The shock resignation of Justice Lowell Goddard as chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) last week, offered in a perfunctory two-line letter without explanation, followed by a statement that likewise gave little away, initially brought howls of outrage against the New Zealand-based lawyer, claiming victims would see it as a betrayal; but this was soon followed by hints that she had actually been sacked.
My guess is that she was indeed pushed, because her incompetence after 18 months in the job was becoming an unsustainable public embarrassment. She had shown herself to be confused by “local law” i.e. English law, and even fell down on the basic role of a judge during a hearing, failing to invite opposing arguments in the normal way. But there is also reason to believe she was set up to fail. So, was this an Establishment plot, as was immediately alleged by the “survivor” lobby in line with their long-standing devotion to conspiracy theory?
Not exactly. What I have in mind is a conspiracy of just one person, and if you think that is a contradiction in terms you are technically correct, although I was once the sole convicted conspirator in a case of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, so do not underestimate life’s capacity for turning up impossible things!
As for the prime and only suspect in this “plot”, or Machiavellian manoeuvring, we do not need to look far: Theresa May, now Prime Minister, was the Home Secretary responsible for installing Goddard, after the first two incumbents in the job, Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and Dame Fionna Woolf had both fallen victim to the victim lobby. Both had been seen as Establishment stooges who would guarantee a cover-up of “Westminster VIP paedophilia”, then the obsession of the moment, as celebrity paedos had been immediately post-Savile.
So why would Theresa May want to set up Goddard to fail? Same reason she has given the Three Brexiteers jobs in her government. The referendum vote meant that May, a Remain supporter, has had Brexit foisted on her government. Very well then, let those who got the country into this mess be the ones given the impossible task – as she quite likely sees it – of making it work. When they fail, they will be the ones seen to have failed rather than the Prime Minister. Smart!
The Home Secretary, as she then was, also had a pretty shrewd idea the IICSA was in deep trouble too. As with the referendum result, which she could not defy because it had majority support, she could not simply drop the IICSA either: the powerful victim lobby would have been baying for her blood and would have swept her from office before you could say “lying compo seekers” or “attention-seeking fantasists”. Instead, in a move of stunning cunning, she gave the “survivors” exactly what they wanted, in the full knowledge that far from surviving, they would soon be shipwrecked again.
There is a wealth of evidence for this. Lauded for her careful attention to detail, Theresa May would most assuredly have done due diligence on Goddard. She would have known the New Zealander was not all she was cracked up to be. Superficially she seemed well qualified. You don’t get to be a QC for nothing, she had a long record of supposedly distinguished service on top public bodies, and as a judge her nickname in her home country was God, which suggests a certain level of esteem.
What May would also have known, though, is that Goddard’s high-flying reputation was “earned” not for genuine public service but the exact opposite. As Heretic TOC pointed out when she was given the IICSA gig, a survey of New Zealand judges gave her the lowest possible rating. She was ranked 63rd out of 63! Legal commentator Vince Siemer noted that many lawyers were “extremely critical” of Goddard’s “opportunistic public stances, liberties with the truth and contrarian judgments”. On his website Kiwis First, he said she was widely seen by lawyers as a political puppet – the sort of person who would do the Establishment’s bidding in order to advance her career.
But as Siemer hints, that is precisely what May might have found attractive. She would have understood that Goddard, rather than doing the right thing – which might mean opposing the survivor lobby’s injudicious “always believe the victim” dogma and their demands for an unfeasibly huge, unfocused inquiry – could be relied upon to just go with the flow, even if that inevitably meant eventual disaster. But that wouldn’t matter because by then May would probably have moved on to some other job, such as, oh, I don’t know, Prime Minister or whatever!
Goddard even had “form” with her excuses. In her departure statement, she referred to how hard it had been for her to leave her family behind, as if she had failed to realise, when offered the job, that Britain and New Zealand are on opposite sides of the planet. This was reminiscent of the over-privileged whinging she used in order to advance her earlier career, for Siemer tells us “She was appointed to the Independent Police Conduct Authority after she complained sitting on long cases in the High Court was too stressful on her back.” He continues, “Her days on the IPCA were mired in secrecy, political manoeuvring and tardy rulings. She routinely sided with Crown immunity, suppression of information and against human rights.”
And, most pertinently, he asked:
So what did the Home Secretary mean when she assured MPs … that Goddard’s Inquiry will not be thwarted by the Official Secrets Act in an investigation which will delve into governmental department files in circumstances where there appears to be complicity by officials in the scandal? A hint might lie in comments of the ‘fixer’ Home Secretary May has appointed. “The inquiry will be long, challenging and complex,” forewarned Goddard J.
Experience tells us you can take Goddard J’s assessment to the bank. Hopefully the British prefer an exhaustive and complex inquiry to an accurate and transparent outcome.
Exhaustive and complex it is certainly set up to be. The sheer immensity of the scale has necessitated the employment of 155 inquiry staff in dedicated offices around the country, dozens of lawyers have been expensively engaged, the projected cost has ballooned to £100 million, and – get this – hundreds of new allegations are arriving each month. The most recent report I have seen puts the figure even higher: the current rate of new allegations being forwarded to the inquiry team, according to the Mail on Sunday, is running at more than 100 a day.
