Dame Janet Smith BBC report into Jimmy Savile Part 1 - Accusations

The investigation carried out by Dame Janet Smith into the activities of Jimmy Savile at the BBC was set up in October 2012 in the wake of the ‘revelations’ made in the ITV programme Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile. At that time the reasonable assumption was made that the evidence presented in this programme was truthful and genuine. In fact, as the intrepid bloggers, Anna Raccoon, Moor Larkin & Rabbitaway have revealed, it was a compendium of falsehoods, fabrications and misleading exaggerations as outlined in this earlier blogpost here. http://bit.ly/2dybGYs This post attempts a belated analysis of the conclusions reached in the Dame’s report published in March 2016, and includes findings revealed by the above investigative bloggers.

The Smith report is extensive running to well over 700 pages. Its primary conclusion was that although many BBC staff claimed to have heard rumours about Jimmy Savile the senior management of the BBC were never presented with any evidence of wrongdoing. The reason for reaching this conclusion in the report is that there was no record of any junior or middle management staff ever communicating their concerns about Savile to senior management. However, as will be explained in some detail below, the real reason why senior management heard nothing is because there was nothing to hear that was worth communicating. The allegations against Savile appear to fall into three categories, hearsay and rumour, the relatively harmless and trivial, and the fantastical.

The Dame doesn’t take too long before she tells us where she is coming from when she declares ‘in early October 2012, the country was deeply shocked about revelations that Savile, the well-known and well-loved television personality and charity fundraiser had in fact been a prolific sex offender.’ She repeats this again later ‘in the weeks following the disclosures about Savile’s sexual misconduct in October 2012’. This viewpoint can only have been reached by swallowing wholesale the deceptions in the Exposure programme.

Whilst this casual acceptance would be understandable at the start of the investigation, it becomes untenable by the time the report was published, given the amount of contradictory evidence that had been unearthed and placed in the public domain by the investigative bloggers. So her default position throughout the investigation is based on the falsehood that Savile must have been a sexual predator because that is what the Exposure programme supposedly uncovered beyond reasonable doubt. The Dame need not be censured too much about this, she only fell into the same trap that just about everybody else did, namely accepting the Exposure deceits without question or investigation. So all her deliberations must be viewed critically through the prism of her overt confirmation bias that Savile was a ‘prolific sex offender’, a viewpoint which must seriously have influenced the objectivity of her conclusions. In short, she has assumed his guilt and then set about building a case to justify it.

Dame Janet declared that ‘I have applied the civil standard of proof. That is to say that I have accepted evidence if I think that, on the balance of probabilities, it is true and accurate.’ In fact it soon becomes apparent that she has deviated quite considerably from this already fairly low standard of proof. What she has instead done is invariably accept that the accusers’ claims are true, unless there is fairly clear proof that they are lying. She has approached her investigation with the ingrained belief that Savile was a sexual predator and that his ‘victims’ should be believed. As we have seen in other well publicised cases this seems to be standard practice among prosecuting authorities these days.

We first need to examine the allegations relating to the Exposure programme that involve the BBC. To her credit Dame Janet firmly dismisses the testimony of Wilfred De’ath who repeated to her the tale he told in the TV programme. The Dame however got hold of a bundle of BBC documents which cast doubt on De’ath’s claims. She re-interviewed him and concluded that his account ‘contained so many inaccuracies’ that no reliance can be placed upon it.

The testimonies of Val and Angie formed a crucial part of the Exposure programme’s agenda of demonising Savile, and Dame Janet has related their claims in some depth. They are described as two of a group of teenage girls who formed what she terms the ‘London Team’. The accounts of Val and Angie are substantially the same as that given on the Exposure programme, although much additional detail has been provided. Their close relationship with Savile lasted for a period of at least five years before it ended, although they remained in contact with Savile for some time afterwards.

What the Dame failed to grasp is that Val and Angie are the same pair as the two women who wrote to Louis Theroux, revealed in a later part of the report. In their letter to Theroux they corrected the impression he gave in his TV programme that Savile did not have regular girlfriends. They also 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 only conclusion that can be reached is that, in fundamentally changing their stories to one of abusive behaviour, both Val and Angie have provided false testimony to the Exposure programme and to Dame Janet’s investigation.

In the Exposure programme Fiona, a former Duncroft approved school pupil, claimed that Savile assaulted her in a dressing room at BBC Television Centre after the recording of the Clunk-Click TV programme. In Dame Janet’s report the witness C30, a former Duncroft pupil, makes similar claims against Savile that were made by Fiona in Exposure, so it appears likely that they are both the same individual. Intriguingly the Dame concluded that ‘there are a number of elements of her evidence (C30) which are open to question and I do not feel able to make a decision about her claim of abuse, beyond saying that it might have happened and it might not’. Evidence has come to light that Fiona arrived at Duncroft only after the Clunk-Click series ended, and thus her testimony on Exposure (and to the Dame if she is C30) must be false.

In the Exposure programme another Duncroft pupil Charlotte claimed that Savile assaulted her in his caravan during the recording of a radio show, which could only have been Savile’s Travels. However, there is no evidence in the BBC records of such a programme being made from Duncroft, nor is there evidence in the Duncroft records that Charlotte was placed in isolation after she complained to teachers about this supposed incident. As there is no reference in the Smith report to this allegation it must be concluded that it was another attempt by the Exposure producers to defame the memory of Savile. To summarise, five of the six most damaging claims against Savile in the Exposure programme involved him working at or for the BBC. As can be seen from the above analysis, all of them are false.

To tie up the Duncroft saga, the Smith report does serve a useful purpose as it reveals how Savile came to visit Duncroft School in the first place. Witness A22 was a former resident at Duncroft who introduced Savile to the school after she met him at a social event. In the words of the report ‘her evidence is that he always behaved impeccably and her account contradicts much of what the other Duncroft witnesses say about Savile. A22 was clearly very close to Savile and thought very highly of him. She had a relationship with him after she left Duncroft. I have no reason to doubt her evidence that, while she was at Duncroft, Savile behaved impeccably in her presence’. Full details about A22’s relationship with Savile can be found on the Anna Raccoon website.

