsoever.”

    Do you really think so. I think his mind was flitting between women in general and feminists in particular. I read it this way: “I see and hear what the feminists are saying and it is hypocritical of them They say women are discriminated against constantly but if they are so interested in equality, why do they not shout as loudly about men who are discriminated against?” His point about refuges for abused men was particularly good.

    I went and looked at the video his link pointed too. It is an extremely powerful (if amateurish) piece of work. It also went some way towards explaining his anger at women in general. He seems to be of the view that women (as opposed to feminist women) make no outraged noises about female child abuse which proportionally is much higher than male child abuse, but are very quick to judge men on almost everything. He has a point and that point is a valid one. There is no doubt that women have been guilty of this. I do not think it is “nasty” to point that out at all.

  90. K said:
    [quote]I agree with you about the concerns of your ex’s live-in partner. It is a mystery to me that as a parent you have the right to have a criminal record check on someone who spends a few hours a day with your child at school, but no right to check the history of a person who has moved into your childs home in a position of even greater trust.[/quote]

    Thank you.

    Mr. Poad of Poad Hall: I followed the link to the video you linked to – thank you for pointing it out, it is something that rarely makes the media. Personally, I am sick and tired of the constant male bashing in the media which fuels the men -v- women sex war. It would make more sense if decent men and women worked together in a team, as nature most likely intended, and fought those responsible for introducing, fuelling and maintaining the battle of the sexes.

    … and by the way Boris ( if you are listening ), your wonderful Mr. Cameron had my vote secured until he announced “We have too many David’s in the party, we need more women and ethnic people in parliament” – or something along those lines.

    We do NOT need more women or ethnic people in the Conservatives or parliament. We need HONEST POLITICIANS who will represent the electorate who put them in office rather than representing their own agenda!

  91. Tayles said:
    November 9, 2006 11:59 AM | permalink

    “Hear hear. Imagine if the same kinds of assumptions were made about people from ethnic communities. Imagine a West Indian passenger being moved on the basis that he might be a thief. This sort of twisted thinking is dizzying. It is symptomatic of the dismal safety-first credo peddled by public agencies and the spineless courts that reward every witless claim of victimhood.

    Most of all it is the fault of a cretinous government that is so intent on inverting traditional hierarchies that it automatically dentifies all representations of power (including adulthood and masculinity) as inherently evil. When Blair’s junta is finally booted out, I just hope that the Tories have the stomach to unravel all their pernicious nonsense and consign it to the dustbin of history.”

    I share these views in every way. However, I fear that your last wish will not come true. I do not remember the Tories ever having the sense to undo former socialist legislation with any real conviction. In fact, I think they often added to the worst excesses of left wing legislation.

    It is my fond hope that this obsession with the word and sentiment, “radical” will end. Why must everything be radical? It breeds instability in our institutions and uncertainty in our people.

  92. Incidently. Anyone with the stomach to accept images of violence (No blood and guts) and strong language should look at Eric Poad’s video link. It is certainly thought provoking.

    [Ed: not appropriate]

    Well. I must go. I have a long report to write. Fare thee well good people.

    [Puts down helmet and leaves the trench for some R&R and a cup of Bovril before work.]

  93. Noggin – The Nog

    On the great Poad debate He didn’t strike me as needing any protection , being stupid or in any way, educationally disadvantaged. If I were him I would feel patronised at your suggestion that any of these circumstance apply. He seemed extremely articulate to me, and used this skill for the purposes of throwing custard pies. So what ?.

    You (not I ) take the following attitude

    “Because their experience is not mine, does not make their experience less valid. I do not “judge them based on what school they went too ” or” background they come from”, …..blah blah blah ….. Therefore, the level of education does not bring wisdom ……,bibble wibble and so on

    What on earth do you think is so very special about you Nog.? If you cannot detect the inadvertent conceit dripping from this slab of sanctimonious self congratulation I see little hope for you. Naturally I would never be so puffed up as to call into question someone’s education or social status including Poad`s . You on the other hand also consider me, uneducated (again Noggin are you obsessed ?) .. what else now ?.. “wounded pride ” … and “a football thug.”

    Well how wonderful; this is a carousel ride isn’t it ? . Now I am a foolish, wounded prided football thug with no education. You kindly old Nogin will doubtless wish to ……

    ” listen, more closely , ..not be afraid of my anger …(cringe!!) and not judge me because of my inferior education stupidity and so on . Better still , guess what I suddenly acquired thanks to old Nog . Wisdom!! ”

    Shall we go round again Nog , just you and I Or , as an alternative , why not think a little harder about what you say and how it might appear. I cannot, claim to find you boring ( as you apparently find me ). I find you rather endearing so far, and hope to hear more of the preposterous delight you take in yourself.

    I remember Mr. Angry, come on Nog it passed the day but “superb comic creation “? Oddly Steve Wright was by far my favourite of the old R1 crew but his efforts to ape Kenny Everett wee about as weak as everyone else’s IMHO .

    Tayles : I continue to pretty much agree with everything you say . I do not blame Cambridge, as I said, I think they are responding to a far deeper division that is splitting society up along class lines. (They would never have let me in on any basis !)
    I think you re right to say that if someone has an opportunity then they must make the most of it . We are a a very very long way from equality of opportunity now. Is the population of say Wales vastly stupider than Surrey`s ? The outcomes are widely divergent and the suggestion that this is justified by different levels of talent is not IMHO sustainable. If tempting! ( Ho ho)
    I would not expect the state to be continually stamping down on any kink in the carpet, I do believe the Neo Con meritocratic position requires the active intervention of the state, notably in education, at an early stage and with large resources. Subsequently people must be free to fail , subject to a minimum health etc.

    To take a metaphor; I like the market left alone. On the other hand I do approve of monopoly legislation ( Now EU Directive something or other of course).This way the market works well and does not become a cartel. It doesn’t have to be the state, but in practice they are best placed to enforce the rules . I would like education used a social tool to break up social cartels . In almost every other way I would like a lot less government. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t anticipate utopia ; any sucking of resources from those who earn them is bad and distorting but a move in this direction would be good .
    . To me this is what Blair promised and what he has manifestly not delivered. In fact we have the reverse

    Doney- Poad thing. It doesn’t matter just a misapprehension of mine really. Forget it

    What rumour about K ?

  94. Dove said:

    “We do NOT need more women or ethnic people in the Conservatives or parliament. We need HONEST POLITICIANS who will represent the electorate who put them in office rather than representing their own agenda!”

    Oh. Very well said, dear Sir!

    We are in grave danger of filling parliament with a whole new batch of agenda seekers, all trying to manipulate us in every manner of ways. David Cameron seems to feel that he must prove his leftist thinking to get elected rather than prove his strenth of character, honesty, integrity and leadership. Thus he misses what the people really want because he is focussed on what the left wing tell him what the people want.

    Puppets and puppetry.

    Now, I really must be going. The kettle has boiled and my Bovril awaits.

  95. Having read the article by Boris it had reminded me of another story consined to the history books, does this sound familiar:

    In 1955 a petite 42 year old black woman named Rosa Parks lived in Montgomery, Alabama. One evening, Rosa was riding in the colored section at the back of the bus. Once all the seats were filled at the front of the bus for the white people, the driver said, “Gimmie those front seats!” When Rosa refused, the driver said, “I’ll have you arrested.” Rosa still refused and the police were called. Two police officers approached Rosa. She said, “Why do you push us around?” One officer responded, “The law is the law and we are arresting you.” This event helped start the end to the segregation laws in the south.

  96. Did you know that they have made Bovril vegetarian now…

    No longer can it be referred to as condensed cow.

  97. Look, why don’t we take all these discussions over to the shiny new forum. The good people who run this website set it up for just such a reason. We should at least do the decent thing and make use of it, otherwise it’s going to get all dusty and neglected.

  98. As a school kid I walked home from school with my classmates. We knew where the ‘flashers’ hung out and boys and girls together found great delight, shock, horror, in teasing them. We learnt a lot about life, became more self confident and self reliant by confronting one of lifes obsurdities as a peer group. Today, it seems, in all aspects of life children are sheltered from reality and never confronting danger have no way of recognising it or dealing with it.

  99. ‘I am worried I might express a “man in the street” opinion and get my head bitten off for being a “plebe.”‘ (LogginNoggin)

    Oh don’t worry so much, Look at John Prescott. He proudly stands there at the dispatch box making an utter fool out of himself, then blames it on the 11+.

    On the feminism thing, for young chaps like me it’s such a bore. I used to be flatmates with this strict Roman Catholic girl. All she ever used to talk about was God, Jesus and abortion. It really did my head in, just like it does when someone perminently rattles on about one thing all the time.

    I think that’s the main problem with die-hard feminists. They are right to point out that it’s a bit of an ‘old boys club’ up there is the dizzying heights of the city, but in normal jobs there is no sexist discrimination from what I’ve seen. I’ve had 20 different jobs over the years and I’ve never had one where the men get paid more than the women.

    When I get home from my normal job and go down the pub the last thing I want to hear is someone whittling on about the ‘gender pay gap’ or suchlike.

    From what I’ve seen the ‘gender pay gap’ exists because of the ‘old boys clubs’ in the highest paid professions. I don’t care if female investment bankers and hedge fund managers are feeling short-changed. They are still earning 20 times as much as everyone else is. And guess what, most of them got their jobs the same way the ‘old boys’ did.

    C’est la vie.

  100. There are lots of reasons why women might generally earn less than men that have nothing to do with discrimination. Women have a lower legal retirement age than men; they receive more parental leave; on average they work half as many paid hours as men; they often opt for jobs that are emotionally satisfying and low-paying. This means that in general terms men offer greater career potential and experience to employers. It’s understandable then that they command higher salaries.

    If we accept that the disparity in salaries is due to discrimination as opposed to the factors outlined above, then any subsequent measures designed to correct this perceived imbalance will only discriminate against men and damage the flexibility of our labour market, which is such a key to our economic success.

  101. Liverspot asked where (s)he could find the study to which I referred: the citation is included with the quote. You can get the study at the library; it’s Sexual Abuse of Boys: Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae and Management.” Journal of the American Medical Association. 280 (21): 1855-1862.

    newmania is gaining stature in my eyes daily; if nothing else, he can take a direct hit and keep fighting.

    And for the record, I’m not emasculating: I’m equal-opportunity eviscerating, as any number of women could tell you. It was Poad who first turned this into a “you’re all evil feminists, this is your fault” them-vs-us thing. I remember the Seventies, but they’re well behind us now. Let’s get on with developing a generation of children promoted and encouraged on the basis of ability rather than gender. I think, as I pointed out, that this gender-disparity in teaching will cause an overcorrection but that, in time, things may even out.

  102. In my years of searching the Internet and talking on many boards like this one, I have learned that often a clique builds up. Made up of people who have hung around and chatted together, sometimes for years. The get to know each other very well. They understand each other, often to great depth. Then, when someone comes along who thinks differently and has another perspective on life, it ruffles their feathers. Makes them feel as if their party has been gate-crashed. The urge to chase off the interlopers overcomes their need for civilised thinking about the strangers point of view. It becomes a textual equivalent of xenophobia. (LoginNoggin)

    As someone who has been posting here for some 2 years, I would like to remark that I’ve not seen this happen (although I have seen it elsewhere). The opinions expressed here are generally very diverse. We even had a bunch of Iranians come thundering in a week or two ago.

    I think that this absence of cliques is probably because there isn’t one single subject under discussion, but instead a series of different subjects. The result is that there isn’t a polarisation of views between ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’.

    That said, I am intending to start a smoker’s den in the new forums. Now that will indeed be a clique.

    When I first arrived in this spot , fell down the well as Idlex brilliantly described it , I was brutally bullied . I cannot tell you how I secretly cried at the cruel disdain that of a K one liner , or the emasculating flamethrower that is Raincoaster. (newmania)

    Well, k spends her time cutting up lungs, as best I know. But I really must come to the assistance of raincoaster. She is very sharp-witted, but I somehow still retain my wedding tackle after encountering her repeatedly for months. Nor do I feel in the slightest bit burned.

  103. idlex, I don’t have children, but if I did I would certainly consider “not going to f*ck the children” a prerequisite for any teacher. (raincoaster)

    I don’t have children either.

    But I’m not concerned about children. I’m concerned about fully sexually mature young persons who happen to be defined as children because they are aged less than some arbitrary figure.

