Wednesday, July 09, 2014

 

The Home Office won't let the Home Secretary see its own report on the paedophile fiasco

[Re-posted because of error: I had previously written, re PIE: 'male homosexuals' instead of 'homosexual paedophiles'. Silly me!

The latest Home Office scandal – and I'll come on to the passport mess; that was earlier this week – about losing files about paedophiles in government, turned to utter farce yesterday with the Home Office permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, stating that it was "not appropriate" that Teresa May or her advisers should see the full report into the Home Office's handling of paedophile allegations!
     Come again? He had shared with Mrs May only the summary and broad conclusions. Now, the Home Office is famous for the conclusions in its research reports bearing little if any relation to content. So we don't need a new investigation – certainly not one headed by the establishment creep who presided over the appalling man-hating obscenity that is the family court system -- we just need the Home Office to hand over its own report to the Home Secretary. The report must contain something important, or else why otherwise would the clown at the top of the rotten organisation be hiding it?!
     The 114 missing files (and the rest) date back to the 1990s (not just to the 1980s, when Geoffrey Dickens sent in his dossier) and therefore there will have been 'PC' considerations. The Home Office had been made the lead organisation in government for equal opps & diversity, and homosexuals are a group identified in 'identity politics' as 'disadvantaged' and 'oppressed' – and, for once, the numptie theory got it half-right: male (but not female) homosexuals really were. This is why the 'Paedophile Information Exchange' [PIE] was courted (as it was by Liberty): two-thirds of PIE were homosexual paedophiles (as revealed in a science paper investigating paedophilia, which used PIE members as its subjects). Scientific research reveals that about a third of paedophiles are homosexual. So it was not merely a case, as Norman Tebbitt has claimed, of protecting the establishment: it was a case at least in part of protecting the new establishment ethos of 'PC'-enforced 'identity politics – the new fascism.
     The Elms House scandal may be more about hebephilia than paedophilia per se (the boys involved seem to have been young teens in the main, and therefore peri- or post-pubertal, with the youngest supposedly aged 10), but either way, this is not at all akin to the despicable Yewtree witch-hunt police/media 'trawling' of celebrities to trump up or inflate supposed sexual misdemeanour to bring about bogus convictions on no evidence or to unjustifiably trash the reputations of the dead. This seems to be a real cover-up of actual abuse.
     We can expect, as ever, the Home Office to continue its perennial sole tactic of denying and yet more denying, even when it's undeniable. We saw just this at the start of this week when a front-line passport office caseworker went on record anonymously to give a detailed statement about the woeful chaos in her office. He/she would have no other choice, because to raise issue internally is to be completely ignored, and to become a 'whistle blower is to have your career terminated. She revealed that untrained staff posed a serious security issue, that there were massive un-acknowledged backlogs of passport applications filling meeting rooms (all the windows are taped up to prevent press images), and a totally failed system with demoralised staff. The Home Office response was to categorically state that these were "false allegations". As ever, totally unconvincing blanket denial instead of addressing concerns by the very people best placed to raise them.

 

The Home Office won't let the Home Secretary see its own report on the paedophile fiasco