Having dealt with the Exposure stories it is time to examine some of the more fantastical claims made in the Smith report. Kevin Cook, as a nine year old, was one of a party of scouts who attended Jim’ll Fix It in January 1977 who shared a badge given to the whole troupe. Cook claimed that Savile took him aside and asked whether he would like a badge of his own, to which he answered yes. He then claims that Savile told him that he would have to ‘earn’ his badge and took him to a dressing room where he carried out sexual acts on Cook. This activity was interrupted by another man entering the dressing room.

However, Cook has come up with two separate stories about this second unidentified man. In the first the man immediately leaves, in the second he also starts to participate in the abuse against Cook, that also involves some violence. The Dame declared that this ‘change in Mr Cook’s account made it difficult for me to make up my mind whether his account was true’. She re-interviews him and accepts his explanation that ‘he had found talking about the second stage of the abuse even more embarrassing than the first’. She then concludes that she is ‘quite satisfied that his account was true and that both men had abused him’

However Moor Larkin has uncovered this revealing comment on an ITV discussion board ‘my husband was also one of the scouts that attended that day with this chap, he was chaperoned everywhere with an adult and had no problems at all.’ In a later part of the report Dame Janet commends the strict chaperoning regime on Jim’ll Fix It. This required that a child was always accompanied by a parent, chaperone or member of staff. Dame Janet stated ‘I am satisfied that that rule was strictly followed’. Moreover, according to BBC staff, Savile’s dressing room was usually so full of people that he would never be alone with a child, and his door was almost always open. It is difficult to believe that this young scout would not have been missed by the rest of the group and the leader, that he would have remained silent on the matter to his scout friends afterwards, especially after he got his individual badge, and that he would not have raised the matter at some point with his parents, but instead kept quiet about it for over 35 years.

One of the more bizarre incidents of alleged abuse by Savile took place whilst he was dressed in a Womble suit. C9 was a ten year old boy when he was taken by his grandfather to Top of the Pops. C46 was a twelve year old girl with her aunt at the same recording in late 1973. None of them had a ticket, they were waiting in the queue hoping to get in. Savile suddenly appeared at the entrance and agreed to take in the two children leaving the adults outside. Savile appeared throughout the show in a Womble suit. After the show was over they were both brought together to Savile’s dressing room. Savile took off his Womble outfit and proceeded to carry out a sex act on the boy, which was painful and caused some bleeding. He then carried out another sex act with the girl. Savile told them not to tell anyone as it was their secret, and he then left the room. They were then escorted to the exit by a member of staff where they rejoined the two waiting adults. Neither the boy nor the girl ever told anybody about this incident.

Dame Janet acknowledged that there were some inconsistencies and improbabilities in their accounts. These relate to the nature of the attacks and the state of undress, that children this young would unlikely to be allowed in the audience, one of the bands had pre-recorded their performance and were not at this show and inaccurate descriptions of how the acts were presented. Both C9 and C46 were represented by the same firm of solicitors. Despite all this the Dame is convinced that both are telling the truth. Some further facts have come to light. Mike Batt created The Wombles and the suits were the responsibility of his mother. According to Mike Batt because of their expensive cost, she never let them out of her sight. Moreover, the Womble outfits cannot be opened from the front, so Savile may have needed some assistance in the removal.

Another questionable account comes from C42, a 15 year old girl living in Manchester. She attended a recording of Top of the Pops in June 1970, travelling to London by train with a friend. They were both met at the studio by the programme’s photographer Harry Goodwin. At the end of the recordings Mr Goodwin introduced them to Jimmy Savile, who invited C42 to his dressing room for some signed photographs, leaving her friend with Mr Goodwin. Savile then carried out various sexual acts with her in the dressing room, before she managed to escape and rejoin her friend in the cafeteria. Mr Goodwin invited them out for a meal but C42 said she was unhappy and wanted to return to Euston station to catch a train for home. She never mentioned the incident to anyone until the Savile scandal broke in 2012.

During this period Top of the Pops was recorded at BBC TV Centre on Wednesdays between 7.30-10 pm for transmission the following day. So it would not have been possible for C42 to escape from her ordeal in Savile’s dressing room earlier than about 10.30 pm but maybe as late as 11 pm. Thus it was far too late for her to contemplate both having a meal and returning to Euston station to travel home to Manchester as the last train would have long since left by then. It is also difficult to believe that two 15 year old would be allowed to travel from Manchester to London during term time, and be able to make an unfamiliar and complicated journey across London.

Leisha Brookes was about nine years old in 1976 when she was first taken to BBC TV Centre by her stepfather’s friend Douglas Sillitoe, who worked for the BBC as a scene painter. He took her to the television centre about once a fortnight over a two year period, and she had access to many parts of the building, where she often saw or met celebrities. She claims that she was abused by about 30 of Sillitoe’s work colleagues at the BBC. One of these men was Savile, who she recognised from Jim’ll Fix It. She claimed he ‘promised to show her his big chair although he never did’. Leisha claims that when she was 19 she made a long statement to Merseyside police about the sexual abuse she had suffered including that from Savile. However, she claims that the police did not take any action on the ground that there was not enough evidence. Dame Janet concludes that she may have been abused by Silitoe’s colleagues as part of a paedophile ring, but accepts her claim that she was definitely abused by Savile.