    It seems to me that such persons are perfectly entitled to sexual relations with anyone they like, including their teachers, or university lecturers, or bosses, or complete strangers.

    Whatever such persons are, they are not ‘children’. And I think that the constant reference to “The children!! The children!!” in these matters is a form of emotional obscurantism.

  104. Well idlex, I went to elementary school with girls who were having sex with their teachers, so I must disagree with you yet again, grateful though I am for the support. These girls were ten and eleven.

    The point of an age of consent isn’t to officially stamp everyone younger as sexually immature; it’s to say that, over this age, people are mature enough to handle on an emotional and social as well as physical level, their own sexual affairs.

    If you don’t support an age of consent, then you really can’t say anything against those ten and eleven year olds who were sleeping with their teacher. They certainly did better in that class than in their other ones; that was well-known in the schoolyard, as these girls were not the brightest porch lights on the block, yet managed to pull A’s in this guy’s class consistently. When he substitute taught a math class, they got A’s in the quiz he gave them as well, and the math teacher must have said something, for the next thing you know, he wasn’t doing any more subbing.

  105. raincoaster – In my opinion that teacher has a problem, as does any grown man who has to prey on those too young and impressionable to dicriminate. Can’t he get a date any other way?

  106. sorry, obvious typo – I meant discriminate as in showing good taste or judgement as opposed to di-criminate which could be a new word meaning to get into trouble twice only.

  107. In my opinion, that man was a child molester and no mistake. My point is simply that we cannot actually leave it up to the students and the teachers to work it out between themselves; not only is it a power relationship fraught with the potential for abuse, but youngsters are notoriously bad at estimating their own maturity and possible fallout. An official age of consent doesn’t mean that nobody younger could handle a sexual relationship, it’s a societal safeguard saying that above this age, anyone who can walk on their hind legs unassisted should be able to handle their own sexual affairs.

  108. Surely these passengers should take a sex discrimination claim out against the Airlines….
    or maybe freak them out with taking a copy of their CRB with them 😀 Would be hard to call them paedophiles if they have proof in black and white that they are not.

  109. Agree with raincoaster on this one No line is perfect .There must be one

    As the subject of heartless harpies has cropped up this is my take on it

    What is wrong between men and Women ?

    The family undermined

    I see that this subject is linked with a paper in the TESupp on the dearth of male primary school teachers. Adrian is obviously spot on with his assessment that they are an extinct group ( figs on dale). I believe that boys , mostly ,benefit from a male role model The verminous estate ferrals that terrorise our street are very often from feckless single mother homes. I think this is not unconnected. These mothers are often to be heard “entertaining ” all night , having no reason to get up . This is not the fault of women per se . It is the fault of years ,in which every structure lower income groups depended on has been derided and replaced by the evil state of Tony Blair , and his demonic cohorts. We are awash with such self righteous blood suckers hereabout s and silver bullets are required. Why do they so hate the poor . Why why why.?

    The Injustice of Divorce

    Why is it that if you are divorced , even if it is despite you best efforts , and in the face of the worst sort of betrayal you are up a gum tree. She gets the children the man in practice is cut out , she gets an income from you until they are eighteen , and free range to have shadowy boyfriends (typically). Men see that marriage has ceased to offer them anything, and some have begun to quietly drop the habit . Many more, “garner up their hearts “, and invest everything in the project . Such men are broken by the experience and I know more than one . I find the inequity of the situation entirely out of step with the progress women have made in the work place, and the shift in the marriage to a mutual contract .
    Naturally men are incoherent with rage and do not accept the “justice” of child maintenance. The entire system, does not work which is always blamed on men . It is not the fault of men . It is a stain of lies that seeps into personal relationships . It should be changed.

    The Income Effect

    Here is a caricature

    . A woman who has competed with men at work ferociously until say 34 panics and wants children . She expect the man to be able to earn twice as much as her. She sees no connection . She expects him to also help with rearing and housework . She tires of the drudgery and dumps him taking everything , his money , the children and the rest of his life .She despise him for being weak. Such things happen. The divorce laws as they stand have no credibility and most men I know regard as they would a venomous reptile . Why does this continue ?

    No individual or gender is to blame . I do not believe this is what women want
    How did we get here?

    I recently posted on a chums blog on the cow /human gene splice. ” Is there anyone who has had a divorce who is not thinking what I am thinking? “. No takers . Much response.

  110. And for the record, I’m not emasculating: I’m equal-opportunity eviscerating,

    Ha Ha. That must be the most delicious bit of left wingerisms I have read in years.

    Boris…did you know your board has become a nest of left wing feminists?
    [Ed: he is sure to find out how the discussion is going…]

  111. Ok, this board has really gone off topic now and got a bit too nasty so lets go back to the original article.

    Yes BA’s rules are discriminatory against men (and women, now there is more chance I will have to sit next someone elses children and teenagers, which, especially, now mobiles are beginning to be allowed on flights, will be a form of torture). But, it is the fault of the labour government’s soft stance on child abusers that we have reached this level of fear, it is the symptom not the problem.

    While it maybe that many experienced male teachers are being encouarged to leave teaching because of child abuse claims I do not think that it is putting off new graduates. The reason why more females may take up teaching is probably because more woman are getting careers and teaching is seen as one of the best careers to combine with having a family. As men traditionally have less problems combining a career and family (and no I am not accusing men of discriminating against women, it is just biology) they will not see the same benefits in a teaching career as a woman perhaps would, so are likely to focus on the poor pay.

    I also think that one reason why there may be fewer physics teachers is because, as i think Boris says, is that there are fewer universities teaching it. This not only means that there are fewer physics graduates but, since the universities that continue to have physics departments tend to have very good research too, that the graduates that there are are more interested in research jobs or more involved jobs than simply teaching high school physics.

    I think it should also be remembered that schools rules that state that teachers must be accompanied by other teachers on school trips do not just serve to protect the children from child abuse, but also to protect the teacher from false claims. Doctors and other healthcare workers also have to follow rules like these for the same reason.

  112. K Oh dear I take it am too nasty then. Didn`t mean to be but you are probably right. I agree with everyhting you say . The thing is I find it hard to imagine anyone not agreeing which is the subject might benefit from broadening.

    ( On the divorce law thing , I have no personal axe to grind )

  113. At the Press Club in Tokyo a trophy girl friend has become de rigour, thus to give credence to the one-liner, “She’s younger than that whisky you’re drinking.” Possible as the price of say a 25-year-old malt is the merest fraction of that extorted in UK. Hell, I’ve sampled nine for under £2.50. Whiskies, that is. But I don’t recommend you use that line in UK, as I doubt if they can afford much more than a 12-year-old blended. So your feet wouldn’t touch the ground on the way to the slammer. Politically incorrect I realise, but the UK is so out of control this is about the only way you can cope with it. Where’s your sense of humour, Infidels?

  114. Newmania, I did not mean you, I amy not always agree with what you say, but you are never nasty. I just meant the whole tone has become men vs. women

  115. Yes, it has, and it’s not helpful. LiverSpot, Boris is well aware that an anarchal communist woman is commenting on his website, and he’s a stong enough man not to have a problem with it.

    Getting back to the original topic, I can’t see why BA couldn’t have figured out the seating plan during the reservation process; it’s not as if their planes have festival seating or something. It should have been clear from the passenger manifest (if it wasn’t clear from the looks of them) that the kids belonged to Boris.

    But you make a very good point, in that it’s discriminatory to both sexes. Everyone should oppose this ridiculous policy, and I can only hope that in the UK, unlike Canada, you have more than one option for any given destination.

  116. It should have been clear from the passenger manifest (if it wasn’t clear from the looks of them) that the kids belonged to Boris.

    Yep. It should have been clear to anyone who wasn’t blind – there’s some visually distinctive genetics in that family.

  117. ‘I can’t see why BA couldn’t have figured out the seating plan during the reservation process’ (raincoaster)

    They probably did, then the young woman from the cabin crew spotted that a politican was sitting next to a couple of school-kids.

    She must have thought ‘my God I know him, he’s a politican, how did he get there?’. Most airlines probably have official procedures for seating politicans. Politicans on planes are probably a major cause or ‘air-rage’, so are seated at the back, on their own, where the hostesses can keep close watch on them, and how much alcohol they are consuming.

    Having noticed a politican sat in the middle of the plane next to two children, the hostess probably assumed he had sneaked out of his seat. Coming up with some bogus story about adults and children not sitting together was probably just a bit of patter she came up on the spot. The plan would have been to try and get him seated where the cabin crew could keep an eye on his antics. When they realised he was actually with his kids she probably decided he wouldn’t misbehave too much and left him be.

  118. I just meant the whole tone has become men vs. women (Jaq)

    Not on my part. I have stayed out of all that. I have nothing against women. Indeed, most of my friends are women.

    Including some who agree that, given the ever-earlier sexual maturity of girls, the law needs to be changed, and that it is the law itself that is largely manufacturing ‘paedophiles’.

    They are bad laws that manufacture crimes, and fill our prisons. It became, circa 1920, a crime to use a variety of hitherto freely-available drugs like cannabis and opium. And now, entirely unsurprisingly, our prisons are filled with ‘drug dealers’.

    The more laws we make, the more law-breakers we automatically generate. At the present rate, we will will all become criminals in one way or other, and live in a prison world.

  119. I have to say I agree more or less wholeheartedly with Borris and find it refreshing to hear such clearmindedness in a politician. I have just spent a week on my PGCE placement in the reception class (4-5 year olds) at a local primary school. Needless to say, all of the reception stage is run by females and unavoidably this does tend to bring something of a onesidedness in terms of the environment these children learn in. I have never thought so much about gender differences. I am by no means an alpha male but feel my approach is fundamentally different to theirs. I am determined to stick with wanting to be a reception teacher despite the challenge of being surrounded by women. I’d also like to add that I don’t have a problem with working with women just that it’s difficult with out a balance of males and females.

  120. Idlex,
    As far as I am aware having sex with a fourteen year old is not always considered child abuse, but “sex with a minor” depending on the circumstances.
    But why are girls so sexually mature, as you put it? Perhaps instead of changing the laws, so having sex with a child is legal we should stop the sexualising of children. Children today are bombarded with images they do not understand, but imitate anyway. Just look at the female pop stars which are idolised by children, the supermarkets which are selling pole dancing kits and adult-style underwear to children etc. This attitude puts children at far greater danger than being seated next to a man on a busy flight.

  121. But why are girls so sexually mature, as you put it? Perhaps instead of changing the laws, so having sex with a child is legal we should stop the sexualising of children. (k)

    Regardless of why, we should be more flexible about who we call ‘children’.

    The entire thrust of what I am saying is simply that instead of setting some arbitrary age of consent, we should instead adopt a much more flexible attitude.

    The plain fact of the matter is that individuals mature at different rates, and a one-size-fits-all policy is simply inappropriate.

  122. As I said before, it’s not a one-age-fits-all solution at all. What it says is that below that age, we really can’t generalize but above this age, we can. An age of consent is not as you seem to think in opposition to your belief that people mature sexually at different ages; it is in perfect congruence with it. It’s akin to saying “everyone older than ten months from conception is a human being.” Because the question of when one becomes human is fraught to say the least, but we can generally agree that babies which are ten months from conception or older are actual humans, rather than just post-fetuses.

    How would you draw the line between someone who was sexually mature enough to engage in sex with someone like a teacher to whom they directly report? Physical maturity is one thing, emotional and political sophistication are another thing entirely.

    I went to school with ten year olds who thought they could handle it, and a teacher who thought that was just fine. Where does that fit in your worldview?

  123. We should also note that an “age of consent” or “age of majority” doesn’t mean that before that the youngster is not allowed to have sex, but rather that they are not allowed to have sex with people over that age. If nothing else, it gives the other youngsters a fighting chance, as the grandfather noted eloquently in Little Miss Sunshine.

  124. An age of consent is not as you seem to think in opposition to your belief that people mature sexually at different ages; it is in perfect congruence with it. It’s akin to saying “everyone older than ten months from conception is a human being.” (raincoaster)

    So premature babies may not yet be human beings? And we can only know if they are ten months after conception?

    Your example, if anything, demonstrates my point. We don’t actually have an Age of Humanity – an age after conception at which we are deemed to become human beings. We have, instead, the instant when we are actually born, however many months after conception this happens to be. That is to say that, rather than counting 10 months, we take note of what actually happens – that a child is born.

