A brief history of political correctness

The dominant ideological narrative of the ruling establishment that has grown incrementally over recent decades in western countries has come to be known as political correctness. This term was originally coined as a term of abuse by right-wingers, but it has since become a shorthand for an agenda and system of values that have been adopted by the activist left. This post attempts to outline and analyse these values and to speculate on whether it is still possible for them to be replaced by an alternative political outlook.

Until the mid 1950s the main divide in British politics was based on economics. The right broadly supported free enterprise and low taxes whilst the left promoted varying degrees of state control and increased public spending. Class was also an important factor in politics with Labour tending to represent the interests of the working class and the Conservatives that of the middle class. Cultural and social issues did not appear prominently in the mainstream political discourse. Women had been given the vote on an equal basis to men by the end of the 1920s, and there was little agitation for government to pursue issues of social reform, or to become involved in the personal lifestyle or behaviour of its citizens, so long as they stayed within the law.

The first break with this outlook came on education when the Labour party started to support the creation of comprehensive schools, and the abolition of grammar schools and selective education. It was argued that selection at eleven was unfair as it branded as failures for life the majority of children who took the eleven plus exam. Moreover, it was also claimed to be socially divisive as it provided working class children with an inferior education to that of the middle class. For those on the left the main concern shifted away from providing educational excellence towards egalitarianism, in which the encouragement of academic ability became subordinate to social engineering.

This period was long before the left openly started to play the victim card or even before they started to coin pejorative words in order to silence their opponents. But as their confidence grew, and as grammar schools were abolished, they branded supporters of selective schools as 'elitist'. In the liberals warped parallel universe it became 'elitist' for middle class parents to want a sound academic education for their children. Instead of' 'grammar schools for all' as promised, what most children received instead was an education on a par with that provided by secondary moderns, but without the discipline. The only exceptions were better off parents who could buy their way into the catchment areas of successful schools. So instead of selection by ability we ended up with selection by parental income, resulting in a noticeable drop in social mobility. It was not unreasonable to have as an objective the provision of a sound education for all pupils, but not at the expense of dragging down children with academic ability, particularly those from a working class background.

The next pillar to crumble was national identity and self government through the growth of various supra-national projects. The most meddlesome were the European Economic Community (later European Union) and the European Court of Human Rights. To begin with support for these organisations came from the broad centre ground of British politics. The original six countries that joined the EEC, also known as the Common Market, enjoyed spectacular growth in the 1950s and 1960s. British governments, on the other hand, were criticised for their stop-go economic policies. Joining the EEC was seen as a panacea for boosting economic growth and the standard of living.

Politicians and the media were beguiled by the economic success of the six EEC countries. In their eagerness to be part of the action they overlooked the small print of 'ever closer union'. Britain joined in 1973 and the British people voted to remain in the 1975 referendum which was almost entirely confined to economic arguments. The Tories were always more enthusiastic about membership than Labour until the late 1980s following the Bruges speech of Margaret Thatcher. At about the same time Labour became more favourably disposed when the then EU President Jacques Delors pointed out that the EU could deliver social and employment rights which the Tories were blocking. Many Tory MPs interpreted this as introducing socialism 'through the back door'.

During the period of Tony Blair's premiership EU membership became a cornerstone of his 'progressive' agenda and opponents were dismissed as 'Little Englanders'. Left wing activists fondly believe in the moral superiority of international institutions empowered to control what they see as the rampant ugliness of nationalistic sentiments. The power and reach of the EU continued to expand, a process that in theory could continue indefinitely, leaving national governments as nothing more than mere agents or cyphers of this supra-national behemoth.

Liberals had come to realise that once an EU law had become established it became almost impossible to reverse it. Thus they could impose their social and equalities agenda through the EU bureaucracy rather than the more risky public and parliamentary debate route, which might later be overturned with a change of government. The end objective was government and control by a morally superior technocratic elite leaving only the facade of democratic accountability. Greater co-operation between European countries and the avoidance of war are noble objectives, but wilfully destroying nation states, parliamentary democracy and national identity is most certainly not the best way to achieve them.

With the arrival into Britain of large number of third world immigrants from 1948, liberals were presented with a huge opportunity to demonstrate their moral superiority. Yet to begin with it was Labour MPs who first flagged up concern about 'coloured' immigration, as it was their constituents who were first impacted by this new development. The Conservative government of the time casually dismissed their concerns on the grounds that the numbers were low, it was believed that most would return home after a few years, and to take action might stir up trouble with Commonwealth leaders. However, following the Notting Hill riots in the late 1950s, the Conservatives finally started to address the matter by removing the automatic right of entry of Commonwealth citizens. For this they were denounced by the Labour leadership, although when Labour achieved power a few years later they tightened entry requirements rather than reverse them.

In Government Labour introduced race relations legislation to prevent discrimination on racial grounds for public services. This was the background to Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech where he condemned governments for allowing open ended large scale third world immigration into Britain. For his pains he was sacked from the shadow cabinet by Tory leader Edward Heath for the 'racialist' tone of his speech. By the late 1960s left wing activists had coined the word 'racist' to denounce anyone questioning the wisdom of large scale immigration. To begin with the sin of 'racism' was considered to be based on 'ignorance', later such views became 'reprehensible' until eventually they were deemed 'abhorrent'. This, of course, only applied to white people, when dark skinned people identified with their own kind they were a 'community', but when whites did the same it was odious 'racism'.

For the past half century the fight against 'racism' has been at the centre of the politically correct agenda to police public discourse, outlook and behaviour, and to silence opposition. Clearly it is despicable to abuse or harass people because of the colour of their skin, or to deny them access to public services which should be open to all. But this does not mean that the white majority should passively acquiesce in the colonisation of their towns and cities by large numbers of people who are racially, culturally and religiously different, and who for the most part continue to see themselves as separate from the white majority. Nor should those who raise concerns about the transformation of their communities in this way be subject to an orchestrated campaign of vilification. But this is what has happened and politicians of all parties have been complicit in this agenda, which has created enormous problems for the cohesion of our society, not to mention the extra pressures on housing, public services and low skilled employment. To dismiss these concerns as 'hate speech' only demonstrated the extent to which politicians have become out of touch, and in thrall to vocal activists whose objective is the destruction of western civilisation, culture and values.

Liberals are very enthusiastic about the European Charter of Human Rights (ECHR) believing that it protects human rights against pesky democratically elected governments eager to take them away from unsuspecting citizens. However, for over 15 years after the UK signed up to the ECHR the British legal system was able persecute and harass homosexuals for their private sexual behaviour. Apparently, nobody at the time thought that this contradicted the principles of the ECHR. They were probably correct to reach this conclusion as the right to a private life is circumscribed by numerous exemptions one of which is 'the protection of morals'. These exemption are so wide that almost any law can be passed and still stay within the principles of the ECHR.

Judges are no less fallible than politicians, and their decisions will invariably be influenced by the prevailing ethos of the time. Today the dominant establishment mindset is politically correct, but back in the 1950s and early 1960s it was moralistically conservative. So until 1967, when the British parliament reformed the law on homosexuality, it would be true to say that homosexuals as a group were genuine victims of oppression. And it is this sense of victimhood, which liberals have continued to milk for all it is worth, long after the victimisations of the favoured group has ended.

