Saturday, 3 January 2015
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
"The premise underlying complainant anonymity is that there are lots of serious sex crimes just waiting to be uncovered, if only their victims could complain anonymously. But this has created unrealistic expectations. While increasing numbers of women are now coming forward with complaints of rape and sexual assault, convictions in rape cases have not kept pace. Debate rages as to why this is so, though at base the problem seems to be one of proof. During the past 25 years, there has been a seismic shift in sexual attitudes and in the position of women. The argument for complainants’ anonymity now looks weak. Justice is not done when court time is taken up by anonymous complainants whose behaviour is, to say the least, ambiguous.
Why shouldn’t publicity be a legitimate means of deterring unrealistic complaints? There is no reason why the law should not treat complainants of sexual assault the same way as complainants in other criminal matters. If women want equality, we must accept that this extends to all walks of life - including having to identify yourself when you testify against someone who may face jail if your evidence is believed. If this reduces the number of cases reaching court, so be it. If would-be complainants decide that going to court is too much hassle, that is a decision they are entitled to take. It should not be seen as a failure of the criminal justice system.
However, the argument against extending anonymity to defendants is even stronger. This is: concern for open justice. It is not in the public interest for anonymous prosecutions to take place. The public have the right to know who is being prosecuted in their name. Open administration of the law is a fundamental principle of both democracy and natural justice - as expressed in the maxim that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. Nowhere is this principle more important than in the criminal justice system. Where the state is potentially depriving individuals of their liberty, we need to be able to keep a check on who these individuals are and what they have done. Like many of the best principles of the legal system, the principle of open justice is as important in ensuring conviction of the guilty as it is in ensuring acquittal of the innocent. Campaigners point out that when a suspect’s name is published, this might encourage other witnesses to come forward. Usually, they envisage that these would be witnesses for the prosecution, but publicity could just as well result in witnesses to exonerate the accused. Also, the glare of publicity is one of the best guarantees that state authorities such as the police will do their job as sensibly, speedily and impartially as possible.
If anonymity were extended to rape defendants there would be no logical reason for refusing anonymity to other defendants; indeed, the Sun newspaper has previously called for anonymity for everybody accused of a serious offence prior to acquittal. But why limit this to serious offences? Many would argue this is because there is a far greater public interest in knowing who is being tried for murder than for shoplifting. However it is the case that even a minor charge can damage somebody with an unblemished reputation. If we set off down this path, the criminal justice system could end up shrouded in mystery. There is one certain way to combine these twin principles of open justice and equality - remove anonymity from rape complainants as well as defendants.
The arguments in favour of anonymity for rape and sexual abuse complainants do not stand up to scrutiny, especially when contrasted with the powerful pull of open justice and equality. The main justification given for anonymity is that being named would deter women from reporting rape. But where is the evidence that rape is currently underreported? Indeed, given that from the mid-1980s to the recent period the number of complaints has risen eightfold while the number of convictions has little more than doubled, there could be reason to believe that women are reporting rape in situations where there is little likelihood of a conviction. Moreover, given that the increase in reported rapes is mainly accounted for by allegations of acquaintance rape - where the accused is known to the complainant - anonymity will only occasionally be a genuine option for the complainant.
We should not facilitate those women who make malicious allegations of rape by granting them anonymity - we should know their names, and if removal of anonymity discourages them, so much the better. Genuine rape complainants have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of. Rape victims should not have to feel stigmatised, and a woman’s reputation should not be considered damaged by her being a rape complainant. But ironically, giving rape complainants the kind of anonymity that we do not grant to victims of other crimes actually reinforces the stigma attached uniquely to rape victims. The sooner we treat rape in the same way as other serious crimes, the better for both the defendant and the complainant."
The above arguments really do seem incontrovertible. It is clearly time to end the capacity of militant feminism to subvert the justice system. It is hoped to publish some further suggestions for sexcrime reform before too long.
Wednesday, 1 October 2014
Three main suggestions have been made to overcome this problem, none of them very convincing. Some have proposed the creation of a purely English parliament, deciding solely English matters. However this would fatally balkanise Britain, would lead to conflict between the two parliaments, and would undermine the historic traditional role of the British parliament. Another suggestion is to confine voting on English matters to English MPs in the British parliament. However this would create two classes of MPs and would lead to a conflict of power if the majority of English MPs belonged to a different political party to the one with an overall majority in the parliament. Since the English MPs would not be able to form a government to deliver a political programme, this suggestion appears both impractical and unworkable. The least bad option currently being touted would be to reduce the number of Scottish MPs drastically to about 30 or even lower. However this would again lead to two classes of MPs and would be unfair to Scottish MPs whose votes would count for less than English MPs, for example in instances such as the recent debate on bombing Iraq.
