Vauxhall Viva

My second car was a Vauxhall Viva, a clapped out old banger I bought from my sister for about £100. The other day I got thinking about that one and some of my friends old cars in the late seventies and early eighties. Unlike the Viva on the left, mine was dark green, and in pretty poor condition.

What strikes me now is how even kids' old bangers look new compared to old cars a few years ago. I remember the Viva not having a radio, so I had a friend fit one that sat on brackets we screwed under the dashboard. Wires then went to speakers we screwed onto the back shelf. Clumsy mates getting in  the back would often disconnect the radio when their feet caught the wiring.

It didn't have a heated rear window either. So we had to buy a piece of plastic that we stuck onto the back window, about 2' by 1', that we then wired up to the electrics somewhere under the dashboard. It then heated up and thawed the window. Every small car spares shop sold them, and there were lots of them too, before Halford's put most of them out of business.

When the radiator sprung a leak we bought stuff called Radweld. Gunk that you poured into the radiator that found the hole and stuck onto it, thus sealing your leak. We also had gunk to plaster over the holes that appeared in the wings and other parts of the body, holes that appeared when even the rust had rotted away.

There was also a kind of first aid kit for exhausts. When a hole appeared you put some mesh over it, wound a bandage type thing over it then some tape over that. You then started the engine so that the heat of the engine melted the tape to secure the repair. Hey presto, good as new.

But the most frustrating thing about my old Vauxhall Viva was when the engine cut out if I drove through a puddle. That really was annoying.



State Oppression

Today I read a cracking article by Rod Liddle about the barrister, Mark Saunders, who was murdered in London by the Met Police. But the investigation has found that 79 armed officers, and a helicopter, turning up to deal with a drunken depressive, albeit with a gun, is fine and not an over reaction. To then shoot him dead is not unlawful.

I'm instinctively against euthanasia because, as the anti war campaigners don't want war waged in their name, I don't want the state approving of putting people down in my name. Neither do I approve of suicide as a practising Roman Catholic, but suicide, or helping somebody to take their life, should be a private thing, don't ask or expect my approval.

But I now see a way around it. If you want to end it all pop down to London, get drunk, wave a gun about and hey presto, the Met will blow your brains out and it won't be anybody's fault. Well, the state won't blame you or anybody else, you may have to face up to some tough interrogation at the Pearly Gates though.

Then I went shopping and we went out down the back garden and out into the alley to the rear of our property. For ten years we, and our neighbours, have parked our wheelie bins in the alley against our garden walls. Our neighbours have made nice little platforms to rest our wheelie bins on. It really saves clogging up our garden and the alley is a dead end. It is also unadopted, in other words nobody owns the land.

But now, today, we went out the back and found that the council has slapped stickers on all our bins warning us to store them in our gardens or face a £100 fine. Try it you bureaucratic deviants, just you try it. Not as dramatic as poor old Mr Saunders admittedly, but state oppression works on numerous levels. The smaller measures can be the ones that drive you over the edge.

Then Mrs B has forced me to have diet coke with my Bacardi tonight. She reckons the calories I save will offset the calories in my bottle of wine. I refused point blank to go caffeine free too, that would be too much.

So let's drink before the state stops us doing it, for our own good.

X Factor versus The Apprentice

A young girl from Zimbabwe, who appeared on the X Factor, is about to return to her own country as her mother's visa to stay here has expired. It's a shame but that's life. I can also appreciate Simon Cowell putting his lawyers on her case to try and help, he's made his wedge and he's spending it looking for a legal root for somebody he knows to stay here, that's his right. But why do people think that she should get any preferential treatment because she appeared on a TV reality show?

That got me wondering why The Apprentice, another reality show, gets treated with a respect by so many people that they don't afford to the X Factor. Let's analyse it.

A panel of egomaniacs who have made a packet of cash in their chosen fields.

A group of wannabes who think they've got what it takes, but haven't been able to do it on their own. Most seem to be held back by severe psychological disturbance, a complete lack of talent or ability and a degree of egomania that makes the panel look modest.