    And I am suggesting that in assessing the sexual maturity of children, we should take note of what they actually are, not simply how old they are.

    In the case of girls, it might be suggested that they become physically adult when they begin to menstruate, at whatever age this happens. But one might also take other factors into account, such as the degree to which they behave like adult women, have a formal sex education, etc. If they pass all these tests, they should be classed as adult women, whatever age they happen to be – or however tall they happen to be.

    Physical maturity is one thing, emotional and political sophistication are another thing entirely.

    Perhaps I’ve already touched on this. Although I’m not sure where politics comes into it.

  125. How would you draw the line between someone who was sexually mature enough to engage in sex with someone like a teacher to whom they directly report?… I went to school with ten year olds who thought they could handle it, and a teacher who thought that was just fine. Where does that fit in your worldview? (raincoaster)

    You called him a child molester.

    If the teacher had lured the girls somewhere, and got them to do things they had no wish to do, I also would have classified him as a child molester, and set the law on him.

    If, on the other hand, the girls had every intention of getting into bed with teacher, then I can only see it as being a consensual sexual relationship, and would not have classed him a child molester.

    The problem, in this circumstance, would seem to be that the teacher could (and did) exercise his power by awarding them A-grades. This means these were sex-for-grades power relationships. And as a result their education was compromised, and the teacher was no longer doing his job. And for that reason alone, he should have been fired.

    But I think that if I had been the father of one of those girls, I would have been very disturbed. Among other things, I would not want my daughter having sex with her teachers, consensually or not, A-grades or not, simply because I trust teachers, doctors, plumbers, and others, to simply do their designated job of work, and nothing more. Exactly the same applies in a doctor-patient relationship, even where doctor and patient are both fully adult.

  126. We should also note that an “age of consent” or “age of majority” doesn’t mean that before that the youngster is not allowed to have sex, but rather that they are not allowed to have sex with people over that age. (raincoaster)

    Hah! By that measure I myself may qualify as a child molester.

    I was all of 18 years old when, quite unexpectedly, a 13-year-old girl in a long nightdress burst into my bedroom in the middle of the night, and hurled herself on top of me, smothering me with kisses.

    I can’t wait for Jaq or someone to call me a ‘pervert’ or a ‘sicko’, and declare that people like me should be locked up and the key thrown away.

  127. November 10, 2006 11:03 PM | permalink

    Agree with raincoaster on this one No line is perfect .There must be one

    As the subject of heartless harpies has cropped up this is my take on it

    What is wrong between men and Women ?

    The family undermined

    I see that this subject is linked with a paper in the TESupp on the dearth of male primary school teachers. Adrian is obviously spot on with his assessment that they are an extinct group ( figs on dale). I believe that boys , mostly ,benefit from a male role model The verminous estate ferrals that terrorise our street are very often from feckless single mother homes. I think this is not unconnected. These mothers are often to be heard “entertaining ” all night , having no reason to get up . This is not the fault of women per se . It is the fault of years ,in which every structure lower income groups depended on has been derided and replaced by the evil state of Tony Blair , and his demonic cohorts. We are awash with such self righteous blood suckers hereabout s and silver bullets are required. Why do they so hate the poor . Why why why.?

    The Injustice of Divorce

    Why is it that if you are divorced , even if it is despite you best efforts , and in the face of the worst sort of betrayal you are up a gum tree. She gets the children the man in practice is cut out , she gets an income from you until they are eighteen , and free range to have shadowy boyfriends (typically). Men see that marriage has ceased to offer them anything, and some have begun to quietly drop the habit . Many more, “garner up their hearts “, and invest everything in the project . Such men are broken by the experience and I know more than one . I find the inequity of the situation entirely out of step with the progress women have made in the work place, and the shift in the marriage to a mutual contract .
    Naturally men are incoherent with rage and do not accept the “justice” of child maintenance. The entire system, does not work which is always blamed on men . It is not the fault of men . It is a stain of lies that seeps into personal relationships . It should be changed.

    The Income Effect

    Here is a caricature

    . A woman who has competed with men at work ferociously until say 34 panics and wants children . She expect the man to be able to earn twice as much as her. She sees no connection . She expects him to also help with rearing and housework . She tires of the drudgery and dumps him taking everything , his money , the children and the rest of his life .She despise him for being weak. Such things happen. The divorce laws as they stand have no credibility and most men I know regard as they would a venomous reptile . Why does this continue ?

    No individual or gender is to blame . I do not believe this is what women want
    How did we get here?

    I recently posted on a chums blog on the cow /human gene splice. ” Is there anyone who has had a divorce who is not thinking what I am thinking? “. No takers . Much response.

    YES! YES! Exactly right. Despite the bossy women on here trying to supress the discussion that has emerged about their habits and foibles (Funny how they always do that isn’t it?) it has naturally followed this path. I believe this is because, deep down, men know that this current wave of hysteria that sees perverts on every corner trying to rape, murder, abuse, “touch innapropriately” etc etc, every female on the planet and all children, is a purely feminist construct.

    The problem many men have is they simply do not understand what feminism is about. They think it is about EQUALITY. It is NOT. That is the smokescreen used by femnists to hide their REAL agenda which is revenge for percieved (often falsely percieved) grivances done to their distant ancestors by men. Now, I realise that lots of people reading that statement will be made angry about it. What I suggest is this: Go and do some serious research. If you do, you will find that feminists have avowed to destroy the family. They have sworn to raise children without men in what they call a feminist “village.” (Check Hillary Clinton’s pronouncements on this)They have sworn to disempower men and have openly discussed since the 1970’s, how to do this by shaming men and bombarding them with accusations.

    Feminists, and this is NO exageration, pose the greatest threat to society today. Greater than terrorists and greater than the hoards of imagined paedophiles, rapists and flashers and other demonic figures fems see everywhere. The reason I say this is not because I hate women. (That accusation is also a feminist knee jerk reaction to any critical remark aimed at female behaviour. Critisism is NOT the same as hate girls…get a grip!) I say this because they have infiltrated every layer of our society by claiming to be seeking equality. There are like the trojan horse that looked pretty but held within it, a very nasty suprise.

    We need to wake up in the west and look at the enemy within that is destroying our social and gender relationships.

    OK. Everything I have just said is either, rubbish, true, or paranoid rambling. Correct? So, go and prove me wrong. Go and read what feminists have been saying for thirty years. Read the feminist manifesto and then see if the plan outlined in that document is being followed TO THE LETTER. Check out the S.C.U.M manifesto also. (Society For Cutting Up Men) and read the hatred that poured into that document by a heroine of feminism, Valery Solano. (She later shot Andy Warhole).
    As you research (if you do and I doubt you will) you will discover that EVERY SINGLE ONE of feminism’s leadership were members of the communist party, here and in America. That will lead your research into Communist Russia where some incredible information awaits.

    Don’t write people off as fools for trying to warn you and open your eyes. Half of the female supporters of feminism have no real idea what it they are giving their support too! If they had, they would be outraged.

    Please excuse any error in typing or spelling. I am in a heck of a rush.

    Ta!

    Love the article Boris.

  128. I forgot to add that most “flashers” are in fact, female. We have been taught to view male sexuality as aggressive and nasty and female sexuality as positive and beautiful. This means that when males “flash” we lock them up and call them perverts. When women do it, we smile and say, “She’s just having a laugh.” If you doubt this to be true, try this experiment (For grown ups only) Go to Google preferences on their home page and remove the restrictions on adult material. Now, type the following into the search enging under the IMAGES tab. “Flashing.” (Do a search) Then search again with the word, “FLASHERS.” Count how many “bad” and “perverted” men you find. (It won’t take you long and one hand should be enough fingers). Now, don’t bother trying to count the females you find. You do not have long enough to live!

    Got to go.

  129. Lenny, google only lists photographs, not events. Most pornography depicts women because most consumers of pornography are straight males. If you’ll study the actual numbers of indecent exposure charges, you’ll find that males vastly outnumber females; being photographed topless is NOT indecent exposure. Please.

    idlex, there is a huge chasm between an 18-year-old and a 13-year-old. No one doubts that 13-year-olds have sexual impulses. No one doubts that 13-year-olds often act on impulse. But that’s only to be expected; they’re so young and immature. By the time you’re 18 you are supposed to be able to say no. You are supposed to be able to control yourself.

    You are supposed to be the grownup.

  130. Lenny , well its always nice if anyone bothers with anything of mine at all but I do not reach the same conclusions as you. My complaint was about the operation of the divorce courts and certain assumptions you will find amongst middle class women. I do not blame women for this especially . I do not expect them to blame me for rape sexism , witch burning and so on. Middle class women who approach every subject as part of a mythical group of victims are guilty of losing all sense of proportion . It is no coincidence that extremists of all kinds are dull and humourless because the ability to see proportion and absurdity and related . For example , I am conscious that I am pontificating now . Ahem ….
    As I do not believe the government should know my identity outside discreet circumstances on the basis of a few Terrorists , so I am against over reaction to extreme minorities of wimmin . You cannot taint women as a group with anything . They are not a group they are about half of all people (. I sometimes wish women would remember this.) Now you , like me , must know lots of women who are reasonable individuals trying to make their own mind up . In my experience this is the vast majority , so , for me , your analysis falls down confronted with everyday experience.
    Take a K who you , I think , imply is bossy . K is not bossy . If you were to look at the various contributions she has made you will see she is conspicuously open to seeing the point of view of others . On this thread there was the incursion of at least one , of not two people that were unhelpfully aggressive , . I think she may want to maintain civility precisely so different points of view can be expressed . She may not yet know it but she is clearly going to be a very fine Conservative of exactly the sort I like .To me the observance of rules to enhance freedom is the subtlety of the small c Conservative position. Too subtle for Lib Dums and certainly for the lobotomised left.

    You have mentioned certain material which , I find very interesting . It is unknown to my wife , her friends , and or any other woman I can think of off hand . Lord knows what my mother would make of it !!!!.

    So if you are talking about a few politically radicalised extremists , I agree . It is an invasion a n attack and a pestilence . To me , at least it has little to do with women. The one I can think of who have treated their spouses ,within the law , so shamefully , are the opposite of this sort of feminist . They are simply unpleasant greedy selfish people . So also are many men . So can I be at times.. I would put it this way .

    Men do not have monopoly on every bad human quality I can think of . Women who suggest they do are talking nonsense and would benefit from the sort of endless criticism men get.. I accept that they also have valid complaints and feel we are making progress. Relax.

    BUT- I very much agree with you that the Liberal establishment love the use of the word extremist . They also love to control with “politeness” … have a look at the forum and see what I mean. By these means the bbc has consistently warped political debate to its self serving statist agenda and now .. Now the rock is lifted . Look at the Andrew Marr-s scuttling like rats from the ship “Ooo it wasn’t me it was all those Guardian journos .” Cowards.
    I do not dismiss what you say . I dispute its relevance because, probably for effect , you have focussed on a minority preoccupation . IMHO you have to show that such anachronistic babble has any influence to day. Perhaps you can ? I am not all that clever and I am often wrong.

    Feminism and hard left politics do indeed have a close relationship and they were all very much to the fore and cross pollinated in the 1970s. Fortunately we were saved from them and much else by the vision , determination and political courage of a WOMAN. I speak of course of a dear old lady , now unwell ,whose achievement has been smeared and spat on by the forces of Liberalism and is betrayed by many within the party today .

    How does Margaret Thatcher who the left call “that cow ” …”That awful woman” ..square with your views . The lie of Blair is that he was Thatcher but nice and a change . The lies of the left have continued since and now we see . This government is NOT NEW and if supporting David Cameron is what it takes ;so be it . I expect Boris , amongst many others to hoist the old tattered flag the second we are in dock . How they will squeal as the guns turn slowly upon their entrenched positions . Amongst those rejoicing in the street will, be ….as many women as men.!

    That is my view and as I sympathise greatly with you accusations of smugness let me stress . It is only my view . I found you contribution very interesting indeed .

    Thanks for that

  131. RAIN COASTER- Perhaps you would explain to me why the power relationship that women say they despise is so ubiquitous in their own pornography which is often more textual than visual. I think men have visual bias. (Its for slaying woolly mammoths and so on) . Find me erotic literature aimed at women containing caring understanding equals … crumbs that sounds sexy already. The fact that the forbidden is attractive and this is part of our make up rules pornography out as evidence of anything .
    Having frequently read you blog you seem to have a more complex view than simple “image” counting would suggest . No ?
    Silly old Nog for example was much impressed at the production of some worrying pornography. I could produce far more of all sorts in seconds , who couldn’t.? I think this may shock the old but they can be very ignorant on this subject and many of them have written on the harm that such attitudes caused .