The heart of the problem is that unwisely both Scotland and Wales are currently treated more favourably and differently by having devolved powers not available to England. Thus the only answer to the West Lothian question is to abandon the devolution experiment, which is of relatively recent creation, and abolish both the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly. The argument put forward at the time of devolution was that granting devolved powers would nip in the bud any demands for independence. But the reverse has happened; devolution has only increased the sense of separation and in so doing fuelled demands for independence. The British government should take the initiative and provide genuine in/out referendums for both Scotland and Wales. The choice would be either complete independence or membership of the United Kingdom on the same terms as England, without any powers devolved to a separate parliament.
Saturday, 20 September 2014
It is clearly outrageous that fathers who raise concerns about their daughters to the police are themselves arrested, or that teenage girls are doused with petrol, threatened with violence and passed around as sexual playthings by gangs of men. This blog has been vociferous in its condemnation of the sheer madness of allowing unlimited open ended immigration of large numbers of people who, through cultural and racial differences, can never be properly assimilated into mainstream British society. However, this does not mean that the Muslim community should be vilified for the clearly criminal actions of a relatively small number of their men, as many in the media are now doing. There is nothing in the Muslim religion which justifies or condones the worst kind of behaviour contained in this report.
However, the report itself and its presentation in the mainstream media also raise serious concerns about objectivity, balance and fairness. Leaving aside the widespread uncritical acceptance of the curious arithmetic on how the number of 1400 victims has been calculated, the reporting has exaggerated the extent of the extreme events outlined in the previous paragraph by confusing and conflating them with what has mostly been occurring, consensual foolhardy sexual activity by teenage girls. It heaps blame on the local authority child protection managers without any critical examination of the behaviour, outlook and attitude of the teenage girls. What has been happening here is that teenage girls have exchanged sexual favours for drink, drugs, cigarettes, money, attention, affection (mostly bogus) and an invitation into a more glamorous adult world. According to numerous surveys a third of teenagers below the age of consent are sexually active. So these teenage girls are behaving no differently in this respect from large numbers of their peers.
As a result of this furore calls are now being made that it should be a criminal offence not to report suspicions of 'child sexual abuse'. However, this much overused term is now routinely assumed by the authorities to cover any sexual or 'grooming' activity by, or with, a person under the age of consent. If this is brought into law, and includes young teenagers, it will keep our legal system very busy indeed, require the building of vast number of prisons and tie down much police time at the expense of pursuing other crimes of greater concern to the public. It will also put an end to the 'Gillick competence' which allows doctors and nurses to provide contraceptives to teenage girls below the age of consent, without their parents' knowledge. This was a safeguard against unwanted pregnancy which liberals in the 1980s fought hard to retain against a legal challenge. They even produced a badge with the message 'under16's are people not property', a viewpoint that is not much heard these days. As the Rotherham report makes clear young teenagers are now assumed to be the property of the state, and can be controlled accordingly.
Tuesday, 5 August 2014
Currently public attitudes towards nudity are not particularly encouraging, but it has been a lot worse in the past. At the beginning of the 20th century in Britain both sexes were expected to cover virtually the whole of their body at all times when in public. This extended to both sea bathing and in swimming pools. There was of course no such pastime as sunbathing during this period. Any person seeking to change this outlook would likely be accused of trying to undermine public 'decency'.
Gradually during the 20th century matters started to loosen up. From the 1920s onwards women could reveal their legs. From the late 1930s men were able to go topless. From the 1950s women could wear bikinis which became more revealing in the 1960s and 1970s. From the 1980s onwards some women went topless on beaches at popular resorts such as Brighton and Bournemouth, although the practice never became widespread. Strangely, this increased permissiveness did not appear to destroy the fabric of society, disproving the fears of those promoting 'modesty'. It also demonstrated that there is no natural or normal level of body exposure, since this is culturally determined according to the prevailing outlook at any given time.
The past thirty years have unfortunately shown no real advance in body acceptance, and there have been some setbacks. During much of the 1980s and 1990s, probably as a response to feminism, the majority of women reverted to one piece swimsuits in swimming pools, although less so on beaches. During the past twenty years the number of men wearing long baggy 'shorts' both in swimming pools and on the beach has continued to increase. This change appears to have been prompted by the fear of being considered homosexual. The current position is that there is still a significant amount of body guilt amongst the general public. Mild exhibitionism of the kind described above is regarded as uncool, particularly for men and especially for younger men. This has not always been the case.