The latest Home Office scandal – and I'll come on to the passport mess; that was earlier this week – about losing files about paedophiles in government, turned to utter farce yesterday with the Home Office permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, stating that it was "not appropriate" that Teresa May or her advisers should see the full report into the Home Office's handling of paedophile allegations!
     Come again? He had shared with Mrs May only the summary and broad conclusions. Now, the Home Office is famous for the conclusions in its research reports bearing little if any relation to content. So we don't need a new investigation – certainly not one headed by the establishment creep who presided over the appalling man-hating obscenity that is the family court system -- we just need the Home Office to hand over its own report to the Home Secretary. The report must contain something important, or else why otherwise would the clown at the top of the rotten organisation be hiding it?!
     The 114 missing files (and the rest) date back to the 1990s (not just to the 1980s, when Geoffrey Dickens sent in his dossier) and therefore there will have been 'PC' considerations. The Home Office had been made the lead organisation in government for equal opps & diversity, and homosexuals are a group identified in 'identity politics' as 'disadvantaged' and 'oppressed' – and, for once, the numptie theory got it half-right: male (but not female) homosexuals really were. This is why the 'Paedophile Information Exchange' [PIE] was courted (as it was by Liberty): two-thirds of PIE were male homosexuals (as revealed in a science paper investigating paedophilia, which used PIE members as its subjects). Scientific research reveals that about a third of paedophiles are homosexual. So it was not merely a case, as Norman Tebbitt has claimed, of protecting the establishment: it was a case at least in part of protecting the new establishment ethos of 'PC'-enforced 'identity politics – the new fascism.
     The Elms House scandal may be more about hebephilia than paedophilia per se (the boys involved seem to have been young teens in the main, and therefore peri- or post-pubertal, with the youngest supposedly aged 10), but either way, this is not at all akin to the despicable Yewtree witch-hunt police/media 'trawling' of celebrities to trump up or inflate supposed sexual misdemeanour to bring about bogus convictions on no evidence or to unjustifiably trash the reputations of the dead. This seems to be a real cover-up of actual abuse.
     We can expect, as ever, the Home Office to continue its perennial sole tactic of denying and yet more denying, even when it's undeniable. We saw just this at the start of this week when a front-line passport office caseworker went on record anonymously to give a detailed statement about the woeful chaos in her office. He/she would have no other choice, because to raise issue internally is to be completely ignored, and to become a 'whistle blower is to have your career terminated. She revealed that untrained staff posed a serious security issue, that there were massive un-acknowledged backlogs of passport applications filling meeting rooms (all the windows are taped up to prevent press images), and a totally failed system with demoralised staff. The Home Office response was to categorically state that these were "false allegations". As ever, totally unconvincing blanket denial instead of addressing concerns by the very people best placed to raise them.

Friday, July 04, 2014

 

Rolf Harris's conviction is a great fraud: a show trial of man-hating ideology

Rolf Harris has been convicted on zero evidence: merely allegation; and as usual in these cases the multiplicity of allegation is taken as corroborative when the very opposite should be the consideration in the interests of the most basic justice -- that a high-profile police-cum-media trial almost invariably attracts embellished if not invented accusations, and for a variety of often very trivial reasons (as has been researched).
     It is a travesty that anyone can be convicted on mere accusation when in principle this cannot rightfully lead to a conviction even on the civil standard of proof, let alone the criminal.
     Of course, there is the possibility that Rolf Harris did indeed grope some girls, but there is nothing anywhere in his background, nor anything anyone ever witnessed, to suggest this; quite the opposite. It is far more likely that the accusations are the result of one or more of various motives, not least attention-seeking, simple elaboration of memory over time to assuage mild protracted issues -- if not bogus 'recovered memory' -- and the obvious financial incentives.
     These are very dark days, with a hopelessly compromised judicial system that will have to be radically reformed so that we return to the assumption of innocence until proven guilt. Currently anyone making any allegation against a male where either the accuser is female and/or sex is in some way at issue is deemed a 'victim' and by inference the accused is taken to be guilty even before charged, never mind facing a trial.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

 