  132. Here is a report from Web MD on sexual deviance; you’ll note that female exhibitionism is rare. I’ve quoted the entire section on exhibitionism here.

    Exhibitionism

    The DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for exhibitionism are as follows:

    The patient reports recurrent, intense, sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies related to exposing the genitals to a stranger. Symptoms must be present for at least 6 months.

    The patient experiences significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning because of the fantasies, urges, or behaviors.
    Generally, no attempt at further sexual activity with the stranger occurs, although a desire to shock the stranger sometimes exists or the exhibitionist may have a fantasy that the observer will become sexually aroused. Onset usually occurs in persons younger than 18 years but may occur later. The disorder causes significant stress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. In 1975, Rooth classified 2 types of exhibitionism: Type I is the inhibited flaccid exposer, and type II is the sociopathic exposer who may have a history of other conduct. About half of adult women have witnessed indecent exposure sometime in their lives.

    Exhibitionists, whether timid or brash, feel dominated by women and resent it. By exposing themselves, exhibitionists turn the table on women, dominating rather than being dominated. Exhibitionists view this act as making women their helpless victims, rather than being helpless before them. Some researchers have suggested that exhibitionists have a fragile sense of masculinity. Threats to masculinity are countered by demonstrations of manliness.

    Exhibitionists have difficulty relating to women as whole people. Rather, women are present merely to provide both gratification and proof against castration. Many exhibitionists are very prudish with their wives. They go to great efforts to never look at their wives or be seen by them in the nude. Intercourse tends to be rigid and conventional.

    Common to all exhibitionists is some abnormality in handling aggression and hostility. On the one hand, they must keep their anger under tight control, yet on the other hand they may become tyrannical with their family because they feel safe from retaliation.

    Male genital exhibitionism is an indicator of future sexual offenses in some individuals. In a 1980 longitudinal study, Bluglass found that 7% of exhibitionists were later convicted of contact sexual offenses, including rape.

    Genital exhibitionism is rare among women. This has been explained by the differences between the sexes in the development of the castration complex and the absence of a reassuring effect from showing a penis because of anatomic differences in women. Eber in a 1977 report and Kohut in a 1978 report view female exhibitionism as a disorder of bodily narcissism.

    Presentation to physicians is common and may result from a sense of guilt and an inability to control the behavior. Sometimes the behavior is revealed as the result of a criminal offense. More serious underlying pathology is suggested when preferred scenes include defecation or small children.

  133. newmania, I really wonder sometimes where you get your ideas about women. How much erotica have you read that has been written for women? I have several volumes, and while there are certainly power games throughout it, they’re of many and varied types, not what you conclude is THE power arrangement between males and females. If you want to look at porn movies alone, check out Harlequin, which produces a couple of dozen titles a year, all of them for the female market and of a wide range of gender power relationships.

    If this doesn’t jibe with your experience of erotica aimed at women, please give me the names of any such books/films, etc you have encountered. I’ll be pleased to reconsider if your experience of such things outstrips my own.

  134. K This attitude puts children at far greater danger than being seated next to a man on a busy flight.

    Well yes but as the flight issue is somewhat tediously agreeable to all you are not saying a great deal here .This “sexualising ” of children ? Where is it . Not mine , no my brothers , not my friend’s . Where are these sexualised children ? They copy the dress of their elders , they haven more reality to cope with but this a good thing .
    Children were sentimentalised to the point of fetish by the Victorians and I can only laugh at the “Christian children ” who “all must be ..mild obedient good as he” fantasy. As the rise of the sex crime was at about this time I wonder if the relationship between societal attitudes and damaging behaviour is as simple as you suggest. I have struggled not to feel a great distaste for some of he Idlex points but perhaps this is what he means .
    Children are sexual , it is a continuum , with a bump In Cider with Rosie you will find a good description of a sexualised child if you like the words , I do not . They practice and copy , good .We are in general insulated from sex and death and the realities of our existence. Were we not there would be more philosophers and less Insurance Brokers .We are returning to a better more natural way of living and there are dangers . I hope the damned state doesn’t notice they’ll soon stop it on elfansafety grounds . Careful K . Sexualised children are at play . Keep the focus on the few predatory adults and remember how very few they are ..

    Oh dear they are playing Nimrod for rememerance Sunday. Excuse me while i go a bit misty…

  135. Lenny,
    As newmania says, I was not trying to be bossy, but was attempting to move the thread away from such pointless aggression.
    Now I am a feminist, but I see that as meaning I believe in equal rights. I believe in women having an equal right to work in politics, the police or any other field she should choose. But I do not believe in positive discrimination, such as female only candidate lists and neither does any woman I have ever met (although quite a few men I know do agree). I believe a woman has the right to divorce her husband and that the husband should help to maintain the children. But I do not believe a childless woman has the right to be maintained by her ex-husband at all nor do I believe it is right that a woman can have a live in partner and still expect the husband to pick up all of the bills.
    And I also believe that women, like Jodie Marsh, who go out exposing themselves by wearing a belt as a bra should be arrested fo public indecency! However, there is a big difference between a woman “flashing” in anightclub and a man waiting for schoolchildren to pass so he can “flash” them. And i also do not think feminists have infiltrated every layer of our society simply because this is their society too!

    newmania-thank you for your lovely comments.

    Idlex-Er, yes you should have restrained yourself. A thriteen year old may have read in magazines or seen on the television that this is how adults behave, but that does not mean she has the emotional maturity to understand the consequences. And there is a big difference in the emotional maturity of a thirteen year old and an eighteen year old. The law is there to protect society as a whole. If the age of consent was lessened to thirteen, children of ten and eleven would then be seen as “fair game”, and then eventually there would be no age of consent. Is that the sort of society you would like to live in?

  136. Newmania,
    Would you be happy for your eight year old to be wearing a lacy padded bra and thong and playing at pole dancing?

  137. RAINCOASTER- Find me erotic literature aimed at women containing caring understanding equals … crumbs that sounds sexy .- Can you ? Of course not . This was my main point.

    I expected you to know a lot about it. I peek round the corner like curious Alice and have only browsed the mild “Lace “titles in bookshops ( sneaky eh ?)I thought I detected a preference for submission in various harmless forms . Old school feminists were much concerned about eradicating this embarrassing fact from within. True ? It remains a topic of interest those interested in feminists politics I think. As usual I would prescribe relaxing and not investing much significance into whatever floats you boat .

    If you say this entirely anecdotal view is a mis apprehension I will happily take you word for it .In fact I remember you said have a look at what men like . ( Quick peek inside..) mmmmm yes OK you are right ..ahem “variety” would be the mot juste .

    Feel free to crush my puny arguments with your pitiless wisdom . …Then its my turn.

  138. Newmania,
    Would you be happy for your eight year old to be wearing a lacy padded bra and thong and playing at pole dancing?

    NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!. ( Damn)
    Sneaky devil K. Ok there is a line to be drawn . I would draw it along way before that.

  139. By the time you’re 18 you are supposed to be able to say no. You are supposed to be able to control yourself. You are supposed to be the grownup. (raincoaster)

    But I was not.

    At the age of 18, I had never even been kissed.

    How could I say no, when I had never learned to say yes.

    And, for the record, there was no consummation that night. I was perfectly content with her kisses. I was as virginal as she was, and we remained so. And there was no gulf between us.

  140. ‘you’ll note that female exhibitionism is rare’ (raincoaster)

    Perhaps it is in Vancouver, I’ll take your word on that. However over here on a Saturday night I’d hardly say that ‘female exhibitionism is rare’. In fact go out on a weekend in pretty much any city across the UK and I reckon you’d have to conclude that it was remarkably common.

  141. And while everyones talking about the age of consent, here is an interesting map from Wikipedia showing the worldwide breakdown.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Consent.png

    You’ve got to be 21 in Madagascar, but only 12 in Spain or Iran. In Canada, Germany and Italy the age of consent is only 13. In Yemen a you can have sex with a girl of 9, but you have to be married to her.

  142. I have struggled not to feel a great distaste for some of he Idlex points but perhaps this is what he means . Children are sexual , it is a continuum (newmania)

    Quite so. There is a nonsensical idea around that children are sexually inactive until they suddenly awake in their adolescence. It simply isn’t true.

    I’m sorry if you have felt distaste for my views. Perhaps I should remark that I am largely indifferent to how people behave sexually, so long as they act consensually, and no real injury is done. The result is that I find myself indifferent or not judgmental about most sexual behaviour.

    Thus, while some people are appalled by homosexuality, I simply cannot see any harm in it. If someone can show me the real harm that is done, I will listen to them. Same with any other sexual conduct.

    If anything, I’m mostly inclined to think that people take sex far too seriously. But, emerging from a century of Freud, and prior centuries of sexual repression of both men and women, I suppose it isn’t very surprising if they do.

  143. Lenny, google only lists photographs, not events. Most pornography depicts women because most consumers of pornography are straight males. If you’ll study the actual numbers of indecent exposure charges, you’ll find that males vastly outnumber females; being photographed topless is NOT indecent exposure. Please.

    I see you did not bother to look in Google or, if you did, you are being deliberately disengenous. These women are not just “topless” They are exposing their genitals in public. If that is not “flashing” what is? The photos are often submitted by the women themselves and if you really think only males are consumers of pornography then you are in bigger trouble than you think. You have bought into the greatest lie of all. Feminist propaganda. Just as Queen Victoria refuised to believe any Lesbians could possibly exist (because it outraged her sense of propriety) and as a result, only male homosexuals were outlawed, so you too are led, not by evidece but by prejudice and preconcieved ideas.

    Wake up and stop dreaming these lies. The world is moving on beyond your linited vision.

    There is a good reason why only males appear in the crime figures and if you re read what I wrote above you will discover the reason. That is, if you open your mind and eyes to the truth and not wallow in yeasterdays thinking.

    I personally care not one jot if you refuse to see the evidence. A vast army of men and women around the world have already seen it and are moving to replace the lies with the truth. The feminist order is about to be swept away along with all of those who support it. It is those feminist supporters who are the new dinosaurs. The evidence for what I am saying is overwhelming. Choose sides wisely.

  144. K Said: Lenny,
    As newmania says, I was not trying to be bossy, but was attempting to move the thread away from such pointless aggression.
    Now I am a feminist, but I see that as meaning I believe in equal rights. I believe in women having an equal right to work in politics, the police or any other field she should choose. But I do not believe in positive discrimination, such as female only candidate lists and neither does any woman I have ever met (although quite a few men I know do agree). I believe a woman has the right to divorce her husband and that the husband should help to maintain the children. But I do not believe a childless woman has the right to be maintained by her ex-husband at all nor do I believe it is right that a woman can have a live in partner and still expect the husband to pick up all of the bills.
    And I also believe that women, like Jodie Marsh, who go out exposing themselves by wearing a belt as a bra should be arrested fo public indecency! However, there is a big difference between a woman “flashing” in anightclub and a man waiting for schoolchildren to pass so he can “flash” them. And i also do not think feminists have infiltrated every layer of our society simply because this is their society too!

    K.

    I am not against you and I am not being aggressive. So, now that is out of the way:

    There are many different forms of feminism but all are driven along by the roots of the political ideas fromulated in the 1970’s. Equality was the aim of the women’s movement before radical feminism took over that movement. It was that take over that has done so much damage. The family Court mess was created by radical femnist political pressure. The no current destructive divorce system was created by radical feminist pressure on the Tories. The whole domestic abuse industry is a radical feminist constructthat was removed from the original vision of Erin Pizzey and set on a path designed to shame and belittle ONLY men while denying or playing down female violence in the home. The whole rape hysteria is a feminist construct. In the USA they have been telling young female students in “Women’s Study classes in Universities for years, that 50% (half!) of all women have been raped. These young girls believe this trash and spread it further. However, the radical feminist redefined rape to include things like inaapropiate touching, lewd behaviour and even, subjecting a women to a dirty joke! This insanity has fuelled anti male hatred. That hatred has fuelled millions of articles in the press and magazines. Now, anti male hatred is at epidemic proportions in the western world. Domestic abuse has been redefined to include, slamming doors and walking away in a huff (that means all of us are guilty!) this has further confused the issues and spread anti male hate as well as vastly inflating the domestic abuse figures and thus ensuring public money is poured into the feminists hands.

