The transgender agenda

It is an interesting pastime watching the gradual evolution of politically correct obsessions. It started with class, then race, then sexuality, then 'gender'. During the past decade or so a new topic has been gaining ground, namely concern for what is termed the 'trans-gendered community'. Needless to say anyone not fully paid up to furthering this recent obsession is routinely demonised in the by now usual way, through the reflex use of a newly coined pejorative word, in this case 'transphobia'. Persons transgressing the PC code on this matter are accused of 'monstering' this evidently very sensitive 'community'.

The veteran feminist Germaine Greer has recently become a victim of this agenda. She has over many decades been one of the most vociferous opponents of the sin of 'sexism', which amongst feminists and 'progressives' very quickly became shorthand for attacking and silencing any views that might lend support to normal male heterosexuality. So it is fitting that she is now being devoured by the PC intolerance monster she helped to create. On this issue, however, she does have a point, namely the outright rejection of the ludicrous claim that men, who have had themselves castrated, automatically become women indistinguishable from those who are born female. As a result she has fallen victim to student unions' favourite adolescent pastime of 'no-platforming' any person who might offend their PC ideological purity, in this case Cardiff University where she was due to give a talk.

It is the case that a relatively small number of children are born of indeterminate sex, a problem which can usually be addressed medically. Clearly there can be no criticism of individuals who find themselves in this position, or of medical specialists who do their best to treat them. But the trans-gendered community, which the PC brigade sponsors, does not much concern itself with such people. Instead, it focuses on adults who have chosen to mutilate their bodies in the delusional belief that they will be transformed into the opposite sex. In this respect men attempting to become women considerably outnumber women trying to become men.

This issue came to wider public awareness a couple of years ago following an article by the journalist Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail about a teacher, formerly male, who returned to the same school as a 'woman'. Littlejohn claimed that the teacher’s transition would be 'too challenging' for the primary school children adding 'let them enjoy their childhood, they will lose their innocence soon enough.' He further declared that the teacher was 'selfish' for returning to the same school.

Tragically the teacher concerned committed suicide two months later. Over 200, 000 people called for the Daily Mail to sack Littlejohn. The coroner investigating the death accused the newspaper of 'character assassination' having sought to 'ridicule and humiliate' the teacher. Littlejohn may well have been at fault in mentioning the teacher by name, but the general thrust of his comments on the possible impact on children seems to be reasonable. However, one comment requires further investigation namely his view that the teacher was entitled to 'gender reassignment' surgery, a procedure that Germaine Greer has no problem with either.

One liberal establishment campaign which this blog supports is that to outlaw the forced genital mutilation of young women and girls, which takes place in some minority communities in this country for religious or cultural reasons. It seems very strange that the same people who rightly seek to prohibit this practice are vociferous in their encouragement of vulnerable and confused individuals seeking the genital removal or mutilation of their own bodies in an attempt to become the opposite sex. It could be argued that the girls and young women subject to female genital mutilation are being forced into this against their will, whereas adults seeking a sex change are doing so out of their own free choice. However, such a distinction is simplistic and does not take into account the seriously disturbed psychological condition, both before and after, of those seeking to change their sex.

There must be countless number of individuals who do not identify with the more extreme stereotype images ascribed to their sex. For instance, the loud mouth macho males who only seem interested in sport, or the simpering females only concerned with fashion, celebrities and gossip. Humans come in all types, and there must be many who identify with the qualities that are assigned, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, to the opposite sex. There is absolutely nothing wrong with identifying with the characteristics of the opposite sex, but any individual who takes this to the extreme level of wanting to mutilate their body, and undergo a lengthy course of hormone therapy, in an attempt to change their sex must clearly have some deep psychological problems which need addressing.

According to some shocking statistics from the USA, transgender persons are 25 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population, with nearly 40% of them actually attempting suicide. These statistics show that sex change operations do not remove, but instead seriously increase, the psychological problems which these already vulnerable people suffer. Thus the focus should change from promoting and supporting the growth of the supposed transgender community, to preventing such people from destroying their lives and their bodies through the encouragement of their unrealisable fantasies. A transgender person can never become a member of the opposite sex and the reality is that they will invariably face hostility, disgust and ridicule from wider society.

In order to end this problem before it gets any worse legislation should be introduced to make it a criminal offence for any member of the medical profession in Britain to carry out, or facilitate mutilation, and/or use of hormone therapy, in an attempt to change the sex of any of their adult patients. Although, this will not end this pernicious practice entirely, as determined individuals can still go abroad, it should reduce the problem quite significantly.