That, to me at least, describes The Apprentice and the X Factor. Virtually identical formats.

It strikes me that the reason The Apprentice is treated in the media with more respect than the X Factor is sheer snobbery. There are still people in this country, and elsewhere no doubt, who think that making a mint from entertaining people is still slightly cheap and lower class. Whereas making a wedge from producing dodgy computers is socially superior.   

If I had the choice of a night out with two millionaires, let's say Rod Stewart the entertainer or Alan Sugar the businessman, there's no choice. I'd be out on the razz with Rod.

Perhaps if I had the choice of watching the X Factor or The Apprentice I'd plump for.............a good book!

Socialist Paranoia

Driving home quite late last night I was listening to an interview on the radio with a couple of chaps from  the Human League, a bit like a poor man's eighties tribute band even then. It was quite revealing of the socialist mentality.

Apparently they thought that around the late seventies and early eighties we were all walking around on the point of nervous breakdowns. They reasoned that the hated Thatcher and Reagan were in power and were building more and more weapons, as was the USSR, which would obviously lead to mutual destruction.

Well I thought Reagan and Thatcher were superb leaders and never once felt in a panic that the bomb was going to finish us all off. So they were wrong for starters in their basic premise. It seemed obvious to me that the threat of mutual annihilation would ensure peace. Furthermore that Mrs T and Ronald Reagan's belief in standing up to tyranny would keep the USSR in check.

Now then, who was right? Not only did they keep tyranny in check, but they brought to an end the tyranny of communism in Europe. But, being small minded paranoiacs I don't expect socialists to ever give Mrs T and Ronald Reagan credit for that.

And that nuclear holocaust never happened did it? Indeed, thanks to nuclear weapons, we have had relative peace in Europe and the world since 1945 and Hiroshima.  Yes, there have been small scale conventional wars including Vietnam and Korea, but nothing on the scale of World War I or World War II. Now that's not a coincidence.

Socialism, when you look closely at it, does more and more resemble a form of paranoia rather than a political philosophy.

Sentimental Fool

I've had some really interesting conversations over the years with people about the past, whether it has ever really been better than the present, why so many people remember what happened fifty years ago but not what happened yesterday. Why your first 18 years drag on like centuries, then suddenly you are in your 50s and wondering where the time went.

Half of my family are sloppy sentimentalists who can sit around, usually after a few drinks, and start getting all maudling about the past and people long gone who they probably never actually liked. Or about places they visited or lived that, at the time, they loathed.

I remember Billy Connolly once talking about longing for the Gorbals. So he went back after years of pining for the place only to realise it was that time of his life he pined for, his childhood and youth, not the physical place. It was actually a real dump.

Some time ago I wrote a story about 'crossing the great divide' and below is how I wrote one of the last paragraphs:

They finished the last dregs of their tea before granddad asked whether Sam wanted to go out through the back door or the front door. It was something Sam had often wondered about and now the time had come, he had no problem making his choice. It was definitely the back door, the very same door granddad had stepped through that first day at work. There was no real choice for Sam, the past reassured him but the future was full of terror and uncertainty, you never knew what lay ahead. But the past was there, it was certain, it comforted and reassured. It had to be the back door, he had made that decision weeks ago when the doctors told him.

But then again, you can't beat a bit of classic Roxy Music. From their album Siren I give you, Sentimental Fool



So occasionally I now pine for Gorton, Glossop, Edmonton, Plumstead and Zamora. But never Nicaragua!

Youth Defence

For as long as I can remember I've been a member and supporter of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.  The right to life, from conception, is the most fundamental human right and a country that fails to protect that right, lacks credibility when it speaks about any other human rights.

Sadly there are continuing attempts to force Ireland to legalise abortion, including pressure from the European Union. I was really heartened  then to find the campaigning organisation Youth Defence. Youth Defence is a youth organisation campaigning to preserve the right to life in Ireland. Below are their aims:

It's simple really, our aim is to keep Ireland abortion-free. Educating people, helping mothers, lobbying, campaigning; all our objectives are undertaken with that aim.