It now looks entirely possible that the volume of allegations could outpace even this huge inquiry’s capacity to deal with them, so the endpoint, originally targeted at 2020, could keep getting further and further into the future. So instead of just one more successor, Goddard could be followed by a whole chain of them, linking from century to century like the kings and queens of England – an absurdity one might think would be terminated by the inevitable death of the victims, and hence their inability to give testimony or be cross-examined. But you never know these days: Jimmy Savile, Lord Janner and others have been pursued beyond the grave, so don’t underestimate the ingenuity of the victims’ descendents. It could all end up like Jarndyce and Jarndyce!
Actually, forget the cross-examination. In addition to the public hearings, the inquiry has set up a “Truth Project”, enabling anyone claiming to be “victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to share their experiences with the Inquiry. Their accounts will not be tested, challenged, or contradicted.” In true Orwellian style, the inquiry will thus facilitate fantasy but call it truth!
The inquiry is supposed to be investigating a range of institutions, including local authorities, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Immigration Service, the BBC, the armed forces, schools, hospitals, children’s homes, churches, mosques and other religious organisations, charities and voluntary organisations, regulators and other public and private institutions. The inquiry’s website tells us “It will also examine allegations of child sexual abuse involving well known people, including people in the media, politics, and other aspects of public life.” It will consider historic allegations going back to 1945. Whew! Even just reading the list is exhausting, never mind investigating it.
The opening session of the IISCA, which has yet to hear any actual evidence after 18 months, involved preliminaries concerning alleged abuse within the Anglican Church. Those present heard that the Archbishops’ Council alone had handed over 7,000 “items of disclosure”. According to one press report, this would be “a mere drop in the ocean of paperwork”. Ben Emmerson QC, the Counsel to the Inquiry, warned that “There are 100,000 items in the archive, which mostly comprises individual children’s files, and some 26,000 boxes of material held in locations around the country.”
This is utter madness. What on earth is supposed to be the point? It has nothing to do with justice. The inquiry is passing new allegations to the police, but that course is always open to complainants anyway. As for institutions, rather than enabling them to learn lessons from past mistakes, probing ever deeper into their history will only reveal what is abundantly known already: the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. As Luke Gittos wrote in Spiked, the IICSA seems to be just an extremely expensive form of therapy for disturbed people – disturbed for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily past sexual abuse – who want someone to talk to and make them feel important.
That might be a valuable exercise were it not for its huge cost, not only in terms of its massive commandeering of resources but also because it is even more grievously expensive in another way. The inquiry’s work, like the black farce recently seen in the disastrous police investigations of alleged VIP paedophilia, is likely to come at the expense of innocent people. It is bad enough when the reputations of deceased individuals such as former Prime Minister Edward Heath and former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, are baselessly trashed; this dangerously undermines confidence in public life as well as causing needless distress to families and friends. And it is far worse when it wrecks the lives and careers of the living, such as the unfortunate former MP Harvey Proctor, who has called for the IICSA to be dismantled, saying the inquiry was “in thrall to every fantasist alive”.
Even the mainstream media are now beginning to take the point. As David Rose, writing in the Mail on Sunday, put it:
It is a truth that if publicity is given to allegations that a famous person once committed acts of sexual abuse, many others will pile in with similar claims. Some may be genuine, but the multi-million-pound industry run by lawyers seeking damages for abuse ‘survivors’ has established a strong financial motive for those prepared to lie. And where police, politicians, and, yes, public inquiries have made clear that their bias is towards ‘believing the victims’, there is little risk of such perjury being exposed.
Your Honour, I rest my case.
NOT JUST YOUR AVERAGE SURVEY
The plethora of investigations into “child sexual abuse” (CSA) is matched by a torrent of surveys on the subject. Here in the UK most of them seem to be published by the NSPCC in its annual report, which I swear comes out monthly.
But the latest survey, by the respected Office for National Statistics (ONS), is far more authoritative and will be worth studying carefully. So for that reason I will make no comment on the figures at present but simply say that they are being touted as “the first official estimates of their kind in the world”. They are based on asking adults to recall sexual encounters experienced during their childhood.
The ONS survey asked about all kinds of abuse, not just sexual. That is good, and there is no problem, in theory at least, with the definition of “abuse” that is used in relation to sexual encounters. The report quite properly defines abuse in terms of harm. It quotes approvingly a definition taken from a document called Working Together to Safeguard Children, which defines abuse as: “A form of maltreatment of a child. Somebody may abuse or neglect a child by inflicting harm, or by failing to act to prevent harm.” Turning specifically to sexual abuse, the survey includes “sexual assault by an adult”, which is further specified as “sexual assault by rape or penetration (including attempts)” and also “other sexual assault – this includes indecent exposure and unwanted touching/kissing of a sexual nature” [My emphasis].