Green Marxism

The mid 1960s was in many ways a more decent and civilised society than the one we live in today. But in one respect at least, there has been some improvement, and that is in concern for the environment. Until the late 1960s, with the exceptions of nature conservation and cleaner air, neither governments nor the general public placed a high priority on improving the environment. But now it is an issue that is firmly in the political centre stage due to ceaseless campaigning by influential pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. For the Green Party it is of course their top political priority.

Despite its relatively poor showing in elections the Green Party in Britain is highly influential, compared to UKIP, which in the last general election gained significantly more electoral support. The reason why the Green Party has more influence than UKIP is that it is a politically correct party that sings from the same hymn sheet as those who currently wield political power. UKIP, on the other hand, is regarded as right wing and is thus ignored, if not despised, by those now holding the levers of power.

Although care for the environment must be a high priority it should be based on facts and evidence. Measures to protect the environment should not be at the expense of destroying the economy and people’s livelihoods, or in needlessly increasing state control over the lives of citizens, or based on scare tactics and exaggeration. Many people in the green movement are motivated by a concern for the environment, but for others with a leftist fanaticism it provides a platform, and a front, to achieve their political ends. Entryism of this kind has been accurately identified as 'Green Marxism'.

The greatest political scam of our age is the global warming hoax. On the political spectrum the further people are to the left the more they promote the hoax, whereas the further they are to the right the more they try to expose this delusion for what it is. The reason for this is that the climate change agenda has been hijacked by those using it as a front for achieving Marxism through the back door. With its massive state interventionism it provides an ideal mechanism for political apparatchiks to control the lives of ordinary people, who are thus reduced to pliant clients of the state. Political correctness is another way of achieving this objective, this time through controlling people’s thoughts and behaviour through the perversion of language.

Green campaigners are seen by many as well intentioned, harmless do-gooders, whereas in reality some can be opportunist, malignant anarchists. Time, once more, for the lemmings to wake up before it is too late.

South Africa - is the dream over?

For over thirty years liberals mounted a hate campaign against a society that had achieved enormous prosperity through hard work in the face of considerable adversity. The people involved were white South Africans, who created the Dark Continent’s only functioning western developed state. This was clearly an unequal society and the native population was routinely and systematically denied the civil rights enjoyed by the white minority. In this respect South Africa was no different to the many British colonies to the north, or to those under the colonial rule of other European countries such as France and Portugal. The white authorities in South Africa undoubtedly carried out many shameful acts to maintain their rule and to keep order, but so too did the other colonial powers, for example the British in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising.

With the ending of colonial rule in most African countries by the end of the sixties South Africa became increasingly isolated. The white population in the African colonies was very small and after independence most chose to emigrate. This option was not available to the nearly 4.5 million whites living in South Africa. They had a choice to either surrender to black majority rule under the ANC and a likely descent into chaos, or to maintain the status quo to protect the prosperous civilisation which their industry and enterprise had created. They chose the latter much to the fury of Western liberals.

South Africa was an easy target for vociferous liberals anxious to hawk around their elevated consciences, since they would not be the ones to suffer the consequences of their white guilt trip. After several decades coming under attack from international sanctions and internal terrorism, eventually the whites under De Klerk agreed, after a referendum, to enter into negotiations with the ANC. As a result De Klerk handed power to the ANC in 1994, without the whites being given a second referendum to decide whether the terms he agreed were acceptable.

An interesting book, South Africa’s Brave New World by S. W Johnson, gives a wide ranging account of what has happened in South Africa since the ANC came to power. It is not an easy read due to the exceptionally detailed, but necessary, recitation of events, and the fact that most of the main participants are largely unknown in Britain. Johnson is himself a South African liberal who opposed apartheid. With the experience of living in the country his views on this were absurdly naïve. He is clearly disappointed and disillusioned with the turn of events since 1994, but he really should not be surprised since, as he acknowledges, they were predicted by the overwhelming majority of white people who broadly supported the apartheid system.

For most of the period covered by Johnson’s book Thabo Mbeki ran the country, first as vice president and then as president from 1999 to 2008. Although diligent he was a control freak who sought to dispense patronage on a grand scale. Most of the main political offices were filled with his ANC cronies, few of whom possessed the necessary administrative skills required for running their government departments. To compound the problem experienced white public officials were quickly shunted out and replaced, under the guise of affirmative action, by unskilled and unqualified blacks. Corruption was rife, resulting in a significant proportion of public funds finding their way into the bank accounts of a new seriously rich black political elite. As a result public services such as hospitals, roads and water supply quickly began to deteriorate. The surplus of electricity generation facilities which the ANC inherited was so mismanaged that regular power cuts eventually became routine.