    Femnists have destroyed lives. In fact, Erin Pizzey 9who opened the worlds first domestic abuse shelter in Chiswick in 1971) was threatened and had to have her mail checked by the bomb squad. She was driven out of the country for a time and her publisher went bankrupt after feminists threatened to burn down book shops which stocked her books…Now, ask yourself why? Why would they go to so much trouble to silence a great writer, ruin her life and destroy the help she was giving to abused and abusive people? I could go on and on listing those that radical feminists have abused and destroyed. I could show you how they have destroyed the lives of men, women and children to chase their perverse political aims. It would be better if you checked this out yourself then you would not feel misled by me or anyone else. Just kow this: The days of feminists being able to get away with their lies and hate are fast coming to an end. Millions of people are waking up to it and the roar of their anger is growing.

    Forgive my typing. I am not good at it.

  145. NEWMANIA said:

    “You have mentioned certain material which , I find very interesting . It is unknown to my wife , her friends , and or any other woman I can think of off hand . Lord knows what my mother would make of it !!!!.

    So if you are talking about a few politically radicalised extremists , I agree . It is an invasion a n attack and a pestilence . To me , at least it has little to do with women. The one I can think of who have treated their spouses ,within the law , so shamefully , are the opposite of this sort of feminist . They are simply unpleasant greedy selfish people . So also are many men . So can I be at times.. I would put it this way .

    Men do not have monopoly on every bad human quality I can think of . Women who suggest they do are talking nonsense and would benefit from the sort of endless criticism men get.. I accept that they also have valid complaints and feel we are making progress. Relax.”

    I would like to begin by thanking you for your civil responce to my posts.

    I have studied what feminism has been up to for thirty years and I have watched their growing power with great interest. If I had the space and time I could show you the extent of that influence and its poisonour influence all over the western world. How they have infiltrated the UN and are now using it to spread their ideology by producing reports and documents that are filled with lies and distortions. How their lunacy has driven Social Service excess and destroyed families. How they are behind the current family Court fiasco that exists in almost every western democracy on earth. How they have infiltrated the press and from that platform seek to spread gender hatred at every opportunity. I could point you to documents, “studies” and “reports” they have produced and sown into governments of all persuations but which were filled with lies, false statistics and distrotions. I could show you how huge financial frauds such as the great Superbowl Sunday lie (google it)were used to get their hands on millions of dollars to help them promote their political aims. I could show you how they took over the whole domestic abuse issue and built it into an industry and then used it to sow lies into parliaments all over the world. How they have deliberately hidden the truth about female violence and played up the extent of male violence to attract funds and power. I could show you how respected social scientists have had their careers destroyed, attacked or weakened and their personal integrity ruined because they would not agree to lie about domestic abuse. How a Times journalist was singled out and had his life ruined because he questioned what they were doing. I could go on and on and on.

    Research it yourself. Domn’t trust my word for it; but know this, there is huge anger around the world about this because of the effects it is having on the ordinary man, woman and child in the street and because our politicians have done nothing to stem this awaful tide, people are ready to take this matter into their own hands. I do not mean violenty. I mean, an alternative media to the one we now have is growing on the Internet and a huge mass of people are subscibing to it. The national media is being by-passed because they have either stood by and let this happen or have actively supported it. The view among people from all over the world is that the politicians are doing nothing, the media are doing nothing, so we will do it.

    It is hard to “relax” in the face of this onslaught and when your own life has been so badly hurt by these vicious people. No, I shall not relax until every last one of these vermin have been exposed and deposed and my friends and collegues from around the world will not relax either. We cannot. The stakes are jhust too high.

  146. Incidently. Anyone with the stomach to accept images of violence (No blood and guts) and strong language should look at Eric Poad’s video link. It is certainly thought provoking.

    [Ed: not appropriate]

    Ah Censorship! How terrible if people were left to make up their own minds about what was appropriate but we can’t have that in this nanny state can we?

    Ho Hum. More Bovril I think!

  147. Reminds me of a story a few days ago about internet rape:

      An internet paedophile who repeatedly took control of schoolgirls’ computers from his own home and “terrorised” them into sending him intimate pictures was jailed today for ten years thanks to the courage of a young Canadian who ignored his threats and told her parents what he was doing…

      By threatening to crash their systems, he then blackmailed his victims into stripping and sending revealing poses of themselves.

      Ringland backed up his warnings by visibly taking control of their computers, moving cursors around, switching on printers and, in one case, opening and closing the CD-ROM drawer.

      One of his victims said that his considerable IT expertise reminded her of the cult science fiction film Matrix. Another described her ordeal as “internet rape,” while a third threatened suicide.

    Threatening to crash their computers, eh? Why couldn’t the silly girls just switch them off themselves? And does it really take ‘courage’ to tell your parents that somebody’s messing with your computer?

    And 10 years for that? In what way were these girls actually harmed? In no way that I can see.

    And there’s quite obviously no such thing as ‘internet rape’. Whatever next?

  148. Indecent exposure isn’t the same as lifting up your shirt or even taking off your pants in a sexualized context, Lenny; I suggest you re-read the medical diagnosis and the legal definition here. Your impressive wordcount doesn’t alter that.

    Steven, your Wikipedia entry is incorrect for Canada at least, although it’s quite true there is a great variation in the age of consent worldwide, where such a concept exists.

    idlex, if you didn’t have sex with her, the anecdote isn’t relevant.

    newmania, did you not read what I wrote? I gave you one brand name, or are you looking for specific reading recommendations? Start with Diana Gabaldon, then move on to the American journal Yellow Silk. You may want to check out some of the ancient Chinese erotic poetry, or some of the French Medieval stuff. And there’s no shortage of Victorian erotica that doesn’t have the male-dominant model.

    But why do I bother? History has proven that no matter how many examples I give you it never changes your mind.

  149. Well this all needs mulling over but I think Lenny has broadly answered my question. “What effect do these extremists have ” by pointing out the way institutions like Social services , divorce courts and some of the media have been hi jacked by a radical “progressive ” ..You might say, “feminist” groups of a certain sort. I find this not unconvincing .There certainly is sickness at the heart of a lot of our social legislation and I am fully prepared to consider that from the 1970s small politically motivated groups have controlled the agenda most women would see more in terms of Emily Pankhurst
    . A similar thing happened with the Labour party at that time and if one considers the sort of ideas around, the thought that their equivalents are alive and well, doing business behind the scenes is a frightening one. I find it quite plausible that the rent a loon crew that one finds around the edges of politics has survived in the warm moist darkness of women’s studies and LIberla /progressive thought.

    Most men and women will be so naturally loathe to be critical in view of the fundamental rightness of equality. What I take from this is that in future one might look a lot harder at the political motivation of people effecting family law and so on.
    I was already highly suspicious of the progressive Liberal edifice any way.

    What this cannot be is an attempt to deny women their rights and dues as equal human beings in any way whatsoever and I will not be panicking myself .

    All in all , in my view, a very informative contribution ( and also from Raincoaster )

    PS
    Lenny I am also a bad typist, I sympathise

  150. Lenny has brought up the “Girls Gone Wild” phenomenon, which is different from the perversion of sexual exhibitionism, but could broadly be considered to fall under “indecent exposure” although prosecution is rare. It’s too new as a widespread phenomenon to have very many studies devoted to it, so there isn’t much info about it. I certainly can say, though, Steven, that it’s not something you see in Canada except in parts of Toronto that are extremely American-influenced, which basically means a certain type of blue-collar youth bar. “Show us your tits” isn’t something you hear when you go out here; I’ve tried to explain the differences between bars in Canada and those in the UK before.

  151. Why do I bother
    Raincoaster , don’t despair I frequently change my mind , I may not like to admit it at the time . I have already broadly accepted that there is much exception to the male dominant model and also added that there is considerable play with power ideas of various sorts in men’s pornography.
    I am some what acquainted with French Courtly Literature ( via Chaucer) and take your point . I had forgotten about that I confess.

    Be fair you have already wrung one admission out of me that you were right ( didn’t you notice ) . Now you have another one. I accept you are correct . You right ness is not in question , if I look up the word right , it says see rain coaster.

    So my implication which was that women naturally like to submit is wrong and it was thoughtless and silly.

    There

  152. Idlex
    He blackmailed children into sending him pornographic images of themselves. CHILDREN! Child porn is illgeal. And yes if the girls had been sensible they would have told their parents straight away, but they were children and kids are easy to manipulate, that is why child abuse can o on for years. That you can justify his behaviour by saying the children were silly is disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.

  153. The “official medical definition” of flashing is not what Joe and Jane bloggs rely on when they look at this stuff. They rely on common sense. A man opens a raincoat and exposes himself in public. That, is flashing to most people. A women opens her coat and exposes herself in public. That, is also flashing to most people. It may be a simpler view than the “expert” view but it is a view held by most people. Doctors, will all due respect (like politicians) are not “most people” and are often way behind what most people think. Sometimes the devil hides in the detail.

    I actually made an error before. What I should have said was , “Google men flashing and then women flashing and men flashers and women flashers.” Apologies.

    OK. Now to other issues:

    The ways we think about issues can be very distorted by the things we assume and the things we read in the press, reports, studies etc. We can THINK we have the truth about something, when in reality we a mile away from it.

    I believe that we have become a society of victims. OK. If that is the way society is going then we have to be careful not to leave any victims out in the cold by ignoring them. However much I hate the idea of everyone being a victim, if we are going to have this culture then we must have it equally. Therefore, if a male victim of domestic abuse is denied a shelter because all of the government funding goes to women’s groups, like Refuge and Women’s Aid and nothing goes to men’s groups, that is wrong. It offends my sense of justice for all. Now, it is at this point that people start to raise their preconceived ideas and start talking about things like, “Well. Everyone knows more women than men suffer abuse in the home.” Actually, this view, propagated by Sandra Horley and others, is totally false and the evidence from around the world refutes it utterly. However, because people like Sandra Horley of Refuge have said, over and over again that 98% of all victims of abuse are women and because very few people are willing to question that statement and check out the truth, the lie becomes the basis of government policy. Funds stream into women’s groups and male victims are left out in the cold. It is on matters like this that the politicians have much to answer for. When they receive a report from a “respected” organisation such as Refuge, or Women’s Aid, their instinct is not to question it, but to be appalled at the numbers it contains. Chivalry raises its ugly head and everyone of them gets into a moral panic and sets out to prove how much they are willing to defend all these poor female victims. Fine! They need our defence and help and support. However, before we all rush to offer that support and spend millions of pounds worth of tax payers money on helping them, would it not be right to check if the figures are true? Women’s groups are ready for that line of questioning. They encourage us to look at the reported crime figures as “evidence” that what they are saying is true. We do so, and yes, it does appear as if the figures speak for themselves. Most abuse seems to happen to women. Right? No! Not right! Clever manipulation is going on. It is manipulation of our emotions (look at all these poor female victims suffering terribly from nasty violent men!). It is manipulation of the figures. Men tend not to report to the authorities that they have been abused by their wives. That means that reported crime statistics are a hopeless way of gathering information about how many males are abused. If they don’t report it, they will not appear in the numbers. Right? Now we come to the third form of manipulation. That of omission.

    Women’s Aid and Refuge both know that a huge body of scientific studies from around the world (over two hundred at the last count) prove that men and women BOTH suffer equal amounts of abuse in the home. (I can point people to many of these studies if they wish me too) The largest of these studies was actually carried out here in Britain and formed part of the British Crime Survey of 1996. That survey found the 3.3 million men and 3.3 million women suffer abuse in the home each year. Identical figures, yet again. This was a huge embarrassment to the feminists in the incoming Labour government at that time, because it gave the lie to all that stuff about men using “power and control” over women to subjugate them through family violence. It gave the lie to the spin that 98% of all family violence was done to women by men. It gave the lie to the central argument of feminism that men, use violence as a means of keeping women down in society. This is very important, because feminists rely on these arguments to get money from governments. So, they simply shelved the report and began relying on reported crime figures instead of scientific studies and hoped no one would notice or question the logic. No one did and the money poured in. In fact, so successful has this strategy of the three manipulations been, that women now have 500 refuges to flee too when they are hurt at home (Wonderful) and men have NONE (Boo! Hiss!). The false figures, emotive statements, Sun newspaper press campaigns, BBC and Channel Four compliance in this deception have denied help to millions of males and their children, starved them of funds, boasted funds to the feminist coffers, made a mockery of justice and fuelled anger in the community along gender lines. Exactly as the feminists hoped it would!