Because the alleged offences took place in London, Merseyside police would have sent her witness statement to the Metropolitan police. However, enquiries of the Metropolitan police have proved fruitless as no trace of the complaint or any statement was found. As an adult Leisha Brookes has been repeatedly prosecuted for the non payment of her TV licence. Previous to 2012 her justification for non payment was for ‘personal reasons’. However in 2013 she refused to pay as a protest against her abuse ‘by Jimmy Savile and 35 other men at the BBC's headquarters’ that ‘wrecked her life, leading to mental health problems and suicide attempts’ It is difficult to believe that a paedophile ring of about 30 men would have operated at the TV centre without it coming to light. It is also unlikely that a major celebrity such Jimmy Savile would have been part of a ring comprising ordinary workmen. It must be concluded that her allegations appear to be extremely fanciful.

C38 was a 15 year old youth from Newcastle-upon-Tyne when he travelled by car with his elder brother and a friend to Top Of The Pops in the winter of 1964/65. His elder brother and friend were let in by the doorman but C38 was refused entry because he was too young. Because he wanted to keep in the warmth he decided to stay in the foyer until his companions returned after the end of the recording. During his wait C38 went into the gent’s toilet where he was soon joined by Savile and a companion. Without speaking to him Savile then proceeded to carry out various sex acts which C38 found painful. In shock he ran out of the building and down the road where he waited outside until the recording was over. He did not speak to his brother about this incident.

Images of the tickets to Top of the Pops from the 1964/65 period are still in the public domain, and clearly state that the minimum age for entry was 14. So C38 should have had no problems gaining entrance to the recording on grounds of age. The minimum age for entry was raised to 16 at a later date. Moreover, a car journey between Newcastle and Manchester in winter over the Pennines would have been a rather hazardous adventure for three youths in the largely pre-motorway era, particularly the night time return journey. In must be concluded that this is another very questionable account.

C39 was a 16 year old girl from Liverpool who attended Top of the Pops with a group of friends in 1964. After the recording she became separated from her friends, and in looking for them came across Savile. She told him that she was lost and that she and her companions were good friends with The Hollies pop group. Savile suggested that the group would probably be at a local nightspot and offered to take her there in his car. However, at the door C39 was refused entry because of her age. Savile went in alone but on his return claimed that he could not find The Hollies or her friends. After trying several more night clubs, without success in tracking down her friends, C39 agreed to spend the night at Savile’s flat, as by then it was too late to catch the train home to Liverpool. She described his flat as being part of a large Victorian property. During the night Savile entered her room and proceeded to rape her. She left in the morning and told her friend what had happened. Her friend informed her that The Hollies had in fact been at the first night club with their companions, but warned C39 that if they mentioned what had happened they would get no more tickets to Top of the Pops, so she told nobody else.

There are some problems with this account. The Dickinson Road studios, where Top of the Pops was recorded, are located in a converted church and due to the small size it would be very difficult for C39 to become completely detached from her companions, particularly as they would also be looking for her after they became separated. It is difficult to believe that she would have been refused entry to the night club when accompanied by a national celebrity such as Savile, particularly as her friends of a similar age had already been let in. In a time before ID requirements she would almost certainly have been waved through, even if there were some doubts about her age. One further point casting doubt on her claims is that, according to Moor Larkin, from 1963 Savile’s flat in Salford was part of a modern block, not a large Victorian house. Given all this, C39 is another case in which the wool appears to have been pulled over Dame Janet’s eyes.

Quite a few of the assaults recorded in the report would come under the heading of unsolicited touching. Whilst this behaviour can clearly be annoying to some women, the frequency which it seems to have occurred before the rise of feminism suggests that it was not as unacceptable to all women as it is considered now. Unlike the drab and scruffy attire worn by many women today, at that time most of them dressed in a feminine way that appealed to men, and many were flattered and reassured when they received physical evidence that they were attractive. However, this is not behaviour which can be condoned as it is clearly invasive and disrespectful to women.

One thing in common about all these alleged assaults is that the person now making the accusation either told nobody about it at the time, or if they did, they never took it further by using the BBC’s complaints procedure or informing the police. The usual reasons given for this are that either they thought they would not be believed or that they did not want to make a fuss or cause trouble. However, the law on sexual assaults is there for anyone who wants its protection and always has been. Common sense dictates that if an assault is not reported it will not be investigated. Contrary to what is often claimed today, the police have always treated sexual assault cases seriously, but to discover the truth they require evidence and full information as close as possible to the time when the assault took place. If genuine victims of assault say nothing about it at the time they have only themselves to blame if perpetrators get away with it, and so it is no use whingeing about the unfairness of it all decades later.

It must be concluded that Dame Janet’s report is almost worthless in discovering the truth about Jimmy Savile’s sexual escapades. She has made only the most cursory investigation into the allegations, treating the interviews as almost a therapy session, rather than seriously probing the claimants to tease out inconsistencies and improbabilities in their accounts. Her starting point has been that Savile was already a proven ‘prolific sexual predator’, and she has bent over backwards to accept the claims presented to her, no matter how fanciful or fantastical they might appear, or contrary to common sense. Part 2 of this blogpost will take a look at the culture and ethos of the BBC and wider society during the pre-feminist period which seems to have provoked Dame Janet’s ire.

More gay liberation 1950s style

British governments like to promote themselves as presiding over a country noted for its values of tolerance and inclusion. They cite the widespread acceptance of gay people and same sex marriage as an example of our moral superiority over previous generations and some other less ‘advanced’ societies. What they overlook is that this lifestyle has only relatively recently been considered acceptable. Until 1967 consenting adult males were imprisoned for homosexual activity in private, and as late as the early 1990s the penalty for the homosexual offence that their icon Alan Turing was convicted of could still attract a five years sentence. It is therefore worth a trip back in time to the late 1950s to examine the justification for what is now considered by many to be extreme intolerance towards a persecuted minority.

In August 1954 the Conservative government commissioned a committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden to investigate whether the law needed to be changed on homosexuality (and also prostitution), and their findings were published in September 1957. A previous blogpost analysed the views of the House of Lords on the recommendation of the committee to legalise homosexual relations for males over the age of 21. This post examines the views of MPs towards the Wolfenden Report.