Once homosexual activities had been legalised homosexuals started to proselytize for equality. Since the state should keep out of its citizen's bedrooms it was right that the age of consent should be equalised. But the gay lobby didn't stop there but instead demanded that homosexuality must be promoted in schools as a valid lifestyle, that they could adopt children on the same basis as married couples and, in time, that they could marry one another, despite being unable to procreate, ignoring the obvious fact that the raising of children in a stable background was the traditional justification for society's recognition of couples entering into a life long partnership with one another. But matters did not end there, it became a criminal offence to criticise homosexual behaviour, now deemed in PC speak to be the 'hate crime' of 'homophobia'. To criticise the homosexual lifestyle rendered you unfit to adopt children, guest house owners could no longer decline entry into their homes of openly homosexual couples, or a bakery refuse homosexual propaganda messages on their cakes. So within a few decades society moved from persecuting homosexuals to persecuting those who failed to voice support for their sexual lifestyle. With the rise in feminism the persecution of homosexual men was gradually replaced by the demonization of male heterosexuality.

In the decade after the second world war there was some clearly unjustified overt discrimination against women, for example being paid less for exactly the same work, or being denied a mortgage when a single man in the same situation would have been granted one. There was also quite extensive covert discrimination against women particularly in the jobs market, and women were conspicuously under-represented in many professions outside teaching and nursing.

Prevailing attitudes in society were very different to those of today. Many women considered their main role to be that of a housewife, responsible for looking after the home and the upbringing of children, whilst the husband went out to work as the breadwinner. But with the national shortage of labour many women were tempted to join the jobs market to top up their husbands wage, and they were helped by the increased availability of new electrical appliances which removed much of the drudgery from housework.

With increasing representation in the workforce women, not unreasonably, began to demand the same career opportunities as men. Given that they were still a minority of the workforce, and many still chose to take a career break to look after children, full equality was never likely to be achieved. But with the introduction of maternity leave, job-sharing, flexible working and other measures, employers and governments attempted to make the working environment for women as convenient as possible.

Some of the more strident feminists were not content with this but sought equality of outcome as of right. But they were always strangely selective about the kind of occupations in which they sought equality, invariably cushy or well paid jobs such as the Civil Service, local government, academia, the BBC or the financial sector. When it came to doing the more unpleasant jobs in all kinds of weather requiring hard hats and hi-vis jackets they were strangely absent. They rarely seemed able to find their way to building sites, or to driving heavy commercial vehicles, or emptying wheelie bins or working in the sewers, or clearing vegetation. Women were almost completely absent from the firing line in Afghanistan and Iraq. And in professions in which they were over represented such a teaching, it was very politically incorrect to suggest equal outcomes for men.

But feminists did not confine themselves to seeking out privileges in the workplace. They very early on discovered a means of putting men on the defensive through an assault on male heterosexuality. Initially they campaigned against pornography and rape, opining that the former was directly responsible for the latter. They railed against 'sexist' comments and the 'objectification' of women. Male complements about women's' appearance suddenly became defined as sexual harassment. The trope that we are all living in a 'rape culture' became part of our social mythology. Sexcrime trials became rigged giving anonymity to accusers, corroboration was no longer necessary, hearsay evidence was allowed and similar fact trawling by the police became commonplace. Aided and abetted by children's charities and the gutter press a paedophile hysteria was fanned with the aim of demonising men as predatory deviants who could never be trusted in the company of children.

There should be no doubt that the law should take a tough line with genuinely predatory men who use or threaten violence to achieve sexual favours, and against sex pests who can never take no for an answer. But to brand all sexual advances initiated by men as harassment, which must be addressed by the courts, is to involve the state in the policing of personal relationships which are best left to individuals themselves.

After decades of advancement, with only minimal challenge by those in authority, unchecked political correctness now began to enter the realms of the ridiculous and absurd in a search for new causes to adopt. Thus we have the nonsense of 'transgender' rights, and safe spaces for students who might be traumatised by hearing views which challenge the PC brainwashing they have been exposed to since birth. Since there are only two sexes, male and female, it follows that any individual who attempts to physically change their biological sex must be suffering from a serious mental illness for which the best remedy is psychiatric help. Certainly anyone who allows their body to be mutilated, or injected with the hormones of the opposite sex, meets this definition. With regard to the safe spaces issue this is merely an extreme attempt to stifle debate and should be strongly resisted in no uncertain terms.

Although the full horrors of political correctness have take decades to fully develop they can be rolled back relatively quickly. The first step has already been taken in the vote to leave the European Union. Parliament should also assert that the British Supreme Court is just that and there should be no right of appeal to any extra terrestrial legal body. The new administration has made some positive remarks about the reintroduction of grammar schools, and moves to this end should be introduced as quickly as possible in those areas were there is parental demand. All 'hate crime' legislation should be repealed and laws against discrimination should be confined to the provision of public services to which it is reasonable that all should have access. The motivation of those promoting the political correctness agenda is not a concern for their more vulnerable fellow citizens, but instead a desire to parade themselves as morally superior to others, or virtue signallers, a brilliant new phrase which perceptively exposes these self righteous controlling hypocrites for what they are.

Ched Evans - licentiousness v puritanism

The bedroom activities of the footballer Ched Evans in a Welsh small town hotel demonstrate the confusion in our society about sexual behaviour. On the one hand there is the casual licentiousness of Evans himself, not untypical of the large segment of the population pejoratively labelled as chavs. In contrast there is the puritanical agenda of vocal and influential middle class feminists, eager to police and demonise male heterosexual expression. They came into serious conflict in that hotel bedroom.

The facts of the case have been well publicised. A football chum of Evans picks up a 19 year old young lady in a kebab shop in the early hours of the morning. She agrees to go back with him to a hotel room booked by Evans. Football friend phones Evans that he has pulled a bird for sex at the hotel. Shortly afterwards Evans arrives at the hotel to join in the fun. In other words, an everyday example of no strings promiscuity which the British working class seems no longer to have any qualms about.

Unfortunately for Evans the young lady had left her handbag in the kebab shop and reported the loss to the police. However, in 21st century Britain the police no longer confine themselves to investigating crimes. They also proactively enforce the agenda of zealous feminists to track down and pursue any example of inappropriate sexual advances by heterosexual men. The police discovered that the young lady had been drinking and that she had no memory of the night before. In pursuit of their priority agenda the police then quizzed Evans and his pal about what they were doing in the hotel bedroom. Instead of telling the police to mind their own business they both admitted to consensual sexual activity with the young lady. The pair were then charged with rape on the grounds that the young lady had been drinking and thus could not consent to sex. Evans was convicted and received a five years prison sentence, but his friend was acquitted.

Evans served 30 months of his sentence and was then let out on licence. His hopes of resuming his football career were dashed as a result of a vociferous campaign on social media by strident feminists, who insisted that a convicted rapist was an unacceptable role model for young people, who should never be allowed to play professional football again. As a result of this continuing media storm job offers with several clubs were withdrawn. In contrast a former Manchester City footballer who was convicted of dangerous driving, speeding at almost twice the limit in an urban area and resulting in the deaths of two people, has since his release played football professionally. He is reported as having shown no remorse, but needless to say there has been no orchestrated campaign by the usual suspects to question his suitability as a role model. In contrast to the savage sentence handed down to Evans this footballer received a mere 16 months for his reckless, dangerous and lethal behaviour.

Evans himself consistently protested his innocence claiming that the young lady had consented. This proclamation of innocence was held against him by the feminists as it indicated his lack of remorse, and failure to accept responsibility for his actions and the damage that he had caused to his 'victim'. It should be remembered that the young lady never claimed that she had been raped, only that she had no memory of the encounter due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed.

