Thursday, 27 March 2014

The Tribe Peter Tatchell Admires So Much - Gay Agenda Revealed

 And here is some further information about the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea whom Peter Tatchell admires so much. They have their own very distinctive customs.

Small boys are taken away from their mothers at the age of six and brought up with adult men who beat them severely, frequently push sticks up their noses to force them to bleed, and compel them to practice fellatio. They are taught that women are dangerous, filthy and emasculating, and told that sexual intercourse with a woman can kill them.
When they reach puberty, they are still beaten and forcibly nose-bled, but now trained to compel others to practice fellatio. When they get older they are then allocated a wife by the tribe. Wives are always much younger than husbands and they are kept isolated in the home. The men have to go on imposing nose-bleeds on themselves each time they attempt intercourse, otherwise they believe they will die. While they have intercourse, they push mint-leaves up their noses so that they will not smell the woman. Unfortunately only a small number of boys survive this rigorous training in masculinity  - many of them die from the repeated nose-bleeds, the beatings and the lack of female care. The upshot seems to be that this tribe is a sparse one, even by the standards of Papua New Guinea, and it is on the brink of extinction.
Peter Tatchell can't work out why!

If you think they're so advanced, why don't you go and live there, Peter? Instead of trying to impose their ideas on us, go and join them. I am sure they will welcome you as one of themselves.

" The primary focus of the initiation ritual is to transform “boys” who are considered feminine persons of women houses into fierce, strong, male warriors. This process of initiation from boy to man is also known as masculinization. In actuality men are “reborn” from men and are taught many important things such as that woman are dangerous and emasculating. Strangely enough the women are placed in a situation where they are isolated by their husbands, who are much older than them. The youths are now the targeted ones who the women want to use to fulfill their sexual desires. The men however, are not concerned about falling for these women. They have been taught well about how women can be dangerous to men, especially the younger adolescent men who can even die from heterosexual intercourse.
         The isolationism they encounter not only prevent the youth from having any sexual activities with women, but also from seducing, or being seduced by married women - which would later create chaos by enemies. "
So that's what LGBTs mean by being on the right side of history!!!!

Peter Tatchell's Links to Paedophile Information Exchange - you read it here first

Peter Tatchell, whose name is synonymous with the LGBT movement in Britain, has no elected position. He calls himself the Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, which is an organization he founded and staffs by himself. He calls it a “human rights organization” but its agenda does not correspond to that of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights as issued in 1948. He is the Green Party's official spokesman on "Human rights" but he has no mandate from the public, and he constantly issues opinions on subjects in which he has no qualifications whatsoever. 

Tatchell came to England from Australia after homosexuality was already legalized and has devoted his entire career to campaigning for abolition of the age of consent. He used to do this openly, but now he has grown more cautious, and he works on a plan of gradual reduction, two years at a time. He is obsessed with the subject, and has been writing articles about it for as long as anyone can remember. His ideas are even given space on mainstream radio programmes like BBC’s Woman’s Hour. He has been featured demanding a lower age of consent in Pink News innumerable times. One of these articles in Pink News complained, “ill-informed critics unfairly accused him of opening the door to child sex abuse…”  Ill-informed?
In 1990 Tatchell founded a group called OutRage! whose aim is to abolish age-of-consent laws. When asked to justify this, he claims that he is helping young teenagers who ought not to be criminalized and prosecuted for having sexual relations with each other or somebody only a few years older than themselves. This is curious, as the law does not prosecute the under-age person in cases of juvenile sex offence. It is only the older person who may face prosecution (and even then not unless the younger partner makes a complaint. Complaint from the parents is not accepted these days.) Tatchell has never produced one single example of these supposedly oppressed teenagers whom he is trying to help. When challenged to do so, he always wiggles out. 

Tatchell’s softly, softly approach should not deceive anyone. He is a hypocrite, with close links to the Paedophile Information Exchange, a group many of whose members have now been convicted for molesting minors and distributing hard-core child pornography. We have Matthew Hopkins to thank for revealing the full extent of Tatchell’s implication in the pro-paedophilia movement. Hopkins revealed that in 1986 Tatchell contributed a chapter to a book produced by PIE. The book, entitled BOY, called for total abolition of any age of consent. It defended sex between adults and infants of any age, even within the family. Incest, promiscuity and homosexuality were all advocated from babyhood onwards. The paedos could not wait to tear the nappies off toddlers to initiate them into the “gay” lifestyle. 
Hopkins writes “The book, ‘The Betrayal Of Youth’ (BOY for short) was put together by convicted paedophile Warren Middleton (aka John Parratt), former vice-chairperson of  PIE and published in 1986, only three years after Peter Tatchell stood as the Labour Party Parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey” (in London). “In chapter after horrifying chapter members of PIE set out in detail the insane paedophile plan. The first chapter, entitled simply ‘Incest’ equates a child climbing into bed with a parent to be read a story with an 8 year old boy climbing into bed to have his genitals fondled by his mother. 
In Tatchell’s own chapter 9, entitled ‘Questioning Ages of Minority and Ages of Consent’ he asks ‘What purpose does it [the age of consent] serve other than reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era?’
The chapter just after Tatchell’s is entitled ‘Ends and Means: How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable….?’ and opens with an account of sexual activity with two 8 year old boys before describing it as ‘all very normal to a libertarian, even to some open-minded parents’.”
Many of the co-authors were not only open members of the PIE but have been convicted since then of paedophile offences. The book is out of print but there is a copy in the British Library. Matthew Hopkins has made a scan which can be accessed through his website.

In 1998, Tatchell wrote an obituary in the Independent for a man called Ian Campbell Dunn. Tatchell spoke warmly of Dunn, describing him as a hero: “IAN DUNN was a pioneer for lesbian and gay human rights, remaining a central figure in the battle for homosexual equality - in Scotland and internationally - for 30 years... In 1974, he and Derek Ogg convened the International Gay Rights Congress in Edinburgh - the first post-war conference of homosexual emancipation movements from around the world. This congress led to the formation of the International Lesbian & Gay Association (Ilga). Now a global federation of 400 gay rights groups in 60 countries, Ilga has played a pivotal role in getting gay equality.” Indeed? Tatchell did not mention that Dunn was a co-founder of PIE.  
As well as his paedophile activities, Dunn was a devoted follower of "scat" - sexual practices involving what normal people flush down the toilet. He was prosecuted by HM customs for importing pornography relating to this and paedophilia.
In The Guardian newspaper 26th June 1997, Peter Tatchell wrote a brash defence of a book on inter-generational sex entitled  ‘Dares to Speak" published by the Gay Men's Press. He called the book "courageous" and asserted that sex between adults and children as young as nine was normal and did no harm. “The positive nature of some child-adult relations is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia [which he has just done] it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful,” wrote Tatchell.