Here is the problem: it seems no questions were asked about wanted or acceptable sexual contacts. Unless that possibility is spelled out, what is the respondent supposed to report? My guess is that most would feel they were meant to report any sexual contact with an adult, even if it was desired, based on the fact that below the age of consent their willing participation does not amount to legally valid consent. Thus I suspect that the figures would only be truly meaningful if accompanied by the respondent’s own personal rating of the contact, perhaps on a scale ranging from “Very negative” to “Very positive”.
[…] The plays famously staged by actor-manager Brian Rix half a century ago had them rolling in the aisles with comedy based on the embarrassment of silly characters being caught with their pants down in compromising situations. Much like that, IICSA was been caught playing a very silly game of musical chairpersons, in which a chair was snatched from under the bottoms of three successive lady judges, leaving them humiliatingly dumped on their judicial posteriors and out of the proceedings. Oh, how we laughed! See Heretic TOC’s “review” of the “show”: “The chair is dead, long live the chair!” […]
I hope the whole damned house of cards that this enquiry represents comes crashing down!
From David Aaronovitch in today’s The Times: This monster of an enquiry must end now
“‘It had become inevitable, and there was no discernible downside in resisting it.’ This was how, two years ago, Tim Loughton MP triumphantly described Theresa May’s announcement of a super-inquiry into historical child sexual abuse.
But of course there was a downside, spelt out earlier this week by Dame Lowell Goddard, the third person to be asked to chair the inquiry and the third to stand down. In her memo to the Commons home affairs select committee she wrote that ‘it is clear there is an inherent problem in the sheer scale and size of the inquiry . . . Its boundless compass, including as it does every state and non-state institution as well as relevant institutional contexts, coupled with the absence of any built-in time parameters, does not fit comfortably or practically within the single inquiry model in which it currently resides.’
Boundless compass. Sheer scale. Who knew? Well, lots of people actually. This newspaper for one advised Mrs May that the inquiry was impossible. We pointed out the plethora of existing inquiries, each of them complex and time-consuming, as well as the problem of a super-inquiry’s capacity to investigate untried allegations of sex abuse.
Mr Loughton, along with crusaders such as Zac Goldsmith, Tom Watson, Caroline Lucas and Simon Danczuk, was not interested in such scruples. ‘The tide had become irresistible’ he said. ‘Public confidence in our child protection system and the ability of public agencies to get to grips with the confusing array of abuse stories was becoming seriously undermined. The media and at least 141 MPs could not – and were not – going to let it go.’
It’s hard to recall how events, even in recent history, were governed by such strong passions. Mr Loughton and the six other MPs who demanded the super-inquiry were dubbed ‘the Magnificent Seven’ by investigative journalists on the Exaro website, and they in turn praised the website’s courage and tenacity in parliament. The ‘survivors’ of historical child abuse, they argued, needed their Hillsborough moment of catharsis. Most commentators seemed to agree. For who would not be on the side of the victims?
The McCarthyist madness that governed discussions of this issue dissipated in the face of actual evidence. Thus it was that Mrs May, then home secretary, announced that she had asked Baroness Butler-Sloss to chair it. By this point it was a commonplace accusation that the political establishment was implicated in child abuse at the highest level. Peter Saunders, the founder of NAPAC (an organisation to support adult survivors of child abuse) told the Iranian-owned Press TV station that he had received allegations of abuse ‘at the highest level of government’. He went on: ‘Some of the men in Westminster indulged in the most disgusting abuse of young children … allegedly
… When you have good reason to believe that it goes to the top of the political tree then it’s very worrying. Past prime ministers, past senior members of the British cabinet, have been mentioned as abusing children. It doesn’t get much worse than that.’ (Remarkably, given his prior assumptions, Mr Saunders continues to serve as a member of the Victims and Survivors Consultative Panel to the inquiry.)
Baroness Butler-Sloss was the sister of a former attorney-general, Sir Michael Havers, so there was a row about a possible conflict of interest and she stepped down because of a ‘widespread perception among victim and survivor groups’. Her successor, Dame Fiona Woolf, lasted six weeks before she was unseated by revelations of modest social contact with the former home secretary Leon Brittan and his wife. In February last year the New Zealander Dame Lowell (‘we do not have an establishment in my country’) took over.
In the year and a half since her appointment, the McCarthyist madness that governed discussions of this issue dissipated in the face of actual evidence. The allegations against Edward Heath, Brittan and Harvey Proctor fell in quick succession. Almost all that is left of the great ‘Westminster Paedophile Network’ are claims against the late Lord Janner – claims that the inquiry clearly cannot deal with in a way that delivers justice.
This hasn’t stopped Mr Saunders this week telling the BBC that he is worried that Dame Lowell’s candid memo might aid ‘paedophiles and their apologists’. Unfortunately he wasn’t asked what he meant by ‘apologists’. Who are these strange people?
Back in 2012, following the Jimmy Savile revelations and subsequent allegations about a VIP paedophile ring in north Wales, Mrs May set up another inquiry (the Macur Inquiry) to look into a previous inquiry (the Waterhouse Inquiry) which had concluded after three years that no such network existed. I queried what seemed to be a panicky response, and was accused, in effect, of being soft on paedophiles.