British society seems confused about the human body. The tabloids endlessly display near naked pictures of identikit models, their bodies invariably mutilated to pander to the porn fetish of their more degenerate male readers. Even the supposedly conservative Daily Mail, on its website, publishes each day photos of female celebrities on the beach with 'revealing' bikinis, usually with highly personal comments about their physical attributes. At the same time the tabloids get into hysterics over the 'sexualisation' of children, for instance the absurd furore over padded bras for girls. In truth, we live in a highly sexualised, but mixed up, society where casual fornication is seen as normal, but public nudity is considered disturbing.
Naturism is another topic which brings out the worst in the British media, and the public too. Whilst no longer condemned outright on 'decency' grounds it is often mocked as a strange eccentricity, which no 'normal' person would ever admit to, whilst also being the butt of tired jokes which are at best adolescent. This general immaturity contrasts with the more positive and grown up acceptance in many other European countries, particularly Germany.
Naturism in Britain has for decades been poorly represented by a body known as British Naturism (BN). It has achieved little except a few ghettoised naturist beaches, nearly all of which are virtually inaccessible. The best known are Brighton, which has been hijacked by the sizeable local gay community, and the much better Studland Bay in Dorset which is a model of what British beaches could aspire to. BN has always quite rightly promoted naturism as a healthy family activity. It has also rightly condemned any overt sexual activity at nudist beaches, events or clubs. However, BN's attempt to completely desexualise naturism, stressing instead the undoubted freedom, satisfaction and enjoyment of being without clothes, is both misguided and naive as it does not fully address human nature. It is natural and normal for people to be physically attracted to others and this attraction is enhanced if they are nude. This visual stimulus is usually stronger in men than in women, but is likely to exist to some extent in most people of both sexes. Slightly more controversially it is also normal (or should be) for people to be sensually aroused when nude or nearly nude in the company of others to whom they are attracted. Since the overwhelming majority are heterosexual this means in the company of the opposite sex. This sense of arousal is known as exhibitionism, and since it is normal it must be healthy. Therefore there is no need to apologise for it or for anyone to condemn it. For this reason BN's claim that naturism in not exhibitionist is unrealistic and damaging since it can prompt guilt in people over what is a natural, normal and healthy feeling. Although exhibitionism should be normal for both sexes, women are generally more comfortable with it than men, since they have been less culturally brainwashed against it. However, psychologists define exhibitionism as a sexual disorder. They seem to be particularly concerned about men who expose their genitals in public to unsuspecting females with the intention of shocking them, or to gain sexual satisfaction, or both. Regrettably, this clearly anti social and threatening behaviour has had the effect of branding those men who enjoying being without any, or with little, clothing in public as potentially deviant and possibly dangerous. On this matter a strange double standard exists. If a man catches sight of a naked woman he is a voyeur and thus a 'pervert'. However, if a woman sees a man without clothes he is an exhibitionist and thus also a 'pervert'.
So if it is the case that mild exhibitionism is normal, natural and healthy why is it that most of the public are not exhibitionist and society is generally disapproving? There are a number of reasons for this, the most basic being that most people are highly conformist and do not think too deeply about issues. They accept the prevailing ethos of their peer group with relatively little thought as to why they hold the views they do. Some people may privately not fully accept the prevailing viewpoint, but they keep quiet and do not openly challenge it for fear of being considered different, or even 'weird', by those they socialise with. Since most people in society are sheep-like it takes a brave person to openly defy the prevailing consensus. But because such people do fight for what they believe, often in the face of ridicule, abuse, condemnation and legal harassment, their achievements can benefit society. Two examples relevant to this blog are topless swimming costumes for men, and bikinis for women.
Until the late 1930s all men were expected to cover their chest when on the beach or in swimming pools. The reason for this was to preserve 'public decency', which the majority of people if asked would most likely have supported because it was the established custom for as long as they could remember. In the USA many men were fined for being topless and as a result a now largely forgotten campaign, the 'No Shirt Movement' was created. Through legal challenges, resolute action and persuasive arguments the fines were overturned and as a result men could go topless without fear of harassment from the authorities. Because the USA was a cultural trendsetter the practice spread to Britain. Within a very few years virtually all men started to wear swimming trunks and hardly anyone today considers this to be wrong or 'indecent'.