In an article of 1997, Tatchell claimed he had interviewed a boy aged 14 called Lee who demanded his right to have under-age homosexual relations. Tatchell published this article in 1997 saying that “Lee” is an assumed name and he could not reveal Lee’s true identity Nor could he reveal where he had been interviewed or show indeed any proof at all of the  existence of “Lee”.

 Lee tells how he has been actively homosexual since the age of  eight and was not harmed by prostituting himself to adults, some of whom tied him up and raped him. He then used the money to buy drugs including speed and cannabis. He regards it as desirable to go “cottaging” in changing rooms or public parks with under-age partners…Tatchell wants us to believe that kids can handle this, and there is simply no problem. Squalid beyond belief, the entire article is a plea for legalized pederasty. I suspect that “Lee” is a fantasy or possibly based on Tatchell himself. If these claims about childhood homosexual activity are true of him (as they are of about 30% of male homosexuals), it would explain a lot about his disturbed state of mind and emotional abnormality.  

Tatchell is the author of the “gay” sex education manual, "Safer Sexy - The Guide To Gay Sex Safely" (Freedom Editions, 1994). Following the behaviour he advocates, there have been soaring rates of promiscuity, venereal disease, male prostitution, and drug-abuse among homosexuals. To call this “gay” is a serious misnomer.
This lifestyle is lethal enough among white people, but even more so to our black brothers and sisters. They are even more vulnerable to AIDS than Caucasians. In South Africa and wherever else homosexuality has been legalized, epidemics of AIDS and other venereal diseases have followed. Millions have died and the health bill is reaching billions of $ every year  - dollars that other, poorer African countries just haven’t got. Tatchell cannot understand why countries with an average income of £400 per year don’t want diseases that cost a minimum of £18,000 per year in drugs to suppress and “manage” (they can’t be cured). He arrogantly goes on telling foreign countries with elected governments what to do. After all, he is unelected here  - and that has never stopped him from laying down the law. When David Kato was killed in Uganda by a young male prostitute angry at being exploited, Tatchell energetically spread the myth that Kato was the victim of “homophobia”. 
Tatchell has a record of sheer thuggish behaviour. Under the last Archbishop of Canterbury, he stormed into Westminster Abbey, shouting during a service and interrupting the sermon. Only a few months ago he disrupted a concert of music conducted by the distinguished Russian musician, Valery Gergiev, to make noisy protests against policies that the Russian Parliament has voted in. Democracy doesn’t matter to Tatchell. He thinks an 8-year-old child can make up their own mind about homosexual activity, but Russian adults are not old enough to decide… because they disagree with him. 
Tatchell gets treated with reverence by the left-wing press. He has a column in the Grauniad, and is advocating sanctions against Uganda's elected leaders. In Pink News he has the gall to say the laws they pass are invalid because they are “against gay rights” and were not on the Parliamentary agenda.   Yet when same-sex “marriage” was passed in the UK in 2013 it was not on any Parliamentary agenda, nor had it been on any party manifesto at the time of the parliamentary election. Voters here in the UK were cheated out of their right to any say in it. Did Tatchell protest? Of course not.  
Tatchell is a deeply unhappy, maladjusted person. When civil unions for homosexuals were introduced in 2004, Tatchell did not express any gratitude or appreciation. Instead, he lashed out at the government for "heterophobia" and said the new law was oppressive and unjust. To him everything is a grievance and there is no limit to his paranoia. 
If Tatchell's views were adopted, any child who was the victim of sexual abuse or rape would have to prove that they did not consent. This is hard enough for a grown woman to do, in rape cases, and many give up the attempt. How much harder would it be for a child of 13  - or 10   - or 6? This disaster is just around the corner if we let maladjusted people like Tatchell make our laws.  [2010]  [2009]
  “I'm 14, I'm gay & I want a boyfriend”, by Peter Tatchell.
Fourteen year old Lee tells Peter Tatchell about first sex, boyfriends, coming out, paedophilia, and why an age of consent of 16 won't help under-age gays like him.
Lee is 14.[writes Tatchell] He's been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. [Note the obnoxious phrase “ have sex” equating the natural with the perverted] Lee has a serious problem. He wants a steady relationship and has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdressers. But in the eyes of the law, Lee's partner is 'a paedophile' and Lee is 'a victim of child abuse'. [Wrong actually, the law makes a distinction between minors under 14 and over 14.] That's not, however, the way Lee sees it: 
"I want to have a boyfriend. It's my choice. No one's abusing me. Why should we be treated like criminals?" 
I am sitting in the kitchen of a friend's house talking with Lee. Wearing a white T-shirt and combat trousers, his sophisticated gay image makes him look older than 14. He comes across as bright, articulate, sure of himself, and mature beyond his years. It's hard to imagine anyone getting away with taking advantage of him.[Not really.]
We are discussing the new Sex Offenders Act. Lee is concerned. Under this legislation, which comes into effect next month, men over 19 who have consensual sex with guys under 18 are classified as dangerous sex criminals, on a par with the abusers of young children. After serving their sentence, they will be required to register their address with the police for a minimum of five years, and may have their identity revealed to the public.
This is a live issue for Lee because he prefers relationships with older guys. 
"I don't get on with people my own age", says Lee. "They're too immature. I like men in their 20s or early 30s. They are more experienced and serious. With them, you can get into a closer relationship than with a teenager". [So close he’s had dozens of them]
The age of consent laws don't make it easy for Lee to have a stable gay relationship. 
 "Some men run a mile when they discover how old I am", he moans. "They're worried about getting done by the law". 
Even without the Sex Offenders Act, any man who has sex with Lee could face a maximum sentence of 10 years for kissing, touching, sucking or wanking, and life imprisonment for anal sex. The top penalty for the offence of "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a 14 year old girl is, in contrast, two years!
Having a relationship with someone his own age would, paradoxically, put Lee in greater legal danger than sex with an older person. The law says that a homosexual act with a male under 16 is a serious crime, even if the person committing the act is himself below the age of 16. So, by having anal sex with another 14 year old boy, Lee would be guilty of a major offence which can, at least in theory, be punished by jail for life. [Tatchell has no legal training and does not know what he is talking about]
"The law is stupid", according to Lee. "If I know what I'm doing and I'm not harming anyone else, I should be allowed to have sex with who I want". 
Lee is just one of a growing number of lesbians and gays who are coming out at an ever earlier age ... twelve, thirteen and fourteen is not uncommon nowadays. 
Yet most gay campaign groups seem only interested in the human rights of the over-16s. 
"There's nothing much for young gays like me", says Lee. "Nobody cares about our rights". 
Lee first realised he was gay at the age of eight. Well, he didn't call himself gay. He 
just had sex with boys or, to begin with, one particular boy. 
"My first gay sex was with a friend from school called John. I was eight and half. He was the same age. We used to go swimming together. It all started at the local swimming pool. One day we were in the cubicles getting changed and somehow we started kissing. Then we had oral sex".
How did you know what to do? 
"Oh, I saw it on TV", quips Lee. You did? "They were talking about men having oral sex, so that's where I got the idea from".
Weren't you nervous about being caught? 
"No. It just happened. I didn't think it might be wrong or that we could get into trouble". 
How did you feel about your first gay experience? Lee beams with evident fond memories and confides: 
"I liked it a lot. It was great. But I did think sex with a boy was sort of strange. Until that time with John, I didn't have much idea about sex. It was mostly from the papers and television. I thought that men only had sex with women. For a while it left me feeling a bit weird and confused". [Not that he is confused of course.]
He pauses for a moment, then adds emphatically: "I soon got over it". 
Lee continued having regular sex with John for two years. 
"We were boyfriends", he boasts proudly. "I don't have any regrets at all". 
The relationship with John did not, however, stop Lee from experimenting with heterosexuality. 
