THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

Paedophilic curiosity is normal for human men. At least a sizeable minority of normal men would like to have sex with children. Normal men are stimulated by children.

The declaration that paedophilia is normal was made last July as part of a primary declaration by an academic display that was presented, at the request of organisers, at a convention held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included: Setting free the paedophile, a verbose study, and the Risks and differences: the stakes of hebephilia.

Hebephilia is the sexual partiality for children in early-maturing pubescence, typically 11 to 14-year-old.

Another attendee, and a keen participator from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a reoccurring child sex offender, long time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular! ”

Last week, following the guilty verdict of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and declarations of an establishment cover up to defend a sex offending cabinet member in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a seizure of apprehension about child abuse in the Eighties. However, unseen, unnoticed in the midst of the excitement is a much more current threat right now, in parts of the academic establishment to thrust the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.

A fundamental factor in what occurred all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, by allegation, the passageways of authority was not merely institutional shortcomings or establishment conspiracies, but a climate of considerably vaster intelligent lenity of practices that appall today.

With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shriveling taboos in opposition to premarital sex, the Seventies was an epoch of entirely abrupt sexual liberation. Numerous libertarians, of course, saw through PIE’s sardonic euphuism of child Lib. Nevertheless to others on the Left, sex by or with children was simply another repressive boundary to be swept away, and some of the most illustrious backing came from academia.

In 1981, a respectable publicist, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, revised by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to dispute what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the publication was pointed at social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care employees.

The people, wrote Dr Taylor. “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. This, he convinced readers, was simply a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. For what reason? Most adult-child sexual relations took place in the family.

The attitudes of nearly all, but not all, contributors, seemed actively pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, who was, astonishingly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work, was later found guilty of child sex crimes. However, from the angle of today, the enthralling thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are however academically active and influential.

Ken Plummer is a respected professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and tutors courses, the most up-to-date programmed for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles, ” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomena but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …

Paedophiles are told they are the debauchers and rapers of children; they know their experiences are frequently loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and blameless, without desire; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they converge with that this is not the case.

As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his own blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy. In 1991. As homosexuality has become a little less open to sustain ethical panic, the new pariah of child molester has turned into the most recent folk devil. Numerous grown-up paedophiles state that boys actively seek out sexual partners, and that childhood itself is not a biological given but a historically produced social object.

Prof Plummer verified that he had been part of PIE in order to promote his research. He stated: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing ‘bad things’, and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a ‘terrible thing’. I am very sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” Nevertheless, he did not reply when asked if he still retained the views he displayed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesperson for Essex University insisted Prof Plummer’s work did not represent support for paedophilia, and quoted the university’s charter which gave academic staff liberty inside the law to put forward debatable and unaccepted viewpoints free from placing themselves in danger.

There actually is no shortage of evidence of the harm done by child abuse. In the latest craze regarding the crimes of the past, it’s worth scrutinizing whether we could, in the futurity, get back into the intellectual climate which sanctioned them.

We could debate that sexual relationships between children and adults have been known for aeons and accepted in a few primitive groups as an induction into manhood. We could also point out that there are no differentiating traits on personality testing between paedophiles and normal controls. Plus studies cite that there is a notable minority experiencing lewd fascinations to children.

Pedophilia is a paraphilia that involves an unnatural interest in children. A paraphilia is a dysfunction that is defined by repeated intensified sexual urges and sexually stimulated phantasms usually involving nonhuman objects; the affliction or mortification of oneself or one’s partner, not only simulated, or animals, children, or other nonconsenting persons. Pedophilia is also a psychosexual dysfunction in which the phantasm or real act of participating in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of attaining sexual excitement and enjoyment. It may be directed via children of the same sex or children of the other sex. A few pedophiles are drawn to both boys and girls. Some are attracted only to children. Whilst others are attracted to adults as well as to children.

Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was a British pro-paedophile activist organization, established in October 1974 and officially disbanded in 1984.

PIE was set up as a specific interest group inside the Scottish Minorities Group by founder member Michael Hanson, who became the group’s first Chairman. Since the bulk of enquiries was from England, PIE relocated to London in 1975 were 23 year old Keith Hose became its first Chairman. The group’s established intention was tantamount to relieve the suffering of numerous adults and children by campaigning to eradicate the age of consent consequently legalising sex between adults and children.

Paedophile Action for Liberation had developed as a breakaway organization from the South London Gay Liberation Front. It was the subject of an editorial in the Sunday People, which dedicated its front page and centre spread to the story. The outcome was coercion of, and deprivation of employment for a few of those who were exposed. It later united with PIE.

This exposé on PAL had an influence on PIE members’ enthusiasm for activism. In the PIE Chairperson’s Annual Report for 1975-6, Keith Hose wrote that ‘The only way for PIE to survive, was to seek out as much publicity for the organization as possible. If we got bad publicity, we would not run into a corner but stand and fight. We felt that the only way to get more paedophiles joining PIE was to seek out and try to get all kinds of publications to print our organization’s name and address and to make paedophilia a real public issue.

In the same year Hose also attended a conference arranged by Mind, the national mental health organization, where it was implied that PIE should submit proof to the Home Office’s Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent. PIE submitted a 17 page document in which it suggested that there should be no age of consent, and that the criminal law should concern itself only with sexual pursuits to which approval is not given, or which continue following forbiddance by a civil court.