The ridiculous Savile hysteria continues unabated, still on no evidence

Nothing in the 'report' published today throws any light whatsoever but merely further stokes the witch-hunt against a deceased DJ and charity fund-raiser.
What the report authors identified were merely opportunities for potential abuse, and no evidence of any kind other than the mere allegations of behaviour, most of which would be fully expected to have been subsequently re-defined as abusive – 'inappropriate touching' is all down to interpretation. The three rape allegations are no less merely allegation; and, furthermore, the incidence here is a surprisingly low one given what would be anticipated from what is known about the widespread occurrence of false allegation -- conservatively 35% of all formal reports to police, on Home Office figures, and likely over (if not well over) 50% based on what police rape investigators state in surveys; and for often very trivial reasons ( see Prof Soothill's research and that of Dr McDowell).
     Nothing in this pattern of reporting would be unexpected after such a very high-profile police-cum-media 'trawl'.
     By far the more likely truth about Jimmy Savile is simply that he was a very high-profile, famous male individual whose job was to excite pop fans, and naturally this resulted in girls either throwing themselves at him or being fully open to sexual encounters. Given the wholesale lying by girls to get round the age-16 age bar re the Top of the Pops studio, then Savile is very likely to have had sex with a number of girls slightly under-age; but this would be fully expected re anyone in his position at the time, no matter how careful he had been to try to establish a girl's age. In any case, this was a technical legal infringement only, in that all of the girls were post-pubertal – so however misrepresented, it was not 'paedophilia'. With the high incidence of false allegation re sexual assault, then the outlier of the one pre-pubertal (nine-year-old) girl amongst the hundreds coming forward is the 'exception proving the rule' here.
     The witch-hunt against Savile actually is not as lurid as the idiotic 'satantic ritual abuse' nonsense that the media, police and social workers swallowed hook line and sinker two decades ago; though now we have with Savile multiple allegations from supposed male victims – when we know that Savile had absolutely zero sexual interest in males – and that he supposedly indulged in necrophilia at Broadmoor. This last is all too predictable a ludicrous development from the way that similar sex witch-hunts have progressed in the past.
     The authorities have made complete numpties of themselves in stoking the Savile debacle. It remains of course a possibility that Savile had an abusive side, but there is still no evidence of this, and the circumstantial indications are that he was simply a lucky bloke who capitalised on that luck, and that rather than causing any harm and distress added to the gaiety of the nation and put some sparkle into the lives of ordinary and less-than-ordinary individuals, and, not least, raised huge sums for worthy charities. In time, this hysteria will go the way of the hideously stupid 'satantic ritual abuse' cases, every single one of which turned out to be 100% perverse imagination.
 

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

 

A “hardline view of immigrants? Come off it.


A "hardline view of immigrants? Come off it.
NO. That's the political-class spin.
     The supposed conclusion of those behind the latest NatCen Social Research British Social Attitudes survey is false. What they found is expression of common-sense and not "anti-migrant" but anti-'political class' – a well-deserved curse on the policy-makers.
To make out that ordinary people en mass are xenophobic [sic] is to show scientific illiteracy. Research into in-grouping psychology reveals that it's all about in-group 'love', not out-group 'hate'.
     The authors of the survey point out that the better off / better educated are more pro-immigration (60% graduates v 17% of the rest). Of course they are! THEY are the more prejudiced: against ordinary people. Their natural elitist-separatism is heavily compounded by the great backlash by the political-Left (the elite) against 'the workers' for not buying the 'progressive project'. They've been educated OUT of common-sense and into a gullibility re 'PC'-nobbled stats.
     What's more, ordinary folk are right on all these topics: even when the snooties running the survey think they've got 'em trapped.
     That a quarter reckon migrants come here for benefits is a low proportion when you consider that in the UK benefits system being inextricable with the laxity re immigration and the near certainty to never being thrown out, there is a major cushion underpinning the  willingness of migrants to come here for work, let alone for 'family reunion', etc.
     When nearly a half reckon immigration leads to rising crime rates, they are simply reflecting what is known to result from both past and present inflows: the heavily disproportionate perpetration of street crime by 'blacks' and the criminal activities of Roma.
     With only just over a half even of Londoners reckoning immigration is good for the economy (it's 28% in the rest of UK), people are indicating their accurate perception of the huge strain on infrastructure and the dis-economies of scale this produces: the need to incur vast expense to build a new supra level of new infrastructure.
     And the now more than half the population who reckon to be "truly British" you need British ancestry are fully in line with all the recent research demolishing the "we're a nation of migrants" tosh. It turns out (from Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA extensive studies) that the vast majority of UK citizens can trace their descent directly back to the mesolithic (middle stone age) and paleolithic (old stone age).
     The rest of what is discovered in the new survey is even more straightforward common-sense: To be "truly British" you must speak English (95%), have lived most of your life here (77%), or have been born here (74%); legal immigrants who are not (as yet) British citizens shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as British citizens (actually, surprisingly low at 27%); EU migrants should wait three years+ for benefits (61%).
     One of the study authors stated that people were "unaware of policies to control immigration" What ... like the recently rushed-through rule that benefits (supposedly) can't be claimed until you've been here for three months? That's a weird interpretation of 'controlling' immigration. Ordinary folk aren't stupid enough to be taken in that there is in place any 'control' worthy of the term.
     Overall – not just re the economy – 47% regard immigration as negative; 31% positive. This is the most surprising stat from the whole survey: how come more than half are still hoodwinked?