"I had sex with John's twin sister. He found out and got very angry. He stormed out. For a while we weren't speaking. We made up afterwards". 
Did you enjoy straight sex? "Yeah", says Lee, "but sex with John was better".
So when did Lee start thinking of himself as being gay? "It was a few months later, after I turned nine. I was watching a TV debate about gays. It made me realise that I was gay, and that it wasn't wrong. Since then, I've never had a problem about my sexuality". 
Lee's next big love affair [by your standards perhaps] happened when he was ten. 
"It was with a black kid who lived on my road, Michael. He was the same age. My friends introduced him. One day, we were in his bedroom playing on his computer and we started messing around. It ended up with sex. Other times, we had a game called 'kick the cancan', which involved kicking a can around. The can would often end up in the bushes, and we'd run there to look for it. Sometimes Michael and me would have sex there". 
Around this time, Lee first came out to his mom. 
"She was good about it. Her first reaction was that I was a bit too young to be gay. She told me to leave it a couple of years. Then, if I still wanted to be gay, she said she'd accept it. I left it a few weeks, before telling her again. She realised I was serious, and respected my feelings and wishes. Ever since, she's been really understanding". [You have so much to teach older people Lee. It’s their experience that is the obstacle to understanding.]
At the age of 11, Lee had a relationship with a 14 year old named Andrew. [Doubtless also fictional]
"Because of family difficulties,[er…what’s a family?] I ended up in a children's home. They sent me to an education centre. That's where I met Andrew. We used to hang around together and became really close friends. After a while he told me that he was on the rent scene. I asked him if he wanted a boyfriend and he said yeah. So we started going out with each other. That was when I first had anal sex and learned about condoms. Andrew pulled out a packet and went on about stopping HIV and AIDS. I shagged him and he shagged me. It bought tears to my eyes. It was painful, but I liked it as well. I enjoyed it more than sex with a girl. I got more of a sexual sensation". 
For about 18 months, Lee joined Andrew doing sex for money, picking up men in the local gardens and bus station. 
"It was mostly me just wanking them off. I stopped about a year and half ago. When I was doing it, I felt sick. I didn't enjoy it. I was only doing it for the money to buy drugs - mostly speed, acid and cannabis. I also had a few bad experiences with punters. Once Andrew and I were tied up and raped". [That’s fine then]
In the children's home, Lee got taunted and bullied for being gay. 
"They called me queer and it ended up in fights. The staff didn't do anything to protect me, so I started running away". 
Lee is clearly very angry that no one took action to stop the bullying: 
"When I was being beaten up, the authorities did nothing. Now I'm gay and want to have sex, they're suddenly very concerned about my welfare". [NB He brings no evidence to prove any such bullying really took place]
When you ran away from the children's home, where did you go? 
"I used to stay with this paedophile that I met in the gardens. He was okay. There was no pressure for me to have sex, but I did. I had sex with him because I wanted to feel loved and respected". 
What do you think of that man now? 
"Well, he didn't beat me up or hurt me like was happening in the children's home". 
And what do you think about paedophiles in general? 
"It depends on what kind of paedophiles", says Lee. "Those who have sex with little kids should be strung up by the bollocks. The paedophiles I knew always asked me if I wanted sex. They didn't pressure me. If you consent to having sex with a paedophile, it's fine. If you don't, it's not". 
How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent? Lee admits: 
“The really young ones can't. But I was 12 when I first had sex with an adult man. I knew what was happening. The other boys I know who had sex with men were in their early teens. They understood what they were doing". [Did they?]
Perhaps your friends were particularly mature for their age. Most young people are not so sophisticated about sex. 
"They shouldn't have sex then", according to Lee. "And other people shouldn't take advantage of them. No one should be having sex with a child who is very young or who has emotional and mental problems. You could have a relationship with them, but not sex - not until they are old enough to understand the responsibilities involved". 
Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily manipulated and exploited. It's a concern that Lee acknowledges: 
"Yeah, that can happen. It's wrong. But that doesn't mean that every kid who has sex with a man is being abused". 
At what age do you think people should to be allowed, by law, to have sex? 
"Sixteen is too high", says Lee. "Most kids I know had sex long before then. It's stupid for the law to brand us as criminals". 
Do you worry about being arrested for under-age sex?
"Sometimes. I mostly worry for the older guys [note the plural] that I'm having sex with. They could get life imprisonment and be denounced as a paedophile. They might end up on the sex offenders register. It could ruin their life". [Unlike AIDS of course which would make their day.]
What do you think the age of consent should be? 
"About 14". 
"That's the age a lot of young people start having sex. If they are not forcing or hurting other kids they shouldn't have the threat of a policeman knocking on their door. The current of age of 16 (or 18 for gays) means that those who are younger don't get proper sex education. My sex education at school was useless. The law makes it difficult for teachers to give out stuff about contraception, safer sex and AIDS. If the age was lower, the facts about sex could be taught sooner. It's stupid giving kids this information after they've started sex. That's too late. 
They need to know the facts about sex [what the hell does he mean by the facts? One dreads to think] from around the age of 10".
I point out to Lee that an age of consent of 14 would not have been much help to him, since he was having sex from the age of eight. Even with consent at 14, most of his past sexual relationships would have remained illegal. 
"Young people under 14 should be allowed to have sex with someone up to a year or so older", he suggests. "That way they've got freedom, and are protected against exploitation by older men". 
Even with a permitted one year age differential, Lee's affair with Andrew, who was three years older, would not have been legal. Something a bit more flexible is required. 
The idea of a sliding-scale age of consent is something that OutRage! is promoting. In addition to supporting an age of consent of 14 for everyone (gay and straight), OutRage! argues that sex involving young people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages.
When I put this idea to Lee, he nods with approval: 
"Some young people mature earlier than others. They should be able to have a relationship with someone a bit older. Society should accept that kids have sexual feelings". 
This is the nub of the problem. Our current legal system refuses to acknowledge that young people have a sexuality. The law says a person under 16 is incapable of giving their consent to a sexual act. Any sex with such a person is automatically deemed "indecent assault". Lee thinks that is "ridiculous": 
"I'm only 14 but I know what I'm doing. I understand what consent involves. So does the person I'm having sex with. No one is indecently assaulting me. That's a stupid suggestion. The law should stop treating young people like idiots." 
Many people fear that making sex easier for under-age teenagers will expose them to dangers like HIV. Isn't that a legitimate worry? "I know about safer sex", protests Lee. "I didn't get that information from school. It came from TV and boyfriends. Some of them had HIV and died. I'm okay because we did safer sex. [In fact the rate of HIV among young homosexual males is rising and condoms have not solved the problem.]  People say that older guys will take advantage of teenagers like me, but my partners made sure we took precautions - even the paedophiles. If people want to protect kids against AIDS, they should support better sex education lessons, starting in primary school. Education is the best prevention. But it isn't happening in most schools. Why doesn't someone make a fuss about that?" 
Lee thinks it's time the law-makers listened to young people: 
"They are always trying to tell us how to live our lives. Why don't they treat us with respect? We've got opinions. We deserve to be heard. When a kid gets sexually abused, the social workers listen to what he says and back up his complaint. But when a kid wants to have a gay relationship, his wishes get ignored. That's what is happening to me. I'm under a care order which states that my feelings have to be taken into account. But society won't accept my feelings. It says I'm forbidden to have sex with a man until I'm 18. A perfect relationship is what I want. It would make me very happy. So why is the law trying to stop me?" 
All names have been changed to protect the identities of the boys involved.[How convenient, so none of it can be checked.]”>ƫtan_Dugas