The parliamentary debate was opened by the Home Secretary R A Butler who recognised that ‘the perennial dilemmas of organised society is, how far the law should seek to regulate the behaviour of individuals…. and what is the sphere which it is proper to leave to the dictates of the individual conscience.’ The main issue he thought needed to be considered was whether ‘such conduct between consenting adults in private is injurious to society, or is it a matter entirely for the private consciences of the parties concerned.’ The Committee had argued that to carry the criminal law beyond its proper sphere is to undermine the moral responsibility of the individual. The Home Secretary agreed that ‘in a free society there are few things more important than to sustain the sense of individual responsibility’, but that this argument can only be accepted ‘if one is convinced that society will not be harmed by so doing.’ This is the dilemma faced on many issues even today namely, when should the rights of individuals take precedence over the collective concerns and interests of wider society.

The Home Secretary asked the question ‘can we be certain that homosexual conduct between consenting adults is not a source of harm to others’ and raised his concern ‘that a homosexual group may tend to draw in and corrupt those who are led by curiosity or weakness into homosexual society.’ In practice this fear turned out to be much exaggerated, as only those with a homosexual inclination are likely to be interested in such a practice. He was also worried that there was ‘a very large section of the population who strongly repudiate homosexual conduct and whose moral sense would be offended by an alteration of the law which would seem to imply approval or tolerance of what they regard as a great social evil.’ Therefore, on this basis, the Home Secretary concluded that the Government ‘would not be justified in proposing legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.’ However he did express his personal concern for the problems created by blackmail, and whether a prison term was appropriate for the ‘redemption’ of those convicted of homosexual offences. The country would have to wait almost a decade before the government of the day reached a different conclusion on this matter.

The Labour front bench MP Anthony Greenwood spoke on behalf of the opposition. He was reassured that nobody was suggesting ‘relaxing the law on homosexual offences involving males under 21 years of age. I do not think that anybody would press for a relaxation of the law in that direction.’ But of course, this was precisely the activity for which Alan Turing was convicted. One female MP put the matter succinctly ‘when a man of 21 and over goes to a young fellow of 18, the younger can say at present that this is a crime as well as a sin. He will no longer have this reinforcement behind him. The tempter will be able to say to him - it is all right, Parliament has approved it.’ In time she would be proven right.

Greenwood went on to suggest that ‘what we have to decide is whether men who, for a reason we do not understand - which may be hereditary, environmental or physical, practise homosexuality, should live their lives under the shadow of the law and at the mercy of the blackmailer’. He concluded that ‘this state of affairs cannot be seriously justified. Life is harsh enough for these people without society adding to their burden. The fact that the law is largely unenforced, and, indeed, largely unenforceable, is certainly no reason for retaining it.’ He did however rather spoil this enlightened outlook by adding ‘It seems to me that one is as likely to cure a homosexual of his perversion by sending him to an all-male prison as one is likely to cure a drunkard by incarcerating him in a brewery.’

One MP clarified how a private activity managed to come to the attention of the authorities by pointing out that ‘the evidence is almost invariably obtained by one or other of the parties turning what is called Queen's evidence and in consideration for not being himself prosecuted giving evidence against his partner. It may be considered as somewhat objectionable that in these circumstances a conviction should depend upon the evidence of an accomplice.’ This should be borne in mind when assuming all homosexuals were victims of this law, when in fact quite a few were collaborators in it. The MP also highlighted a surprising statistic that only one eighth of convictions for homosexual offences were between adults over 21 in private. During the debate an estimate was given that there were about 500,000 practicing homosexuals in the country, but only a 100 or so were convicted of homosexual activity with another male over 21 in private each year. As there was realistically only a very slim chance of an individual being convicted of this offence, it was argued that the law provided little in the way of a deterrent.

An MP who sat on the Wolfenden Committee pointed out the wide disparity in enforcement between different police authorities stating that ‘some chief constables prefer to put the telescope to the blind eye unless some specific complaint is put firmly in front of them. Other chief constables take the view that here is an offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life and, therefore, that they must show the same zeal in following up possible offences as they would in a case of manslaughter’. He also stated that there was a ‘most regrettable tendency to prosecute extremely stale offences. Some of the examples which we give are shocking, of offences disclosed by accident three, four and five years after they were committed.’ Today, of course, the authorities prosecute sexcrimes which were first reported over 50 years later, yet we are supposed to believe that we live in a tolerant and enlightened society. The MP concluded that the justification for a change in the law was ‘to swing the majority of homosexuals, practising and non-practising, on to the side of the law, against those whose preference is for boys and those who offend against public decency.’

Other MPs took a very different view, such as one who believed that ‘humanity would eventually revert to an animal existence if this cult was so allowed to spread that, as in ancient Greece, it overwhelmed the community at large’. Another expressed similar sentiments ‘these unnatural practices, if persisted in, spell death to the souls of those who indulge in them. Great nations have fallen and empires been destroyed because corruption became widespread and socially acceptable.’ This highly alarmist viewpoint has never come anywhere near close to being fulfilled. But it does illustrate the fear mongering and exaggeration, whether through ignorance or design, which often motivates zealots attacking disapproved sexual behaviour.

Then, as now, the fear of what might happen to children was raised, One MP expressed the view that ‘I should very much resent any of my children coming into intimate contact with homosexuals, I would do all I can to keep such gentlemen as far away as possible from my own children.’ By children he presumably meant his sons. Another MP conjured up the ancient past by mentioning that the ‘study of the sexual habits of Greece and Rome serves to confirm that homosexual instincts soon make themselves apparent whenever they are given free rein. It is perfectly true that if one adopts a lax attitude towards homosexuality one promotes its growth.’ In fact what did occur was not a growth in homosexuality, but a huge increase in the belief that it was a supposedly normal, and thus acceptable (or even virtuous), sexual activity.