Administrative incompetence and corruption was not the only problem. Crime skyrocketed, with South Africa becoming the murder and rape capital of the world. An additional self inflicted wound was Mbeki’s denial over the cause of Aids which resulted in an estimated 300,000 unnecessary deaths. Most disturbingly, over 1200 white farmers have been brutally murdered, proportionally much more than in neighbouring Zimbabwe. The vast majority of blacks are just as impoverished as they were under apartheid. Over one million whites have fled the country, mostly the young and enterprising. With the exception of the Aids scandal these developments were long predicted by the white population living in the country.

White liberals in Britain have moved on to other dubious causes such as tackling 'homophobia' or promoting the global warming hoax. They have never given any thought to the disorder, with worse to follow, that they have visited upon the people of South Africa. On this matter they are guilt free, as they continue to bathe in their sense of moral self righteous superiority, regardless of where this blinkered and, in this case, destructive outlook can lead to.

Minimum pricing for alcohol

The question of minimum pricing for the sale of alcohol has been on the authorities agenda for a few years now. There is clearly a campaign building up here, not of course arising from genuine public concern, but instead from health campaigners, many of whom are taxpayer funded. So is there any merit in minimum pricing for alcohol?

Since the days of Hogarth's Gin Alley, governments have always sought to control the price of alcohol, with two objectives. One is to cut alcohol consumption and thus reduce the level of drunkenness, disorder, incapacity and the long term deleterious impact on health. The second is to increase revenue, thus avoiding the need to search out alternative sources of taxation which may be more unpopular, inconvenient or costly. So the principle of government raising the price of alcohol is long established, something which the more vociferous bloggers opposing minimum pricing sometimes appear to overlook.

Two main factors are driving the attack on alcohol consumption. One is the belief that government should be more proactive in ensuring that the public pursue more healthy lifestyles. The second is the 'binge drinking' scare, aided and abetted by the tabloid media. It is undoubtedly the case that alcohol is cheaper now than in the past. However, this only applies to alcohol bought from retail outlets, in particular large supermarkets. Drinks bought in pubs are still about as expensive in real terms as they have been for a long time. So a much wider gap has arisen between alcohol consumed (mostly) in the home, and that in pubs. This must be one factor causing the closure of many pubs. Many, particularly younger, people, are 'preloading' drink at home before a night out, and then just 'topping-up' in a pub afterwards, thus saving a significant amount of money for the same degree of intoxication.

Since, in real terms, the price of alcohol is lower than in the past the obvious solution would be to increase the duty when sold in retail outlets, but not for drinks in pubs. However, there appears to be some reluctance to pursue this course. This may be due to an EU directive which prevents differing rates of taxation between the two. If true this would be another example of how we are no longer able to govern ourselves as we think fit. Ironically, minimum pricing may itself be in breach of EU competition rules.

Minimum pricing as a principle seems an odd idea from a Conservative government as it appears to be reintroducing, by the back door, retail price maintenance that was abolished for most items by a previous Tory government as long ago as 1964. The benefit will not accrue to the government, since there will be no increase in tax revenue. Instead the benefit will go to retailers who will increase their profits, since costs will remain the same.

The government has suggested a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol. Critics have rightly suggested that this is only a start, and that pressure will mount for it to be continually ratcheted upwards. This is because one of two outcomes will occur. The first is that there will be little or no reduction in alcohol consumption. Health campaigners and binge drink alarmists will then argue that the minimum price is too low and that it should be increased. The alternative scenario is that it does lead to a noticeable reduction. In which case, those pushing minimum pricing will argue that since it works, the minimum price should be raised to reduce consumption still further. By this means the price of alcoholic drink will increase incrementally over time, becoming far more expensive for everyone.

It must be concluded that minimum pricing is a much more pernicious way of controlling the price of alcohol than duty or taxation. This is because, by the use of the latter means, the government's main concern will be to seek to optimize its revenue. Tax alcohol too much and the total tax yield will fall as consumption falls disproportionately, tax too little and revenue is lost since it would have risen more than the smaller fall in consumption. Thus reduction in consumption is a side benefit, the main objective is an easy means of raising revenue. So the relative price of alcohol will continue to be roughly stable over time.

Minimum pricing, on the other hand, gives the health and temperance fanatics and agitators a mechanism for increasingly imposing their outlook on the rest of society, which in this case is likely to be contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of people who drink sensibly and socially. For this reason the minimum pricing of alcohol should be opposed. This is despite the fact that minimum pricing at a low level would allow pubs to be more competitive, an objective which can better be achieved by imposing differing levels of alcohol duty between retail outlets and pubs.