    BUT, it is bigger than this. Once these deceptions and manipulations have been successful, every feminist in the known universe can jump on board the cash cow, power bandwagon. So, they start lining up to confirm the “truth” of this rubbish. Every feminist journalist, professor, Social worker, author, TV presenter, writer and on and on are soon trumpeting these “facts and figures” all over the place. The fact that all of it is lies and deceptions does not matter one little bit. All of this happens because our political representatives did not bother to check the truth of what an obvious advocacy group, politically motivated and desperate for power through the back door, were saying. Ironically, Erin Pizzey, the founder of the Refuge movement has, for years, been trying to warn us all, but no one has been listening! These deceptions are also being played out now in the great paedophile plague rubbish we are all being fed.

    And politicians and journalists wonder why they are not trusted!?

  154. Addendum to the above:

    As long ago as 1992, Sandra Horley, the director of the Chiswick Family Refuge said: “Refuges for women are struggling to survive, and if we put across this idea that abuse of men is as great as the abuse of women, then it could seriously affect our funding”. – Domestic Violence: The other side, The Spectator, 28th November 1992, page 24. Quoted by Isabel Wolff.

  155. idlex, if you didn’t have sex with her, the anecdote isn’t relevant. (raincoaster)

    Why not? Shouldn’t I have been banged up for 5 years for ‘inappropriate touching’ or something?

    CHILDREN! (k)

    The more I think about it, the more I think we should abolish the idea of childhood. Why is this class of young people devoid of the rights enjoyed by everyone else? Why are they refused the autonomy that their elders enjoy? Because they are ignorant? Because they are small? Every argument that has been used on behalf of the emancipation of women ought to be used in favour of the emancipation of children.

    The real abuse of children, it might be suggested, lies in a refusal to treat them as persons, but instead as more or less the property of their parents (much like wives were once the property of their husbands). The entire experience of childhood might be regarded as one of continual abuse, being ordered around, made to go to school, not paid, denied voting rights, denied even a voice in their own affairs. Sexual abuse is the very least of what amounts to continual abuse.

    And if we were to grant children equal rights along with everyone else, the phenomenon of ‘paedophilia’ would simply cease to exist overnight.

    Roll on Kid’s Lib.

  156. the perversion of sexual exhibitionism (raincoaster)

    Is there any sexual behaviour of which you actually approve?

    Im my experience, women are very frequently exhibitionists (all though by no means all are). I’ve walked into my bedroom to unexpectedly find a naked woman lying on it. I’ve had women wearing bath towels drop them to the floor. I’ve had women strip naked in front of me. I’ve had women expose their genitals and breasts to me. Never mind the women who have taken off their skirts in front of me, or offered a deliberately clear view up them.

    It’s not a perversion. It’s just another powerful device that women (and to a lesser extent men) use to get sexual attention, along with all the other more or less exhibitionist devices they use, such as skin tight clothes, micro-skirts, and lipstick, etc. And they are, furthermore, very effective devices.

    Get over it. These are devices women have been using since time immemorial to attract men, and long may they continue to do so.

    Perversion, my foot!

  157. idlex, you’re taking things way too personally. Scroll up and you’ll see that exhibitionism, ie the icky guy in the mac hiding in the bushes, is in fact a psychological disorder recognized by the medical community. It’s not the same thing as a clumsy sexual approach. Someone stripping off as a come-on isn’t the same thing as a flasher when you come down to it, and that’s why the one is prosecuted and one isn’t.

    Is there any sexual behaviour of which you actually approve?

    Now you’re getting nasty. And flailing, too. Of course there is sexual behaviour of which I approve, but acceptable sexual behaviour isn’t really the topic of this thread, is it? Neither the original topic, nor any of the ones to which it has descended.

    Here’s an example of sexual behaviour with which I have no problem, and you’d better be sitting down, because it’ll surprise you. (also, you need to read my blog more. You’re obviously not picking up on the contents)

    A friend of mine was discussing the daughter of another friend; the context was a discussion about girls below the age of consent having sex with their teachers. The daughter in this case waited till her graduation, when she was 18, and when she accepted her diploma she slipped her history teacher a note saying, “How about sex later?” and they did in fact get together and have sex that day. My friend was shocked; I was a bit surprised that anyone would have a problem with this. To my mind, this was handled beautifully by the young woman. Talk about knowing how to capitalize on a fantasy! And by that time there was no power relationship between them, so there was nothing to be abused.

    This, also is something with which I have no problem. I’m even quite nonplussed to discover that anyone has a problem with it. I count among my best friends a former professional dominatrix, an orgy photographer, and a professional flogger. Please expand your concept of me.

  158. Not getting nasty, raincoaster. More like exasperated.

    I count among my best friends a former professional dominatrix, an orgy photographer, and a professional flogger.

    And now, perhaps, bewildered. I’ve never even met such people, let alone counted them among my friends.

  159. idlex, stepping back and looking at the big picture (sorry, I hate myself when I use cliches) it seems to me we’re not in opposition, really, except over the children/not children issue.

    Neither of us have an issue with sexual exposure in a sexual context, and sexual exposure in a non-sexual context is nothing more than inappropriate and icky and, in Canada at least, ineffective. I’ve been flashed by a genuine flasher/psycho, and I ran up to the guy and punched him and called the cops, who promptly took him back to the looney bin from which he’d been released. If some guy in a bar had dropped his pants and said “How about it” I’d without doubt make fun of him and have the bar staff throw him out, but then I live in Canada and our bars are very different from yours. In any case, I wouldn’t call the cops unless Mr Pantsless persisted.

  160. I’ve been flashed by a genuine flasher/psycho, and I ran up to the guy and punched him and called the cops, who promptly took him back to the looney bin from which he’d been released.

    WHY WERE YOU NOT ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT?

  161. a psychological disorder recognized by the medical community.

    I no longer recognize the medical community as any sort of authority. I have withdrawn my consent. They are, as far as I am concerned, all the quacks my father used to call them – and deserve nothing but contempt.

  162. Poad is back
    Years ago My cousin , a girl who is a decent cricketer, was flashed at through the park railings by some sicko. She was able to bring her bat down on the offening appendage and crush it against the railings. You could hear the scream for miles I`m told.

    Still he probably enjoyed it

  163. They do, apparently. Very strange people, those sickos.

    In my case, the cops not only didn’t arrest me (self-defence, ya know) but since I clarified that I’d punched him with a fistfull of keys to make more impact, they suggested next time I use a bigger bunch of keys.

    Am I the ONLY one here who knows how to use the blockquote tag? Just curious.

  164. a device to give one’s posts clearer meaning: instead of

    jfoej g;lfeijg o[i jefo[jwergoijro juigruiogj ;opjifg ojief goiju hfgoui gyayayayadadadada

    you could have

    jfoej g;lfeijg o[i jefo[jwergoijro juigruiogj ;opjifg ojief goiju hfgoui gyayayayadadadada

    and it’s done like this:

    {blockquote}stuff you’re quoting{/blockquote}
    only you use < these > brackets rather than the curly one’s.

  165. It helps differentiate between what you have to say and what you’re quoting. Otherwise I’ll simply assume whenever anyone repeats my words it’s because they’re savouring the wisdom. The full list of tags allowed is right below the posting box. Use only one pointy bracket instead of the two displayed and it will work fine.

  166. You can’t use the pointy brackets to give examples because the website reads it all as code when it sees a pointy bracket.

    I don’t even know what most of those tags down there are for; the only ones I use are for Bolding (b), Italic (i), and Blockquote (blockquote).

  167. No you don’t, you use (a href=”URL”)hot text(/a) too, but only use one fancy links per post folks otherwise the system gets upset and keeps your post for approval and Melissa is busy and deserves our sympathy and understanding.

  168. A couple of months ago the choir I run – the least dangerous bunch of people you could wish to meet – received a document “for immediate and mandatory attention”. It came from our parent organisation, who are not normally given to anything either immediate or manadatory. The subject: you’ve probably guessed. Someone got it into their head we must all have a Child Protection Policy (sorry… a Children and Young Persons Protection Policy. More gravitas, you see).

    This is a male voice outfit which occasionally has youngsters on board, usually the sons of existing members. We practically live in each other’s pockets. Everyone knows everyone else’s business. If anything strange was going on, it would be spotted immediately and the culprit dealt with in very short order.

    But no, the insurers insist that we have a Policy, so the executive committee appointed someone to draft one in consultation with the NSPCC (yes, the NSPCC!). The perfect opportunity for some sanctimonious bossing and bullying to show how much we care about children.

    The first sentence of this ghastly 12-page document set the tone perfectly with its misquoted mantra “The welfare of the child is paramount”. Paramount? The single most important consideration in the running of an adult choir? More important than finding somewhere to rehearse? More important than remaining solvent? Gonads.

    I took it up with the author of the policy, who insisted the wording was kept “because it’s how the law is worded”. This set me on a trail to the source of the well-parroted catchphrase. And just as Boris’s great moment of realisation came with the stewardess asking him to move, so the whole rotten con-trick of political correctness opened its doors to me.

    It is not “what the law says”. It emanates from The Children Act 1989 which established for the first time that, in family courts dealing with, for instance, the custody of a child and the distribution of assets after a divorce, the welfare of the child is paramount where a conflict of interest arises.

    That makes perfect sense. But stripped on any context “The welfare of the child is paramount” becomes a meaningless incantation almost guaranteed to strike fear and confusion into the minds of anyone trying to make sensibile arragements for the supervision of children in a group like ours.

    It may be a fine legal point but, for me, it blew wide open the kind of whopping lie on which so much of the PC system is based.

    And so this horrible document droned on with page after page of warnings, muted threats, rules and exhortations – enough to make you wonder why you bothered to involve children in the first place. It turns trust into suspicion, friends into vigilantes and children into victims.

    And there is the nub of Boris’s argument. Draconian child protection practices may well have saved a few children from personal abuse, but what about the millions of others who have suffered loss of adult-led recreational activities as a result? I have seen in in our own village. A well-respected parent used to run a youth club, which successfully kept some of the more boisterous kids off the street until he gave up in despair under the burden of council inspections, insurers, police checks and so on. And guess what? Two of those kids are now on ASBOs.

    Multiply this scenario a thousandfold and suddenly you have a huge social problem, all for the sake of a few potential cases of child abuse that may or may not happen.

    I’d also be interested to know from BA how a paedophile can operate on a tightly-packed aircraft under the watchful eye of trained crew.

    Boris, that article is the most important you have written this year. So come on, what’s the answer?

  169. PaulD – a very good point. It seems legislation is cherry picked for soundbytes then these are churned through the media mill to be adopted by government to give rise to new legislation! You make an excellent point about youth groups Paul.

  170. PaulD
    Thats the problem there is no common sense just busybody social workers who probably have little experience of looking after children anyway. I bet you though if you had told the people who insisted on getting a policy that it was dangerous for the children to walk home on their own, could they provide a bus/lower the speed limit etc the safety of the children would suddenly not have been quite so paramount.

  171. Paul D . You run a choir? Hardyesque rustics I trust . Oh deary , you are a half convicted paedophile before you start . What possible alternative explanation could there be for such a past-time? Umm … singing and such?
    There is a good article in the Daily T today about a site where children rate their teachers and how absurd listening to their opinions is . It all reminds me quite what a nasty little toe rag I was (before I attained the perfection you know today). They are listened to as if they were adults and encouraged to be professionally aggrieved. On the other they are denied the opportunity to become an adult and deserve to be listened to

    I was a chorister both at church and at school , this was in the last period when you could expect to meet normal people in this particular church. It is now ,to my mothers huge embarrassment , evangelically inclined with tambourines and hugging.. It used to be possible to be part of the church without being religious especially. I can`t think of any good reasons why but I like this. I was reading today that a Hindu can be almost deist or superstitiously magical, the Egyptian religion seems to have been like this.
    It’s a pity in many ways that this area of tradition and continuity is closed to those who simply cannot accept the central truths. I heard a rabbi say ” You can`t believe don`t worry , come along , he`ll get by “.

    I have always enjoyed the book of Common Prayer the anthems , hymns and readings .
    Shame

    .”A beautiful ineffectual angel beating in the void his luminous wings in vain”

    Mathew Arnold .