Evans appealed his conviction but was unsuccessful. However he retained the support of his family, his girlfriend's family and a large number of football fans. Eventually, after release from prison the Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed that new evidence made his conviction unsafe, and referred the case to the Appeal Court who this time ordered a retrial. At his second trial the jury, which included seven women, unanimously found him not guilty after a relatively short deliberation.

In the past when there has been a miscarriage of justice, left wing activists and politicians rejoice at the release of the innocent, and denounce in no uncertain terms the behaviour of the police and condemn the corruption inherent in the judicial system. Witness the long campaigns to free the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four. But in the case of Ched Evans the reverse has occurred, they claim that the justice system has failed, what they falsely continue to describe as, the 'victim'.

Some feminists have reacted with outrage against the acquittal claiming that it has set back rape trials thirty years. Vera Baird, notoriously hard line sex crime campaigner whose day job is a police commissioner, fears that rape trials could now 'become inquisitions into a complainant’s sex life'. She pointed out that in Evans’ case, the court of appeal decided it was 'relevant and admissible' that the young lady had engaged in separate sexual encounters with two men, around the time of the Ched Evans incident. On each occasion she had consumed a lot of alcohol, and had been an enthusiastic participant, directing the nature of the sexual activity. She used a similar phrase in encouraging her partner on both occasions to be more forcible, and with each of them sought a particular sexual position. Evans had previously claimed that she had behaved in a similar manner with him. Since this was regarded as her normal sexual preference, it supported his case that she had also consented with him. Baird argues that this 'similar evidence' is an abuse of the legal system as it lowers the threshold to the very strong presumption against quizzing complainants about their sexual history.

Whilst it is clearly right that the sexual history of either the defendant or the accuser should not be routinely called in evidence in rape trials, it does not follow that it should always be excluded. There are clear instances, such as in the Evans case, were the interests of justice are best served, when previous relevant and similar sexual activity must be presented to the jury, to allow them to reach a decision on the full facts of the case. So there should be no change in the law, as many women Labour MPs are now seeking, to confine sexual history evidence to only when the similar conduct is unusual and out of the ordinary. This would be far too restrictive and would put the defendant at a serious disadvantage in effectively challenging the case presented by the prosecution. If anything the current criteria on revealing previous sexual history should be broadened to ensure that relevant background facts are not withheld from the jury.

One commentator described the inherent injustice of this case as 'exposing the absurdity of an accusation being brought by the state, when evidence to support its central premise - lack of consent - is itself sorely lacking. Accounts of events are given by the two accused, but as the law allows the state to assume that someone too drunk to remember was likely to be too drunk to consent, the onus is then on the accused to 'prove' their accounts are correct, a complete reversal of the burden of proof.'

Many commentators have denounced the behaviour of Ched Evans as deplorable and reprehensible. They may well have a point, but the reality is that these days many people appear to have no problem in seeking casual sex, and that the media in its various forms frequently affirms this outlook. Some pundits have pointed out that the behaviour of the young lady in question was little different to the two footballers, so it is a little one-sided to heap all the censure on the men, since it takes two to tango. Also, the same feminists who denounce Evans as predatory are silent in the face of the extreme promiscuity demonstrated by many homosexual men. But of course to question their lifestyle would be 'homophobic' and that would never do.

Tory rethink on grammar schools

After decades of appeasement to leftist sentiment the Tories are showing signs that they might be seriously intending to introduce new grammar schools in England. The Conservative Party has for a long time been in thrall to a 'progressive' education establishment, which is more interested in social engineering and egalitarianism than in ensuring that schools deliver a sound academic education to those who would most benefit from it. So would the revival of grammar schools be to the advantage of all pupils, or would it mean 'turning the clock back' as some critics have claimed?

One such critic is the former head of the schools inspectorate Michael Wilshaw who has opined that opening more grammar schools would be 'a retrograde step' that would damage the prospects of 'disadvantaged' children. He claims that, rather than boosting social mobility, selective education works against the interests of poorer children. He accuses grammar schools of being 'stuffed full' of middle class children thereby reducing the opportunities of those from the working class. Other critics have condemned academic selection as 'writing off' pupils at too early an age, which can create a sense of inferiority and failure that lasts throughout life.

It is certainly true that if you cream off about a quarter of the brightest pupils into grammar schools, then those who are left behind will clearly not benefit directly from a selective education system. However, there will still be a collective benefit to the nation if the most academically inclined children are taught separately, in a supportive environment free from the distraction, hindrance and sometimes disruption of their less studious peers. Through selection they are much more likely to make progress, achieve better qualifications, move on to higher education and be better able to fill the more mentally demanding jobs which are essential for the effective functioning of a nation. Everybody gains from a well educated elite who are able to make a disproportionate contribution to raising the wealth and outcomes of society as a whole.

On social mobility all the evidence suggests that this has significantly declined since the 1960s when most of the grammar schools were abolished and became comprehensive. This is because selective education provided a route by which the brightest working class children could be initiated into a middle class lifestyle, outlook and ethos, and away from the educationally constricting background in which they were being raised. Alas, it appears to be the case that most people of working class origin, both children and adults, are generally uninterested and sometimes hostile to more serious or artistic subjects. They appear to be quite content to remain this way and seem to have no great urge to better themselves either educationally, intellectually or culturally. Regarding the concern over a sense of failure, it is the case that we all have to come to terms with failure at one time or another, and to try and protect children from this experience is not helping them to adapt to the realities of life in the long run.

It is to be hoped that the Tories keep their nerve and do all they can to increase the number of grammar schools in England. However, given that a significant number of Conservative MPs appear to be opposed to their expansion, the current parliamentary arithmetic means that the government might have a difficult time driving through this most necessary reform.

Jimmy Savile - a study in mendacity

The former DJ and national celebrity Sir Jimmy Savile died in October 2011. Thousands of people turned out to watch his funeral procession in Leeds. He was hailed as the person who had raised tens of millions of pounds for charity, most particularly the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville hospital. However, a year later he had become the most reviled man in British history. He was demonised as a paedophile who had sexually assaulted countless children and vulnerable people. Politicians and journalists of left, right and centre tripped over themselves in their eagerness to denounce this incarnation of evil. According to the police he had 'groomed the nation in full sight'. In reality, the nation does indeed appear to have been groomed, not by Jimmy Savile but instead by a conspiracy of media manipulators and child protection racketeers. The findings below are based on the forensic skills of the bloggers Anna Raccoon, Moor Larkin and Rabbitaway, who have fearlessly sought out the truth about the allegations against Savile, in contrast to the mainstream media which has largely refused to question the prevailing narrative.

As a result of the Savile furore some have claimed that it has encouraged a 'witch hunt' against aging public figures such as Lord Bramall, Leon Brittain, Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Jimmy Tarbuck, William Roache and Jim Davidson, by fantasists and compensation seekers. Others claim that the Savile publicity has brought the issue of child sexual abuse out into the open when it had previously been covered up to protect institutions and the powerful and influential in society. This post attempts to shed some light on this subject and to discover if there is an agenda seeking to exploit and denigrate Jimmy Savile's reputation, and if so what its purpose might be.