Britain loses its soul

The aim of the blog has been to expose the delusions, hypocrisy, mendacity and oppressiveness of the liberal politically correct elite, who now possess a stranglehold over nearly all British institutions. By their very nature the majority of blogs have been critical in tone and thus to many may appear unnecessarily negative. This more reflective post provides an opportunity to explain more about the motivation on where the blog is coming from.

Britain has not always had a politically correct liberal establishment. Until the mid 1960s a conservative (small c) British establishment presided over a fairly easy going, tolerant, stable and cohesive nation which enjoyed rising prosperity and full employment. It was a self confident society in which people looked forward to the future. For the most part people behaved in an adult and civilised way. Men were smartly but drably dressed. Women looked feminine and elegant if they had taste, but the majority who did not could sometimes look rather dowdy. Children, even of a young age, were free to roam the streets, and enjoy childhood to the full. Divorce and broken families were rare, there was almost no underclass, illegal drug use was largely unknown and crime was relatively low.

The best TV, theatre, cinema and literature was challenging whilst still entertaining. Popular music was at a creative peak with The Beatles leading the pack. As a country we were able to run our own affairs without outside interference and the main political parties generally reflected the priorities of the electorate on most issues. Although the old school tie still counted for something, social mobility was higher than today due to the influence of grammar schools and a university expansion programme which maintained standards of excellence. There was relatively little meddling and interference by the state in citizens private and personal affairs.

This society was however by no means perfect. It positively oozed complacency and self satisfaction. It was in thrall to socialist economics witnessed by the nationalised industries, corporatism, national planning high direct taxation and trade union power all of which were swept aside, sometimes brutally, by the Thatcher government in the 1980s. The architecture of the time was characterless and utilitarian at best and hideous at worst. The visual arts promoted by the arts establishment were, like now, pretentious rubbish. There was no regard paid to the consequences of large scale third world immigration, the impact of which was then beginning to be felt in several towns and cities. Environmental protection was lax and the conservation of historic buildings patchy.

The foundations of this conservative establishment suffered two major blows in the mid 1960s - the revelations arising from the Profumo affair weakened traditional morality on sex, and the election of Harold Wilson’s Labour government paved the way for the modern politically correct society.

The baby boomer generation was just reaching adulthood in the mid 1960s and there was rebellion in the air. Two things alienated them from the older generation and the conservative establishment, with a third on its way. Put simply, sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll began to enter the national conscience. On sex, traditional morality held sway which affirmed chastity before marriage and fidelity within it. An interest in sex for its own sake was considered depraved and its depiction in any form was denounced as smut. The prevailing ethos of the time created an oppressive climate that left many men feeling guilty about finding women physically attractive. The underlying message was that marriage had little to do with sexual relations but, in the euphemism of the time, was primarily a means for 'starting a family'. Homosexuality was not just illegal but almost unmentionable. As for pop music most of the older generation positively hated it and continually denounced it. They couldn’t stand the loud music, electric guitars, long hair, irreverence and lack of respect. Many seemed greatly perplexed that Mick Jagger sounded nothing like David Whitfield. With regard to drugs, this seemingly intractable problem would grow and grow with no sign of a solution.

The prudish attitude towards sex and the eagerness to condemn the pop music of the time destroyed the credibility of the conservative establishment in the eyes of a restless generation of young people. The ruling class and older people looked stuffy, out of touch and anti-fun. This image damaged their standing with the emerging generation that was beginning to seek out a more hedonistic lifestyle. The individual who embodied the old guard above all others was Mary Whitehouse. To the young, her self righteousness, excessive primness, hysteria over 'permissiveness' and strong religiosity, invited ridicule and constituted a constant reminder of what they were rebelling against. Their answer was to seek greater personal freedom through embracing the emerging, and increasingly fashionable, liberal mantras. To do so was seen to be cool, progressive and modern. Given the circumstances of the time and their youth and inexperience, the young baby boomers cannot be blamed for the out of control monster they were helping to create.

This is not the place to describe in detail how the fledgling permissive society of the 1960s gradually transmuted into the oppressive politically correct establishment of today. Suffice to say the modus operandi has been an incremental step by step ratchet approach. Starting with something that appears reasonable to the majority of fair minded people (eg decriminalisation of homosexuality, ensuring that people of all races have equal access to public services etc) further demands are made to rectify newly discovered injustices or inequalities. Meanwhile a bureaucracy is set up to monitor progress which discovers that still more action is needed, more restrictions and controls should be put in place and the bureaucracy expanded to cope with the extra responsibilities. And so it goes on, and the process is rarely ever reversed.