This same MP came out with another trope fondly believed at the time that ‘because the homosexual in society has a very difficult place indeed. He becomes against society. He becomes bitter, his mind becomes twisted and distorted because he feels he is not as other men are. It is essential in the interests of the man himself that we should do everything to discourage him. He is always beset by fears of discovery. The more sensitive ones wear a hunted look. They are not happy in their life.’ The MP seemed unable to comprehend that the ‘hunted look’ might be due to the law making homosexual acts criminal.

The medical treatment of homosexuals to change there sexual orientation is condemned utterly today. But back then it was seen as a solution as suggested by an MP who found ‘that it was remarkably easy to cure these people with the aid of hormone treatment. By reducing the sexual tension of the individual, this treatment can so suppress it that a reorientation of ideas has time to take place so that sexual desires take a more natural form’. Today, although hormone treatment is deemed unacceptable for homosexuals, it has suddenly become fashionable for kids undergoing ‘gender reassignment’. The agendas may change but the mental confusion still seems to stay the same.

A Labour MP, who subsequently became a cabinet minister, declared that the law on homosexuality was ‘obsolete and unjust, mainly because it infringes a basic principle of individual freedom’. He added that ‘I do not believe that the State or the criminal law has any right to interfere with the conduct of the individual, unless that conduct has some effect upon some other people.’ Moreover this MP feared that ‘once we depart from this principle and start arguing that, because we dislike some practice, or because we ourselves think it morally wrong, we should therefore legally prohibit other people from doing it, even though it has no effect upon anyone else, we are on a very slippery slope. This seems to me to be the beginning of all intolerance. It is a road which leads eventually to concentration camps and to the persecution of heretics’. He was quite right, a sane voice floating in a sea of nonsense. With our current obsession with disapproved sexual activities we appear to be heading in the same direction as he feared, but with the added handicap that today’s self styled ‘progressive’ thinkers are inciting the mob, not fighting the injustice.

Gay liberation 1950s style

The government has recently pardoned over 15,000 men still alive who were convicted of homosexual offences. It is, of course, clearly right to erase from an individual’s criminal record actions which are no longer criminal. However, granting pardons in the way that this has been presented represents a meaningless gesture of political propaganda, the purpose of which is to parade the righteousness of the social orthodoxies of today’s ruling generation, and to unfairly and self righteously stigmatise and condemn previous generations’ attitudes to moral, cultural and social issues as being harsh, insensitive and unfeeling. Unfortunately, there are many men currently in jail who are the victims of today’s political class, with their misplaced notions on appropriate forms of sexual expression. So to set the record straight it is worth examining why previous generations thought it right to criminalise homosexual activity, and to see if current attitudes towards disapproved sexual behaviour are really that superior.

In August 1954 the Conservative government commissioned a committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden to investigate whether the law needed to be changed on homosexuality (and also prostitution), and their findings were published in September 1957. Lord Pakenham in opening the debate on the report in the House of Lords believed that most people would share his view that ‘some forms of conduct are not just abnormal, whether in their psychiatric origins or their social manifestation; they are not just antisocial in the sense that the community considers that it must stop them, but are grievously sinful and are a rejection of the will of God.’ This statement outlines the importance which society then placed in still observing traditional Christian religious moral precepts.

He then went on to distinguish the sin itself from the actions of the sinner, and the Committee had to consider what the distinction should be between sin and crime. So the question that needed to be answered was - what are the criteria to determine whether sins should be punished by the criminal law? The committee addressed this question by concluding that ‘the function of the criminal law in so far as it concerns the subjects of this Inquiry is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive and injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are specially vulnerable’.

In this regard the Report concluded that ‘we do not believe it to be a function of the law to attempt to cover all the fields of sexual behaviour. Certain forms of sexual behaviour are regarded by many as sinful, morally wrong, or objectionable for reasons of conscience, or of religious or cultural tradition; and such actions may be reprobated on these grounds. But the criminal law does not cover all such actions at the present time; for instance, adultery and fornication’. Thus the committee recommended that ‘the criminal law should not intervene in the private lives of citizens or to seek to enforce a particular pattern of behaviour further than is necessary to carry out the purposes we have outlined.’

Lord Pakenham summarised this as’ if two men are doing wrong together, neither coercing the other nor taking advantage of his weakness, they must not be interfered with by the law unless their behaviour is harmful to a third party.’ The most important word here, which today’s generation of activists would increasingly overlook in policing sexual behaviour, is harmful. Lord Pakenham agreed with the findings of the Report that homosexual relations in private between consenting men over the age of 21 should be decriminalised. But he added the warning that ‘never let it be thought for a moment, that if we bring our law into conformity with what is the general practice in Europe…we are condoning homosexuality. We are doing no such thing…we condemn it as utterly wrongful’. All the evidence from the debate suggested that the distaste felt by Lord Pakenham towards homosexuality was then shared by a significant majority of the general public.

There was one dissenting voice on the Committee who was concerned that ‘the presence of adult male lovers living openly and notoriously under the approval of the law is bound to have a regrettable and pernicious effect on the young people of the community’ adding that ‘the more serious phases of such conduct have been recognised by our law as criminal for a continuous period of not less than 400 years’. In contrast, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster thought that the ‘law cannot effectively control such acts without doing more harm to the common good than the acts themselves would do. In that case it may be necessary in the interests of the common good to tolerate without approving such acts’. The problems arising from the threat of blackmail and the use of the police as agent provocateurs were also raised. Both of these evils are still with us.

The Archbishop of Canterbury observed that ‘there is a great general moral indignation against homosexual sins because they are unnatural. There is a queer lack of general moral indignation against heterosexual sins, fornication and adultery, because they are supposed to be natural, and therefore, in some sense, less wrong’. The Archbishop believed that the Report was right in that ‘while all existing laws shall remain in force to protect and control those under 21… homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should not come within the ambit of the law’. So, in his view, the law should continue to criminalise homosexual activities such as those engaged in by Alan Turing with a teenage youth.