  172. Thank you, Jaq and K. You have set me pondering more deeply the question to Boris – what can be done about it?

    The politically correct, paranoid, risk-averse society we have created is a juggernaut that will prove extremely difficult to turn around, since it provides sustenance for so many powerful interests – the legal system, the government, local authorities and to an extent the commercial world (“for your comfort and convenience”, “in the interests of health and safety”… you know what’s coming).

    Here’s a thought. In the engineering world, “total lifetime cost” is a well established concept. When building a road, for instance, you shouldn’t go for the cheapest job that will give you a strip of tarmac. Roads wear out. A cheap surface and weak substrate may need rebuilding every few years. So, while the initial cost was lower, the public ultimately pay more. The prudent approach is to examine its total cost over, say, a 50-year span.

    Sadly British governments have not been good at this in the recent past. Let future generations pay. We need to get re-elected.

    And so it is with legislation. To what extent is the law of unintended consequences taken into account when drafting new laws and regulations? Very little, particularly when they are of the Blairite variety designed to generate a quick headline.

    Did anyone foresee ASBOs becoming a badge of honour among gangs of thugs? Was anyone canny enough to predict that excessive child protection legislation would bring about the closure of hundreds, if not thousands, of youth clubs, football teams and so on, leaving kids at potentially greater risk as they roam the streets, not to mention the deaths that will eventually result from obesity as they spend their lives parked in front of the telly or computer?

    Let these risk assessors and actuaries really earn their money. Panels of politically-independent forecasters should be set up to examine from EVERY angle the long-term effects of every piece of legislation that restricts our freedoms. And if the “total lifetime cost” is too great, amend it or scrap it.

    Me for PM.

  173. Don’t worry, Newmania. It’s neither a wierdo sect nor Hardyesque. What were you thinking? Some kind of Morris dancing, welly-throwing chorale? No, we’re actually a show chorus – a highly successful one – but I don’t want to go into much more detail as I’ve already embarrassed the national organisation enough with my tirades against this goddam child protection policy.

  174. Now this one is priceless. Apparently labour want to have special parent task forces to make sure parents are reading story rhymes with their children and to make sure parents who cannot are taught. Apparently “we must act now”! To me that sounds like allocating social workers to every family for the duration of the childs childhood. Considering the state of many care homes in Britain and the foster system I think Labour should sort out their priorities

  175. Across the world, Britain still stands for a certain idea of liberty, a particular concept of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The tragedy is not so much that this reputation is being lost, but that we are collaborating in its destruction.

    Boris Johnson

  176. Paul D and Newmania – interesting to hear of your choir links. Am very into all that in a big way. Love it.

  177. They are listened to as if they were adults (newmania)

    I must have been about seven years old, and had just embarked on yet another transatlantic voyage on some passenger ship, when one of the ship’s officers told me that I must meet crewman X. “He’s wonderful with children,” the officer declared. I winced, imagining someone who did silly conjuring tricks or something. But I allowed myself to be led out to meet X, who was out on deck, leaning against the rail, and left there alone with him.

    X, who must have been 35 or so, surveyed me briefly, asked a few questions, and then began to talk. He talked about ships, and he talked about the sea, and he talked about places he had visited. And after a while I suddenly realized that he was doing something that I’d never known any adult to do. He wasn’t talking down to me, but speaking to me as an equal. If I asked any question, he would think very carefully, and then give a very considered reply.

    All X ever did was simply talk easily and conversationally. My opinion was as valid as his. And to be with him was to gain a sense of personal value, of personal worth, that I’d never experienced before. X’s ‘trick’ (no trick at all) with children was simply to talk to them as adults, and it was an immensely uplifting experience. He would even talk about his deepest feelings, which included his wish to give up being a seaman, and to get married. I could perfectly understand why children loved him: he briefly transformed them into adults.

    I spent hours and hours talking to X on the two week voyage, immensely enjoying and learning from the experience. I never forgot it. He was, in some ways, one of the most wonderful men I ever met.

    These days, such conversations could not happen. Awful suspicions would be raised. He would have been accused of paedophilia (and he quite clearly genuinely liked children, and perhaps found them easier to talk to than more judgmental and opinionated adults). So, crewman X would likely be tagged or in prison now, falsely accused of child abuse.

    I wish that I could talk to children the way he did. But I generally find children tiresome, and end up talking down to them like everybody else – and thereby diminishing them. But I know that there’s a much better way to do it: I experienced it.

  178. One if your best posts Idlex .

    A Show choir Paul !!!Now this is verging way of into the distance, but having gone to see The Sound of music, I have been dying to bore someone to tears with how good it is .Now I can see why old Moon face wanted to do it , he hardly needs the money .
    We think of it as something that’s just there; overly sentimental and , those worst crimes against the modern (in)- sensibility, light , comic , poetic and sophisticated. It opened on Broadway in 1959 and, I would guess , was the last show of the incomparable duo R and H. There is an elegiac delicacy about it that is absolutely not what you expect Few big numbers for the coach party , but music scenery character and story knitted almost magically

    It is strongly thematic .Music , life and the Hills of Austria are the subject of the arresting overture stating the main symbols, that will gather meaning. In the Nunnery Maria is, significantly, still out on the mountain ,, she is a “problem” , but Maria “makes me laugh” . The moral centre of the story is the Abbess, and in the show ,shorn of the need for cluttering reality ,the importance of the Nuns is more to the fore than one expects . The abbess sends her to find ,”Her dream “., to find herself
    In the house of the Von Trapps she meets a bereaved man ,distant from his children and headed for a marriage he feels would be “appropriate”, with a Viennese sophisticate . She is everything that Maria is not She is rich , knowing and glamorous , but she cannot speak to the children and she does not know the mountains of Austria in her heart . Typically she is treated kindly as a divided character who seeing the nobility of Von Trapp , but unable to share it .Crucially she makes an accommodation with the Nazis. The Captain cannot

    Maria rediscovers the Von Trapp music and through the course of some of the best songs. “Doe a deer ..” , “favourite things” , reawakens the family through musical fun . Half childlike herself she and the children create a new hope, “When you know the notes to sing , you can sing most everything ” This is music that does not advertise its complexity it appears to flow from the situation . The captain joins the life that Maria has brought

    She dances with Von Trapp , a much older man than her , and says .”Its different to when you are girl isn’t it “. All is decided , “lets ask the children”. She returns ,once more, to the nunnery , now a woman ,and they are married.

    Max the impecunious social butterfly ,who provides a cynical counterpoint , has mischeviosuly arranged that they appear in Salzburg for the folk festival . With the Nazi threat looming, Captain Von Trapp is offered a commission , and cannot refuse it outright . They must escape . He agrees to go as the newly invented ,Von Trapp family singers . They win the competition with Edelweiss. Edelweiss is the national flower of Austria and the song articulates mourning for its loss to the fascist jackboot . The children play their part ,with a comic orchestration of their play songs . Max finally shows the goodness we suspected ,and , by sacrificing himself ,allows them to escape to the nunnery.

    Evil shows its dark face, as the family hide from stalking soldiers silhouetted in the moon light .Lisel , who herself is “sixteen going on seventeen” , sees Rolf , her first love for the last time as he redeems himself by passing the family by. Another passing from childhood to adulthood .

    Then how will they escape , what can save them ? The roads are blocked .
    They must go to the mountains .

    Finally the forces of good combine. The Nuns and the children climb through the night , the mountain protects them as the Nunnery had .The last tableau is of the iconic group looking down on Switzerland . The bright dawn is rising
    . The show builds to this end which coincides with the reprise of “Climb every mountain ” . Not the strongest song in the show but its placement is powerful. With all the threads tied ,and Leslie Garret on hand as the Abbess ,to give it some serious welly , the happy ending is entirely satisfying.

    I would argue that the American wave was the cultural fact of the last century , that Rogers and Hammerstein are the best exponents of its most distinctive form .In this their swan song they created the most complete work of art ,bar none ,in the last hundred years . It is as perfect as Pride and Prejudice . It will last forever .

    I did warn you it was going to be boring .If anyone is still with me , I `m not so sure this drama of the children innocence and morality is so irrelevant after all .

    Oh well back to freaks and paedophiles . Sigh……

  179. Agree on the over – reaction Boris, it offends me slightly that I live in a society where I could not simle at a child without being suspected of ulterior motives.
    But as for your problem, I’m surprised the kids aren’t instantly identifiable as yours by the distinctive Johnson thatch.

  180. I was in a disco last week when a woman grabbed my bottom and tried to grope my genitals. I punched her in the mouth so hard she flew aross the table and knocked the drink out of her laughing friends hands. It was really funny.

  181. Now that is an interesting development . I `ve sometimes wondered how women would behave if they could not rely on men
    a To protect them
    b Not to hurt them

    I don`t notice any serious erosion of chivalry so far myself

  182. I don’t see the problem here, except that he didn’t also have her arrested. Believe me, intelligent women don’t generally expect to get away with shit like that; but then, we don’t generally try to pull it.

    So to speak.

  183. I saw a terrifying fight last night on (and off ) the tube between two rival gangs . It appeared to be started by a girl or something to do with a girl any way. Who knows?
    A girl was the causus bellum

    Raincoaster you may not be aware of this but we have an escalating problem with “respect ” crime in London . Gangs called things like “Til death” and “full on” are regularly involved in knifings and , increasingly, gun crime .Low level drugs is the ostensible excuse but really it’s the violence that is the drug ( we have real drug crime to). This thought transfixed the on lookers as about 30 young men inflicted sickening assaults on eachother with one side very much getting the worst of it . Women also involved mostly shouting but joining in a bit . Noone dares break it up because of the risk of a knife .

    I suppose such things have always happened pretty awe inspiring to see though

    BY THE WAY- See how right I was about sound a of music ” A Star is Born ”

  184. I saw a terrifying fight last night….

    Yes. I have seen that stuff. It’s a consequence of removing fathers from the home I am sure. I hope the tories, (if they ever get back in power) will have the same courage as their Canadian counterparts and do this:

    Women’s Groups Fear Tories will cut Funding of Militant Feminist Hate Groups

    (Rights group forced to close, other organizations could follow as money dries up)

    OTTAWA — A leading Canadian women’s rights group has been forced to close its office for lack of money and other federally financed organizations fear a similar fate as the Conservative government zeroes in on a promise to cut spending by $1 billion this fiscal year.

    The prospect cheers Gwen Landolt, vice-presi¬dent of the pro-life, pro-family conservative lobby group REAL Women Canada and a fierce critic of federal funding of “feminist” and other special inter¬est groups.

    “It’s simply an abuse of taxpayers’ money to fund only one ideology,” Landolt said in an interview.

    Suspense over how much, if any, money will flow to women’s and other groups should end within the next week or so when the government tells Canadians what programs it plans to curb or kill to meet its budget commitment.

    Opposition MPs accuse the government of using the spending review to dismantle by “stealth” the 30-year-old agency known as Status of Women Canada, which, among other things, hands out almost $11 million a year to groups committed to promoting gender equality and the full participation of women in society.

    Bev Oda, minister responsible for the status of women, is playing her cards close to her chest, refus¬ing requests for interviews and sidestepping direct questions about possible funding cuts. Agency offi¬cials also have not returned repeated phone calls.

    Under heated questioning in the House of Com¬mons this week, Oda said the government is com¬mitted to taking “dramatic” action to improve the lives of women.

    But she also said money had been wasted on social and cultural groups in the past, and the gov¬ernment was determined to ensure it gets put to the best use in the future.

    NDP MP Irene Mathyssen, the party’s status of women critic, said the government’s foot dragging on hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pend¬ing funding applications from women’s group’s means programs are being cut one by one.

    “We are raising the alarm,” Mathyssen said in an interview. “This government clearly has no interest in the status of women.”

    The Ottawa-based National Association of Women and the Law NAWL, which has sought yearly finding of about $350AE to finance its advo¬cacy and research activities on such issues as equal pay for work of equal value, was forced to shutdown earlier this month — and lay off its two paid employees — after it ran out of funds.

    NAWL treasurer Alison Dewar said the group, which is still paying rent on its office, hopes to reopen if it gets federal funding.

    Landolt said the Harper government should kill Status of Women Canada.