Let us take a look at some of subjects which this blog has tried to address. Firstly, the subject which provokes the most vocal self righteous indignation and faux anger from the PC brigade, that of race. This issue has only arisen because of the failure of all governments since the war to control immigration into Britain. Contrary to liberal propaganda, to express concern about immigration does not demonstrate a hatred of people of ethnic origin. Nor is it a criticism of such people wanting to come to this country to better themselves. Moreover, it is understandable that many may wish to retain the culture of their country of origin, and they should not be criticised for this. Unfortunately, as we have witnessed repeatedly, both at home and abroad, if an ever growing minority is racially, religiously and culturally different from the indigenous majority, conflicts of one kind or another will inevitably occur. Thus this self inflicted problem needs to be addressed at source as Enoch Powell so eloquently warned all those years ago.

Homophobia has now become the little brother to racism’s big brother in the liberal mindset. It can be defined as any criticism or observation, however mild or well reasoned, that the paranoid gay lobby finds objectionable. The Wilson government was quite right to allow the decriminalization of homosexual relations, since the state has no business in the bedroom activities of its adult citizens. But there can be no equality about something which is intrinsically unequal, since statistics show that 97% of people are attracted to the opposite sex and only 3% to their own. Homosexuals are a very small minority, who are entitled to be free of harassment from the authorities but nothing more, which was the original intention of the legislation. They should show the rest of us more courtesy by keeping their private life private and giving everybody a break from their fixation on their perceived victimhood. Liberals obsession on this matter is clearly extreme, but that never stops them from keeping the subject continually on the boil. A period of silence on this issue would be most welcome. There must be plenty of better causes available for well intentioned people anxious to parade their virtue.

Nationalism is another concept liberals have no time for. They appear to be under the delusion that if nations (or at least western countries) run their own affairs, it is just one step away from donning jack boots and carrying out aggression against other countries. It was to prevent war between European countries that the EU was primarily created. The objective of 'ever closer union' was embedded in the project from the very start, although mostly kept under wraps in the early years when it was promoted as no more than a 'common market', as this institution was known in this country for many years. All 'progressives' supported Britain’s membership of the EU as an unquestioned article of faith.

It should be as clear as daylight by now that the EU is a gigantic leviathan intent on destroying democracy, nation states and the power of ordinary people to have a say in the way they are governed and the laws they have to obey. Needless to say the three identikit main parties continued to support this totalitarian madness. Britain needs to withdraw from the European Union and the so called European Court of Human Rights to allow much needed reforms to be introduced and to set the people free.

The liberal elite are not above fabricating scares to achieve their ends. Two such which have a life of their own are the global warming hoax and the paedophile hysteria. The first is not a problem at all since temperatures have been relatively stable and CO2, although clearly rising, has had no discernable impact on global temperature and is in any case necessary for the maintenance of life. It is most certainly not a pollutant as many of the hoaxers are ludicrously claiming. A lie endlessly repeated never becomes the truth, which will eventually come out in the end. However, in the meantime many people fall for the deception, including some who should know better.

With regard to the hysteria over paedophile activity (fanned not just by the usual suspects but also the gutter press and fake charities) this is a relatively rare problem which has always existed and which previous generations kept in proportion. As a result of the hysteria, children’s freedom has been seriously circumscribed, a massive intrusive bureaucracy has been introduced which has had a severe impact on adult volunteering, men are looked at with suspicion whenever they come into contact with children, and thus are reluctant to become primary school teachers where they are much needed. Evidence suggests that paedophiles rarely use violence to achieve their ends. A better strategy would be to educate children on how to take personal responsibility for tackling approaches to them from this direction.

It is hoped to devote more time in the future to the educational system which still appears to be encountering problems despite all the reforms. Another issue to be tackled is illegal drug use where personal freedom and the interests of wider society come into conflict.

So how does today’s politically correct society compare with the more conservative time of the mid sixties? Although many people complain, from a utilitarian perspective its still functions quite well. Unlike many countries we have basic services such as electricity, gas and water delivered to our homes at a reasonable price for most people. We have an efficient (but overloaded) transport infrastructure and a health service that has raised life expectancy significantly. Retailing is highly efficient, but has resulted in many clone towns and market dominance by large supermarket chains. Despite the best efforts of feminists men no longer have hang ups about finding women physically attractive. Care of the environment is considerably higher on the political agenda and the conservation of historic buildings is much improved. Clothes and electrical equipment are a lot cheaper in real terms. There has been an amazing plethora of technological innovations such as laptops, ipods, smartphones, playstations, 3D TVs, computer games, MP3s etc which have clearly enriched the lives of ordinary people. Far more families can now afford cars, foreign holidays and enjoy a better quality and more varied diet. So there have clearly been benefits although some have denounced them as materialistic and acquisitive consumerism.