One lord made the point that ‘in the press the idea is put forward that indulging in homosexual occupations is a temptation. It is not a temptation to the normal man in any way at all…to ask him to indulge in homosexuality is to ask him to indulge in what to him is repugnant and disgusting, nothing else.’ This remark addressed the fear of many people of the time that anything proclaimed to be sinful, might in reality be ‘forbidden fruit’ that in practice could be quite enjoyable, since dancing and theatre attendance had once been denounced from the pulpit as sinful. As we now know only those with a homosexual inclination find such activity attractive, it generally has no lasting appeal to heterosexuals, thus the fear of many at the time over the likelihood of the widespread corruption of youth becoming ensnared by involvement in ‘unnatural practices’ turned out to be unfounded.

On behalf of the government the Lord Chancellor stated that ‘there can be no prospect of early legislation on this subject’ as it would ‘obviously be a serious step to reverse the provisions of the criminal law which have stood for a long time, and any Government would be bound to think long and carefully before deciding to do so’. He was particularly concerned that decriminalisation ‘would be tantamount to suggesting that there is nothing socially harmful in such behaviour and would inevitably have as its consequence that young people would be encouraged to indulge in it, and that society would be corrupted’. A wholly mistaken view as events would prove, but it does explain that one of the prime motivations for retaining this law was concern for the protection of young people, the same justification that is put forward today for maintaining some of the more intrusive and invasive sexcrime legislation of our time.

Given the climate of the time none of the supporters of decriminalisation had anything positive to say about homosexuality, although a number had some sympathy for the predicament which homosexuals faced. One such lord opined that it was ‘a grave moral offence, in that it offends radically the law of nature ordained by God’, but added that ‘toleration by the law is not the same thing as condoning, and that to emphasise the personal and private nature of immoral conduct, is to emphasise the personal and private responsibility of the individual for his own actions.’ As the gay liberation bandwagon rolled on, in time anyone who merely just tolerated homosexuality, instead of enthusiastically endorsing it, would run the risk of being branded as ‘homophobic’. Times were different in those days as the same lord was encouraged by ‘the vigorous public reaction against this recommendation (to decriminalise) as evidence of the instinctive sense of right values in the British public’. Remember, this was from a supporter of decriminalisation.

Future thinking was prophesised by one lord when he asked ‘why should the age of consent for homosexuality be fixed at 21 if it is no worse an offence than fornication?’ adding that ‘if the Committee had been logical, it was bound to fix the age of consent, whatever it might be, as the same for all. The only explanation I can see is that in their subconscious minds they had a real conviction that somehow or other this offence is worse in its results than the other.’ It would take parliamentarians almost 50 years before they reached the same conclusion.

As for those lords who opposed decriminalisation, their views make interesting reading today. One lord asked whether there ‘is any use sending these people to an ordinary prison where they spread contamination. I believe there should be some form of preventive detention system where they could receive proper medical treatment.’ For those who think we do things differently in these enlightened times, it should be noted that sexcrime prisoners today are still on the receiving end of ‘medical treatment’ to address their behaviour. The same lord rejected the argument put forward by some that ‘more harm can be done to the community by normal sexual intercourse outside of marriage than by homosexualism’ on the grounds that ‘one of the causes of the downfall of many ancient civilisations was the prevalence of homosexualism and its tolerance, with most damaging moral and physical effects upon the population.’ One of the physical effects of decriminalisation would be that thousand of young homosexual men would die of Aids as a consequence of their extreme promiscuous behaviour. Another lord addressed the question as to why ‘adultery and fornication are not criminal offences, so why should homosexuality be? The law answers that natural sin is different from unnatural vice. Natural sin is, of course, deplorable, but unnatural vice is worse; because, as the law says, it strikes at the integrity of the human race.’ Not a point of view you hear very much about these days.

One bishop disagreed with his archbishop on decriminalisation declaring that ‘there is no more baneful or contagious an influence in the world than that which emanates from homosexual practice. It makes a life of leprosy.’ The bishop agreed with the Lord Chancellor that ‘homosexuals can be made, they are not only born. There are far more manufactured than most people have any conception of, and they need protection. So homosexuals should be kept on a leash to prevent them from practising homosexual vice’. All the evidence today suggests that the bishop is wrong on this and that homosexuals are indeed born that way. The bishop concluded by proclaiming that people ‘would not have the general lines of the law altered, not only for the sake of homosexuals themselves but also for the sake of protecting other people from their predatory soliciting, and to protect men from being made into homosexual addicts and then let loose on the world with their predatory corruption’.

The fear expressed here by the bishop implies that young people might find that they enjoy homosexual experiences if they ever got a chance to try them out. This is in contrast, to today’s vocal fearmongers who proclaim that if young people experience sexual activity of any kind they will be traumatised for life, and will turn to drugs, alcohol, self harm, criminal activity and numerous other deleterious behaviours as a consequence. With regard to teenagers the fears of both camps are lacking in any real evidence, and what limited research has been carried out has shown such fears to be without foundation. Those who promote a contrary view invariably do so for religious, financial or political reasons. It is strange that these self appointed guardians of what constitutes appropriate sexual behaviour argue that sexual activity by teenagers below the age of consent must always be damaging, but never appear to question the licentiousness of wider society which sees the same behaviour as a fulfilling and enjoyable recreational pastime for those over the age of consent.

The truth is that the authorities today, and also much of the mainstream media, are just as confused, repressed and repressive in understanding the impact of disapproved sexual expression as were their lordships back in the 1950s. At that time the irrational fear was that the young might succumb to the temptation of an illicit deviancy which needed to be suppressed by the law and moralistic guardians. Today the irrational fear is that the young will be permanently mentally scarred by biologically normal sexual activity which needs to be heavily policed by the law and the welfare authorities.