The story began in the 1970s when a young boy, Meirion Jones, witnessed visits of Jimmy Savile to Duncroft School in Staines, Surrey. The boy’s aunt, Margaret Jones, was the headmistress of this approved school. At the time of Savile’s death Meirion Jones was a producer with the BBC Newsnight current affairs TV programme. For some years he had been in contact with former Duncroft pupils on the Friends Reunited website where he had picked up on chatter that Savile had sexually assaulted Duncroft girls during his visits. For some time he had wanted to expose what he considered to be the darker side of Savile, and within a few days of his death Jones was given the green light to put together an expose by Newsnight editor Peter Rippon.

Newsnight does not normally deal in celebrity revelations, but on this occasion Peter Rippon was persuaded that there was a public policy interest, as the former Duncroft pupils were claiming that Surrey Police had refused to investigate their claims of sexual assault because Savile was 'too old and infirm.' One of the former pupils, known as Karin, was prepared to go on air with detailed revelations about how she had been sexually assaulted by Savile. Karin had already published an e-book which included veiled accusations against Savile. Peter Rippon was looking for corroboration from other Duncroft pupils (the BBC contacted 60 former pupils for evidence), but he was more concerned about getting confirmation that the police had ended their investigation because Savile was too old to be prosecuted.

Eventually Surrey Police revealed that they had investigated the allegations against Savile but no further action was taken because the CPS had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. (It was subsequently discovered that the 'too old and infirm' police letter was a forgery). On hearing this Peter Rippon decided that there was no longer any justification for going ahead with the expose. He also had some concerns about the credibility of Karin, and the apparent collusion between ex-Duncroft pupils on Friends Reunited. Meirion Jones strongly disagreed with this decision believing that Karin was a sufficiently credible witness to justify broadcasting her allegations. However, the decision of Peter Rippon prevailed and the Newsnight Savile feature was shelved.

The Surrey Police investigation took place during the 2007-9 period and covered three allegations. The first was that Savile had forced a Duncroft pupil to place her hand on his groin in the TV room, the second that Savile had kissed a choir girl visiting Stoke Mandeville hospital and put his tongue in her mouth, and the third that Savile had engaged in sexual activity with a pupil in a building known as Norman Lodge located in the grounds of Duncroft. Savile denied all the allegations. In the case of the Norman Lodge incident the police accepted that even if the allegation was true the girl was over 16 and the activity was consensual so no offence had been committed. Savile however said that he had never set foot in Norman Lodge and was unaware of its existence. The choir girl at Stoke Mandeville was the sister of one of the Duncroft girls. She refused to co-operate with the police investigation. Savile denied that the incident had ever taken place pointing out that in any case such behaviour would be reckless with so many witnesses. With regard to the TV room allegation Savile denied that this had ever happened, again pointing out that it would also have been impossible with so many witnesses present. The complainant in this case was not the ex-pupil alleged to have been the victim, who did not want any police action, but instead another ex-Duncroft pupil who claimed to have witnessed the event. Margaret Jones, the headmistress at the time confirmed that neither she, nor any of her staff, had received any complaints about Savile arising from his visits. Ten former Duncroft residents were also contacted by Surrey police but none witnessed anything untoward during his visits. Savile was interviewed under caution about the allegations by two police officers. In the interview he is confident and relaxed, stating he had nothing to hide, fully co-operating with the officers, and repeatedly claiming that it would have been impossible to carry out the acts he was accused of as there were always many other people present. Any reasonable and objective observer would conclude that Savile comes across as credible and truthful in this interview. The CPS was clearly correct in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to back up the allegations.

During the assembly of the Newsnight feature Meirion Jones hired as a consultant Mark Williams-Thomas, who promotes himself as a child protection expert. Williams-Thomas agreed with Meirion Jones that the allegations against Savile were credible and he set about gathering the material that would be shown in the ITV Exposure programme broadcast in October 2012. He was provided with details of the former Duncroft pupils and others who had contacted Meirion Jones. In the Exposure programme several witnesses made allegations against Savile, the most damaging to his reputation being Wilfred De’Ath, a former BBC producer, Sarah the Stoke Mandeville choir girl, Val and Angie from Top of the Pops, and two former Duncroft pupils, Fiona and Charlotte. Some others were featured (and their claims thoroughly debunked by Moor Larkin) but they were not witnesses to any criminal action and were probably only included to undermine the reputation of Savile and to blacken his name.

Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile was probably the most deceitful, dishonest and disreputable programme ever to have been broadcast by a mainstream TV company since, following extensive research on the Anna Raccoon, Moor Larkin and Rabbitaway blogs, the above witnesses appear to be voicing demonstrable fabrications or at best selective exaggerations. It is worth examining in detail how this programme was constructed and why, from beginning to end, it lacks any credibility or honesty.

The first defamatory witness was the former BBC producer Wilfred De’ath who claimed he met up with Savile in a Chinese restaurant in central London with a girl of about 12 years old who he had met at a recording of Top of the Pops the previous day. De’ath also claimed that he phoned Savile at The Mascot Hotel in London the following day and Savile volunteered the information that he was in bed with the same 12 year old girl. According to De’ath these events took place in 1965. However at that time Top of the Pops was recorded in Manchester, not London. Savile did appear on De’ath’s radio programme Teen Scene in 1965 but that was also recorded in Manchester. Although Jimmy Savile would have visited London at that time for his Radio Luxembourg radio show he would have had no occasion to meet up with De’ath who worked for the BBC.

The programme did fairly point out that De’ath had been imprisoned for fraud, so he was clearly not the most reliable of witnesses. De’ath came to the attention of Exposure through an item in The Oldie published in early 2012 in which he anonymously made the claims that were subsequently repeated in the Exposure programme. Given that it was clearly impossible for the incidents he described to have taken place the only conclusion that can be reached is that they are a complete invention on the part of De’ath. His deceit has been confirmed in the Smith report commissioned by the BBC to investigate the allegations against Savile.

We now come to the probably the most damming part of the Exposure programme, the testimony of Val and Angie. Val claimed to be 15 in 1969 when she was introduced to Savile and she met up with him several times during recordings of Top of the Pops, when she alleged they engaged in sexual activity in his dressing room and his camper van parked outside Kings Cross station. Val claimed that the relationship with Savile lasted until 1974, and that she became overawed by his celebrity status and through meeting many famous people. Angie claimed that she met Savile for the first time at Radio Luxembourg in 1968. She alleged that she had sexual intercourse with him when she was still 15 years old, and claimed to have been swept away by his celebrity status. To support her testimony viewers were shown a photo of Savile with a blurred out image of Angie outside Radio Luxembourg’s London office, plus other photos of Savile in indoor settings claimed to be from Angie’s 'private photos', together with an inscription on Savile’s biography allegedly given to her in 1974.

For some considerable time after the Exposure broadcast the investigative bloggers named above were of the opinion that Val and Angie were in all probability an invention of Mark Williams-Thomas, since there was no explanation as to how the producers had managed to discover them nearly 45 years after the events. Williams-Thomas declared that 'what I won’t do is give away exactly how I tracked down the women and witnesses because this would expose the very people I said I would protect'. In other words he refused point blank to provide evidence to anybody who might challenge their existence. The faces of Val and Angie are never shown, only back views after they had been provided with wigs. Their comments are voiced over. Both claim to have had a five year relationship with Savile, so it is highly improbable that this could have been kept a secret from their relatives, the supposed reason for the disguise. As teenagers it is difficult to believe that they would not have been eager to boast about their relationship with a national celebrity. It is also difficult to accept that, after such a length of time, both women would coincidently be so fearful to reveal their identities that they had to resort to wigs and a voiceover.