We began protecting life in February of 1992 when seven young people came together in Dublin to organise against abortion.


It happened mostly because at that time, the X case posed a very real threat to the unborn child. Pro-abortion opportunists, who are always only too happy to jump on cases like this to push their agenda, were shouting for abortion as an immediate priority. If it was not legislated for before it was too late, babies would be born!


The media, who, lets face it, have a little of a leaning in that direction anyway, lapped up the drama.


There was pretty much a strained silence from the rest of the country who, even if they are totally passive about it, are pro-life. Their silence was sold as consent. If you were living in say, Paris, and got the Irish Independent every morning, you would think that the country was bristling with pro-abortion multitudes who were just on the verge of a rebellion to overthrow a backward and out of touch junta.

So, we said "hold it there for one second". It was time for young people to make their voices heard against abortion.

The group are holding a pro-life conference, Viva la Vida! , in Dublin early in November. I wish them well for their conference and in their continuing campaign.

Conservative Party Conference

I thought I'd sat through my last tedious training seminar by some grey, demotivational management consultant. Wrong! Today I endured the start of the Conservative Party conference, and I see why they cocked up in May and ended up in coalition with the Lib Dims.

The ministers spoke as if they'd been on mogaddon since May 6th, not trying to put right the wreckage left behind by the shower of idiots that is the Labour Party. If I were recruiting staff and they had to do those ridiculous presentations that are vogue in recruitment at the moment, I would have stopped them all, halfway through, and told them to bugger off and not to come back if that's as much enthusiasm as they can muster.

Having said that Boris Johnson was extremely engaging, entertaining as ever, and actually sounded like he enjoyed what he was doing. How refreshing. I particularly liked his dig at the French when mentioning how few bikes the London cycle scheme has had stolen compared to the Paris scheme. Unlike the other speakers today Boris seems happy to speak from the heart, and often without his prepared speech. Good on him.

It was particularly bad for TV viewers, the electorate in reality. The speakers kept introducing short films that had the sound blacked out by broadcasters who had to endure muzak for minutes at a time. Do they not realise that there are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of TV viewers to convert to their cause not just the few hundred hard core Tories in the hall?

Then they kept introducing, during their speeches/presentations, odd characters who sat on sofas or armchairs to answer a couple of questions before scurrying off looking nervous and embarrassed. It was like an even blander version of breakfast TV, but for people who have overslept. In fact it was worse, it was cringe inducing.

What I expected was a series of enthusiastic government ministers, boasting about their achievements since seizing power after May 6th and telling us how they intend to put right the damage they found after taking over from Labour and what a positive and vibrant future we could all look forward to. Instead I felt like I'd been slapped in the face with a wet cod, that's how it feels being governed by a coalition including the Lib Dims I suppose.

So I turned the telly off at around 3-00pm to concentrate on swotting up on intestacy and estate residue. Much more interesting.

  

Homophobia-The New Blasphemy

The Pope's recent visit prompted a vile outpouring of abuse from a tiny minority of militant atheists in this country, many of whom seemed also to be militant gay campaigners. I don't have a problem with people being critical, that's life, but the obnoxious abuse was ill mannered at best, disgustingly unnecessary and vulgar at worst.

Today Paul Daniels is the target of their bile and venom. So what has he done to warrant the vile personal abuse being directed his way by the militant, gay, angry brigade? He apparently told Craig Revel-Horwood, a judge on Strictly Come Dancing, not to give up his day job tasting sausages. Blue touch paper lit and bang, within minutes it seems a torrent of pink fury had been unleashed and complaints went into the BBC. The mighty keyboard warriors on Twitter went into overdrive too it seems, calling him foul mouthed names and demanding that terrible things happen to him, including death. Of course, those who cry most to be tolerated are often the most intolerant and bigoted towards others.