PIE was established to campaign for recognition of paedophilia by producing arguable documents. However, it’s formally specified intentions also included giving guidance and instruction to paedophiles who wanted it, and furnished a means for paedophiles to get in touch with one another.

To this end it held regular gatherings in London but also had a Contact Page, which was a bulletin in which members placed advertisements, giving their membership number, general location, and brief details of their sexual inclinations and other interests. Responses were managed by PIE, as with a box number arrangement, so that addressees were unidentifiable till they wished to reciprocate their personal details. Since the intention of this contact page was to empower paedophiles to get in touch with one another. Advertisements indicating that contact with children was sought and advertisements for erotica were turned down. The Contact Page eventually resulted in a prosecution for a connivance to corrupt public morals.

In 1976, both PIE and PAL had been requested to assist the Albany Trust to create a booklet on paedophilia which was to have been published by the Trust. This collaboration was ‘uncovered’ by Mary Whitehouse, who alleged that public funds were being managed indirectly to subsidize ‘paedophile groups’. Albany Trust was partly supported by government grants. The Trustees decided not to publish the booklet, saying that it wasn’t sufficiently ‘objective’. A year later a question relating to the incident was asked in the House of Commons by Sir Bernard Braine but, despite a statement by Home Office Minister Brynmor John that there was no evidence of public money going to PIE, the issue was drawn out into 1978 in the letters pages of The Guardian and The Times.

In the summer of 1978 the residences of a few PIE committee members were stormed by the police as part of a full-scale inquiry into PIE’s activities; as an outcome of this inquiry, a substantial report was capitulated to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecution of PIE activists followed.

In particular, five activists were charged with printing contact advertisements in MagPIE which were computed to promote immoral deeds between adults and children.

Others were offered minor charges of conveying improper material through the post if they testified against the five. These charges correlated to letters that the accused swapped specifying diversified sexual fantasies. It ultimately became transparent that one person had corresponded with most of the accused, however, had not been tried. Following the trial, it surfaced that there had been a cover-up.

In 1981, the former PIE Chairperson Tom O’Carroll was found guilty on the conspiracy charge and confined to two years in prison. O’Carroll had been working on Paedophilia: The Radical Case in the period between the original police sweep and the trial. Whilst the charges did not correlate in any way with the publication of the book, the fact that he had written it was set down by the judge as a factor in ascertaining the length of his sentence.

In 1984 The Times provide details that two former executive committee members of PIE had been found guilty on child vulgarity charges however, cleared on charges of provocation to carry out illicit sexual acts with children and that the group’s impresario had escaped the country whilst on surety. It was said that the group was closing down in the PIE Bulletin as of July 1984.

One-time bursar of PIE Charles Napier is claimed to have sexually assaulted a boy whilst a gym instructor at Copthorne School. He became an English Language Trainer at the British Council and was convicted of sexual assault against minors in London in 1995, and investigated as an alleged constituent of a paedophile network operating in British schools in 1996. He set up his own school in Turkey and recommenced English Language Training with the British Council after completing his sentence.

In January 2006, the Metropolitan Police Service Paedophile Unit apprehended the remaining PIE members on child pornography charges. One of those held in custody, David Joy, was warned by his sentencing judge that his beliefs may prevent his ever being released from prison.

In March, 2014 proof surfaced that PIE had been given grants calculating £70,000 from the Home Office. After a whistle-blower told police he witnessed a prosperous three-year grant renewal application for £35,000 in 1980, signifying that a comparable grant had been made in 1977.

A number of senior Labour Party politicians were associated with press stories to PIE in December 2013, and once more in February 2014, as a result of their entanglement with NCCL at the time of PIE’s affiliation. The party’s deputy leader Harriet Harman had been employed by NCCL as an in-house solicitor and met her husband, the MP Jack Dromey, then a member of NCCL’s executive committee, whilst operating in this capacity. In addition, Patricia Hewitt MP was NCCL’s general secretary for nine years. The threesome was named “apologists for paedophiles” by the Daily Mail. The former chair of PIE, Tom O’Carroll, insisted the three had not endeavored to get rid of PIE out of fear for the repercussions this might regard on their careers at the NCCL.

Harman disputed she had supported PIE whilst at NCCL and the particular allegation that she supported a campaign for the age of consent to be decreased to ten, and displayed regret at the involvement of the NCCL with PIE. She blamed the right-leaning newspaper of both setting out on a slander crusade and of hypocrisy, making the counter-accusation that the Daily Mail sexualises young girls. Dromey also disputed the accusations. Hewitt apologised separately, stating she had been “naive and wrong to accept that PIE was a counseling and campaign group”.

There are numbers of countries where children are coerced into matrimony, or even violated, there is no consent, or they are beaten to death for refusing to marry a man old enough to be her grandfather. Teenagers are dragged by their family to be raped to force her into marrying. There are between 39,000 girls coerced into marriage each day around the world, sold like cows to enrich their families.

More than one-third of all girls are married in 42 countries, according to the U.N. Population Fund, relating to females under the age of 18. The highest number of instances takes place in some of the most impoverished countries. The agency figures show, with the West African nation of Niger at the bottom of the list with 75 percent of girls are married before they turn 18. In Bangladesh the figure is 66 percent and in the Central African Republic and Chad it is 68 percent.

The notable barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be cut back to 13.

Barbara Hewson explained to the online magazine Spiked that the move was essential in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal to stop the “persecution of old men.”

The NSPCC described her views “outdated and simply ill-informed” and said “from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief”.