However, the BBC Smith report has provided the explanation as to how they were contacted. Williams-Thomas received their details from Louis Theroux, who recorded a programme about Savile a decade or so ago. They had written to Theroux to correct the impression that Savile did not have regular girlfriends and confirmed that neither of them experienced any abuse from Savile, making it clear that their relationships with him had been consensual and that they had stayed on friendly terms with him for some time afterwards. So the evidence of abusive liaisons they gave in the Exposure programme was at complete variance with what they were claiming in their unsolicited letter to Theroux in which they wished to put the record straight. The reason for the wigs and voiceover now becomes obvious, since their families would have known that they enjoyed an amicable relationship with Savile and that they were now telling the very opposite of the true state of affairs. Unfortunately, the Smith report fails to connect the testimony of Val and Angie to the inquiry with the two women who wrote to Theroux, but there can be no doubt that they are the same pair.

The next witness was Sarah, the choir girl who it was alleged that Savile put his tongue in her mouth when she approached him at Stoke Mandeville hospital in 1973. It is worth remembering that she is the sister of a former Duncroft pupil. It is most likely that she actually played no part in the programme since she had already refused to cooperate with the police. Her testimony was voiced over and the nature of the complaint would have been provided to Williams-Thomas by her Duncroft sister. In the programme Sarah said she wrote to Savile telling him that she was in a choir that would be performing at Stoke Mandeville hospital. She went on to claim that Savile phoned her at home several times to say he would be in the audience. After the show Sarah ran up to him as she was about to enter the coach for home to let him know that she was the girl who had written to him. Savile then put his tongue in her mouth which shocked her.

In the programme Sarah claimed that Savile’s telephone calls were evidence that he was grooming her. This must be a very strange form of 'grooming' since it overlooks the fact that it was Sarah who wrote to Savile in the first place and it was she who ran up to him at the coach. From her own account he appears not to have made any contact with her during the show. There was no mention in the programme that she was part of the Surrey police investigation and that she refused to co-operate with it. The details given to Surrey Police were very different to the account on Exposure, there being no reference to Savile ringing her home or her writing to him. It must be concluded that the inclusion of this witness was an attempt to mislead the viewers. There was also a failure to mention that Savile had denied this allegation when interviewed by Surrey Police.

The final witnesses were two former Duncroft pupils Fiona and Charlotte who both appeared as themselves without disguise. Charlotte claimed that Savile assaulted her in his caravan during the recording of a radio show. However, such an assault would have taken place in front of the producer and sound engineer, together with the two teachers who were supposed to have pulled Charlotte outside the caravan after she complained, plus several other pupils who were also described as being present. She then claims to have been placed in an isolation unit for 'two or three days'. There is nothing in the school records to confirm this and such action would have been contrary to the school’s policy on isolation which in any case required approval by the headmistress and agreement from the school’s psychiatrist. Margaret Jones, the headmistress, denies any knowledge of this event. Moreover, there was no reference in the Smith report to this incident which, if it had genuinely occurred, could only have been recorded as part of the BBC radio programme Savile's Travels.

Fiona alleged that at the age of 14 Savile carried out various sex acts in the back of his Rolls-Royce in a car park whilst the other girls were sitting at tables having a picnic. She claims that she would never have been believed despite several other girls being in the vicinity who could act as witnesses. Fiona goes on to claim that Savile assaulted her in a dressing room at BBC Television Centre after the recording of the Clunk-Click TV programme. This appears impossible as Duncroft pupils were always accompanied and strictly supervised by a member of staff during visits to the show, and according to reports the programme was actually recorded at the BBC Theatre in Shepherds Bush. Interestingly, there is no reference to this incident in the Smith report.

However Fiona could not have been at Duncroft in April 1974 when Clunk Click was last broadcast. During the Exposure programme there is a shot of Savile, Fiona and another girl in a photo in Fiona’s photograph album. This photo later appeared in the Daily Mail described as 'Duncroft summer fete June 1979'. No girl was ever at Duncroft for five years until they reached 19, so Fiona’s visits to Clunk Click must be fiction. There is also a glimpse of a photo of Fiona in the album from 1974 as a pupil of Holt school. It should be remembered that neither Fiona nor Charlotte made their allegations to the police when Savile was alive despite being contacted by Surrey police during their investigation. Moreover, they never raised the matter with school staff at the time, and neither were willing to appear on BBC Newsnight to corroborate Karin’s testimony. The conclusion can only be reached that the testimonies of Fiona and Charlotte appear to be fabrications, probably scripted from beginning to end, with the sole intention of destroying the reputation of Jimmy Savile.

Despite all the falsehoods the programme created a sensation when broadcast. Not a single journalist from the mainstream media questioned the veracity of the allegations, taking them on trust, probably due to the involvement of the police and the support of the NSPCC. Instead media attention focused on whether the BBC had pulled the Newsnight story to protect the BBC1 Christmas Savile tribute programmes, and the ongoing furore eventually resulted in the resignation of the BBC director-general.

Within days Operation Yewtree began investigations into several aging celebrities, some of whom have been charged with sexual offences dating back over many decades. The NSPCC and the Metropolitan Police jointly produced the report Giving Victims A Voice which accepted as factual claims that several hundred people had been sexually assaulted by Savile. The title says it all, as all the accusers are openly described as victims, despite no investigation of their claims ever having been carried out. Evidence by the investigative bloggers have proved that some of these claims are impossible. Both the Exposure TV programme and the Yewtree investigation were part of an ongoing feminist agenda, sponsored by children’s charities, to demonise men and portray women and children as their helpless victims. It must have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

The Exposure programme ended with Esther Rantzen tearfully proclaiming that the jury was no longer out on Savile as she gullibly swallowed the deceitful account she had just been presented with. What she failed to see about the Exposure programme was that it provided many witnesses for the prosecution but none for the defence, with no defence counsel cross-examination, just Mark Williams-Thomas apparently spoon-feeding the witnesses with his scripted responses. During the programme we saw no children or any evidence of paedophilia. Just some middle aged women who at best regret how free and easy they were with their sexual favours with a national celebrity when they were teenagers. The result of this charade is that hundreds of women have now come out of the woodwork claiming that they were 'abused' by a safely dead TV star who must have met hundreds of thousands of people during his lifetime. They know they will face little challenge to their allegations, aided and abetted by a charity which promotes the belief that accusers would never lie, a corrupted police leadership that fails to question this viewpoint, a compliant media that does nothing to challenge these assumptions, and lawyers who will provide these likely compensation chasers with all the legal and professional assistance they require.

The above summary of events has been compiled with the help of information provided from the blogs of Anna Raccoon, Jim Cannot Fix This and Justice for Jimmy Savile who, between them, have painstakingly carried out a thorough investigation into the ITV Exposure programme. They are to be congratulated for their tenacity in bringing the truth to light. In contrast the mainstream media has credulously swallowed the apparent falsehoods spun by Williams-Thomas, without carrying out any checking or investigation whatsoever.

Future posts will examine the evidence unearthed by the above intrepid bloggers on the NHS and BBC reports into Savile which appear to be largely a compendium of untested allegations. Savile was certainly no saint, he undoubtedly had a sexual relations with teenage girls, and by the standards of today was a little too touchy-feely in the presence of the opposite sex. However, all the evidence obtained by those who have researched this matter suggests that he was careful to restrict his sexual advances to those over the age of consent, since to do otherwise would risk destroying his reputation and celebrity status. He was most certainly neither a paedophile nor the monster he is currently being portrayed as.