So why was this torrent unleashed at Daniels? Because the judge he aimed his comment at is gay. But, more relevantly, he is this year's frontman for British Sausage Week. It says it all about today's apparent lust to be offended that both men have today had to issue statements to try and calm the situation. Even when Revel-Horwood, the 'victim', has questioned what there was to be offended about the angry bigade have declared that Daniels was probably being homophobic anyway. When they are determined to be offended and angry they will find something to offend and anger them in anything. How sad.

So these last few weeks we've seen vile abuse directed at religion and a religious leader, and vile abuse directed at a man on the telly for mentioning tasting sausages, which apparently is homophobic. It's a funny old world.

Ecuador

Latin America has held a fascination for me as far back as I can remember. At a tender age I could identify the flags of all the Latin American countries and name their capitals, populations, biggest industries and all the bunk you can absorb, if you're so inclined, from encyclopaedias and the Pear's Cyclopaedia (1968 Edition).

Then in 1990 we decided to sell up and spend some time travelling in Latin America, a bit of a delayed gap year. We ended up teaching English in Mexico. As we arrived in the town in the Sierra Madre mountains where we were to begin work, our bus from Mexico City was buzzed by helicopters and the streets were crammed full of soldiers. First thoughts were that we had arrived in the middle of a coup. But no, the President, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, was speaking at an open air rally in the town. He was hugely popular at the time, but now lives in almost voluntary exile after leaving office in disgrace.

We were in Guatemala when Mrs Thatcher was deposed. It took some effort to convince our friends in Guatemala City that Britain hadn't actually had a coup. They found it hypocritical that they had been lectured on democracy by Europeans only to see the democratically elected leader of the UK ousted by a cabal. We eventually explained how our quaint form of democracy works, but it came to look even more absurd as we explained it. Mrs T was so admired they offered to drop their claim to Belize if we could arrange for her to take charge of Guatemala.

We also briefly knew the nephew of one of Guatemala's presidential candidates. The uncle seemed to be a decent, honest man and we were given the opprtunity to return for the election and follow his campaign. Foolishly we had so much of the continent to see, the Amazon, the Andes and so much more that we declined. He was elected but the last we heard, a couple of years later, he had been put under virtual house arrest by the military then sent into exile in El Salvador.

The early days of Violeta Chamorro's presidency of Nicaragua saw us surveying the shambolic state of anarchy that the Sandinistas had left behind in Nicaragua. Glad to be out of the hell that was Nicaragua we fled to Costa Rica, arriving as an earthquake struck.

But enough of my ramblings. It was the sight of Ecuador's President Rafael Correa standing in a hospital window shouting to the crowd of police and other demonstrators gathered below, that if they wanted to kill a president, there he was and they were welcome to take a pot shot. It could only happen in Latin America. He wasn't shot and, yet again, a Latino president was saved by the military after a gun battle between them and the police.

I can't help thinking that here in Britain Cameron would stand in a window, probably behind bullet proof glass, shouting: "Come on then, you want to heckle a Prime Minister? Then jolly well do it!".

The crowd would look up at the window, look at each other and mumble: "Stuff this, let's go for a curry. Who is that pillock?".

I still do miss Latin America.

Gays and the BBC

The BBC has commissioned a report that says it is doing a good job portraying gay people, but could do more.

Personally I'm sick to death of the BBC's obsession with sex and sexuality, be that gay or otherwise. Do the people at the BBC really think that the population is as obsessed with sexuality as they evidently are?

I can't help wondering how gay people feel about their portrayal by the media, almost as if they are a product to be promoted rather than human beings who live lives pretty much as boring and run of the mill as the rest of us, until they close the bedroom door.

On the one hand the media promote people like Alan Carr and Graham Norton as the latter day John Inman and Larry Grayson, I won't mention the ultra camp little dancer with the terrible lisp who pops up on comedy panel shows while being not in the least funny. Almost Carry On style caricatures.

On the other hand they disproportionately promote homosexual tyrant and bigot Peter Tatchell. He who, amongst other things, loves to 'out' famous gay people whether they want to be 'outed' or not. Anybody who dares disapprove of his orthodoxy is treated with a pink Hitler style attack of hatred and venom. Don't expect to be tolerated when you are so incredibly intolerant of others. Surely 'hate crimes' work both ways, or they should.