On the downside British society appears to have lost its soul. The mass media are obsessed with celebrity gossip; the TV channels are full of trashy soaps and reality shows often focussing on the most degenerate elements within society. Modern day TV drama is largely banal (although period drama can still be excellent) and TV comedy is often as unfunny as it is politically correct. Popular music is terminally bankrupt as few seem capable of writing songs with tunes anymore. Most people dress scruffily, men slightly worse than women in this respect. Depressing 'Mickey Mouse' architecture is springing up everywhere. Crime is much higher, most notably in areas of demographic change. Divorce, broken families and single parenthood is almost the norm, particularly amongst an underclass hooked on benefits, cheap booze and illegal drugs.

Many adults behave like adolescents well into middle age. Unemployment is high, and wages kept low, not helped by open ended immigration. Socially mobility has fallen. Government interminably lectures us on drinking, food and unhealthy lifestyles. Hardly a week goes by without the authorities finding something new to ban, condemn, or try to stop us from doing. Social workers can snatch children from families whilst hiding their actions from outside scrutiny. All the main political parties focus on managerialism whilst ignoring issues of increasing concern to the electorate. Society appears incapable of producing anything of beauty or lasting aesthetic appeal which was second nature to previous generations. These are the fruits of a politically correct society fixated on equality of outcome, the cult of the mediocre and a hatred of 'elitism'.

One exception to deteriorating standards is political commentary which is at an all time high, even in the controlled media. People also have access to the internet where they can express themselves freely and openly, such as on this blog. They can discover that they are not alone, but in good company, in their hostility to the political elite. The truth will out in the end and the new media can only hasten the day when the liberal lies machine finally comes unstuck.

Game’s up for global warming hoaxers

One encouraging development in recent years has been the way the global warming hoaxers have been put on the defensive, and are no longer treated with the unquestioning adulation from the media that they once enjoyed. The highpoint for this hoax was the period between the publication of the Stern Report and the Channel 4 TV programme The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was the first time the mainstream media provided a platform to those challenging the supposed scientific consensus on this matter. It was a time when the then Environment Secretary David Miliband could claim the science was 'settled' and that those who deny climate change were 'the flat-earthers of the twenty-first century'.

Scientists like to boast that their ideas are based on evidence. More often than not however they are based on pet theories for which the evidence is often questionable. But in the case of the global warming hoax there is in fact no evidence at all. It is just projections for the future based on the theory that human induced increases in CO2 lead to runaway climate change. It is certainly the case that CO2 caused by humans has increased substantially since the war, and the rate of increase continues to quicken despite the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol and other agreements. But global temperatures have remained stable during the past thirty years, the maximum deviation being 0.6 degrees C below the average in 1985 and 0.65 degrees C above the average in 1998. It is currently about 0.25 degrees C above the average. The main cause of the variation is the El Nino and La Nina warming and cooling cycle in the Pacific. At a time when, according to the hoaxers, temperatures should be increasing, we still have extreme cold weather such as that which took place in the United States last winter.

Scientists also like to claim that they are objective. In reality they are subject to the same pressures as the rest of us, and most are happy to conform to whatever the prevailing orthodoxies are in order to achieve career advancement or to acquire research funding. The 'climategate' emails furore showed the extent of their manipulation against opponents, behaviour which has seriously undermined their credibility and professionalism.

The global warming hoax however is not driven by science but is instead politically motivated. It provides the anti capitalist Marxists with a means to pursue their prime objective of removing control of the lives of ordinary citizens, and placing it under that of the state and their apparatchiks. Britain is the world leader in this surrender to fantasy, with its suicidal targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions, the promotion of the carbon trading scam, the climate change levy which will massively increase the energy bills of every household and the despoliation of the countryside with thousands of useless windmills requiring back up from conventional power stations. Recently several perfectly good coal-fired power stations have been decommissioned, risking the lights going out should there be a severe winter.

Public scepticism on the validity of the man made global warming religion is steadily increasing. Tory back bench opposition is now out in the open. Politically correct institutions such as the BBC are still desperately trying to maintain the hoax with their tame guests on news programmes, but they have been rumbled. Before long even the government will have to face up to reality and abandon the emissions targets, trading scams and climate levies, indeed this process has already begun. When 'Climate Change' is dropped from the title of the Department For Energy, the global warming hoaxers will know that their game is finally up.