Britain’s injustice system part 4 – viewing indecent images

Most politically correct liberals appear to harbour the delusion that the European Human Rights Convention provides British citizens with protection against government action that would seek to destroy their rights through unjust legislation. In fact the Convention has proved to be almost useless in stopping the erosion of their rights as individual citizens. This has been particularly the case with recent sexcrime legislation which has in theory criminalized just about every male in the country over the age of ten. Their individual rights on personal relationships and privacy have been steamrollered over through a combination of paranoid legislative overkill, cultural conformity, political groupthink and the appeasement of mob justice and strident feminism.

One such legal minefield covers the viewing of what are termed ‘indecent’ images. As often happens with deserving causes which over time become corrupted, the original justification for introducing legislation was well intentioned, in that it sought the protection of children against those who were clearly seeking to harm or exploit them. The original source of these measures was contained in a Private Members Bill sponsored by the Conservative MP Cyril Townsend which became the Protection of Children Act 1978. It was prompted by a nationwide petition against the sexual exploitation of children organised by the anti-pornography campaigner Mary Whitehouse.

In a parliamentary debate Mr Townsend outlined the reasons why he considered new legislation was needed to protect children. He believed that the photographing of children in Britain for ‘pornographic purposes’ was on the increase, but that the police were ‘inhibited’ from taking action by the then state of the law. He claimed that ‘sophisticated operators, well versed in the law’s confusions’ were able to photograph children engaged in sexual activity and escape prosecution with impunity, since ‘they are not so stupid as to lay a finger on a child’ themselves. He further added that ‘careful research shows that to all intents and purposes those who take obscene photographs of children, without assaulting them or touching them, are not being prosecuted, because of the great uncertainty of the law.’ Mr Townsend recognised that the vast majority of child pornography on sale in Britain was imported from abroad, and that it was not sold openly but ‘under the counter’. Nevertheless, he claimed that home produced material of this kind was on the increase and thus it was necessary to tackle the problem.

With regard to the wording of the Bill Mr Townsend believed that it was right that ‘the courts should decide what is indecent rather than that Parliament should attempt to define that word too precisely’. Unfortunately, this highly unsatisfactory vagueness of definition would ultimately lead to serious problems and injustices. Nevertheless, Mr Townsend did have a stab at defining indecent himself ‘as anything which an ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting and revolting’, adding that ‘I do not think for a moment that a jury would apply those words to the sort of shot that a grandmother might take of a grandchild on a rug before the fire. Of course, I have nothing against nudity as such’. Such optimism about the reasonableness of those enforcing the law on this subject would in time prove to be utterly groundless in the face of the hysteria that has grown over paedophilia, and of the paranoid zealots with a self appointed mission to combat it wherever the panic might take them.

Mr Townsend’s bill did not criminalize the possession of child pornography or indecent images of children, however defined. The wording of the Bill was that a criminal act would be committed only by any person who takes an indecent photograph of a child, or who possesses such material ‘with a view to production’, which in the Act itself was changed to ‘with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others’. So it is clear that the intended target of this legislation was not individuals who obtained this material for their own personal use, but instead those who were engaged in the production and/or distribution of it to others. Thus the Act would catch not only those who produced such material in this country, but also anyone caught distributing items smuggled from overseas, the main source according to police. The maximum penalty for any offence under the Act was three years imprisonment, which Mr Townsend considered to be a heavy one sufficient to deter those who might be tempted into the production or distribution of this material. The definition of a child was anyone under the age of 16, as this was the age of consent.

During the parliamentary debate the Home Office minister expressed a degree of scepticism over the need for the proposed legislation. He pointed out that under the Obscene Publications Act, the importation of ‘hardcore’ material could be seized by HM Customs, and anyone caught distributing it could receive a three year prison sentence. The minister did however acknowledge that ‘obscenity’ had a much higher threshold than ‘indecency’ and that the legality of ‘soft pornography’ involving children was somewhat unclear. However, he concluded that cases of pornography involving children where no criminal charges at all are possible were likely to be rare, and he rejected the widespread public assumption ‘that there is no law protecting children from exploitation in this way’. Finally the minister acknowledged that the power of search and seizure being proposed was much wider than that granted to the police in other legislation, and recognised that MPs would be ‘always concerned with the infringement of personal liberties and are certainly concerned about such powers from the civil liberties point of view’. The minister’s optimism over MPs concerns on individual civil liberties would not be sustained by events once the great paedophile panic moved into gear.

During the debate one MP summarised the objectives of the Bill as enabling ‘all those who had taken the photograph, reproduced it, distributed it and retailed it would become liable’ to prosecution. So no talk here of criminalising the person who purchased it. Several MPs questioned whether there was ever likely to be a public consensus on what might be considered ‘indecent’. A female Labour MP attempted a definition of indecent as’ ‘anything that is likely to impair the natural development of a child's sexuality and to impose on it a degree of precociousness or false development, (which) clearly precludes the baby on the mat or children on beaches. Indeed nudity is not necessarily sexual in context’.

Many MPs considered that the focus of this legislation should be the ending of ‘loopholes’ in the law which appeared to allow the photographing of children engaged in sexual activities. Some MPs deplored the increase in the availability of pornography during the previous decade and the rise of ‘permissiveness’, and were reassured that ‘British laws on obscenity are already more rigorous than those in nearly every other Western nation, and certainly tougher than those on the Continent.’ All the MPs who spoke supported the aims of Mr Townsend’s Bill. However, none of them advocated the criminalising of individuals possessing this material for their own personal and private use, or that the definition of ‘indecency’ should include innocent depictions of nudity.