She declared that “touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt” are not offenses comparable to gang rapes and murders and “Anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality”.

Any hint of reducing the age of consent could put more young people at risk from those who pillage on helpless young people. We are no longer a third world nation, and children should be treated as children up to the age of consent. No one has the right to interfere with anyone, whether a child or an adult, and in the absence of consent no one should assume they have the right to infringe upon another human being.

We are not part of an era where human beings have the exemption to haul their victim by the hair and bludgeon them to death for the reason that they will not have coitus with them.

A teenager is a teenager up until they turn 20, at that point they become an adult, nevertheless, it would be illogical to state that one cannot marry until that age, or even have a sexual relationship, so long as it consensual, and that they are both willing participators in this performance.

The age of consent should be raised to the age of 17, when one can marry without a parents consent, and have coitus if they wish to do so.  Before this time, copulation should be made illegal, and a prison sentence should be appended to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The TV presenter Vanessa Feltz and vocalist Linda Nolan have become the latest alleged prey of the convicted sex offender Rolf Harris to come forward with tales of abuse at the hands of the discredited children’s performer.

Now 52, Feltz, has characterized how Harris professedly put his hand within the boundaries of her knickers while she interviewed him live on TV during an episode of The Big Breakfast in 1996.

Nolan, 55, maintained she was barely 15 and touring with her sisters when Harris swoop down on her out of nowhere, fumbling, caressing and kissing her neckline till she had to ask him to stop.

The two luminaries have come forward openly for the first time following Harris, 84, was sentenced to five years and nine months in prison for a set of sexual assaults on girls as young as seven or eight.

Feltz said she had described her story to the police once the first accusations against Harris began to surface in 2012, and Scotland Yard reportedly obtained footage from The Big Breakfast to back up her claims.

They had evidently hoped to be able to submit it as part of Harris’s trial at Southwark Crown Court, however, were too late to give sufficient notice to defence lawyers.

Feltz told the Sunday Express Harris assaulted her during the time they were filming the “On The Bed” segment of the show in May 1996, and that Harris’s wife Alwen had been in the room at the time.

She stated she could sense Harris’s hand worming along up her leg but that she could not look down on account of, they were on live TV.

This is of course all speculation that it did in fact take place, or was it just a fabrication of her imagination, undoubtedly the camera’s or somebody behind the camera’s would have observed what was going on, and would have related something to somebody else, or even Harris’s wife Alwen would have observed something.

After all, Vanessa is a talk show entertainer, and it’s undeniable that she knows how to spin a fishy story, or even perhaps two. Plus this macho masculine man from Aussie must have had an impression on such a young lady at the time.

If this man knew precisely what he was doing and he was getting stimulated, doing what he was doing whilst he was on live T.V, then we must presume that other people must have realised as well, and if they didn’t was it just because they decide not to, and did Miss Feltz also refuse to say something for fear that she would lose the chance of a beneficial vocation, and lots of money, and Harris fumbling with her leg, as seedy as it was, was far better than an animate existence on the dole.

As Harris’s hand reached beneath the elastic of her knickers, Feltz paused the interview to go to an advert break and then leaped away from him, and he then behaved as if nothing had happened when they came back from the break.

In the meantime, Miss Nolan alleged she was only 15 and on tour with her sisters when Harris touched her bosoms in a hallway.

The star, 55, stated she was in a dressing gown and was on her way to get ready for a performance when Harris swoop down on her backstage at the performance in South Africa in 1975.

She said that he without any warning came out of nowhere and in seconds his hands were all over me.

He came right up to her and had her in an enormous bear embrace. His arms were all over my back, right about me so his hands were rubbing the sides of my breasts.

He stroked up and down and began kissing and tonguing the back of her neck.

Miss Nolan stated that Harris finally stopped, nevertheless, she was left feeling dumbstruck and mortified at the alleged assault.

Both women relinquished their legal right to anonymity to divulge the alleged abuse.

It does make you curious as to why both women did not come forward previously, and why they left it so late to say something, though back in the day there were a number of celebrity junkies who would follow luminaries about like puppy dogs so that they could get near them, and a number of these stars took supremacy of this, and it was disregarded on account of, it was simply accepted.

Nevertheless, what was not acknowledged back then, is greatly acknowledged now, and addressed with loathing. There is an indisputable abhorrence when it comes to stars being in the spotlight for things they had done in the past. That now is not consented to in the future.

In the wake of in the flourishing 60’s, flower power and potheads, sexual attraction was welcomed freely even if it was not voluntarily given.

There were a number of groupies, particularly of the female species. That were more occupied in relations with rock stars than their music, and the loyal female fan of a band or musical entertainer would append herself to a band. The groupie was more intense about her adored luminaries than the fans and they would tend to follow them from place to place.

They would in addition seek sexual or intimate contact. Obsessive groupies would almost certainly implicate themselves sexually with any members of the band including the roadies. Additionally, there are now groupies of sports teams and other sorts of celebrities.

Back then it was accepted quite wantonly, but now these people are now being brought to justice for matters that were merely accepted back in the day, but in today’s day and age are categorized as not tolerable, nevertheless, these events that took place are historical, and as long as they are never permitted to happen again, then they should stay historical, even though there are still numerous groupies about who follow their bands and celebrities about, and a few even marry them, nevertheless, a few stars misuse the privilege and should not be permitted to do so.