Earlier this year, with almost no publicity and after a further three years’ investigation, Lady Macur published her findings. She found ‘no evidence . . . to establish that there was a wide-ranging conspiracy involving prominent persons and others with the objective of sexual activity with children in care’. Nor had there been a cover-up.
Welsh MPs debated the report but I can find no record of the Magnificent Seven taking even a passing interest. This is not surprising. For what Lady Macur added amounts to a complete indictment of their thinking. A public inquiry could not, she said, provide a process which substantiated an individual’s complaints or ‘bring them any sense of finality’. Any such attempt would ‘risk grave injustice’.
She sees it, I see it, the chances are that you see it. But when the world goes a little crazy, some people stop thinking, don imaginary superhero costumes and start talking about things being ‘irresistible’ and ‘inevitable’ and there being ‘no downsides’. And those who refuse to stop thinking become ‘apologists’.
Dame Lowell says the inquiry should be ‘rescoped’ into one that looks at current abuse. She recognises, belatedly, that we have spent enough on this flawed process at the expense of protecting today’s children. I would go further. It’s time to wind up this mistaken, panic-induced inquiry altogether and spend no more time and money on it. By all means ask someone intelligent to look at what we can learn from the past few decades, report on it in a few months, and then focus on the business of making sure that we are better parents, teachers and guardians today.”
Thanks for this, Feinmann. Aaronovitch has considerable clout and this is worth reading. He writes:
>The McCarthyist madness that governed discussions of this issue ….
The McCarthy comparison is very apt, although it is unfortunate that not many people apart from a dwindling number of grey-beards like me will know what he is on about!
A germane article here: https://exinjuria.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/how-operation-hydrant-became-operation-hydra/
A quote from a barrister within it:
“This country is now completely fucked-up over anything to do with accusations of abuse; it’s produced a licence for the individual to get compensation and for charitable organisations to bleed people dry, all in the name of protecting children.
Everyone is afraid to criticise today’s abuse gravy train for what it is and the built-in bias of the police and CPS has provided both the perfect blunt weapon for anyone looking to take revenge against someone they don’t like and a simple way for opportunistic individuals to make some money.”
… and from the closing paragraphs:
“The total cost to the taxpayer of this extraordinary moral panic can only be guessed at; Dame Lowell Goddard was being paid around £500,000 to head an inquiry employing 155 staff and dozens of lawyers and estimated to cost £100 million if run for 5 years. The remit is huge, covering Parliament, the armed forces, the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, schools, children’s homes, the internet, etc. The question Goddard was tasked with answering was whether these institutions had adequately protected young people in their care, but if the question whether the abuse alleged ever took place cannot be asked, the primary question cannot be answered. In some police forces it is claimed that a quarter of their staff are engaged on these operations. It’s powers are similarly unrestricted, able to label someone a paedophile without evidence, trial or due process. One commentator suggested the inquiry ‘seems to have a remit to examine every instance of institutional sexual abuse of a British child anywhere in the world, dating back to 1945’. Recent estimates that it could last 20 or 30 years are simply another way of admitting that it may never end: Operation Hydrant has become Operation Hydra.
It has become hijacked by child abuse charities and campaigners which promote a scare-mongering agenda that the bulk of child abuse isn’t reported, that it goes on behind closed doors, that we are living through an epidemic of child abuse, but who can offer no evidence at all for their claims. They have dictated the selection of the inquiry chairmen and the character of the inquiry.
Far from being a forensic analysis of the extent of child abuse and the competence of institutions to tackle it, therefore, the Goddard Inquiry became a vast state-funded propaganda machine in which allegations are accepted without question or cross-examination and claimants are treated, prejudicially, as ‘survivors’. This raises the purpose of the inquiry, which can have no practical application, can never deliver justice, and seems rather to be an exercise in offering the victims a therapeutic experience and emotional closure
All of the initial allegations upon which the huge edifice of the Independent Inquiry was built have crumbled: the accused were innocent, their accusers were liars, crooks and fantasists, there were no paedophile rings, no establishment cover-ups. The only appropriate course of action now must be to end this travesty.”
Well guys, I’m the only one who is very stressed and even more tired of talking against a wall? really, I can not [physically, literally] discuss or read more stupidities.
That is what we gain arguing with imbeciles? I have to argue with a creep that supports my incarceration and destroy my only way to be happy in this world? a Jew has to argue with the genocidal anti-Semite? a White man with an anti-white murderer? it’s ridiculous.
Yes, after five hours, maybe, just maybe an idiot begins to stop clapping disgusting people like Stinson Hunter. Well, I give a damn if he ‘really’ hates me for having a bad experience or ignorance, do you think that an apologist for the murder of disabled, women, children, etc even deserve five minutes of your life? do you not feel grossed out for these disgusting people like Anti-MAPs to the point you can not even look at what they are writing or a picture of him?
Why I have to ‘argue’ with vile people who support destroy lives and convince them that sex and love with a young is not only ok but necesary? sorry, but… to hell with them, they are mass murderers and sexual abusers of innocent people, young and old, they only deserve a hard punishment not ‘arguments’!