The best thing the BBC can do, and the Labour Party come to that, is drop their politically correct obsession with sexuality. It was their obsession with race and perceived racism that encouraged the rise of the BNP, they do everybody a similar disservice obsessing about sexuality.

Labour Party Conference, Zombies and the EU Referendum Petition

I met up with Nikki Sinclaire and her team in Manchester yesterday, it was great to catch up with the people I'd worked with as Nikki's campaign manager in the general election. Other aspects of the afternoon and evening I found quite disturbing though.

We met up in Manchester to leaflet the Labour Party conference inviting delegates to join us at Nikki's EU referendum fringe meeting yesterday evening. The campaign is demanding a straightforward referendum on whether we should be in or out, and in just over a month of actively seeking signatories, she has gathered over 20,000. The aim is to get 100,000 which could trigger a House of Commons debate on the issue. If only a few more supposedly withdrawalist MEPs were campaiging as hard as Nikki then progress would be so much swifter. But quaffing champagne and chomping foie gras in Brussels seems to have seduced so many other MEPs into a startling level of inactivity.

I have some concerns about the referendum option, shared by a couple of people at the meeting last night. If the campaign succeeded who would frame the question? It could be worded: "Do you want the UK to remain a member of the European Union?". Or it could be worded: "Do you want to see the UK isolated from the rest of Europe?". Let's face it if they can hold second referenda when the first result is not the one they want, that scenario is not implausible.

The second concern is the resources for the two campaigns. After many years the European Union admitted that they had pumped massive resources into the campaign for Britain to stay in the EEC in 1975. By comparison the out campaign was funded largely by individuals digging into their own pockets and savings.

If those issues can be addressed then let's have the referendum and finally, whoever wins a properly balanced and fair referendum, we can say that people have had their say, now let's just get on with it be that in the EU or outside.

What really shocked me yesterday was standing outside the Labour conference. It felt a bit like being in some kind of low budget film about the living dead. I've never seen so many zombie like, miserable politicos as I saw leaving Manchester Central yesterday. But I suppose after losing an election, then listening to the new leader spouting empty rhetoric about wimmin, gays, lesbians, BMEs and talkin' 'bout my generation, that would finish off even the most optimistic. I swear I saw a couple of speech bubbles above delegates' heads bearing: "Oh no, Ed Miliband, what have we done?"

At least a few years ago Labour delegates used to resemble living, breathing, real people. I know because I've picketed a few over the years. But the last two I've stood outside, yesterday being the worst, I think they've attracted political clones and professionals interested only in a career, little about genuine beliefs or principles. But this year they are particularly hurting as they are, for the first time for many, losers. Like the Tories in the 1980s their years of government have attracted a bunch of chancers and now it's over and I suspect, over for many years.

Independent Safeguarding Authority

It looks like the government are scrapping of New Labour's more oppressive police state quangos, the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Let's hope they do anyway, at the moment it's under review.

It was set up after the Soham murders because Ian Huntley hadn't been found guilty of any offences so passed his police check to work in a school.

Everybody working with 'vulnerable' people was supposed to register, in addition to being vetted by the police. 'Vulnerable' included anybody on prescription drugs. It meant that at least one parent had to register if they were to host a child on a foreign exchange visit. It included parents offering lifts to their childrens' friends, and so on. What it actually was was a further attempt by Labour to get us all onto a database and keep tabs on us.

But what if you were accused of a child related offence but found not guilty in a court of law? The ISA had the power to ignore that and decide you could not register with them anyway, making you unemployable in many cases.

Good riddance to what was, even by Labour standards, an oppressive authoritarian outfit.

The Police State

The police state manifests itself in all kinds of ways, some bigger some smaller. Yesterday we were in Lancaster and checked out a new bar and restaurant, the Dalton Rooms. There is a picture of the front of the building in the gallery on their website.

The way the police state manifests itself here is in front of the bar. There is a large covered terrace affair that is roped off from the street with tables and chairs in it. I thought it was a very civilised smoking area now poor old smokers are forced to huddle up outside pubs and bars in all weathers. But no, smoking is not allowed.