Grooming a blackmailer

Children and parents in South London were able to sleep a little easier in the knowledge that a 'sick disgusting paedophile' was behind bars. This 'sad dirty old pervert' was 51 year old former Labour Southwark councillor John Friary who received a 15 months sentence for attempting to arrange to meet a child following sexual grooming. Friary was 'excited' by this 'gorgeous' 15 year old girl, from whom he requested some 'sexy' pictures. He told her 'I bet you look hot naked' and offered to 'meet her anywhere and bring you back here'. Friary resembles the fat one in Laurel & Hardy and his idiotic actions have certainly got him into a fine mess.

Friary’s intentions are certainly disgraceful. Introducing sexually explicit language of this kind towards a woman of any age whom you hardly know is contemptible, but doubly so in the case of a 15 year old. It is also hypocritical since he would never have become a councillor in a borough such as Southwark without paying lip service to the ultra feminist agenda on the 'objectification' of women, which is now clear he never believed in. Friary boasted in his blog that 'it is the case that we (have to) behave to a higher standard as we have a representative role every minute of every day whether we like it or not, it goes with the territory'. So he has spectacularly failed to meet the standards he set for himself. Friary would also have remained silent when New Labour introduced the oppressive and unnecessary laws which ensnared him.

In the current paranoia over paedophiles it is easy to grasp why the overwhelming majority of Daily Mail readers commenting on this individual were disgusted by his behaviour and considered he had got his just desserts. However, they should think again as this case has serious implications for the fairness of British justice and moreover illustrates the dangers when paranoia and hysteria replace sound judgment, fairness and common sense. It has always been a principle of British justice that the sentence should fit the crime. This most certainly has not happened here, nor is this the first instance that male notion's of sexual attraction has resulted in serious travesties of justice.

The first thing that is unacceptable about this case is that no child was involved. The person with whom Friary was communicating was an adult male blackmailer. Friary pleaded guilty to the charge, presumably because he was advised that he would receive a substantially higher sentence if found guilty after a trial. However, this decision appears shortsighted as, in cases such as this, it should be for the prosecution to produce the child alleged to have been 'groomed'. As one blogger put it 'what really worries me about this case is that when the police do these stings, there are certain legal limits on what they can do (e.g. never claim to be legal age, don't bring up sex first.). But I wouldn't expect an extortionist to operate with any semblance of fairness whatsoever'. In fact we can safely assume that the blackmailer would have used far more explicit language to entice his victim than would a real life 15 year old.

Let us imagine now what would have happened had Friary been communicating with a genuine fifteen year old. He claimed that he wanted to be a 'father figure' to the girl which suggests that he did not try to conceal his age. In real life it is difficult to imagine that any teenage girl would want to enter into intimate conversations with an overweight fifty something male, particularly one making crude sexual advances. They would find such an individual seriously creepy, and immediately terminate the 'relationship' once the true facts became known. If Friary had concealed his age he would quickly have been found out by his ignorance of teen jargon and culture.

So the threat to teenagers from online sexual predators is greatly exaggerated. This is not to say that many teenagers do not receive unwelcome online communications from these sex pests, but they should have no difficulty in discovering what they are about and rebuff their advances. Unfortunately, it is the case that some men importune women for sexual favours on minimal acquaintance. Teenage girls need to develop the skill to deal with these predators as early as possible. Attempting to keep them sheltered through laws on 'grooming' does nothing to assist this process.

The blackmailer knew his business when he impersonated a fifteen year old girl. If he had pretended to be a nine year old, that is a genuine child, it is extremely unlikely that Friary would have made any attempt to strike up a relationship, since he was looking for a 'hot' and 'sexy' adolescent girl. The blackmailer knew that such men vastly outnumber real paedophiles, thus making a successful sting considerably more likely. The police do the same. Those men caught on the ITV programme To Catch A Paedophile had all been 'grooming' police officers masquerading as mid teen girls. It is worth remembering that many European counties have an age of consent lower than sixteen.

The two comments in quotations at the top of this post are from Daily Mail readers. It is worth assessing whether Friary is indeed a paedophile. The International Classification of Diseases(ICD) defines pedophilia as a 'disorder of adult personality and behaviour in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.' It is clear that the girl whom Friary visualised was above this age so by definition he is not a paedophile. But such is the hysteria surrounding this issue, many people have been brainwashed into thinking that it must be right for men attracted to fifteen year olds to be publicly branded as paedophiles. In fact, let’s face it, all men are likely to be attracted to good looking fifteen year olds - it is perfectly natural. So some of the more deranged male commentators on this subject should be a little more careful, since turkeys should never vote for Christmas. If he is not a paedophile, then is Friary a pervert? Since it is natural for men to be attracted to adult women over the age of puberty Friary cannot be a pervert either. Fifteen year old girls can be very attractive, and like it or not, since they are over the age of puberty, they are biologically adult. Nevertheless, despite all this, Friary was certainly a delusional chancer and he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Chav aesthetics

An interesting book from the Daily Mail parliamentary sketch writer Quentin Letts is Bog Standard Britain published in 2008. With wit and panache he lays into the vulgarity, charmlessness, conformity, self-righteousness and idiocy which now characterises much of British society through the pursuit of equality and egalitarianism, carried out through an all pervasive stultifying political correct ideology handed down from on high. It is a book that can be strongly recommended for those jaded by the more unwelcome social changes of recent decades.