The first major tightening of the law on ‘indecent’ images of children came with the Criminal Justice Act 1988 when the simple possession of such material became a criminal offence. In a parliamentary debate on the Bill the Home Secretary Douglas Hurd justified this measure on the ground that ‘child pornography victimises the children who are exploited by it, and I am afraid that it feeds the instincts which give rise to sexual abuse. It is already an offence to take, show or distribute indecent photographs. We are persuaded that it would be justified to criminalise simple possession in the hope of stamping out this degrading trade.’ The maximum fine for possession under the Act amounted to about £5000 in today’s money.

Predictably, the Home Secretary provided no evidence to back up his claims. There was no mention of the infringement of personal liberties which Home Office ministers had previously been concerned about, as they had now been converted from a position of scepticism over the need for this kind of legislation, to one of outright support to strengthen it. In so doing they handed to the police an enormous power to invade the private domain of citizens, considerably eroding their civil liberties as individuals. The number of people involved in production and distribution of this material is likely to have been very small, but the numbers who risked being investigated for possession could be huge, given the vague and open ended definition of ‘indecent’. The Bill included a significant number of other criminal justice measures that appeared at the time to be of much more concern to MPs. During the debate only two MPs raised this issue, voicing their support to criminalise possession, both motivated by the publicity arising from furore over numerous false sexual abuse medical diagnoses in Cleveland, before the true facts emerged in the subsequent inquiry and report.

A proposed amendment to define indecency as ‘a photograph of a child shall be deemed to be indecent for the purposes of this Act where its production appears to the court to have involved the exploitation for sexual purposes of a child’ did not make it into the Act. It might have saved a lot of trouble if it had. During the parliamentary debate a Home Office minister declared that ‘for a decade we have had a law dealing with indecent photographs, films and videos, and there is no evidence that it has caused the courts any problems… of interpretation of the word indecent. There has certainly never been any suggestion that an individual member of a family has ever been prosecuted or persecuted in any way for taking innocent snapshots of his children’. However, this hopelessly naive and simplistic outlook ignores the fact that this legislation related to production and distribution and thus would only have affected a very tiny minority, an illegal activity in which an ordinary family would be most unlikely to ever become involved in, unlike possession of a very broadly defined ‘indecent’ image.

From 1994 it became an offence to possess a so called ‘pseudo photographs’ of a child, defined as ‘an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph’. From 2001 the maximum sentence for possession of an indecent image increased from six months imprisonment to five years, and for production and distribution, to ten years. In 2003 the definition of a child was raised from 16 years to 18 years. From 2010 it became illegal to own any picture, including cartoons, depicting a child participating in sexual activities, or depictions of any sexual activity in the presence of a child. By any rational standard all of these measures are clearly either paranoid, invasive, oppressive, crackpot or draconian, or a combination of these.

This legislation charts the position of the Home Office, from one in which there was scepticism over the need to target producers and distributors, to one in which the most vindictive sentences and gross invasion of individual privacy is warranted against those who do no more than view an image deemed by the prosecuting authorities to be ‘indecent’. What is puzzling, and an indictment of our society, is that with only a few honourable exceptions, neither conservatives, nor liberals, nor those in the ‘middle ground’, nor the intelligentsia, nor the great mass of ordinary people, seem in the least bit concerned about the enormity of this invasion of individual liberty and privacy, which in practice has done absolutely nothing to protect any child from harm or exploitation. They will only wake up when they get an early morning knock on the door as did the hapless and hypocritical Patrick Rock, one time advisor to David Cameron, who discovered to his horror that the legal monstrosity he had helped create, suddenly attacked and devoured him. He forgot to remember that the authorities prosecuting sexcrimes are only interested in obtaining convictions, not justice.

Social cohesion blues

The report of the Casey review has recently been published, commissioned by the government to 'investigate integration and opportunity in isolated and deprived communities'. This is bureaucratic speak asking why, in many inner city areas of Britain, there is less social cohesion than there used to be. The report makes some interesting points but fails to get to grips with the problems it was tasked with investigating, or how the problems identified were allowed to develop in the first place.

A significant part of the report deals with the Muslim population, and for a government report some of findings are quite hard hitting. For example, references are made to 'regressive' cultural practices which have a particularly detrimental impact on Muslim women. It discovered that in one northern town all but one of Asian councillors had married a wife from Pakistan, and that 80% of babies born in Bradford of Pakistani ethnicity had at least one parent born outside the UK. Thus the report highlights the phenomenon of the creation of a first generation in every generation with second, third and subsequent generations being joined by foreign born partners, with children in each new generation growing up with a foreign born parent.

To be fair, the British politically correct establishment has never tolerated the more barbarous practices that sometimes occur within this community, such as honour killings, female genital mutilation and forced marriages. With the rise in feminism criticism of these practices has rightly become more vocal. But in the final analysis they only impact on Muslim communities themselves, and then mostly on women. If they were all abandoned it would likely make only a marginal difference in improving social cohesion with the white majority. This is because the social life of most Muslims revolves around their local mosque, whereas for most whites their socializing takes place through secular institutions and venues that, when fuelled by alcohol and with the unchaperoned mixing of the sexes, would be at variance with traditional Islamic values.

Nonetheless the report has served some purpose in identifying arranged marriages, involving spouses from the Indian sub continent, as a crucial factor in increasing the ethnic population in British towns and cities, and thus leading to a gradual breakdown in social cohesion because of the ever growing numbers. Arranged marriages have never been part of British culture and there can be no justification for allowing the opened ended importation of foreign born spouses into this country through this practice, leading as it does to long term societal damage. In many cases it is likely to be difficult distinguishing between forced and arranged marriages, many of which appear to take place between close relatives such as cousins, creating problems of inbreeding.

If the government was serious about addressing the cause of breakdown in social cohesion they would immediately prohibit the practice of arranged marriages of British citizens with foreign born spouses. Arranged marriages would not need to be prohibited, but they would need to be controlled by either confining them to between British citizens, or the couple would have to leave Britain permanently, and renounce all claims to British citizenship for themselves and any children.

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.