There should be lessons that should be ascertained from this…

 

Hidden in a cluttered courtyard behind an off-licence in Forest Gate, East London, is a narrow brick construction no larger than a shed that a family of four calls home.

Asah (not her real name), her husband and two young daughters all share this rickety construction, constructed illegally by its owner to make money from despairing tenants such as her.

Thousands of comparable edifices exist across the nation, many occupied by immigrants with little option but to survive in these unsafe and crowded conditions, and more are constructed each day.

They are characterized by housing campaigners as Britain’s modern day slums or, more euphemistically. “sheds with beds”. The Government last week declared plans for a national task force to crack down on their use. However, with a worsening habitation emergency in the metropolis and across the nation, housing experts are forewarning that the unprotected people who live in them will have no place else to go.

Asah, 37, found her accommodation in a shop window following a lengthy, futile search. She pays £375 per month for the tiny, two-room hovel. Debris and large breeze blocks are scattered across the courtyard outside her door, where her young daughters play.

She knows it’s not safe for them to be here. However, it is plenty for them and they can afford it. Her kids go to school nearby. They have been trying to look for other places, but there is nothing.

Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, has agreed to crack down on illegal landlords by encouraging councils to make greater usefulness of legal powers, averting more such properties being created and working with foreign authorities to help immigrants living in them who wish to return home.

However, Asah has no longing to leave the area or the country. Her landlord, in the interim, was not anywhere to be observed when The Independent visited with planning officers from Newham Council. With tears in her eyes, she tells them that she is attempting to move somewhere else in the area, but has yet to find anywhere she can afford.

A number of London councils are already taking dominance of the new enactment sanctioned by the Coalition Government, permitting local authorities to offer their desolate families accommodation somewhere else rather than to furnish them with social housing inside the area.

Last week it surfaced that a few London councils are considering moving people hundreds of miles. Newham has written to 1,179 housing associations requesting whether they would be willing to take 500 families who can no longer stay in the Olympic borough.

The move led to accusals of social cleansing, nevertheless, Newham council condemned the Government’s basic nonperformance in housing policy for its decision, noting that the new housing benefit cap of £400 a week had made it hard to locate private homes for low-income families.

The mayor of Newham, which is thought to be one of the highest number of unlawful sheds with beds in the country, has welcomed Mr Shapps’ task force. However, Sir Robin Wales quoted the Coalition’s housing policy, including the reintroduction of the right-to-buy scheme, as one of the elemental causes of the crisis.

The Right to Buy scheme was a policy in the United Kingdom which granted assured rent payers of councils and limited housing associations the constitutional right to buy, at a huge reduction when purchasing the dwelling they were living in. There is also a Right to Acquire for assured rent payers of housing association homes erected with public subsidy following 1997, at a smaller reduction.

Roughly 1.5m million residences in the United Kingdom have been put up for sale in this way following 1980. Faultfinders insist that this compounded a housing deficit for those of low income, and started a nationwide house price balloon, and what is ordinarily recognised as the displacement and social cleansing of traditional communities.

Followers insist that the programme gave millions of households a substantial asset, secured their families finances and by freeing money to reimburse Local Authority loans, helped amend the public finances. As the dwellings were disposed of were already occupied, there could be no clear loss of stock as they were not accessible to other households to take over.

The Government is making us put our council houses up for sale, which are assets we created, and at the same time cutting our budgets disproportionately. There needs to be an integrated approach to work and housing. Cutting unemployment in neighborhoods is imperative to solve this crisis.

For now, there is little Asah can do other than continue the quest for a legal dwelling that will take her. One person who might be competent to aid the bigger picture, nevertheless, is the recently re-elected Mayor of London. Is Boris Johnson going to have extensive new authority over land and budgets through the Coalition’s Localism Act to construct new dwellings?

Londoners will be looking to them for answers.

The latest on Boris Johnson’s housing approach, issued in blueprint form for deliberation, is an endeavor to answer to the fast growing chasm between the amount of homes London needs and the amount being erected. It portrays an epic hurdle and a necessity for a house construction surge hidden in our grand capital following the 1930s.

However, it’s heading targets don’t recognize the scale of the assignment whilst its proposals for tackling it are ultimately fainthearted, flimsy or just plain wrong.

Let’s chomp on the greater totalities. Johnson’s current intent is the consignment of 42,000 brand-new homesteads a year in Greater London for the succeeding ten years, roughly twice what’s been accomplished for decades, in order to reach a population growth the extent of Birmingham every ten years.

Nevertheless, desolate people in London could be sent as far away as Hull on account of, there is a need for private accommodation in the capital. That is according to housing welfare organizations who apprehend current government law will result in a mass exodus of those on the bottom rungs of the housing ladder to areas with economical rents.

The coalition’s Localism Act, empowers local officialdoms to locate those without a residence into privately rented accommodation. The reality that councils may be contemplating making use of these powers to offer people homes distant from their local areas, potentially having to remove families from schools, communities and jobs, is evidence to the scale of the housing crisis, or even more that they desire to repress people and where they should live.

This eruption could have disastrous repercussions on our children’s schooling and a family’s well being. Gathering up families, and taking them away from their support networks at a time when they require them most is not going help them back on their feet, and that is what the government wants.

According to the Localism Act, authorities have an obligation to attain proper accommodation for people who are homeless, are occupying insanitary or overpopulated habitation or require to move on medical or welfare grounds.