Stupid Westgate Plans Oxford Does Not Need

The City Council's grandiose schemes for re-developing the Westgate Centre have been passed, and they make as little sense as most of the schemes of the Labour Council (or the Conservative County Council). For a start the central library will be reduced in size and archives moved to Cowley.
Montage of Westgate plans and current view

We are in the middle of a severe recession and many working people have as little as £10 per month "disposable income" - i.e. spending money they can allocate on impulse to whatever takes their fancy. Most people are worrying about the rising price of food, heating and petrol, and the last thing they want to do is swan around department stores waving a credit card and buying designer clothes.
The students in Oxford are all debt-laden and surviving on a pittance. OK, they have got mobile phones and i-pads, but don't let that disguise the fact that they have huge loans and overdrafts, and that's before they even start to worry about getting on the housing ladder.
The Westgate Centre is only forty years old and the best thing to do with it would be to grow ivy all over it and then forget it. But the Labour City Council is obsessed with trying to create a mega-sized shopping centre in the middle of Oxford, to overshadow the University, which it hates and despises. The new building will dominate the skyline and ruin the view of Oxford's famous dreaming spires. Because of these schemes, which have crawled on for decades, the Westgate lay empty and unused for several years. We had no shops there at all for several Christmases in succession.  It was an empty shell. Now it is finally up and running, they just can't leave it alone.
The scheme, which will be financed by a group of investors, will cost £500 million and will mean disruption and obstruction in the city centre for three more years. I bet most of the labour will be done by migrant workers.
Shame on Oxford City Council for its stupidity. Why doesn't it do something about the appalling congestion people face now when just trying to travel in and out of the town? Between 4pm and 10pm on a bus or in a car it can take half an hour just to go the length of the High Street.
Because of the Labour Council's perverse refusal to let the Bodleian Library build much-needed storage space here within the town, books have to be transported by van twice per day in between Oxford and Swindon. What an idiotic state of affairs. They cannot understand that a library also creates jobs and that reading and studying are pursuits as valid as shopping.

Sunday, 23 March 2014

I call for "Ben's Law". Stop the abuse of teenagers NOW.

 A teenage boy has killed himself after the traumatic experience of being groomed and seduced by a homosexual TV comedian whose identity has not been released.
Benjamin Cowburn, a student at the Fashion Retail Academy in London, was only 17 when the older man saw him with a group of his friends at a pub. The unnamed man, an open homosexual, was very friendly to Ben and showered him with expensive gifts, including designer clothes and bags. Then he used this to "make a move on him" in the back of a cab. He also invited him to ritzy "gay" parties where older men plied him with drink, cocaine and ecstasy, and performed sexual acts on him. At one he was stripped in front of a group of men who began to fondle him until one of them intervened. After one party, Ben had no way of getting home and so spent the night there. After he had gone to bed his "friend" crawled in with him and took advantage. 