Witch hunt double standards

Successive British governments have been at the forefront of international moves to bring to justice the armed forces of other countries accused of war crimes. The current denunciation of the Russian military actions in Syria is a good example, but there have been many others in the past. So it comes as some surprise to witness political leaders of all parties demanding an end to the 'witch hunt' of British soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Former prime minister Tony Blair said it is wrong to put troops through the ordeal of a criminal investigation for events in a war zone as long as thirteen years ago. Current prime minister Theresa May has stated that she wants to crack down on vexatious claims, which our Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has called a 'witch hunt' against British soldiers.

So what is the justification given for abandoning this 'witch hunt' against British servicemen. It was provided in a Sunday Telegraph article which is worth quoting in full. 'There are legitimate fears that any prosecution which takes place so long after the alleged events will be flawed, given the risk of witnesses being unable to recall events accurately. Some accusers may also be motivated by the prospect of compensation payments from the government.'

However, a strange double standard seems to exist here. Neither the government, nor the opposition parties, nor the gutter press have any qualms about putting men through the ordeal of a criminal prosecution when they have been accused of sexcrimes dating back as long as fifty years ago. Yet all the arguments against continuing the prosecution of soldiers apply equally to these men. But such has been the surrender to the agenda of feminists and children's charities to continue their 'witch hunt' to demonise all men as either potential sexual predators or paedophiles, we are unlikely to see any acknowledgement of this double standard by the politically correct establishment, or their lackeys in the mainstream media.

The burkini controversy

There has been a lot of adverse comment in the British media about the decision of some French municipalities to ban the wearing of burkinis on their beaches. The burkini is an inelegant garment resembling a wet suit with hood that is worn only by Muslim women, and which allows them to swim whilst at the same time covering their bodies completely, so that they can retain their 'modesty'. The overwhelming response of British media pundits has been hostile to this ban, but a majority of the French public support it. The ban was imposed following the Islamic terrorists attacks in Paris and Nice, and is seen by many as an expression of religious fundamentalism that challenges the country's secular values. So who is right, is this ban an example of men telling women what they can and cannot wear, or is this garment a visible symbol of a dark ages superstition which wilfully challenges liberal and secular advancement.

The controversy is a good example of the conflict between the rights of individuals to make their own choices and the need for society as a whole to maintain cohesion. There is no doubt that the burkini is an affront to present day western values as it stigmatises women's bodies as morally 'indecent' and thus unfit for public display. It should be remembered that the burkini is not too dissimilar to the voluminous swimwear worn by women a century ago in Britain. In both cases the justification for this obsession with extreme female 'modesty' was to appease religious sensitivities. Most people in western society can now see that this outlook was nothing more than an irrational superstition, and that women's bodies at their best can be aesthetically very pleasing, and even when they may not be, they are still completely harmless.

France, like Britain, has sleepwalked into the calamitous folly of allowing millions of immigrants into their countries whose first loyalty is to their religious indoctrination. Many in these separated communities are inherently hostile to modern western values. As we have seen in recent times some of their more zealous members feel sufficiently motivated to murder and main their fellow citizens in pursuit of their faith's dogma. So it is not difficult to understand why many French people do not particularly wish to be reminded of the superstitious symbols of this violent religious primitivism when visiting their beaches.

So the French ban is not an attempt by the state to tell women what they must wear. Instead it is to draw a line, and send out a clear signal, that the secular values of their society will be upheld and that there will be no surrender to primitive religious superstition. This does undoubtedly infringe individual choice, but it should be remembered that the only people wearing this impractical and gross beachwear are Muslim women who, since a very early age, would have been indoctrinated by upholders of their faith into believing that excessive and absurd notions of 'modesty' are somehow virtuous.

Body neurosis

There were media reports not so long ago about the case of two young men who Northern Ireland police threatened to place on the sex offenders register for bathing on a beach in the nude. This incident illustrates a long standing tradition of the police who have always derived great satisfaction in harassing otherwise law abiding men with minor infractions of our burgeoning sex offences laws. Both the BBC and the Guardian had questioned the appropriateness of the police action in this case, a highly unusual move for these two 'progressive' media outlets who are normally supportive of men being on the receiving end of increasingly harsh jail sentences for an ever greater number of sex crimes, mostly introduced as a result of an agenda pursued by feminist and child protection activists.

Despite its general sexual licentiousness, Britain is one of the most uptight countries in Europe in its fear of nudity and promotion of body neurosis. However, the European leader in this field is undoubtedly Ireland, with Northern Ireland the most backward of all in its repressed attitude towards the naturalness of the human body. This benighted outlook is shared by both the Catholic and Protestant communities in equal measure.

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 initially prompted by the fear of being considered homosexual, but appears to have grown into a full blown body neurosis. The current position is that there is still a significant amount of body guilt amongst the general public. Mild body exposure 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 since it is normal and natural must also 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 should not be considered as 'exhibitionist' is unrealistic and damaging since it can prompt guilt in people over what is a natural, normal and healthy feeling, and panders to the agenda of their critics.

Although body exposure 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 post 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 such 'exploitation' from occurring. 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 in recent years has been 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, or maybe bemused, 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 relaxed about body exposure and thus quite normal and uninhibited . 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 today are suffering from body neurosis. This may well be the case for a lot of them, but for some it 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, harmless and positive activity in an appropriate context such as swimming and sunbathing.

Where now for Britain?

The politically correct classes are maintaining their collective rage at the outcome of the EU referendum. This is the biggest setback they have suffered in their creeping campaign to introduce totalitarianism into Britain. They are desperate to find a means of reversing the decision to leave the European Union. Suggestions made include MPs ignoring the result as the referendum was only advisory, holding a second referendum after further negotiations with the EU, holding a general election to 'endorse' the result, dreaming up legal challenges to the outcome, and finally going on demos bleating that the 48% who supported remaining are now 'unrepresented' and isn't that a really terrible thing. There is a simple message that can be given to these spoiled brats, and their tantrums provoked by, for once, not having got their own way. It is this, the leave campaign got 52%, they won, so get over it, petals.

Some of the more serious analysts, shocked by the result, are mounting a campaign of gross exaggeration that Britain is in chaos following the referendum outcome. Although there may be some relatively minor economic and financial turbulence in the short term, this will be more than compensated by the fact that Britain is now in control of its economic destiny and can take unencumbered the decisions that best promote our national interests.

Some pundits are suggesting that negotiations with the EU will take many years thus adding to the uncertainty. There is no need for this alarmism. All that Britain needs to do is to invoke the section 50 procedure which meets our treaty obligations to the EU. Then to repeal the European Communities Act which ends Britain's membership of the EU. Then to pass a single act into which are bundled all the legislation that has been incorporated into British law at the behest of EU directives. These can then be gradually repealed, revised or retained into British law at our leisure by future Acts of Parliament.

The only negotiations that need to take place are over Britain's access to the single market. Our negotiators should make it clear that the freedom of movement into Britain of EU nationals is no longer acceptable and that this matter is non negotiable. As a result the EU will almost certainly block Britain's access to the single market, but we shall still be able to trade with the EU under WTO rules. Given the low tariffs, and the fall in the value of sterling, this should not have a huge impact and may well affect the EU more adversely than it does us. We will no longer be part of the common agricultural and fisheries policies, and with regard to the latter we will now be able to block EU countries from fishing in our territorial waters.