Thursday, June 12, 2014

 

Home Office axing all checks re borders YET AGAIN

 
So the Gnome Orifice is at it yet again.
     It is absolutely standard at the Home Office that they have no planning to deal with huge accumulations of applications re migration – whether it's visas, passports, or whatever – and then they are left with no other course but to completely eliminate all checks: ALL checks, of any kind. Rubber-stamping all applications as valid, irrespective of how fraudulent they are.
     Of course, there is the 'watching their backs' ruse of making what they well know is the wholly empty claim that there is no threat to security or integrity of the system in doing this. They are very well practised in all this abuse: they fully know that there is no system worthy of the name in the first place re our borders.
     So it was that again they used standard weasel words: to "enable overseas applications to be processed more quickly without compromising the quality and security of either the process or the passport".
     The reason they continue, as ever, with this abomination is that the Gnome Orifice firmly believes that (1) movements across borders are in all respects not possible to control, and (2) that the political imperatives of 'identity politics' (enforced by the 'political correctness' ethos) in any case means that UK citizens are in no way privileged over any other citizen of any other nation in the world.
     It really is THAT stupid.
     To say that the Home Office is in all its facets – not the least re its pernicious impact on jurisprudence – is dysfunctional and 'not fit for purpose' is now so long a firm part of the national fabric that nothing registers any more. Just how the total wankers at the Gnome Orifice would like it.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

 

The UKIP surge: It's far worse for the same-old-crap parties than they imagine

The political commentariat still cling to what for them is the useful self-delusion that defection to UKIP is either specifically re immigration and the EU and/or a general usual protest against incumbent politicians for being out-of-touch. It is much more than this, and only the start. Ordinary people are reacting not merely to being ignored by the government-media-education uber-class, but to actively being hated by them. People understand that they are hated, but as yet they haven't realised WHY.
     Here's the 'why':
     Ordinary people in the mindset of the political-Left -- which in the guise of 'modernisation' is now the ethos of the entire establishment, not least the Lie/Con/Dem same-old-crap political parties -- are 'the workers' of old who declined to 'rise up' in the predicted and prescribed Marxist revolution. 'The workers', stereotyped as male, 'white' and heterosexual, have been inverted in political-Left imagination to the NON-male (women), the NON-'white' (ethnic-minority) and the NON-heterosexual (homosexual), to become the new abstract categories of a replacement 'deserving poor' (the disadvantaged and discriminated against) worthy of being 'liberated'.
     Through the notion of 'intersectionality' – the cross-over of these abstract categories – there is a hierarchy of those who are deemed beyond criticism and the only authorities when it comes to 'power' relations: who is downtrodden and who is privileged. To criticise women or 'blacks' or 'gays' is deemed beyond the pale by the new thought-police enforcement ideology of 'political correctness'. Top of those given this protection comes a lesbian, 'black' woman. [That joke about the disabled 'black' woman actually is spot on – disability, as with trans-sexuality being recent extensions of these categorisations; the latest being the fat.] At the very bottom, excluded from any consideration at all is the male 'white' heterosexual, who, are not only now seen as unworthy of being 'liberated', but have become in political-Left delusional extremism the 'new 'boss' class to hate as the new 'oppressors'.
     Indeed, with the rapprochement in 'modernisation; between the anyway out-dated opposite poles of the Left-Right continuum of 'the market' and 'equality of outcome', the masses (ordinary people, aka 'the workers' of old) now outdo 'the bosses' as the target of political-class contemporary and – literally – hatred.
     This is the 'identity politics' totalitarian hegemony in which well all now live, where 'identity politics' and its 'PC' enforcement completely dominates contemporary politics and informs all policy decisions.
     Of course, all this is denied. 'Far too simplistic', the political class will try to knee-jerk defend. But it is not simplistic. The history of the origin and development of these rabidly stupid political notions is very well documented.
     People in general have not woken up to any of this yet. But when they do, these initial defections to UKIP we have seen in the local authority elections this year – never mind what we are about to see with the Euro election results – will be as a firework to the volcano of what likely will then materialise.
     We live in (truly) interesting times.