The sign on the wall in this terrace area makes it clear that it is not the bar owners or staff responsible, but the authorities. The sign informs customers that smoking is not allowed on the terrace only on the pavement outside the actual premises. So you can take a very short step onto the pavement for a smoke. Fine, but you will get nicked if you take your drink with you because drinking on the street is illegal.

So you need to straddle the rope, lean one way to take a drag on your cigarette, then lean the other way to have a slurp of your pint. Just shows how petty minded the authorities can be.

I wonder when they will ban class TV adverts like the following. After all, we need protecting from alcohol as well as nicotine!

Autumn, the Start of the Political Year

I always feel that autumn ushers in the new political year. The serious parties hold their conferences and elected parliamentarians return to work after a lengthy break from mithering, lecturing and dreaming up new ways to tax us.

As well as conferences autumn sees serious local election candidates preparing their latest newsletters and hitting the campaign trail, ready for elections the following May. Even after promising themselves to start campaigning straight after the previous May elections, most leave it until autumn to begin.

Of course the cocky, or maybe naive candidates begin their May election campaigns in April, then blame everybody but themselves when they fail to get elected. But that happens in many cases and is one of the reasons why people complain that they only hear from politicians when they want a vote.

Having my birthday in October I've lost count of the number of birthdays spent at party conferences or other political events. I even spent my 21st birthday en route to the Tory conference drinking Newcastle Brown Ale. But this year will be different. I'll be joining Nikki Sinclaire MEP at her EU membership referendum fringe meeting at the Labour conference in Manchester on Tuesday 28 September, if you would like to join us it's at Central Hall, Oldham Street at 7-00pm. Then, for the foreseeable future that's it, no meetings planned, no conferences to attend and certainly no election campaigns to fight. After over 30 years in politics I need a breather.

My disillusionment started setting in about five years ago. While I've met some fantastic people in politics I estimate that for every one person that reaches a high position in a party, there are probably about three who I would rather not touch with a bargepole. It seems to be a higher concentration in smaller parties for some reason, perhaps small parties attract obsessives. And I speak after spending the last ten years in UKIP then the Libertarian Party. Remember, throughout the expenses scandal little was said of two smaller party MEPs who actually went to jail, Tom Wise and Ashley Mote.

But the electorate aren't blameless in the shambles that is current politics. I have personally leafletted streets for months and months only to have residents claim to have received nothing for years. There are millions of people who moan but don't vote. People who are so incredibly angry about a local issue that you organise a protest, and the usual half a dozen turn up but the moaners stay at home watching Corrie and moaning.

Then there are the party members who turn up to every meeting, especially if there is food and drink around, but are nowhere to be seen when there is real work to be done. But they talk the talk and usually slag off the people that actually get off their arses and do something.

Of course our system works against truly representative democracy, you only have to look at the Frankenstein monster that seized power after May 6th. Even with pots of money smaller parties find it virtually impossible to break through the three party system. Look at the money James Goldsmith threw at the Referendum Party in 1997. So Caroline Lucas was elected in May for the Green Party. But her being elected in Brighton was a bit like George Galloway being elected in Bethnal Green. Hardly typical constituencies. And her great statement to date as an MP? She wants MPs to job share. Wow.

Smaller parties increasingly demand some form of proportional representation. But cynics like me often wonder if they would be so much in favour of PR if they could win an election under the current FPTP system. Or are they genuinely anxious that all parties, even the BNP, get proportional representation in the House of Commons?

Maybe part of the problem is that the line between pressure group and political party has become blurred. The Greens and the environment, UKIP and the EU, BNP and immigration, English Democrats and an English parliament and so on. But the overwhelming majority of people don't vote on a single issue, so they have very limited electoral success. But instead of accepting that, they increasingly campaign for PR, blaming the system for their own failures perhaps.