Nonetheless, it goes on to say that The local housing authority shall discontinue to be governed to the obligation if the applicant declines an offer of accommodation which the authority is satisfied is fitting for the applicant.

This will mean that those will be conveyed as faraway north from London to Hull, and will have few options but to take accommodation almost 300 miles away.

A number of other local authorities in London are said to be looking into sending their homeless away from the metropolis as a consequence of rising housing waiting lists.

As local authorities in London are getting ready to send thousands of homeless families to reside in short-term residences outside the capital, in resistance of ministerial requirements that people should carry on being housed locally.

Councils are taking possession of properties in Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Sussex and further afield to cope with an anticipated wave in numbers of helpless families manifesting as homeless as a result of welfare cuts.

It is said that ascending rents in London brought together with the introduction of harsh benefit caps leave them in an unthinkable situation, with no alternative but to launch a discharge of poorer families from the metropolis by locating homeless households in low-priced neighborhoods, usually many miles from their home borough. Draft guidance circulated by ministers in May states councils must as far as is plausibly practicable present accommodation for homeless families inside the borough.

Investigation exhibits London councils have procured rental properties in Luton, Northampton, Broxbourne, Gravesend, Dartford, Slough, Windsor, Margate, Hastings, Epping Forest, Thurrock and Basildon, and are contemplating accommodation as remote as Manchester, Hull, Derby, Nottingham, Birmingham and Merthyr Tydfil in south Wales.

Councils stated the move was unavoidable on account of. There was practically no proper private rented short-term accommodation for larger families in London that was affordable inside government-imposed housing benefit cuts, which are capped at £400 a week.

Seventeen local authorities stated they were already locating homeless families outside the capital, or had secured or were contemplating temporary accommodation outside London for forthcoming use. These included Kensington and Chelsea, which has moved a minority of homeless families to Manchester and Slough; Waltham Forest, which has gained housing in Luton, Margate and Harlow; Brent, which has relocated a few households to Hastings; and Tower Hamlets, which has relocated a small quantity of families to Northampton.

There’s still time for the government to do the sensible thing and deliberate once again before myriads of London’s families discover themselves eradicated, and propelled into confusion.

Homeless households will not always be able to remain in their previous vicinities, and it’s not acceptable for local authorities to make mandatory placements automatically hundreds of miles away, without having proper regard for the disturbance this will generate to those family units.

Rolf Harris is guilty as charged of 12 sex attacks on young girls, including his daughter’s best friend who underwent a 16 year crusade of abuse from the age of 13.

A seven-year-old autograph stalker was as well assaulted by the 84-year-old entertainer, who was told a prison sentence is unavoidable after he was found guilty of sexual assaults on four victims between 1968 and 1986.

The paedophile remained indifferent as the jury reciprocated united guilty verdicts and Harris then lifted his eyebrows to his wife Alwen as he was guided from the dock.

Harris was reported as a Jekyll and Hyde personality who had a mysterious side to his character and used his fame to enthrall underage fans before mistreating them with impunity.

He perpetrated numerous crimes in obvious eyesight of people as he thought his VIP standing situated him above the law.

As the 12 verdicts were read out his daughter Bindi held hands with a fellow supporter, and subsequently she wept in the court corridor as her mother Alwen and aunt Jenny waited for her father.

Rolf Harris then left the court grasping the hands of his daughter and wife, however, declined to apologise to his victims.
The star was swept away in a limousine and will be sentenced on Friday.

Justice Sweeney stated when giving him bail this afternoon: ‘He will understand that in doing that I’m giving no indication whatsoever as to the nature of the sentence.”

No matter what the judge determines to sentence this man with, it will never be enough, on account of, not only did this man meddle with these children, but he took his social position to a higher level which made him think that he was in a position to do so, and took advantage of that.

What we believed to be just an unblemished man from Australia who relished in amusing the public, particularly small children, turned out to be nothing more than a wicked perverted man that was in fact a threat, and a famous person who was to be feared, more readily than trusted.

He had trusted dependability and obligation, and was merely contracted to make people laugh, but instead he made fun of people by making them think that he was this squeaky wholesome personality of moral standing.

He used his status to stage more than his performing arts. Instead, he was wily and extremely persuasive, and captured the trust of people about him to continue his distorted and perverted ways.

Harris insisted he was really a kindhearted, tactile family man and the victim of untruths from four women.

However, he discreetly hid the devil prowling below his enchanting exterior to preserve his standing as a national treasure during his shining 60 year career.

The entertainer and artist will now be disrobed of the BAFTA Fellowship he was given two years ago, and could lose his CBE from the Queen after being found guilty.

Rolf Harris has habitually disputed any wrongdoing forcing his sufferers to recount their ordeal in public.

He carried out numerous assaults in clear view of people as he believed his famed status placed him beyond the law.

Rolf Harris exercised his status and position as a world-renowned children’s entertainer to sexually attack young girls over a period spanning 18 years.

The victims in this instance have suffered in silence for numerous years and have just recently attained the boldness to come forward. They displayed considerable courage in coming to court and giving their testimonies.

That courage and determination has seen Rolf Harris brought to justice and held accountable.

All of the victims, unfamiliar to the others, characterized a comparable pattern of conduct; that of a man behaving without trepidation of the consequences.

He haughtily presumed he was untouchable and that his dark side would never be disclosed.

Harris faced 12 charges of improper assault between 1968 and 1986, seven of which related to the best friend of his only child, Bindi, now 50.