One of the treats Mr X promised Ben was that he would take him to the Edinburgh Festival, where he was performing. The invitation was suddenly cancelled. Ben told all this to his parents and to his twin sister Sophia.  He confided to his elder sister Laura that he thought he had been groomed and raped. She testified about this to the inquest which took place last week.
Ben's family and friends noticed a change in Ben's behaviour. He had been doing well at college and was considered a star student, yet he now had sudden outbursts of anger and within days of returning to college for his second year he tried repeatedly to kill himself. He attempted to throw himself off a multi-storey car-park or in front of traffic on the A30. He also threatened to lie across a railway track.

Ben Cowburn

       Ben was then sent to a mental unit, Longreach Hospital near Redruth. He told nurses there that as a result of the relationship, he "felt dirty, used, belittled and humiliated." He told others that he felt he had been "taken advantage of" even raped. He made it clear to many nurses that the effect of the relationship on him had been traumatic, and disturbing, both emotionally and physically.
      Despite the treatment in the unit, Ben continued to try to kill himself, and on December 20th he finally succeeded, with a drugs overdose. This is a tragedy. Yet police can do nothing about it because his behaviour when groomed was said to be "consensual". The situation arises because of the vile and wrong law passed under the Blair government reducing the age of consent for homosexual activity to 16 and thus exposing immature teenage boys to exploitation. They are vulnerable because they are not sexually or emotionally mature at that age. Their masculine identity has not had time to develop. This law should be repealed. Whoever the man is who callously exploited Benjamin Cowburn, (and it sounds as if he is leading the same sort of life as fat old "gay" icon Paul Flowers) what he did was criminal sexual abuse. 
  It is not normal, it is not natural and it is not morally acceptable. 
 Apparently Mr X was featured in 2010 in a "gay" magazine. The police know his identity but cannot name him for fear of libel and harassment charges.
     I call for a change in the law to protect boys like Ben. His manhood was stolen. His sanity was stolen. His life was stolen. We should restore the age of consent for this sort of thing to at least 18 (preferably 21) and we should call the new law BEN'S LAW.
13th April 2014
And now the homosexual who abused Ben is threatening the family despite his own identity being concealed.

Budget Does Nothing for England

Predictably the Coalition Budget does nothing at all for England...apart from sneakily undermining yet more of our erstwhile freedoms. 
      Osborne has made not the feeblest gesture to rectify the glaring injustice of the Barnett Formula, whereby English tax-payers have to subsidize the residents of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. He has not attempted to remedy the shocking inequity of university tuition fees reaching £9,000 per year in England...but being free in Scotland. He has done nothing to address the grievance that English people have to pay for medicines, while Scottish people get them free, and there are dozens of new life-saving drugs that are only available on the NHS in Scotland, not to the English people who are paying for them.
      In short, Osborne's budget was bullshit. What has it done? Made the pointless gesture of offering those who get private pensions the option of pocketing their entire "pot" at one go. But what if they then invest it badly and go broke? Or spend it all and end up claiming credits from social security? And what if the pension provider is unable to find the lump sum, and would rather continue to pay out annually as originally agreed?
      Most worrying of all, the budget smuggled in a devious little clause that gives the HMRC hitherto unprecedented powers to extract funds directly from the bank account of a British citizen. If they decide that you owe it, they are now just going to deduct it, treating us all as criminals. That is a significant loss of freedom. If in the past a citizen refused to pay, he or she was entitled to a court hearing and would in the end be treated as a criminal  - but a bank account was the property of the depositor. Now, without any mandate from the voters, without any announcement at the last General Election and without any explanation of why it is necessary. ‘“The Government will modernise and strengthen HMRC’s debt collection powers to recover financial assets from the bank accounts of debtors who owe over £1,000 of tax.

Modernise? No just grab more power like a dictatorship.

Quick Reply

Thursday, 20 March 2014

David Laws Reveals his Ignorance

David Laws, Lib Dem, is sounding his mouth off and talking rubbish. He has announced sagely that local councils should charge people for rubbish collection  - apparently unaware that this is exactly what local councils already do. DUH....

Senior Liberal Democrats will this week sharpen their calls for new wealth taxes, demanding the Coalition goes

    The Council Tax is raised to cover local essential services Mr Laws, and a percentage of it is spent on waste collection and recycling. Not only do we pay to have our household rubbish removed, we also have to pay extra to get our garden rubbish taken away  - unless you are on council tax benefit or Housing benefit, in which case you get it free in Labour-controlled Oxford, which puts up the price that other people have to pay.
    David Laws, who likes to pass for a financial whizz-kid, is just spouting the most amazingly ignorant rubbish. Stick to talking about what you know, Mr Laws  - give us all some advice on how to make fraudulent expenses claims! Let's face it, Laws, who is now Minister for Education, should be in gaol. That is what happens to other people who are found carrying out frauds and making false claims for benefits or expenses. The greedy, crafty multi-millionaire wrongly claimed tens of thousands of pounds in accommodation allowance while living all the time with his partner. Was he prosecuted ? No. Was he flung out of his party? No they're all the same as him. At the very least he should be sacked from his job as an MP. Why not?
 He was just sent to the back benches for a year and now he is minister for Education. I really call that being downtrodden, oppressed and a member of a victimized minority don't you? It is one law for us and another one for them.
On 18th December 2013 David Laws voted against a Commons motion for an investigation into hunger and poverty in this country. He scribbled a memo to his office assistant, "What's poverty? What's hunger?"
      David Laws is thick, he is ignorant and he has been revealed to be dishonest. He deserves to be consigned to a bin and taken out with the rubbish himself   -  pronto.

Monday, 17 March 2014

Congratulations to the people of Crimea on voting for their Future

Funny thing, the Scottish people seem to have a right to vote on their own future and their independence  - yet when the people in Crimea do so, there is an international outcry.