Sorry if because my hatred and disgust I can not convince a jerk that persecuting and imprison people for consensual sex with adolescents [i.e. young adults!] is WRONG!!
You are free to convince and argue are the worst of the human species, perhaps now you get an idiot that not hate you so much, and… now what?
Seriously, if I see another jerk even with “I support pedophiles [sic] but not relationships between adults and minors” and threw me out the window. Why a person has to reach a stupid legal age and not a biological one to have a natural relationship? just a bunch of false and insincere people is they are! please get a book about biology first!!
No, the truly “stressed” are out there planning things. Trust me.
Stepping away from the spaghettification of comments, I see barrister blogger, Matthew Scott, is also suggesting Professor Jay is not a sensible choice to chair the IICSA inquiry, and for several reasons too: http://barristerblogger.com/2016/08/15/professor-jay-brave-wrong-agree-chair-child-abuse-inquiry/ A number of those commenting on Matthew’s article say Professor Jay will be well out of her depth at the inquiry.
Interestingly, the first scheduled investigation is not into an institution, but into allegations made against Lord Janner: “… there are suggestions that the Janner family may be intending to take legal action to prevent the Inquiry singling him out in this way. It certainly does not weaken their case that the investigation is now to be chaired not by a High Court Judge but by a legally unqualified Professor of Social Work.”
Incidentally, Margaret Jervis, who regularly comments on Anna Raccoon’s blog, apparently authored the Saltrese critique of the Rotherham report.
Thanks, Feinmann. The appointment of Prof. Jay was among a number of topics I was considering for my next blog but your comments and links have already covered the ground very well, thus liberating me to focus elsewhere. I find it difficult to cover all the many issues that need an airing here, so this is very welcome!
For anyone who hasn’t quite got a handle on why Alexis Jay is not well equipped to lead a large public inquiry, and who would like to know, I highly recommend the link Feinmann gives to Matthew Scott’s blog. It is extremely lucid and persuasive.
A great post here: http://herbertpurdy.com/?p=2295#more-2295 entitled Prosecution or Persecution, that emphasises the big picture by gathering together a string of prosecutions of falsely accused high-profile men for sexual offences that allegedly go back decades.
“Barbara Hewson names Sir Keir Starmer, former head of the CPS, as being a prime mover in the CPS of the focus on sexual offences, and that is true, but his successor Alison Saunders has even more ‘previous’ for this than him. These people are just the tip of an iceberg of feminist entryists, who have silently assumed power by playing the long game, infiltrating every aspect of our society; every nook and cranny, and as a result, the strict rules and proper principles of criminal justice are being relaxed, reinterpreted, and subverted in what is nothing less than a bullying witch hunt of men who are vulnerable by virtue of youth, emotional frailty, or extreme old age, by an ideologically driven elite, and that is not justice. In their long march through the institutions, these people have gamed the system, working their way up through it, ultimately gaining high public office from which they are noiselessly shaping our world to their feminist-driven oppression of men using the Sexual Offences Act 2003, created by feminist bigots in New Labour. Along with organisations like Women’s Aid, and Rape Crisis, both of whom have nakedly anti-male, feminist-driven agendas, and with whom both the police and the CPS are far too much in bed (as was the Home Office under Theresa May whose patronage ensured that these organisations enjoyed a seat at the top policy-making table). In the headlong rush to convict as many men as possible for rape, one cannot escape the stark possibility that the rules are not just being bent, they are being openly and shamelessly abandoned. This has all the hallmarks of a hijacking and subversion of our nation’s criminal justice system for ideological, one might say totalitarian, ends.”
The great masculinist fantasy that feminists have established the domination of women on men ! Some corrections:
– Top positions (in business and politics) are occupied in majority by men, precarious and low-paid jobs are staffed in majority by women, and women perform on average more free household labour than men.
– Bourgeois feminists do not defend women, but a gender-neutral capitalism, with a gender-neutral version of all possible capitalist horrors, such as bigotry, police repression, xenophobia, etc.
– Demonizing male sexuality is not in the interest of women and their sexuality; indeed, sex is a mutual affair, where both sides should feel free, and not terrorized.
– Noticing that the Renaissance witch-hunt terrorized women and their sexuality, then Victorian society completed that crushing of female sexuality, if you abide by gender-neutral anti-sex bigotry, then it becomes necessary to “finish the job” and crush male sexuality through a new witch-hunt.
The author of this site is virulently anti-feminist, anti-communist, anti-Marxist, pro-nuclear family, conservative. I won’t read his stuff.
Then, Christian, what are you complaining about?
The world must be just as you want it.
Feminism has triumphed and you will be free to celebrate it. Also, you can keep your obscure blog as a little outlet for your feelings, now actually irrelevant so far as society is concerned.
Again, let me repeat. You must be happy living in this society, because feminism is going to triumph for a thousand years, and so long as there is feminism, there can be NO HOPE FOR GIRLLOVE OR BOYLOVE!
I REPEAT: NO HOPE!
Now, go back to your obscure theorizing because it selfishly makes you feel good about yourself while it’s impact on the real world is frankly nothing. The only person who reads your blog is me and Tom O’ Carroll.