He started grooming the girl when she was 13, treating her like a young puppy after first molesting her on a family holiday to Hawaii and Australia in 1978.

Harris continued to target her when they return to Britain, before psychologically dominating her into adulthood.

She was dehumanised during a 16 year crusade of debasement, which transformed her from a happy-go-lucky child to an emotionally scarred grown-up, and sparked her declivity into despondency and habitual heavy drinking.

‘Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport’ songster wrote a letter to her father begging for absolution after the dirty details surfaced in 1997.

However, he doggedly protested his innocence, maintaining she freely took part in a consensual relationship after alluring him when she was just an adult.

In addition to that Harris despairingly attempted to squirm out of trouble by telling her brother: ‘It takes two to tango’.

She is currently a damaged and emotionally lifeless creature, and he used her for his wanton enjoyment like she was a blow up doll.

She had been psychologically ruined and instructed to perform like a pet.

He is unquestionably a revolting, lustful and lecherous being who needs to be behind bars. In what way he accomplished getting away with it for years is horrifying, and his sentencing will bring this to an end, however, not for those who he used and mistreated.

They will never fail to remember their ordeal, and their repulsive encounters with this man will be engraved in their minds permanently. The only comfort they will have is that at last justice have prevailed, and he will never have the opportunity to maltreat anyone again.

Newborns and toddlers are the most amazing creations.

Plump, velvety, and adorable and without any of the self-consciousness or hang-ups which will one day make them into morose adolescents.

Therefore, as they examine the cosmos, and go on their own little excursion of self-discovery, they furnish parents with infinite moments of happiness which are ideal for the family album.

However, presently we are in the 21st century, and there is no such thing as the family album.

Photos seldom make it from the camera phone to a physical print.

Alternatively the photo album is Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. With one click of the mouse that charming photo of your tiny child playing in the sand pit for the first time, paddling in the paddling pool, or excavating in the soil can be shared with everyone in a moment.

Which is precisely what a proud mum did when she captured the moment her wellie wearing daughter raised up her dress to divulge her spectacular little pot belly.

However, just 24 hours later the mum-of-four discovered that the picture had been erased and her Instagram account shut down as the photo had violated the site’s decency rules.

What is the world now coming to when a mum can’t share an entirely innocent photo of her lovely baby?

The baby wasn’t disclosing anything other than her perfect belly and her pudgy little legs.

Nevertheless, it is apparently okay for VIPs like Rihanna to affix indecent virtually nude photographs of themselves on site.

Instagram contends that they must have practices in place to shield young children, however, acknowledges that in this case they got it wrong.

Now we all need to know that the Internet can be an unsafe place. Nevertheless why should a minority of perverted persons destroy the fun for the rest of us?

However, on the other hand, should we as parents think doubly before posting photos of our youngsters online?

Somewhere in my mum’s cupboard are albums packed with photos from family holidays gone by, as I played contentedly in the garden in just my bottoms.

Totally youthful fun, even more so as the only people who are ever likely to observe those photos are family.

Would I share photos of my half-naked grandchildren online? Probably not.

Whilst I agree that the photo of this child bearing her belly was entirely delightful and Instagram were wrong to take it down, I do believe that we as parents have a liability to acknowledge that the Internet is no longer a family album.

Only ever post words or photos online that you are happy for the entire universe to see, perverts and all, as that is precisely who can and will see them.

The government ascertains that a human being can survive on £72.40 a week if you are over 25, if you are younger than that, then evidently your necessities are small, and consequently you need less. However, the national minimum wage is £6.31 an hour if you earn a living, and that’s what a human being can survive on if they are over 25 and earn a living.

If one was working 5 days a week, earning £6.31 an hour, less tax and national insurance, it would still be more than a person gets on Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). Nevertheless, the government states that the national minimum wage is such corresponding to national living standards, however, according to national living standards JSA is less, so how can this be, should it not be the equivalent, according to national living standards.

Does this imply that if people on JSA are getting less, then their living standards should be less, and that the food and goods that they purchase will be less in the shops. I can only conjecture that people on JSA should retain cards that they can display in shops, and that gives them a percentage off anything they purchase, on account of, according to the government their living expenses are less, and that’s why they are given fewer funds. And if this is not the case, then they should be granted the equivalent sum of money in accordance with national living.

Poverty appears to be a way of life for nearly all people existing on limited funds that the government says we can live on, even those that do a day’s work, and working their guts out each day to make a scrap so that they can survive, but this is the story of our servitude. This is how it came to be, and you can eventually be free. Like all animals that we are, all human beings want to control, and make use of the resources around them.

At first, we essentially hunted and fished and ate off the land, but then something enchanting and terrifying took place in our minds. We became, solitary in the midst of the animals, scared of dying, and of the impending loss. And this was the start of a huge disaster, and an even exceptional potentiality. You see, when we became scared of dying, of harm, and incarceration, we became controllable, and so salable, in a way that no other resource could be.

The largest resource for any human being in control is not natural resources, or implements, or living things or land, but other human beings. You can scare an animal on account of, animals are scared of pain in the moment, however, you cannot scare an animal with a loss of liberty, or with pain or incarceration in the world to come, on account of, animals have very little sense of tomorrow.

You cannot intimidate a cow with torment, or a sheep with death. You cannot pivot a saber at a tree and yell at it to yield more fruit, or grasp a flaming torch to a field and command more wheat. You cannot get more eggs by intimidating a female chicken, however, you can get a human being to give you his eggs by intimidating him. Man-made agriculture has been the most lucrative, and ruinous occupation all through history, and it is now reaching its destructive peak.