Friday, May 09, 2014

 

Kirsty Wark's warped invention of 'the new battle of the sexes' on Boob2 last night

 
Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark's warped documentary 'Blurred Lines: the New Battle of the Sexes' is a renewed attempt to invent a sex war when it doesn't exist.
This documentary completely falls foul of the BBC's remit re accuracy, bias, etc.
Wark's central assertion that misogyny [sic] is a growing phenomenon neglects to point out that misogyny [sic] even as any sort of existing, let alone growing phenomenon has no basis in any scientific or other objective analysis; being an extreme ideological notion severely prejudiced against boys/men and to further over-privilege girls/women..
It's nonsense to assert as 'sexism' not to see a need for 'equal representation' of women in parliament and men re housework when there are profound reasons well understood in science disciplines why the sexes never have (and never will) behave in similar ways.
Internet trolling is not due to misogyny [sic] but a critical mass of individuals no longer putting up with fatuous extreme-feminist cant; instead seeking to provoke a manufactured 'taking offence'.
The line that men supposedly are angry/fearful of women is a failure to understand the perennial ubiquitous deep-seated prejudices of being pro-female (because the female is the limiting factor in reproduction) and anti-male (through the basis of social system in controlling male access to sex). A 'runaway' over-privileging of the female and the obverse re the male leads to no set of circumstances where even the most obvious male disadvantage and female privilege is not inverted to be misperceived as the opposite.
The assertion that there exists a "new misogyny" is the death throes of a wilfully ignorant quasi-religious ideology of extreme feminism.
This documentary programme wholly contradicts any conceivable 'public service' remit.

 

Kirsty Wark's warped invention of 'the new battle of the sexes' on Boob2 last night

 
Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark's warped documentary 'Blurred Lines: the New Battle of the Sexes' is a renewed attempt to invent a sex war when it doesn't exist.
This documentary completely falls foul of the BBC's remit re accuracy, bias, etc.
Wark's central assertion that misogyny [sic] is a growing phenomenon neglects to point out that misogyny [sic] even as any sort of existing, let alone growing phenomenon has no basis in any scientific or other objective analysis; being an extreme ideological notion severely prejudiced against boys/men and to further over-privilege girls/women..
It's nonsense to assert as 'sexism' not to see a need for 'equal representation' of women in parliament and men re housework when there are profound reasons well understood in science disciplines why the sexes never have (and never will) behave in similar ways.
Internet trolling is not due to misogyny [sic] but a critical mass of individuals no longer putting up with fatuous extreme-feminist cant; instead seeking to provoke a manufactured 'taking offence'.
The line that men supposedly are angry/fearful of women is a failure to understand the perennial ubiquitous deep-seated prejudices of being pro-female (because the female is the limiting factor in reproduction) and anti-male (through the basis of social system in controlling male access to sex). A 'runaway' over-privileging of the female and the obverse re the male leads to no set of circumstances where even the most obvious male disadvantage and female privilege is not inverted to be misperceived as the opposite.
The assertion that there exists a "new misogyny" is the death throes of a wilfully ignorant quasi-religious ideology of extreme feminism.
This documentary programme wholly contradicts any conceivable 'public service' remit.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?