    “It [the agency] is based on the whole concept that women are victims of a patriarchal society,” Landolt said. “Nobody really believes that anymore. Its time has passed.”
    __________________

  185. Actually the mods and rockers were having gang wars long ago, nothing to do with “removing fathers from the home”. But they were dealt with then by things called ‘policemen’ which were the most wonderful things you saw walking the streets keeping law and order. I don’t know about Canada but I think we should try them here. Again.

  186. Actually the mods and rockers were having gang wars long ago, nothing to do with “removing fathers from the home”. But they were dealt with then by things called ‘policemen’ which were the most wonderful things you saw walking the streets keeping law and order. I don’t know about Canada but I think we should try them here. Again.

    How lovely and well mannered of you to talk down to me in that way as if I am an ignorant fool and you are the font of all wisdom.

    Actually, the Mods and Rockers fights were a responce to the horrifically repressive lives that young people had to live under in the 1950’s. I remember well how every part of our young lives were regulated to the point utter lunacy. You were not even allowed to walk on the grass in public parks and there were little green signs everywhere warning us not to walk on the green stuff and large, ex army park keepers, often with huge Alsatian dogs, who made sure we did not. The frustration found its way onto the streets in the form of gang fights. That angry movement of the young was to go on and become the hippy movement and the skinheads and bikers.

    ALL of the evidence points to the fact that so many children are growing up in single parent homes and that this is breeding crime. A recent study on fatherlessness shows that it is also breeding crime, drug use, self harming etc in our children.

    Please don’t assume that everyone who comes here is as ill informed on these matters as you are. Many of us have spent years reading endless studies from all over the world and we know what we are talking about.

  187. SidSnotWozEre – we welcome all comments here but encourage comments on current affairs, such as the absence of policemen on the beat, rather than ad hominem argument.

    Have you tried the forum yet? Perhaps you could start a thread about single mothers? Or perhaps about the gender most responsible for the “horrifically repressive lives” that gave rise to the violence you mentioned?

  188. Or perhaps about the gender most responsible for the “horrifically repressive lives” that gave rise to the violence you mentioned?

    Oh, you mean, start a discussion that gives a purely feminist interpretation of the world around us by seperating every issues into gender lines so lots of screwed up females can point fingers and avoid responcibility for their part in world and local social events? No. Sorry. There is too much whining from women about how they are just poor little victims and everyone is against them and not enough facing up to their own responcibilities.

    If however we must use gender as an argument then let’s do it fairly. For example, they (women)tell us that they have struggled alone to bring up children with virtually no help from men, for a hundred years or more. Well, in that case, all these dysfunctional men they keep whining about must have got their dysfunction from mummy because daddy was not there! Today, the streets are littered with more dysfuntional men and guess who has brought them up….? That’s right, single mums. It would appear then that if men are really being screwed up, it is mummy who is doing it, so perhaps we should let dads take over as the childs primary carer again. Let us give sole custody rights to the fathers once more and see if they can bring up more balanced children as it is obvious that women are failing so badly at it.

  189. SidSnotWozEre – not at all, I didn’t introduce “seperating every issue[s] into gender lines” I merely suggested you might like to try the forum. I’m not sure that many dad’s have ever been the primary carer but you obviously feel strongly about this issue. If you wish to continue commenting on this thread you are very welcome.

  190. Jaq: Thank you. If I gave you a link would you take the time to look at it?

    I am trying to show you something. I realise that we have all been programmed to think that ANY critical comment aimed at anything females do is tantamount to treason. However, the rage of a growing amount of men around the world is not aimed at women in particular but at feminists in particular (male and female). These men have studied these things and many have been victims of them. We may not be the most erudite, intelligent debators and arguers on the planet but that does not mean we that what we are trying to warn people about has no value. We truly believe that if people do not wake up soon there will be an explosion of collective male rage like nothing we have seen before. F4J (who I am NOT a member of) is just the start of what will develop into something much more focused and dangerous. No one wants to see that happen but only waking up the right people can stop it.

    I do not know you, you may be one of those on the side of the feminists. You may be a neutral. You may not even be aware of the issues involved, or you may be fully aware. I am posting here because the article Boris wrote will lead others here. I want them to wake up too.

    This country, like many others in the west, is in the midst of silent , creeping coup. The structures of it have been gradually put in place over many years. Canada is waking up thanks to the efforts of hundreds of men and few excellent women. Before you write this off as paranoid rambling, PLEASE take the time to check it out. Study the better mens sites. Ignore the anger and fury and read carefully what they are saying.

    You could do worse than start at the following site to see the source of the problem: http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/mcafee/

    Then look here: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/mar.html

    The stated aims of feminism are the elimination of the family and the raising of children without fathers. Their power base is the domestic violence industry (which studiously refuses to help men) and the family court system in the western world. Men are not going to sit back and watch as their families are destroyed by these people. They are programmed genitically to protect their families.

  191. I’m afraid I have to stand up for BA. (Well – someone has to!)

    I take your point, Boris, that the probability of an adult male chosen at random being a paedophile is minuscule. But now, consider how many adult males fly on BA. Hundreds of thousands per year – maybe even millions! – I really do not know, but a quick internet search should get us that information. Now, take this figure, and take the probability of said random chap being a paedophile (another quick internet search), and you should be able to work out the average number of paedophiles one may expect to be flying on BA. Small, perhaps, but not zero. (The formulas to calculate this should be in any good book on statistics.)

    Now, imagine what would happen if there were to be one – yes, just one – case of a child being molested on a BA flight. Quite apart from the distress to the child in question, can you imagine the headlines? The law-suits? And is it really surprising that BA do what they can to prevent something like this happening? They are, like any other company, trying to make a few honest pennies, and one could hardly blame them if they take steps to avoid this sort of incident.

  192. Billy Bones…Yes. But the problem has always existed and it is NOT just men [Ed: need for moderation of text]

    The politics of fear this country has decended into under this government is creating these strange and bizare occurences. Every time I leave home I expect to see the streets littered with

  193. t Takes A Village

    It takes a village (so we’re told), to raise a child today.
    It takes a village (we reply), to steal his heart away,
    To purge old-fashioned do’s and don’ts from his enlightened mind,
    To leave old fashioned Ma and Pa a hundred years behind.

    It takes a village, verily, to teach some mother’s son,
    To steal and gamble, smoke and swear, and vandalize for fun.
    His mother didn’t teach him that! His father? No, not he.
    It takes a village to corrupt, a village, verily.

    It takes a village, this we know, to teach the maidens sweet,
    To dress and act, to look and talk, like women of the street.
    It takes a village, not a doubt, to teach a maiden mild,
    To save the monkeys, owls, and whales, and kill her unborn child.

    It takes a village public school, some subtle classroom chats,
    To teach the little boys and girls to act like alley cats.
    To teach them of the birds and bees, without morality,
    To teach them what to do, and how, and tell them they are free.

    It takes a village, yes indeed, to brainwash all the youth,
    With notions and with fallacies, In place of sense and truth.
    Abortion rights! The right to die! The rights of animals!
    Creative spelling! Unisex! The rights of criminals!

    It takes a village, well we know, to turn their minds away,
    To stand for fancied “children’s rights”, and parents’ rights deny.
    To honor human nature less, And trees and rivers more.
    To sacrifice to Mother Earth, and Father God ignore.

    “It takes a village,” so they say, but something more they mean.
    United Nations. Washington. The liberal machine.
    Society. The “Brave New World.” The socialistic scheme.
    The global ideology. The New World Order dream!

    Glenn Conjurske

  194. Melissa,
    Have you seen oxfams gift ideas. They are quite a good way to get away from the commercialism of christams as it lets you buy a “gift” for a developing country on behalf of you chosen person. You can buy lots of different things such as trees, textbooks, school, dinners, goats etc.
    [Ed: thanks K, see next posting…]

  195. First they came for the fathers, then for the mothers, and now for both parents in intact families.[Ed: moderated comment]

    Entire families could be put into care in radical plan

    1.00pm Saturday November 18, 2006

    Dysfunctional families rife with drug and welfare dependency could be the taken into care as part of radical social welfare changes by the Government.

    Intensive family therapy — which can include removing members from their home — is one option the Social Development Ministry is examining as it works to deal with dysfunctional homes , The Dominion Post reported today.

    The proposal is understood to have been considered in the wake of the Kahui twins’ deaths.

    Green MP Sue Bradford backs the approach, which is common in Sweden.

    The entire family — not just the child — often went into care, usually in an apartment, where they had access to 24-hour support services, the newspaper reported.

    At a parliamentary select committee this week Ms Bradford asked Social Development Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes whether consideration had been given to the approach here.

    Mr Hughes said the Government was carrying out a pilot programme working with dysfunctional families and, after that, “we may need to use an intensive family therapy approach”.

    A Social Development Ministry spokeswoman said intensive family therapy was a well-established technique, aimed at getting people to review their behaviour and the consequences of their actions.

  196. Here’s one for Newmania, Eric Poade etc and all his multiple manic personality disorders with which we waste SO much time arguing (a really good reason to make the sign-in process more stringent as I am certain he is a Labour Party agent provocateur – and I’m NOT talking about the lingerie line here Newmania – whose mission in life is to make us all look stupid and in which he is succeeding admirably) and all of whose non de guerres are immediately recognizable by their wretched spelling and rampaging misogynism, but aside from all that, this is actually very funny by itself for all that it wittily illustrates the misogynist male attitude of our times:

    Dear Technical Support,

    18 months ago, I upgraded to Girlfriend 1.0 from
    DrinkingMates 4.2, which I had used for years without
    any trouble. However, there are apparently conflicts
    between these two products and the only solution was
    to try and run Girlfriend 1.0 with the sound turned
    off. To make matters worse, Girlfriend 1.0 is
    incompatible with several other applications, such as
    LadsNightOut 31, Football 4.5, and Playboy 6.9.
    Successive versions of GirlFriend proved no better.

    I tried a shareware program, Slapper2.1, but it had
    many bugs and left a virus in my system, forcing me to
    shut down completely for several weeks. Eventually, I
    tried to run GirlFriend 1.2 and Girlfriend 1.0 at the
    same time, only to discover that when these two
    systems detected each other they caused severe damage
    to my hardware.

    I eventually upgraded to Fiancée 1.0, only to discover
    that this product soon had to be upgraded further to
    Wife 1.0. While Wife 1.0 tends to use up all my
    available resources, it does come bundled with
    FreeSexPlus and Cleanhouse2004.

    Shortly after this upgrade, however, I found that Wife
    1.0 could be very stable and costly to run. Any
    mistakes I made were automatically stored in Wife
    1.0’s memory and could not be deleted. They then
    resurfaced months later when I had forgotten about
    them. Wife 1.0 also has an automatic Diary, Explorer
    and E-mail filter, and can, without warning, launch
    TurboStrop and Whinge. These latter products have no
    Help files, and I have to try to guess what the
    problem is.

    Additional problems are that Wife 1.0 needs updating
    regularly, requiring ShoeShop Browser for new
    attachments and Hairstyle Express which needs to be
    reinstalled every other week. Also, when Wife 1.0
    attaches itself to my Saab 93 Convertible hard drive,
    it often crashes. Wife 1.0 also comes with an
    irritating pop-up called MotherInLaw, which can’t be
    turned off.

    Recently I’ve been tempted to install Mistress 2003,
    but there could be problems. A friend of mine has
    alerted me to the fact that if Wife 1.0 detects
    Mistress 2003, it tends to delete all of your Money
    before uninstalling itself. Help requested please?

    Regards

    A moderately decent bottle of wine to whomever can come up with the best female equivalent.

  197. Interestingly, the question of whether 17-year-old boys having sex with 15-year-old girls were paedophiles got an airing on the news a few days back.

    The pseudo-pundit hauled in to answer the question said that, well, of course it wasn’t paedophilia, but that social workers would be able to make the appropriate professional judgment.

    Why can’t such questions just be left to those involved, children and parents and friends? Since when have social workers acquired deeper insights into human nature than ordinary people?

  198. It was a very topical and informative article by Boris.

    I was in a dilema about which airline to use for my unaccompanied 9 year old daughter for her upcoming equestrian competition. Thanks for letting me know that BA will fulfil my safety concerns adequately.

    As for the paedo’s; well if only they allowed castration of serious or repeat offenders. It would make life so much easier for most of us; the deterent factor would certainly enforce self enforced retraint on anyone who harbours any untoward desires. And everyone would be able to sit wherever they liked without unnecessary suspicion.

Comments are closed.