All this is great news for Britain and its people as we enter a new age where we have thrown over the shackles of foreign interference in our affairs and regained control of our destiny.

The right decision

The people have spoken and the conclusion has been reached that Britain should leave the European Union. This is undoubtedly the right decision; Britain will once again become a nation state, and no longer a vassal of an unaccountable supranational authority. Although the margin of victory was relatively slim, there were clear majorities for Leave in Wales and all but one of the English regions. In contrast, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London all voted Remain by significant margins.

As a result of this decision both the Conservative and Labour parties are in turmoil and there have been spectacular falls in both the stock market and currency exchanges. Superficially this might be interpreted as confirmation of the fears expressed by the Remain campaign, but this turbulence should be relatively short lived as a more realistic appraisal is reached on Britain's future, free from the shackles of a European Union that is incapable of reform. There should be no haste to invoke the Article 50 procedure, but neither should this be delayed for too long after a new prime minister is in place.

Although there was some scaremongering and exaggeration by both campaigns, nevertheless the main issues and arguments were presented effectively, allowing the British electorate the opportunity to reach an informed decision. In this respect the BBC for once acted impartially, and the Electoral Commission ensured fairness by requiring a remain or leave answer, rather than a yes/no response which studies have found to be biased in favour of the former.

Both sides played to their perceived strengths, the economy for Remain and immigration and sovereignty for Leave. Credit should be given to David Cameron for allowing the referendum in the first place, for the huge effort he put into his renegotiations with the EU and for effectively and vigorously presenting the arguments for Remain. Unfortunately for him, the adamant refusal of EU leaders to give him meaningful concessions meant that he always had one hand tied behind his back when making his case. However, it has to be said that Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and above all Boris Johnson did a brilliant job in the TV debates in presenting the case for Leave.

This decision has been a massive body blow for the politically correct class who are in a collective rage that their agenda has been thwarted and their values rejected. For them the EU was a mechanism whereby they could impose a politically correct straightjacket on public behaviour and discourse, without there being any danger of their measures being repealed or removed through the democratic process. Shamefully, some are now agitating for a second referendum which demonstrates the degree to which they hold the public in contempt. The electorate would have noted, in the final TV debate, the venom with which Sadiq Khan denounced the perfectly reasonable Leave arguments as the 'politics of hate'. Had Remain won by the same margin we can be sure that they would now be crowing about how the British public had rejected the politics of 'hate', 'division' and 'isolation'.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is now threatening a second referendum on Scottish independence. The British government should demonstrate a firm response to this special pleading, by stating beforehand their refusal to recognise the outcome of any unlawful referendum she might call, and threaten to impose direct rule on Scotland as a last resort in any subsequent stand-off. To do otherwise would be to undermine the use of genuine referendums, legislated for by the British parliament, in deciding a constitutional issue which allows it to be settled for at least a generation. At the time of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, voters would have known that there was a good chance of the UK electorate subsequently deciding to leave the EU.

The British nation now stands on the threshold of a new era in which democracy has been restored and debate reclaimed on a wide range of issues. It is a time for great optimism.

Toxic feminists 3 - Catharine MacKinnon

Strident feminists are engaged in a war against male heterosexuality and their greatest cheerleader has been Catharine MacKinnon. She was born shortly after the last war into a Minnesota legal family, her father was a judge and congressman. She has a PhD from Yale university and is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

Mackinnon became influential in feminist politics in the late 1970s with the publication of Sexual Harassment of Working Women in which she coined the term 'sexual harassment'. She claims that this behaviour is a form of discrimination against women because of the alleged power inequality between women and men. Her framework on this subject was incorporated into US law later in the decade. She subsequently developed an overarching theory of inequality, in which she argued that women live in a state of subordination, with pornography, sexual harassment, prostitution, child sexual abuse, domestic violence and rape as key elements in a patriarchal system of male domination.

Mackinnon's most influential work is Toward A Feminist Theory Of The State published in 1989. A lot of the book is devoted to an unintelligible and impenetrable critique of Marxism vis-à-vis the objectives of feminism. With regard to power politics, she argues that as the legal system has largely been framed by men this results in a power imbalance between men and women to the serious detriment of the latter. She claims that 'over and over again, the state protects male power through embodying and ensuring existing male control over women at every level' and 'the state, through law, institutionalizes male power over women through institutionalizing the male point of view in law.' This is, of course, a travesty of the true position.

MacKinnon's view is that male sexuality amounts to 'rape culture', that male sexuality inherently degrades women, that participation in male sexuality is morally and socially equivalent to rape, thus concluding that all men are effectively rapists-in-waiting.' She spells out her agenda on sexual relations between men and women as follows ' rape and intercourse are difficult to distinguish, the major distinction between intercourse(normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it'. She further argues that heterosexuality 'institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission' and 'women are socially disadvantaged through socialization to customs that define a woman's body as for sexual use by men'. It is clear from these statements where MacKinnon is coming from and the nature of her agenda.

It would be an exaggeration to claim that currently the British state has fully accepted the MacKinnon theory on sexual relations between men and women. Nevertheless, many of the more committed feminists who are influential in our politically correct establishment have much sympathy with her views, and appear to be pursuing an agenda for policing the bedroom activities of heterosexual males using MacKinnon's theories as their justification.

We appear to be gradually moving towards the kind of regime which operates in many American colleges in which heterosexual activities can be deemed coercive if there are considered to be power differentials between the parties, whether real or perceived. In such a regime affirmative sexual consent standards are imposed, which define sexual assault to include any sexual contact where a woman has not given positive, specific and unambiguous consent, which if lacking can then define as criminal any normal and natural heterosexual male approaches and advances towards women. Nobody is expecting that those in same sex relationships would have to go through all the rigmarole imposed on heterosexual men in continually seeking consent. So this agenda is clearly and openly discriminatory and deliberately so.

Should this scenario come to pass (very likely given the politically correct establishment's continuing craven submission to feminist stridency) our society would have moved from one in which male homosexual activities were prohibited by law, to one in which male heterosexual activities are seriously circumscribed by an all embracing criteria of what constitutes sexual assault against women.

There should be no toleration of sex pests who seek sexual favours from women on the slightest acquaintance. However, MacKinnon and her cohorts fail to acknowledge that in any relationship someone, usually the male, has to take the initiative and they should never be demonised for this, or placed in a situation were they may be criminalised for doing so. In providing the blueprint for how the politically correct state should regulate, control and attempt to stifle normal male heterosexuality Catharine MacKinnon has certainly met the test to be considered as a malignant feminist.

EU referendum

The EU referendum is now entering its final phase. The general tone has been far from elevated with both sides using scaremongering and exaggeration to make their case. The main issues raised have been economics, immigration and sovereignty.

The Remain side are vigorously arguing that we will all be better of financially and economically if we stay in the EU. It is claimed that the advantages arising from our membership of the vast EU single market are so overwhelming that it would be folly for Britain to be on the outside. No doubt there are some benefits but there are also disadvantages. We would be binding ourselves too deeply into a sclerotic economic regime where many countries are suffering high unemployment and little growth. Moreover, the whole edifice is likely to collapse as a result of the internal contradictions of the single currency.

More importantly the price of access to the single market is unacceptable as it requires free movement of people between member countries. Although EU citizens, being mostly of European descent, are likely to integrate better than people from the rest of the world, they nevertheless still lower wages for the less skilled and add pressure to already stretched essential services such a health, education and, most especially, housing. The likely accession of Turkey and other countries will seriously exacerbate this problem.