“The author of this site is virulently anti-feminist, anti-communist, anti-Marxist, pro-nuclear family, conservative. I won’t read his stuff.”
That sums up neatly the bigoted attitude of the Left. You see, most of your socialist friends ( and I mean here the soi-disant anti-establishment Left ) absolutely despise the writing on this and your blog. And refuse to read it, because it doesn’t enforce their worldview.
[TOC: Personal abuse deleted here.]
‘Demonizing male sexuality is not in the interest of women and their sexuality; indeed, sex is a mutual affair, where both sides should feel free, and not terrorized.’
for feminists, socialists and other champions of ‘equality’ (no scientific evidence that thing exists), the only free relationships that exist are those that are ‘equal’ ie same age, and in extreme cases, same sex, all others are labeled as ‘sexual aggressors’ (new ‘sexual deviants’), for them (like a racial hierarchy) the highest are the same-sex relationships between people of same age, then heterosexuals of the same age and finally the ‘evil’ of the human race: intergeneracional relationships, first among adults, then in the bottom, between adults and minors who are considered human wastes, being the worst of all the relationships between men and teenage girls who are not even human at all.
of course also conservative and masculinist jerks hate relationships between adults and young but just with the pyramid inverted at middle, but it’s like black supremacists hate Jews same the Neo-Nazis do, nothing new here.
‘The author of this site is virulently anti-feminist, anti-communist, anti-Marxist, pro-nuclear family, conservative. I will not read his stuff. ‘
If you do not read people who think differently, it just seems like you’re only posing as academic and scientific and you’re really just an narrow minded like the Nazis that seems you hate much.
By the way, without personal abuse, but politely I say that I do not even think back to read your blog because it shows that you are engrossed with you own narrative, and I say to you again that a true lover of adolescent girls never would treat them as children, no matter who cute that them appear to you.
if you want you can reply freely, i’m very polite, you see, but do not come here as if all we were ignorants or misogynist.
I am not a feminist. I am a communist and Marxist. I have nothing to do with fake “socialists” (SWP, SPEW, etc.) who denounce inter-generational love as “abuse”, same for their “socialist” policies in general, which are not socialist, but tail union bureaucracies and one wing of the bourgeoisie (cf. Brexit campaign). To me, “feminism” is not a major issue. The majority of self-styled “feminist” politicians are pretenders. Hysteria about sex is bourgeois reactionary hysteria, if someone calling herself “feminist” is hysterically anti-sex, then she is a bourgeois reactionary under a “feminist” garb.
Yes I have a lot of interesting things to read, on various subjects, by interesting and knowledgeable and learned people (some of them disagreeing with me), so I don’t loose my time reading masculinist blogs devoid of scholarly credentials (I do the same with Islamist, nationalists, Zionists, faith people,etc.).
I don’t know why you all complain about my poetry blog, with 98 followers (but none of you are in them). Jealous?
As far as I know original Marxism (not just Stalinism) abhorred homosexuality, I do not want an endless fight about that here, but as an side note is that some ago I read Marx and Engels talked about the destruction of the ‘sodomite degeneration’ and the defense of the traditional marriage with the advent of communism, it’s true or am I wrong?
– I am not a feminist. I am a communist and Marxist. I have nothing to do with fake “socialists”
Well that sounds very old, or not? ‘I am X and Y, but not THE false Y’ I could make the same argument but with fascism and racialism, ‘I am a racialist, but not a false racialist (as the NSDAP etc.) who confuse love your race with hate other races’ that is ok for me, but you would not believe me I’m not a racist, right?
– I don’t loose my time reading masculinist blogs devoid of scholarly credentials
you mean a ‘title’? I need to adjust some state standards and obtain a “title” to be valid for you? a title of auditor in Scientology is worth something to you? or it has to be something that -yours- [emphasis] approve?
– I don’t know why you all complain about my poetry blog, with 98 followers (but none of you are in them). Jealous?
Nope. I admit that in fact your blog is beutiful, but i dont like that someone censored my respectful commentary just for not personally like it! I LOVE adolescent girls, I dont need a diploma to write about that!
98 followers because you not are so much controversial like me, if you’re the “0,001%” I’m the “0.0000001% ” remember it, by the way, my old account is still subscribed to your blog? I remember that I followed you .. mmmm
“All my studies and all my professional career have been devoted to mathematics and science, so I have acquired a non-negligible ‘flair’ for detecting junk” … and, I would suggest, as a feeble brainwashed mangina who, cloistered within the bubble of academia, has also acquired a flair for obsequiously kowtowing to the insatiable beast that will always come up with more ways to imprison more men no matter what concessions are granted to them … the feminist abuse industry.
Shame on you Christian!
Being obsessed with gender issues and feminism (as do both masculinists and “radical” gender feminists, among others), or hair-splitting about different erotic age preferences (as does Efe/Hebe01), this has a name: identity politics, and it leads to nowhere.
sorry if this offends anyone or is poorly written but I have to say
You do some ‘Politics’ even, friend? you do not say anything about support for MAPs in real life, you (and the majority of pro or maps) only write in this blog (or chats) as far as I know.