If we get PR that is likely to create new problems. The smaller parties will still only get a handful of seats, but months and months of haggling could follow general elections with no party having a clear majority. More and more compromise during negotiations could lead to even fewer voters getting something near what they voted for than under the current FPTP system.

The real question that needs asking about PR is whether we want the current system of representative democracy, where governments are formed on the number of representatives elected by electors voting in groups known as constituencies, or would we prefer the numbers to be divvied up on the basis of percentages? Once people have made their minds up on that, then a proper debate can begin about our form of representative democracy.

Either way I see nothing but increasing disillusionment with our democracy, and the smaller parties may find that when the light of electoral success shines on them, the public like what they see even less than they like the big three parties.

Maybe the future for those of us disillusioned with party politics is to campaign within pressure groups to influence the current three big parties. Only time will tell.

Peter Tatchell

Yesterday I received an abusive comment from a supporter of Peter Tatchell about this earlier post on my blog. He claimed that Tatchell had been misrepresented.

So below, reproduced again in full, is Tatchell's letter to the Guardian of 26 June 1997 that caused the apparent misunderstanding. I hope this clarifies the matter:

ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.

The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.

Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.
Peter Tatchell

Forgive me if I misunderstood the following line:

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

I foolishly read it and understood it to mean:

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

Silly me.

Respect and Good Manners

An old pal of mine, Steve Allison, has a comment policy on his blog, which I have reproduced below:

Anyone is welcome to read this blog but the blog settings require my approval before a comment made by a reader is posted for all to see. Only on rare occasions will I accept anonymous comments and I will never allow anonymous comments that are insulting or attack me personally. If someone wants to have a go at me then I see no reason to give them a platform to do so.

Steve and I know each other through politics but, as I am now less politically active, we tend to keep in touch via our blogs. I've always felt sad that Steve has found it necessary to have this comment policy, but don't blame him in the least.

Over the years, although generally on the same side, Steve and I have disagreed on various issues, often quite heatedly and even intensely. But we have never resorted to personal abuse or childish name calling. By and large we have always treated each other with respect.

While the internet has opened up countless opportunities for millions of people, to make their working lives easier, research easier, the chance to comment on issues easier or just to keep in touch with friends and family, there is also a downside. Too many people seem to lose respect and good manners when they sit behind a keyboard. And I'm not going to try and say that I am completely innocent, I'm not. There have been times I've said things, on blogs or emails for example in the heat of the moment, and afterwards deeply regretted what I've said.

The last week has really brought into sharp focus the problem of abuse on the internet, and elsewhere, in our ever more intense and accessible media environment. Nobody in this world is, or should ever be, immune from criticism but what the iternet has done is opened the doors to nasty and unnecessary personal attacks on others by people who seem to lack the intellect to argue fom a constructive and respectful position against those they disagree with.

As a libertarian I oppose limitations on free speech. In my view we have free speech or we don't, you cannot have degrees of free speech. A common argument among libertarians is that just because something offends somebody somewhere, it shouldn't be banned. But responsible libertarians, indeed responsible people, should not go out intending to cause offence. Merely hurling vile personal abuse is an abuse of free speech. The internet has opened up a whole culture of people wallowing in their ability to be as personally unpleasant and foul mouthed towards opponents as they possibly can. That is demeaning.

One of the reasons I oppose limits on free speech is because I would rather know what Tom, Dick or Harry actually believes so that I can decide whether to associate with them, join their club, vote for them or whatever. That self regulation has been extremely effective this last week. I don't claim to be holier than thou, I'm not saying we should sanitise communication and debate, passion is vital and that often leads to heated debate that often goes too far, but that's life. I'm concerned about gratuitous insult, often accompanied by lies or, at best, half truths.

There are so many ways that self-regulation can come into play. Indeed, it's actually quite simple. When writing we can consider how we would feel if what we are saying was directed at ourselves. If we would be offended then why offend others?

Another way is to consider whether or not we would be prepared to say what we are about to write to the person's face. If not, then don't write it. It used to be called cowardice.