The Leave side have half heartedly warned about the dangers of uncontrolled immigration if we stay in the EU. However, they are hampered in exploiting this issue by the fear of being labelled as racist, nasty and extreme. It is however a very sound argument for leaving the EU, since if we remain we will have absolutely no control over the large number of East Europeans who are likely to be attracted to come here, particularly when the living wage is raised to the level that is being planned by 2020.

But the huge problem of uncontrolled immigration is not the main reason why Britain should leave the EU. The main issue is the lack of sovereignty and the consequent loss of democratic accountability. If we remain in the EU we no longer posses the ability to govern ourselves, and as a nation we remain vassals to an outside authority over which we have little influence. The need to reclaim the right to govern ourselves is why it is vital that Britain's interests are best served by voting to leave on June 23rd. Addendum: Since writing the above the Leave camp have shown a little more vigour about warning of the dangers of open ended immigration. As a result they moved from being several points behind Remain in the polls to several points ahead. Remain have been smearing the Leave case as promoting 'hate' and 'division' within society. The reality is that the Leave side merely wish to regain national sovereignty, and the ability to control our own affairs without interference from an unaccountable and undemocratic supra national body. It is to be hoped that neither side exploit the senseless murder of Jo Cox MP, or that voters are distracted from the real issues in this referendum campaign by this crazed and wicked act.

Toxic feminists 2 - Beatrix Campbell

It is a strange contradiction, that the more women have achieved in gaining equality over the past few decades, the more strident feminists have become in denouncing our supposedly 'patriarchal' society. They appear to have two main objectives, a campaign to rectify a perceived lack of equality of outcome in employment and job prospects, combined with a mission to control male heterosexuality. Both concerns are mixed with a heavy dose of misandry.

One prominent voice amongst British feminists over several decades has been that of Beatrix Campbell, who has rarely missed an opportunity to inflame the hysteria over child sexual abuse. Campbell was born shortly after the war into a communist family in Carlisle. She herself joined the Communist Party in her teens, marrying a fellow comrade, and joined the staff of the Communist newspaper, The Morning Star. She belonged to the anti-Stalinist wing of the party that opposed the soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. During the early seventies she became heavily involved in the women's liberation movement. Campbell has continued to hold Marxist views and in recent years has stood as a Green Party candidate.

During 1987 the Cleveland child abuse furore made headline news throughout the country. This arose from the controversial diagnosis by two Middlesbrough paediatricians, through a technique known as Reflex Anal Dilation (RAD), that 121 local children had been the victims of child abuse. As a result of the enormous publicity caused by the break up of the families affected, the government ordered an inquiry into the affair chaired by Judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. Her report criticised both the two doctors and the local social workers for being too ready to accept that abuse had taken place, and for the belief that lack of disclosure by the children was evidence of denial. The medical profession has accepted that the RAD technique was severely flawed, and it was never again used by paediatricians as a test for child abuse. The vast majority of the children were returned to their families.

Although nearly all media commentators accepted the findings of the Cleveland report, Campbell continued to claim that the children had been abused, implicitly accepting that the RAD test must be valid. In her book Unofficial Secrets, she claimed that the children's silence was a coping strategy to deal with the abuse. In reality the reverse occurred, it was the social service interviewers who, during video-recorded sessions, were seen asking leading questions as well as threatening and attempting to bribe children in order to confirm the social workers ingrained belief that the children had been abused. Although, some of the children remained in care, they had already come to the attention of social services before the RAD technique was used. What the two paediatricians did was to extend the RAD test from exclusively social services cases, to all children who had been brought to the hospital for an unrelated medical condition. Campbell continued to support the two paediatricians long after the RAD test had become discredited, maintaining her belief that all the children had been sexually abused.

Beatrix Campbell was also involved in the Shieldfield scandal. This involved two nursery care workers who were tried and acquitted of child sexual crimes in 1994. Despite their acquittal they were both branded paedophiles in a subsequent report by Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council. In the report the Council made several serious defamatory accusations of child sexual abuse against the two care workers, all of which were later found to be completely unfounded. One of the Council's report team was Judith Jones (aka Judith Dawson), the 'partner' of Beatrix Campbell, who was a social worker in an earlier satanic abuse case. Campbell in a newspaper article claimed that the Council's report had found 'persuasive evidence of sadistic and sexual abuse of up to 350 children'. The two care workers brought an action for libel against the City Council, and following a damning indictment against the Council by the judge, they were awarded the maximum amount of compensation available to them of £200,000. The judge made a finding of malice on the part of the Council's report team since there were "a number of fundamental claims which they must have known to be untrue and which cannot be explained on the basis of incompetence or mere carelessness.' However, Campbell continued to support the findings of the report and maintained that the care workers were guilty of child abuse despite all the findings and evidence to the contrary.

Not content with stoking up panic in the above two cases, Beatrix Campbell was one of the chief fear-mongers promoting the satanic abuse scare of the early 1990s. This was created by an unholy alliance of misandric feminists such as Campbell, joining forces with fundamentalist Christians who believe that all sexual activity outside holy wedlock is irredeemably shameful, sinful and to be suppressed. They were joined in this mendacious enterprise by the NSPCC who credulously endorsed the claims made by the supporters of the satanic abuse fantasy.

The satanic abuse panic originated in the United States, promoted originally by Christian fundamentalists, but soon accepted by feminist social workers and therapists. Predictably, in the late 1980s, this anti-satanic zeal crossed the Atlantic, with the claimed discovery of a satanic ring by social workers in Nottingham, led by the aforementioned Judith Dawson. Both Campbell and Dawson published articles in the New Statesman cataloguing the extent of satanic child abuse which their investigations had supposedly uncovered. Similar panics occurred in Rochdale and Orkney, resulting in many children being taken into care by social workers convinced by the reality of satanic abuse. The government commissioned a report by Professor Jean La Fontaine to discover the reality behind the claims and the likely extent of the problem . However, her report concluded that 'there was no evidence of satanic abuse' and this finding was accepted by the then Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley. Needless to say Campbell rejected the finding of the report, accusing the author of being ' the Freud of her generation: young survivors' stories of tyranny and torture seem so terrible that she prefers to locate their origin in fantasy rather than real events'.

Beatrix Campbell is still obsessed by what she perceives to be the widespread sexual abuse of children and the extent to which it is covered up by an supposedly acquiescent society. She recently issued a video praising the attempt of deputy Labour leader Tom Watson to publicise his belief of the existence of an alleged Westminster paedophile ring. This featured former Home Secretary Leon Brittan and was based on the claims made by the individual known as 'Nick', whose allegations also involved former MPs Harvey Proctor and Greville Janner, together with former Prime Minister Edward Heath and other establishment figures.These claims were all investigated by the Metropolitan Police under the auspices of Operation Midland which, to put it charitably, concluded that there was no evidence to back up any of the claims.

Beatrix Campbell thus has a long history of stirring up allegations of child sexual abuse based on nothing more than hearsay and without any corroborating evidence. No amount of reasoning or evidence to the contrary appears to shake her unwavering faith in the righteousness of her agenda. She appears to have no qualms about continuing to defame innocent people, or to show any sympathy for the families and lives destroyed by the unfounded claims which she peddles. It must be concluded that she most certainly meets the criteria to qualify as a malignant feminist. Despite (or maybe because of) this background she nevertheless remains a darling of the politically correct establishment and was honoured with an OBE a few years ago.