The bikini was created in 1946 and was named after Bikini atoll in the Pacific where an early atomic bomb had been tested. The French designer considered that his two piece women's swimsuit would be potentially explosive, and he was proved right since it predictably provoked the ire of the 'public decency' brigade. At the time such a costume was considered by the majority of British women to be completely unacceptable in a public place. A version, that was expected to cover the navel, was slowly taken up by women on the continent during the 1950s and gradually this spread to British beaches. By the 1960s, without any fanfare, the bikini had shrunk to expose the navel, and by the 1970s the briefest of bikinis was commonplace both on beaches and in swimming pools. Once again the fears of the 'decency' scaremongers were proved to have been unfounded. These two examples show that a relatively small number of determined individuals can be more in tune with people's real feelings than a submissive public are themselves. Although significant factors causing exhibitionism and naturism to be currently unfashionable are submission to peer pressure and cultural conformity, there are other issues militating against greater acceptance. Traditionally, the most vocal opponents of body acceptance were the Christian churches, which considered the unclad body to be fundamentally indecent and likely to give rise to the sin of lust. This viewpoint was particularly prevalent during the Victorian era which saw the introduction of voluminous swimming costumes. In earlier periods, men at least, were able to swim naked without harassment. The influence of the churches has been significantly reduced in recent decades with the rise of secular values. The notion that the nude human body is inherently 'indecent' is less openly stated these days although it has not gone away completely, and it is disturbing to note that legislation is still on the statute book using this term for which men are currently in jail.
Unfortunately, the gap caused by the loss of influence of the churches has been filled by a new secular religion comprising the cult of the celebrity and its associated idealised notions of bodily perfection. People not living up to this ideal (which includes most of us) become anxious about their perceived bodily imperfections. Because of this many women these days openly declare that they hate the way their bodies look, which previous generations would have accepted as perfectly normal. Thus if they are uncomfortable with their bodies they will be unwilling to reveal them in public.
Another group more openly promoting body guilt are the feminists. The more militant members of this movement are undoubtedly anti men and are keen to ferret out opportunities to exercise control over them. Once such method has been to claim that male admiration for the female body 'objectifies' women. Therefore women should cover themselves up to prevent this happening. This attitude, which reached its peak during the 1980s, may have caused the return to fashion of the one piece swimsuit during this period. With the rise of a more 'in your face' femininity typified by the Spice Girls in the mid 1990s this viewpoint has been in retreat but again has not completely gone away, and may now be undergoing a revival.
Another interest group which provokes trouble and paranoia is the child protection industry as exemplified by the Mumsnet brigade and so called 'charities' such as the NSPCC, which has now become an agent of the state. They are on the lookout for paedophiles around every corner and are happy to assume that nudity equates to a form of sexual deviancy which threatens their little ones. In fact naturism on the continent has demonstrated that children are very comfortable in a nude environment which includes adults. They become acquainted from an early age with the human body and it has no fear for them, unlike many of those who have led a more sheltered existence in this respect. These then are some of the wowsers who promote bodily guilt and paranoia to the detriment of natural, normal and healthy behaviour. Back in the 1970s some naturists predicted that swimwear would gradually fall out of use as it gradually became skimpier and eventually it would be discarded altogether. Sadly, this has not happened, the easy going 1970s have been replaced by the anxious 21st century. On a more positive note once a year hundreds of cyclists are allowed to parade in the nude through London and other towns in support of a liberal approved environmental cause. Hypocritically, they are widely cheered and supported by an amused watching British public, and even photographed in the company of the police. If a single cyclist tried this on there would be a very different outcome. There is clearly safety in numbers and having the right politically approved cause.
In the 1980s many women reverted to one piece swimsuits in swimming pools whilst for men 'speedo' style swimming briefs were still commonplace. Thus during that decade men demonstrated a greater willingness to embrace body freedom whilst swimming than women. This has now changed, many more women are now wearing bikinis, some very skimpy. On the other hand the large majority of men have taken to wearing long baggy shorts often below the knee. So currently, women are more likely than men to enjoy the freedom of wearing as little as currently possible whilst swimming or sunbathing. From a practical viewpoint for swimming there appears to be no particular advantage either way between one piece swimsuits for women and bikinis. From this it can be deduced that many women like to wear more revealing swimwear for its own sake. In other words they are exhibitionist. For men however, swimming in baggy shorts is far less practical than in swimming briefs as the water drag is much greater. For this reason they have never been worn in swimming competitions. From this it could be concluded that many men are suffering from body guilt. However, the real reason is more likely to be their fear of being considered homosexual since it is a commonly held, but false, view that speedos are more popular with the gay community.