Why would the largely Russian Crimea want to be ruled by Ukrainian nationalists anyway? Clearly they don't. While there were all sorts of issues relating to Yanukovich and his government, it was the elected government and it was overthrown by violent means, with a great deal of overbearing interference from the EU and the USA. 
 The Crimea has long been very grateful to Russia for liberating it from centuries of domination by the ruthless, crushing force of the Ottoman Empire. It happened under Catherine the Great. That gratitude has outlasted and outweighed any negative feelings they might have about Russia in the Soviet era.
In the nineteenth century we made the stupid mistake of going to war with Russia over the Crimea and we were certainly on the wrong side. Now we should keep out entirely. 
     If Scotland is entitled to a referendum and to independence from England, then the Crimea is entitled to a Referendum and the choice of becoming re-united with Russia. Good luck to it. I say England deserves the same right. I notice the Russians can organize a referendum in two weeks, but here in England it takes five years  - or in the case of an EU referendum, n years since the date never gets any closer.
      I have a friend who lives and works in Kharkiv, and like so many people in the Ukraine she identifies as Russian. She has not seen or heard any sign of the so-called violence and unrest reported by American news media, and she says bluntly that she regards the presence of Russian troops in the Crimea as reassuring. They are in her eyes a peace-keeping force. As for the threats of war spreading, the land boundary between the Crimean peninsula and Ukraine is so narrow it could be defended by one Russian platoon with a dozen tanks. Crimea has never been geographically a true part of the Ukraine. 

To the Editor of the Financial Times
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:19 AM
Subject: Crimea and democracy

Sir,Your  headline today "Crimea poll leaves Russia isolated” shows  extraordinary  ignorance   of the  facts on the ground and the history of Crimea. Yes, a democratic referendum with observers from 130 countries would leave a democratic Russia supported by 97% of voters ”isolated" in the increasingly anti democratic West - but not elsewhere in the world.

Russia has not "occupied" Crimea, it is there (on land which for over 150 years was part of Russia) under international treaty and is entitled under that treaty to far more troops  (25,000)   than  it has. And nobody asked the people of Crimea if they wanted to be transferred from the Russian Federation within the USSR to Ukraine  in the first place.

A democratically  elected President in Kiev (the religious and cultural origin of  Russians)  was violently deposed and an international agreement to  hold new elections was overturned  - and with the connivance of the EU which has never yet tolerated a sovereign democratic nation within its domaine! 

Rodney Atkinson Alderley
Meadowfield Road, Stocksfield

To the editor of The Telegraph

Dear Sir,

So the United States declares it will never recognize the return of the Crimea to Russia?  In that case, perhaps Russia will consider refusing ever to recognize the United States’s aggressive conquests of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, nor the genocidal occupation of Indian territories in the Great Plains.  The Crimean decision has been arrived at peacefully, through the ballot box.  The American approach was rather different.  As General Sherman wrote to Grant in 1866: ‘We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men women and children’.

Yours faithfully,

Nikolai Tolstoy

Scottish Wind-farms Waste £ BILLIONS While England Pays the Price

So long as England has to go on subsidizing Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist government can go on squandering money on all its barmy, unproductive, unprofitable and trendy-sounding schemes. It is spending a scandalous amount of taxpayers' money on windfarms that do NOT solve the growing problem of our energy gap, and we in England have to subsidize their extravagance.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: We reveal the true cost of the Scottish Government’s turbine obsession.
The true cost of First Minister Alex Salmond’s obsession with wind farms can today be revealed by a special Sunday Post investigation.
New figures show operators in Scotland have been awarded £1.8 billion in Government subsidies to build turbines since the SNP took office in 2007.
A further £80 million has been spent paying energy giants to switch them off again in a bid to stop them producing too much electricity.
It means a staggering £800,000 a day has been paid out of the public purse, with the costs recouped by being added to fuel bills, leaving the average household £69 worse off per year.
Now there is concern at the size of the subsidies being siphoned off for renewable energy at a time when almost one million people in Scotland are living in fuel poverty.
Murdo Fraser MSP, convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, accused the Scottish Government of having “an obsession” with turbines.
He said: “My view is we should have a balanced energy portfolio, and wind should be in that mix. Yet what we are seeing is wind farms being developed at a breakneck speed at the expense of all other sources.
“And with such generous subsidies being lavished upon operators, landowners and farmers, it’s little wonder they all want to get in on the act.
“But the fact is wind is an expensive form of energy that we are all paying for in electricity bills, with a direct link to the fact 40% of people are living in fuel poverty.”
Promotion of green energy, particularly onshore and offshore wind farms, has been one of the SNP’s key policies since 2007. The Scottish Government’s target is to generate the equivalent of 100% of electricity consumption, and 11% of heat demand, from renewables by 2020.
In recent years ministers have invested heavily in the sector, insisting Scotland has a quarter of all of Europe’s wind energy potential.
But wind power is becoming increasingly unpopular among the general public, with giant turbines now scattered across the countryside.
There are 219 operational wind farms in Scotland, with at least 2,400 turbines. Moray has the most sites at 20, but Orkney has the most turbines, with 600 across the archipelago, although the majority are owned by farmers and other individuals. Scotland’s largest wind farm, Whitelee, on Eaglesham moor outside Glasgow, alone has 215 giant turbines up to 110 metres high.
Most wind farms in Scotland were approved or built after the SNP took office.
We can reveal £1.8 billion has been paid to operators since May 2007 in the form of a subsidy known as the Renewable Obligation. Introduced by the UK Labour Government to encourage investment in renewables, the money is recouped via a supplement added to all domestic and commercial electricity bills.
According to the Renewable Energy Foundation the levy adds almost £69 to the average household’s cost of living, with £33 of that in electricity charges alone.
The annual subsidy in Scotland stands at £434 million, with experts speculating that figure could top £1 billion by the end of the decade.
More than £2 million in public money has been spent by Scottish Enterprise on infrastructure for six projects since 2007, with a further £6.34 million allocated to a forthcoming offshore wind turbine testing site in Ayrshire.
Our investigation has also established that the National Grid has paid out almost £80 million to wind farm operators in Scotland since 2010 to shut down their turbines and keep them idle.
Known as constraint payments, and again added to household bills, the cash is paid when the grid is unable to cope with the extra power produced during high winds or periods of low demand.
Linda Holt, of campaign group Scotland Against Spin, said: “We need an investigation into the costs and so-called benefits of wind farms.
“What we have is the sales talk from operators about how great they are, how green they are and how efficient they are. But is that really the case?
“We don’t have a sensible energy policy in Scotland and there seems to be unlimited ambition for wind farms here at a time when the National Grid already cannot cope, and other countries across Europe are pulling back from turbine construction.”
Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, said he was “concerned” at the growing number of payouts.
He said: “Some wind farms in Scotland have been asking for constraint payments well in excess of lost income, which has meant they are able to earn more from not generating than from selling electricity.
The construction of new wind farms shows no sign of slowing down with a number of major projects having been given the go-ahead, many of them controversial.
In East Ayrshire, one power firm wants to build 50 turbines, each 150 metres high, in the South Kyle Forest, while another has plans for 19 130m tall turbines in nearby Dalmellington.
A spokesman said: “Scotland already provides over a third of the UK’s renewable electricity generation  [but that is tiny! most comes from non-renewables], and with a tightening gap between electricity capacity and demand, the rest of the UK will continue to rely on Scotland’s renewable energy resources to keep the lights on, meet its targets and maintain energy security.”
But prominent anti-wind farm campaigner Lyndsay Ward yesterday insisted people in Scotland had become “collateral damage” in the quest to build turbines.
She said: “It’s clear that people are suffering as a direct result of wind farms.
“They can’t sleep at night because of the noise, they can’t sell their homes when they are too close to turbines and their views of the countryside have been destroyed.
“Yet the Government continues to allow these giant monstrosities to be built near our homes. People in Scotland are now just collateral damage. Our communities are under siege.”