Many of us are proud of the reputation we British have for respecting others and for our good manners. It would be nice to think that those qualities would naturally limit the potential abuses of true freedom of speech. But sadly too many people, many claiming to be libertarian, play into the hands of those who want to control what we say by resorting to foul mouthed abuse, half truths or lies to attack opponents and anybody they disagree with. It's also about responsibility.

There used to be a phrase my grandparents used that we might well consider anew: "If you've nowt decent to say, keep your trap shut".

After the Papal Visit

What a few days we've just witnessed. Attending the Beatification Mass in Birmingham was my personal highlight of a fantastic four days. For millions who couldn't attend any of the events, the TV coverage was excellent, and gave millions of people outside the church an insight into what being a Roman Catholic really means.

But now the Pope has returned to the Vatican and we must carry on, inspired and heartened by his presence and his words. There are many ways we can live our faith and we have a duty to try hard to do that. Faith is more than thoughts and words, although they are important, it is about how we live our lives day to day.

The modern media gives even the busiest person the chance to pray. Before Easter I went on a retreat to Pantasaph Friary in Wales. The few days there were so rewarding and, among other things, I decided to continue with my morning and evening prayers after the retreat, especially as Fr Louis Maggiore had been kind enough to give me a fine prayer book.

But many people are so busy they find making time for prayers difficult. Step forward Universalis. This gives you the chance to spend a few minutes at the start and end of your day to pray at your desk.

We must work hard to be guided in our everyday lives by our faith, and to defend our faith even when that may be difficult. If we ignore the guidance of our faith when we take positions of responsiblity, what is the purpose of our faith? We must all try hard to do what we know is right, even if that is difficult at the time and may make our lives less comfortable as a consequence.

The Pope inspired us all on his visit and there are things I intend to do differently as a consequence of his wisdom. We all have a duty to question what we do and why we do things, and to continue learning and trying hard to improve as human beings. We owe that not just to God, but to each other.

An interesting article on the Papal Visit from the Telegraph Online.

From the Mail Online.

An account of yesterday's Beatification Mass from the Telegraph Online.

The Joy of Pope Benedict's Visit

What has been so heartening about the Papal Visit has been the response of the public at large. Many people have commented on the negativity of the media towards the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church, in the weeks leading up to his visit. Now, having seen him live, without the negative spin of the media and the anti-Catholic bigots, they have been extremely impressed.

During my working day I meet the public constantly and have spoken to many, the vast majority of whom know nothing about my faith, and I have been amazed at the positive comments from people I meet. Many comment, quite unprovoked by me, about the contrast between the the mean spiritedness of the anti-Catholic bigots, and the generosity and wisdom of Pope Benedict XVI. The intensity of the modern media can be a curse, but remove the spin and bias, show people live on TV uncensored, and you really see the reality.

The generous response to the Pope has renewed my faith in the basic decency and courtesy of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. So many people, especially yesterday when the Pope spoke in Westminster Hall, have said how relieved they are that at last somebody has spoken what so many of them believe or feel. There is a mean spirited and nastiness among 'aggressive atheists' who, judging by the public response these last few days, have a massively disproportionate amount of influence in public life, especially within the media. But the public have seen through that.

The Pope has truly struck a chord with people. Many feel that there is a vaccuum in public life, be it in politics or business, and they are not happy. Something is missing and the Pope, on this visit, told us all what is missing, and people have accepted that.

Tomorrow I will be in Birmingham for the Mass and Beatification of Cardinal Newman. The more this visit has progressed the more priveleged I feel to be a part of it in a very small way. Maybe there won't be a huge resurgence in Catholicism in this country, but I am convinced that we will see more people turning to our church and more people, believers and non-believers, learning from this visit and starting to question the world around them and what is wrong with it.

Haagen Dazs TV Commercial Music

Who is that haunting music from the Haagen Dazs TV commercial? Richard Hawley:

Poor Ian Paisley

Great quote from Ian Paisley yesterday about the Papal Visit:

"I don't want his blessing and I will be keeping as far away from him as possible..."

Mr Paisley speaking in Edinburgh, the day the Pope arrived, in Edinburgh.