I hope to say everything I think about sex and minors in real life, in public, some day, I will not lie about anything.. NOT! if I think it’s okay to have sex at 12 I will tell even at a TV camera, if I see bad some things (like all pornography or have sex with kids or adults) I will do the same, I AM NOT GOING TO LIE
Not in public, NO BEHIND IN anonymity I do not have (or am going to have ) a double life married and with children – like most of map people- or agree in private, views that I do not agree in public
I do not have a double life, if I were you, I go tomorrow to the socialist party to say what I think about these idiots, and would put openly my face (very beautiful, by the way) in my account, not behind an avatar of a attractive girl
Everything I support here is what I think in real life, I do not go anonymously to proMAP sites to support sex with children, CP and pedophilia, but then -in real life- I’ll shut up in front of antiMAP people, if I agree here about a subject, I would say such a thing before all honestly
It is not about political identity is about damn (sorry, there are nice pedo people too) pedophiles do not defend themselves in public, why should I do it? even if support pedophilia honestly, they could even kill me or break my home, why? for people who have expelled me for life of their chats and forums?
and you know I detest adults, I do not enjoy the company of ‘cute kids’, I do not have anything to be happy, I can not even dating with a girl aged 16 (who is equivalent to a +50 years old women for you) , is horrible, I do not have infantile sexuality as many paedos, I need FULL sexuality and love and I do not have a shit or a surrogate of a young girl, even the meatless meal I eat seems more real than an adult posing as an adolescent, no thanks when all of you says in public that it is ok to dating a 13years old, perhaps I would start to defend pedos, okay? identity my ass!!
Saltrese the elite firm of criminal defence lawyers who specialise in CSA allegations? I would like to read its critique of the Rotherham report and would thank you profusely if you posted the URL.
>Saltrese the elite firm of criminal defence lawyers who specialise in CSA allegations?
The very same. The report is right there on Chris Saltrese’s website, for free PDF download:
http://www.chrissaltrese.co.uk/commentary/
It’s currently the top link: “The Rotherham Report – a critical perspective”.
Or you can go straight to the report’s own URL:
http://chrissaltrese.ukmainserver.com/wp-content/uploads/commentary-rotherham.pdf
Ah, I have just noticed this was posted in response to Feinmann. The poster is not as clear on the WordPress dashboard as it is on the published Comments panel. So sorry, Feinmann, for butting in, but at least it saves you a small chore!
Hi I had a conversation with someone about consent; He is in the vir-ped persuasion and kept bringing up the ‘compliance’ factor; Which in some cases like the Catholic church, and headmasters of old holding absolute power, however, surely you can have compliance based consensual activity?
https://www.boychat.org/messages/1401489.htm
The relatively short but quite strong and persuasive counter-argument against vir-ped style “argument to compliance” can be found on this post of the “Life of a Pedophile” blog:
https://lifeofapedophile.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/the-myth-of-innate-adult-authority-over-children/
That is short but concise; I have heard the ‘compliance’ argument before; Your short link reminded me of why I rejected it before: I can only look at my own youth to know that compliance is not innate between adults and kids.
Nevertheless, Salem21, the ‘compliance factor’ is an entrenched part of the sex abuse narrative. This narrative is not meant to be logical, rational, or scientifically plausible; it’s designed to appeal to the emotions. More specifically, it appeals to a powerful human bias that doesn’t care for facts, but rather a strong need to believe in the narrative. This is why adults will readily acknowledge and complain about younger people being notorious for defying adults when it comes to anything they truly do not want to do, they will still vehemently insist that sexual activity is the one exception to this rule, the one thing youths will always cede to “adult authority” on, or to keep an adult around as a friend, no matter how much they do not want the sexual activity (and according to the narrative, they never actually do). The narrative demands that trivialities like logic, empirical observations, critical thinking, and common sense be thrown to the wind.
The trouble with the compliance argument is that it is too general and overarching. It is true that there is some tendency for children to defer to adults in many situations. But that tendency can be reduced or even eliminated in the context of particular relationships. The adult can say ‘I won’t hold it against you if you decide you don’t want to do this’ and the child’s experience of the adult’s past behaviour may quite reasonably lead the child to trust the adult on this. Indeed the quoted words may not even need to be said but can remain implicit.
Indeed…In this video its quite clear, In his body language, That the boy is not all that happy with what is unfolding: There is no nude scenes, I’ll let Tom judge whether this video is ‘safe’ to publish; Though Youtube is legal and popular
[T. O’C.: There is no legal problem but I have deleted the link anyway, which is a clip from a dreary anti-paedo propaganda fiction with no evidential value whatever. I see no point in wasting H-TOC readers’ time with it.]
Oh Ok…Had no idea it was one of those, Because of the language. Thought it was some film clip or trailer of some sort…No offence!
That’s fine, Salem, no offence taken.
All i will say is; Why listen to a language that you can’t understand, When you can mute, and listen to Metallica!