Injustice to England INCREASED by higher health charges

And the government is considering making people in England pay to visit their GP.  Fight back  - VOTE ENGLISH DEMOCRAT.

British government increases English prescription charges (but Scots get it free)

UK Prescription Charges 2007-2014 TableThe British Minister for English Health has announced that prescription charges will go up again on April Fool’s Day this year from £7.85 to £8.05 per item and NHS dental costs will go up by up to £5.
But only in England.
Prescriptions are free in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland thanks to the lavish subsidies the British government gives then out of English taxes. These same subsidies have allowed the rest of the UK to variously abolish hospital parking charges, abolish means testing for social care, freeze council tax, reduce or abolish university tuition fees and much more whilst we in England continue to pay more and more every year.
Just one of the reasons why we need an English Parliament.
UK Prescription Charges 2007-2014

Thanks to Wonko's World for this cogent summary.

Saturday, 15 March 2014

Bob and Benn - Goodbye Old Labour

Two implacable political foes died this week. Bob Crow, leader of the Transport Union RMT, and Tony Benn, alias Anthony Wedgewood Benn, Lord something or other, former Labour minister for Energy and many other things, and incarnation of the "looney left".
They were implacable foes because the Unions, although they vote for the Labour party, were just as ruthless in fighting the decisions of elected Labour governments as Tory. Their strikes in the time of Callaghan made a Conservative government inevitable. That huge battle between unions and elected government led to the anti-Union legislation carried out by the Tories, for which Labour is profoundly grateful, because its leaders know that it is the only thing that made Britain governable during the Blair era.

They were very different men from very different social backgrounds. But they had one thing in common  - both of them were strong, and consistent, opponents of EU membership. Bob Crow campaigned to leave because he knew that the long-term effect of EU policies would be to create a pool of cheap, non-unionized workers undercutting rates and working without fringe benefits. He was not racist  - he was just trying to defend the interest of his union members.  Some of them may be very well paid, but there are plenty of people in England who are NOT well-paid and who ARE feeling the impact of having their wages undercut.

Tony Benn always spoke out boldly and intelligently against British membership of the European Union, and he did so because he realized that it was just a huge money-sucking swindle. 
I will never forget him saying, "Always ask the people who rule you  - by what right do you presume to govern us? What is your agenda? How much are you costing us? And how can we get rid of you?" AMEN.
   That is what we should all be saying to Barroso and Angela Merkel, and all the EU commissioners.

DRAMA QUEEN Richard Kennedy Admits He was Lying


Drama student Richard Kennedy, 18, said he was savagely beaten by homophobic thugs in Preston, Lancashire

18-year-old Richard Kennedy a “gay” theatre student who claimed he was beaten by homophobic thugs now admits he got his injuries when he fell over - yet he and WON’T face action for wasting police time. Why not? 
Kennedy was badly injured after leaving Evoque, a Preston nightclub at 3.30am on 26th FebruaryHis teeth were dislodged, his face was swollen and he had a knee injury.
The student from Blackpool told police he was set upon by homophobes. He repeated this claim on Facebook and the post was shared by 182,000 gullible people. Police launched an appeal and called for witnesses. Then they found CCTV footage showing Kennedy simply falling over ... by himself. Nobody had attacked him. He was so drunk (or maybe high) that he just tripped on the pavement...
Richard photographs on Facebook of his battered and bleeding face, dislodged teeth, and gaping knee wound, with the caption ‘An example [of] why homophobia is wrong and it’s disgusting that it’s still around in 2014′.  And he told Preston police he had been “savagely beaten”. 
But today Richard, who studies Contemporary Theatre and Performance at the University of Central Lancashire, admitted he made it all up. 
After being shown CCTV of him tripping and falling, face-first, onto the pavement, Kennedy accepted that the ‘utterly inhumane homophobic attack’ he had talked about actually never happened.
This afternoon Lancashire Police said Kennedy will not face any action for wasting police time as they were convinced he actually believed he had been assaulted when he spoke to police.
Detective Inspector Paddy O’Neill said: ‘We managed to recover some CCTV footage which shows the injured party falling face-first onto the pavement. We have showed him the CCTV and he now accepts his injuries were caused during the fall.
‘Having had oversight of the investigation… I accept his report was made in good faith.' 
This is blatant favouritism towards homosexuals.