One chapter deals with the strange change in appearance that has come over many British men. In Quentin Letts words 'British blokes – and this is a strangely British fashion – have been emerging from barber shops like golf balls'. He is referring to the new army of shaven headed men who ape the Neanderthal appearance and sullen character of the Mitchell brothers in the grotesque BBC soap Eastenders. According to Letts, this pair glory in being 'aggressively ugly, brazen, naked in their nastiness – and Britain has followed suit.' Letts has hit the nail on the head with this description of these repulsive role models to the ubiquitous dumbed down surly chav males, who inhabit every shopping mall and pub in Britain with their air of barely suppressed menace.

Another target which Letts has a deserved pop at is the dominant musical taste of today’s chav youth, namely rap or hip-hop. At its best this 'music' can demonstrate a certain degree of verbal dexterity. But for the most part it is a wholly degenerate form of expression which, because of its origin in black American ghettos, has received little political criticism. Letts focuses on the violence of its lyrics, particularly the contempt shown towards women and homosexuals, and questions why it has had such an easy ride with the liberal political establishment and its self appointed arbiters of popular cultural taste. One of the more commonplace and dispiriting auditory experiences heard on British streets during the summer months is the deadbeat white hoodie youth, stuck in a traffic jam in his clapped out motor, windows fully wound down, with this garbage spewing full blast out of the speakers.

How many in the British working class have moved from seeking self betterment to risking self destruction in little more than a generation, is one of several cultural and social developments explored in Quentin Letts’ amusing yet instructive book.

Feminists play the paedophile card

One of the more enduring delusions subscribed to by many in society is that liberals are more understanding, open minded, progressive, caring, thoughtful, enlightened, sensitive and broad minded etc, than those nasty, reactionary, knuckle dragging right wingers. This belief is particularly strong amongst the younger generation yet to be mugged by reality. In practice liberals are totally opposed to any dissent from their orthodoxies and use many tried and tested methods to maintain control over society to achieve their ends. Sometimes they do it openly through legislation and regulation. This is at least an honest way of achieving their objectives but it does have one drawback in that it risks opponents repealing these measures in the event that they gain power. A much better method is to create a climate of hostility towards those they wish to marginalise or demonise.

One tactic used by feminists is to portray all men as potential sexual or violent predators. For some time now, since the early seventies, their main focus has been on exaggerating the numbers of rapes and domestic violence they have suffered at the hands of brutish males. Alas, some men do live up to this stereotype but the numbers are far smaller than the feminist agitators would have us believe. But in the past decade or so they have discovered a new stratagem which has much broader appeal than amongst the usual feminist/agitprop activists. This is to brand all men as possible paedophiles.

By using this scare they can recruit a much wider support base embracing tabloid newspapers and the more neanderthal elements amongst the 'chav' population, which in this country is now a quite a sizeable category of persons. In addition they have the active support of so called children’s charities whose primary purpose these days is to devise ever more ingenious methods to combat the supposedly widespread and wholesale sexual abuse of children, which only they can be trusted to provide protection against.

A notable case demonstrates the success the feminist/children’s charities axis has had in inciting a climate of paranoia over the paedophile scare. A male teacher in a primary school in Hampshire was accused of playing with a pupil by swinging her around by her arms. Following complaints from colleagues, he was told that he had 'failed to maintain physical boundaries with female pupils'. He was condemned for the heinous crime of 'failing to disengage immediately when girls ran up to him and put their arms around his legs'. Although there was no suggestion of any sexual motive, he was dismissed from the school where he had worked for eight years. Acording to press reports, parents campaigned to overturn the decision, saying he was an excellent teacher who had been unfairly treated because he is a man.

It is worth noting that he was the only male teacher in the school. Indeed over 25% of primary schools have no male teachers and men comprise less than 15% of all primary school teachers. Before very long the feminists will have achieved their objective of not only removing all men from primary schools, but also in creating a climate in which it would be inconceivable that they should ever be allowed to teach in one.