Apparently a fourth chairwoman to step up to the plate … From the BBC website: “Alexis Jay named new chairwoman of abuse inquiry. Professor Jay, 67, led the independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham which found that at least 1,400 children were subjected to sexual exploitation in the town between 1997 and 2013.”
Not a lawyer, never conducted a public inquiry. So good luck with that!
“Professor Jay, 67, led the independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham which found that at least 1,400 children were subjected to sexual exploitation in the town between 1997 and 2013.”
“The inquiry examined the evidence from a wide range of sources but there is a lack of clarity as to how the number of victims postulated was arrived at. While the inquiry report highlights multiple failures of the police and social services to investigate claims of extreme abuse, and the failure to protect children from harm and underage sexual activity, it errs in the direction of confirmation bias. The methodology used to estimate potential victims is obscure and may present a distorted picture of the nature and extent of the alleged abuse. A further puzzle has arisen subsequently with it being alleged after the report was published, that the researcher’s data was stolen. This is not stated in the inquiry report. Much of the force of the report’s findings in terms of extent and severity rests on the claims made by the researcher. Accountability therefore rests not just with the authorities but with the researcher herself both at the time of the unpublished research and subsequently – including the post-report claims of stolen data. Yet the researcher remains anonymous. Given the severity of the claims and the weight attached to them in the findings of the report, this seems unfair and unsatisfactory. It is both reasonable and justified in the public interest that her identity be made public.” http://chrissaltrese.ukmainserver.com/wp-content/uploads/commentary-rotherham.pdf.
Extremely fishy, isn’t it?
Thanks for this important info, Feinmann, and thanks by extension to the excellent solicitor Chris Saltrese for his critical commentary on Jay’s Rotherham inquiry.
Feinmann said earlier that “Professor Jay, 67, led the independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham”. I said in my reply she had never led a public inquiry. If anyone finds this puzzling I would just point out that her Rotherham inquiry proceeded by way of reading reports and case files, plus interviewing individuals and groups. There were no public hearings, so it was not a public inquiry.
Some further information about Jay’s independent inquiry; thanks to Bandini on the Anna Raccoon blog for the following:
The Inquiry was given a list of 998 children known to children’s social care or the Police. From this list, a randomised sample of 38 (19 current and 19 historic cases) was taken.
A further 28 case files were read. 22 were historic cases sampled from lists of suspected victims in police operations, 3 were current cases brought to the attention of the inquiry whilst it was underway, and 3 were historic cases of children who had been highlighted by national media. All 28 children were victims of sexual exploitation.
What is astonishing about the ‘random sample’ of 38 is that Jay found evidence of child sexual exploitation in 95% of them, and in the remaining 5% found that there had been a ‘risk’ of child sexual exploitation. It should also be noted that the definition of child sexual exploitation used by Jay covered an incredibly wide range of behaviours and offences, and relates to those under the age of 18.
One of the points raised in the report is that cases of child sexual exploitation were not being given the attention they deserved, and weren’t even logged by the police as being child sexual exploitation until many, many years later. One of the reasons for this is that they formed a tiny percentage of the cases actually being dealt with – the overwhelming majority were actually of ‘neglect’.
Thanks! All extremely dodgy again. Sounds as if Jay is the ideal choice from the POV of the “survivor” lobby and other victimhood careerists rather than real victims.
I guess all one can hope for amidst all this dystopia is that Professor Jay’s evident rank unsuitability for chair of the IICSA be flagged by the media and that she goes the same way as Goddard, thus further undermining this ridiculous and pernicious inquiry.
Incidentally Tom, I hear Turkey has effectively lowered the age of consent to 12. How eminently sensible!
>Incidentally Tom, I hear Turkey has effectively lowered the age of consent to 12. How eminently sensible!
Well, I hear Turkey has denied this after being attacked from Sweden — mainly just xenophobia, pandering to right-wing anti-Turkish, anti-Islamic, anti-immigrant sentiment, it would seem. Can’t look into the facts today as I am with a guest and off to the mountains.
Hope you had a good ramble
Yes, thanks. Just back from two great days in fells.
If the ONS definition of sexual abuse includes unwanted touching/kissing of a sexual nature and the Inquiry welcomes allegations dating back to 1945, then is it any wonder that the IICSA is being deluged with hundreds of new enquiries each month?
The iniquitous subversion of justice continues unabated with the CSA fraudster’s charter pretty much legitimised.
What next? Fraudster’s employed as UK police informants? Oh … too late; it is already happening!
‘The inquiry is supposed to be investigating a range of institutions, including local authorities, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Immigration Service, the BBC, the armed forces, schools, Hospitals, children’s homes, churches, mosques and other religious organisations, charities and voluntary organisations, regulators and other public and private institutions. The inquiry’s website tells us “It will also examine allegations of child sexual abuse involving well known people, including people in the media, politics, and other aspects of public life.” It will consider historic allegations going back to 1945. Whew! Even just reading the list is exhausting, never mind investigating it’
Leads me to hope yours truly a small-time piano teacher who viewed a few images for several years might just be deemed too much effort and best dispensed with by a caution ‘in the public interest’ (and in the interest of my vulnerable family with disabled son). *Slaps own face* stupid hope.