Human society cannot be logically understood till it is examined for what it is: a set of farms where human farmers own human livestock. Some people get confused on account of, governments provide healthcare and water and education and roads, and so conceive that there is some good will at work. Nothing could be further from reality. Farmers grant healthcare and irrigation and training for their livestock.

Some people get confused on account of, we are allowed certain liberties, and so imagine that our government protects freedoms. However, farmers locate their harvest a specified distance away from each other to increase their yields, and will allow certain animals larger stalls or grazing land if it signifies they will yield extra meat and milk. In your country, your tax farm, your farmer allows you certain liberties not because he is interested in your freedoms, but because he desires to expand his returns.

Are you starting to recognize the nature of the cage you were born into?

Your few liberties are protected on account of. They are lucrative to your owners. The concept is to brainwash the young through government “schooling.”

As the wealth of democratic nations increased, government schools were universally forced upon in order to repress the thoughts and souls of the livestock. Then they went on, and turned citizens in opposition to each other through the opus of the dependent livestock.

It is extremely hard to control human beings directly through coercion, and where it can be accomplished, it remains cripplingly under fruitful, as can be seen in North Korea. Human beings do not reproduce well or yield efficiently in absolute confinement.

If human beings believe that they are free, then they will yield much more for their farmers. The best way to preserve this mirage of liberty is to put some of the livestock on the payroll of the farmer. Those cows that become dependent on the existing pecking order will then assault any other cows who point out the violence, hypocrisy and immorality of human ownership.

Freedom is servitude, and servitude is freedom.

If you can get the cows to attack each other whenever anyone brings up the realness of their situation, then you do not need to spend nearly as much time constraining them directly.

Those cows who become dependent upon the stolen largess of the farmer will destructively object any questioning of the virtue of human possession, and the intelligent and artistic social ranks, always and everlastingly dependent upon the farmers, will state, to anybody who calls for liberty from ownership: “You will harm your fellow cows.”

Livestock are kept confined by shifting the moral responsibility for the destructiveness of a powerful orderliness to those who call for true liberty. Whenever livestock becomes exponentially more fertile, you get an identical development in the number of farmers and their dependents.

The growth of the nation is at all times proportionate to the preceding financial liberties. Financial liberties formulate riches, and the riches allure more criminals and political freeloaders, whose greediness then destroys the financial liberties.

In other words, liberty metastasizes the malignancy of the nation. The government that begins with the smallest will be at all times and end up the greatest.

This is why there can be no viable and sustainable alternative to an absolutely free and tranquil society.

A society free from political leaders, free from human ownership, free from the violence of levying and statism. To be absolutely free is both extremely easy, and exceedingly hard.

 

We flee from the fear of our servitude on account of. It is unpleasant to see it directly. We skip around the rampage of our fading orderliness on account of, we dread the assaults of our fellow livestock.

However, we can only be retained in the cages we are not willing to observe.

A seven year old boy got more than he bargained for as he bit into a deep-fried paper towel at KFC.

Krystal Henderson, 29, bought a chicken meal as a surprise for her stepson Oliver Hallam from the Killingworth branch on Tyne and Wear.

To her horror, instead of finger licking meat, the child instead clasped his lips about a finger wiping blue hand roll.

The poor mother got the shock of her life, and at first she guessed the chicken had gone off, however, when she viewed it closer, all that was inside was a deep fried blue roll.

If it was rotten chicken, it might have just had a defective batch. Nevertheless, the blue roll could have been used for anything at all, it could have had bleach or disinfectant on it.

How did the blue roll get there? It was all twisted up, and somebody could have been cleaning their hands on that, or used to clean the floor before it got covered in batter and deep-fried, and then served to the patron of KFC.

This was purchased by a parent, who had no idea of what was lingering within the boundaries of the batter, however, when the child bit into it, it was rock hard, and as he hauled it out of his mouth, it pulled away the batter, so that the blue roll could be observed.

The mother of two purchased the meal as a takeaway to consume at home.

Nevertheless as Oliver went to tuck into one of the four boneless portions of chicken, bought for £1.99. He noticed something was awry.

After recognizing what it was inside, Krystal returned to the eating place, however, was just instructed to call customer support.

She was very traumatised by it, and was very upset. She went back into the shop crying as they stated she had to call customer service.

She had to keep ringing them up, and keep following it up. She felt like she had to do all the work, when it was their blunder.

This woman works full-time, and is a parent, and she really did not have time to keep running after them up and ringing around, particularly after what had taken place, and why should she have to, it was their oversight.

This is enough to put anyone off KFC for life, and obviously there is not sufficient and stringent handling on fast food places like KFC. When we are purchasing fast foods from these places there should be perfection, and if there is non, then they should be shut down permanently, not merely that shop in particular, but all franchises, and there should not be a dispensation for them to operate again.

Oliver might only be seven years old, nevertheless, he comprehends precisely what was going on and he doesn’t want to go to KFC again.

Oliver didn’t eat anything for the rest of the week, and he totally lost his longing for food, even though he wasn’t sick, merely lost his appetite, nevertheless, the situation could have been much worse.

Following an inquiry, KFC apologised to Krystal and offered her a free meal, and the letter that was sent to Krystal stated: “The blue tissue has most likely originated from a tissue roll used for KFC hygiene purposes.”