Richard revelled in all the attention he  could get on Facebook, posting before and after pictures and lamenting how ‘stupid’ he had been to walk home alone.  He wrote self-pityingly: ‘Here is my face after a homophobic attack: four of my teeth are gone, not fallen out but deep inside my gums and cheek… my face is swollen, both my knees are badly injured and I struggle to walk…"
In an interview with his local paper, Richard Kennedy lied again: ‘I heard a group of men shouting homophobic abuse at me. The next thing I know I was punched in the back of the head. I was violently assaulted – all because of my sexuality” he sobbed histrionically, before being FOUND OUT.
Kennedy droned on: ‘From all of this, all I want is awareness…”
Well we have got our own sort of awareness, Richard, now that you have been exposed as a liar. 
Write to the Justice Ministry and the Home Secretary and demand that Richard Kennedy IS charged with wasting police time.

Justice and equality means justice and equality  - not privilege for queers. 
And write to Facebook and demand that his account is closed down, because he is using it to tell lies and spread prejudice against heterosexuals.

Kennedy's fake-hate-attack is the latest in an endless series of frauds carried out by the LGBT movement, of which the Matthew Shepard case is now the most notorious. But there are others - so many others that there is even a website devoted to exposing them called
There was Quinn Matney for example

and there was Kyle Wood in Wisconsin last year:

And there were lesbians Aimee Whitchurch and Christel Conklin

A good rule to follow is, never believe a word these people say.

Sunday, 9 March 2014

I Told You So - More Homo-Paedo-Freako Connections

In 2002, Adrian Fulford became the first openly "gay" High Court Judge (we are told he is the "first" as if we are somehow doomed to have more and more) and he was nominated for a knighthood in 2003 by Tony Blair. He has a position advising the Queen. How nice for him! He must earn an absolute fortune. He must be rolling in money.

Implicated: Lord Justice Fulford, pictured in his full legal regalia, was named last year as an adviser to the Queen

Yet Fulford has a history of openly and brazenly campaigning to legalize paedophilia. As a newly-qualified barrister he set up a group insolently calling itself "Conspiracy Against Public Morals". The group of lawyers was set up to defend the Paedophile Information Exchange, the organization that claimed at first to be just a "support network" but which has been exposed as running child-abuse rings. CAPM stridently defended PIE's rights to exist and operate, and the National Council of Civil Liberties - for which Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt worked -  agreed with them.
 Note : it was not just the NCCL itself that condoned PIE, it was specifically the "Gay Rights Committee" of the NCCL that approved and supported this despicable and obnoxious agenda. Talking a lot of rubbish about the "liberation" of children from oppression by their parents, CAPM proceeded to publish articles in "Gay Rights" magazines such as Broadsheet. It was Fulford who persuaded the LGBT group Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE)  to give its support to the Paedophile Information Exchange. His successes were chronicled in an article in the PIE's own in-house magazine MagPie in October 1979.
PIE advocated the abolition of any age of consent so that paedophiles could have completely unhindered access to children. Fulford's group CAPM sneered at such concepts as "public morality" or "protecting children". Their activities were reported with approval by Gay News.
One article written by Adrian Fulford at this time "A Vice so Abominable" states that the charge of "conspiring to corrupt public morals" is just an excuse for attacking "gays"  - identifying the "gays" as paedophiles.
    Fulford (a Marxist at the time) met and worked closely with the PIE leader Tom O'Carroll, who attended some of his meetings and was active in the NCCL. O'Carroll was convicted in 2006 of circulating highly offensive child pornography in the hard-core category. He and another defendant were found to have a stash of 50,000 indecent images of children which they were freely distributing. Two earlier attempts to convict him had failed, because of the prevailing social climate of anything-goes liberalism. Finally he was caught in a police "sting".
     O'Carroll started his career working for the notoriously left-wing biassed and pro-"gay" Open University, financed by the tax-payer.
     There is nothing surprising about any of this. All the leaders and founders of the "Gay" Liberation Movement - Harry Hay, Franklin Kameny, Harvey Milk and Allen Ginsberg  - were paedophiles or apologists for paedophilia.  They worked hand-in-hand with NAMBLA and made no secret of it. Abolishing the age of consent was one demand of the Gay Liberation Movement right from the very outset and was made explicit in their founding manifesto in 1971. This is still on the website of Gay History Month.
    Larry Brinkin would be proud of them.
 So  - when is Fulford going to get his knighthood from LGBT-controlled David Cameron, and queerophile Nick Clegg?
And when will the next batch of furious hysterical death-threats from enraged hypocrites arrive in my inbox?

Monday, 3 March 2014

Shame on EU and UK for supporting Anti-Semitic uprising in Ukraine

Yes it was a very emotional moment when the imprisoned opposition leader Julia Tymoshenko was released from prison in Ukraine. But there has been no trial, either of her or of the hurriedly ejected President.
With indecent haste, our government jumped in to promise support for the dubious, miscellaneous types who have used violence to get Yanukovych out. The EU is on hand talking about pouring in £BILLIONs of our money   - AND TO WHOM? FOR WHAT AGENDA?
     There are all sorts of nasty people trying to grab power there now, and many of them have communist, Nazi and anti-semitic ideas.

Synagogue in Podol district, Kiev.

In Kiev, four attackers have beaten up a Jewish teacher of Hebrew.  Hillel Wertheimer was followed home from the synagogue and brutally beaten. His assailants did not take money or any property so it must have been a racist attack. 
In Zaporozhye, another synagogue has been firebombed. Luckily nobody is reported dead or injured  - yet. But these are sinister signs. There could be a civil war and it is no wonder that the Russians have sent in troops to protect the very large number of their own citizens in the Crimea.
The synagogue in Zaporozhye

We should keep well out of the problems of the Ukraine. It should not be on a shopping-list for EU expansion.  If it did make the mistake of joining the EU, it would soon find that its assets were plundered and it was sinking in a mire of debt just like Romania, Greece and Ireland.

By JTA | Jan. 15, 2014 | 8:50 PM |
By Asaf Ronel | Feb. 22, 2014 | 11:43 PM |
By Haaretz | Feb. 23, 2014 | 12:12 AM
Feb. 24, 2014 | 11:15 AM |
By Seth Lipsky | Feb. 25, 2014 | 3:28 PM |
Ukrainian Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman, called on Kiev's Jews to leave the city and even the country if possible, fearing that the city's Jews will be victimized in the chaos, Israeli daily Maariv reported Friday.