On the beach bikinis never went out of fashion. If you are trying to acquire a tan they are more practical than a one piece swimsuit. A small number of women go topless on popular beaches, but the practice has never really taken off as much as it has on some continental beaches. For men long baggy shorts are just as prevalent as in swimming pools. Here the impracticality is compounded since they are less practical for sunbathing and are more uncomfortable when wet. Swimming costumes of whatever type are unnecessary for both swimming and sunbathing. They can more accurately be described as decency costumes since this is the only purpose they serve. Regrettably, in the current climate of conformity and orthodoxy they are here to stay, for the foreseeable future at least. So the public are denied the right to practice an enjoyable and harmless activity in an appropriate setting such as swimming and sunbathing
Friday, 20 June 2014
So what should these polices be? Firstly, of course, is withdrawal from the European Union and the European Court Of Human Rights, allowing us to reclaim our national sovereignty, return the country to parliamentary democracy and restore the right to run our own affairs as a nation. Secondly, there will need to be severe restrictions on immigration, particularly of unskilled labour which has prevented the lowest paid workers from increasing their living standards. This is the true reason for the 'cost of living crisis' about which we have heard so much recently. Thirdly, UKIP will need to promote more vigorously their policy of reintroducing grammar schools, since they will enable intelligent children from disadvantaged backgrounds to better themselves, both culturally and through enhanced employment opportunities.
The above appear the only policies to which UKIP are currently committed. It is to be hoped that in addition they will support the repeal of the so called equality laws, which in practice compel employers to discriminate in favour of vocal minorities, against their better judgement. Similarly there should be a speedy removal of recent "hate speech" legislation which is nothing more that a mechanism to stifle political debate, and which is incompatible with a nation founded on the liberty of the individual and free speech. There should also be an end to the obsession with meeting 'climate change' targets since they are based on nothing more than the leftist political hoax promoting non-existent global warming. UKIP should also distance themselves from the current nanny state outlook which attempts to micro manage citizens lifestyle choices on matters such as alcohol and supposedly unhealthy foods, which these days seems to include just about everything except vegetables. They should introduce marriage reform, by making divorce more difficult for couples with young children and end the meaningless yet pernicious 'marriage' between people of the same sex. Finally measures should be taken to reign in the campaign by strident feminists (who are unrepresentative of most women) to use the law to stigmatise all men as potential sex offenders, rapists and/or paedophiles.
Taken together these policies should attract a significant proportion of the electorate, to at least ensure that UKIP holds the balance of power after the next general election.
Saturday, 3 May 2014
UKIP are correct in claiming that they take votes from all the major parties. They can take protest votes from the Liberal Democrats, a party that is clearly part of the political establishment, as it has been for the last forty years, albeit without direct power until relatively recently. UKIP can tap into the concerns of traditional Labour supporters, who are increasing alienated by the promotion of the sectional interests of cultural minorities, and the encouragement of open ended immigration, which lowers wages and increases pressure on housing and public services. However, it is clear that UKIP takes the most votes from the Conservative party.
It is now difficult to understand what the purpose of the Conservative party is under David Cameron's leadership. It wants to keep Britain in the European Union despite the loss of sovereignty and the large influx of workers from Eastern Europe who depress wages amongst the lower skilled. It has failed to control immigration as promised. It is fully signed up to a politically correct agenda that is indistinguishable from Ken Livingstone's GLC which at the time was branded as extremist. It has failed to stand up for the institution of marriage, indeed it has demonstrated its contempt by introducing so called same sex marriage. It has failed to support the reintroduction of grammar schools, thereby preventing intelligent children from poorer families achieving their full potential. Finally it has embraced the delusional belief in the global warming hoax, which increases fuel costs for every household and puts our energy supply at risk with its dependence on unreliable sources of energy.
For all the above reasons the Conservative party is now an empty husk, filleted of all the qualities that made it conservative in the first place. It has become a zombie party and should be put out of its misery. In the coming Euro elections UKIP can deliver the coup de grace that will finally finish off the useless and unprincipled Tories. Pathetic attempts to smear UKIP are clearly backfiring. A convincing vote for UKIP may also render the Labour party's refusal to hold a referendum on EU membership untenable. All right minded people should thus vote for UKIP and reclaim our country.