I would be absolutely concerned about that. Undoubtedly KFC workers that serve there must know the difference between a piece of chicken and blue tissue, because I certainly wasn’t conscious that we were reproducing blue chickens…

The shop postulates it must have dropped unobserved into the breading lug that is under the sieve and was not noticed by the cook. Do we then presume that this must have been used by the cook to clean up his hands, or to have cleaned up something more sinister, either way it would have had bacteria on it?

A spokesperson for the franchise that operates KFC in Killingworth said: “We’re very sorry for Ms Henderson’s experience and apologised to her immediately, as well as giving her a refund at the time of the incident.

It is irrelevant that they have apologised, or even given her a reimbursement. The fact of the matter is, it should never have taken place, and an analysis should apply as to why it did, and the franchise should be shut down at once. I’m positive Colonel Sanders would be rolling in his grave, though I’m sure deep-fried paper towel was not on the bill of fare when he was alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glamour model Josie Cunningham, who provoked anger by getting a £4,800 boob job on the NHS, is reportedly getting taxpayer-funded taxi transportation to the value of £6,000 a year merely on account of, she’s too notorious to use the bus.

The gestating fame starved wannabe, who vowed to abort her unborn child so she could appear on Big Brother, is being transported about her home town of Leeds courtesy of the public purse following claims that dealing with public transport gives her anxiety attacks.

The 23 year old mum of two, who is 4 months pregnant following a stint as a call girl, unquestionably considers herself in the selfsame comparison to Katie Price, on account of, you wouldn’t see Katie getting on a bus.

Evidently pitiful Josie Cunningham can’t mount a bus on account of, she is hated so much, well that’s not shocking sweetheart, considering you was at one time going to abort your baby for the sake of becoming a celebrity, and she actually thinks that the populace are going to be cheering her on about that. I mean, are people actually that superficial that they would put notoriety before their own flesh and blood, obviously not in her case.

I know that she’s keeping the baby, however, the mere notion that she even thought about it for one moment is going to make people hate her.

Josie had told her doctor that her eldest son, six, was not going to school and her youngest, aged three, was not attending nursery on account of, she could not face using the bus. Her GP at that point spoke to Leeds City Council, who then agreed to pay for taxies to take her children to school every day, at a value of £150 a week. My Lord, that sort of cash each could be giving a homeless kid on the streets shelter, clothes and food, however, Leeds City Council deliberated that it was much more appropriate to transport Josie Cunningham’s kids to and from school, when Josie Cunningham could be taking them herself, after all, she has brought all this upon herself. The equivalent excursion would cost her about £30 a week.

Josie Cunningham Tweeted: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but taxpayers will always fund me.”

Plus what she put about Katie Price having an ugly soul, maybe Josie Cunnigham should take a look in the mirror before slating off other people.  What they do in their life is private.  She has not made her life private on account of, she has put it in the presses and has got monetary profit from it, and if she wants to slag off other people’s lives, then of course she should put up with the consequences, what does she expect, a pat on the back?

Peaches Geldof may have taken a heroine overdose, however, that does not imply that she was a rotten mother, supposition is the “mother of all fuck ups.”

The family like any other family is still mourning. That’s somebodies child, and her children have lost their mother, and it doesn’t matter how it occurred, they’re still going to hurt like anyone else, whether they are celebrated or not, and they should be left to grieve in peace.

Of course, Josie Cunningham’s Tweets are going to be met with intense resentment, and it’s not surprising that people are forwarding her death warnings, even though this is ill-fitting, it’s not surprising that she is being called disgusting and evil.

One wrote: “You are quite literally the most disgusting, heartless & self-obsessed woman walking the earth in my opinion.”

Everyone is allowed their views, nevertheless, two wrongs do not make it right.

Leeds born Josie isn’t giving up on her ambitions of stardom that easily, and maintains she will put up for sale DVDs of her child’s birth to make herself well known.

I really feel sad for this child, not so much when it’s born, but as it grows up. In fact, this kid will probably end up being more well known than its mother.

If Josie Cunningham thinks that the selling of DVDs of the birth will make people see her more motherly side, she should ponder on that, since all people will recall is how she was willing to terminate this pregnancy to make herself famous, and what’s more, that she is willing to trade in the DVDs for financial profit, and the fact that she wants to make herself famous from it is appalling because her child will have to grow up with that in the media all the time, the child will never be left alone from the time it’s born.

 

 

As I ambled down the passageways I realised that I’d be in this place previously, it was extremely familiar, and it smelled the same from all those years before. Long ago it looked the same, it had not been transformed at all as I transferred glances with my sibling. It still had the identical layer of paint. That was presently flaying off, and it was clear that no one had bothered with it for all that time.

A lifetime seemed to have gone by, however, this place reverberated fragments of a far-off animated existence, or at least numerous lives. Yet, in this place that I took a seat, I expected to see something entirely different, and as I sat there in a complete loathing I couldn’t accept how nothing had altered. Things invariably transform, they must do in order to be able to move on, nevertheless, in this instance they clearly didn’t.

Clearly a few things had altered, people had come and gone, infants had been delivered, doctors had left active service, and a few doctors had passed away on to a further realm, however, this domain had not altered at all. Nothing had altered here, it was still the same worn-out tasteless sky-blue paint on the surfaces of the walls, with dimly illuminated lighting, and furnishings that were in precisely the identical place, and it was like I had gone back in time, thirty years in time, even the fawn cubicle dividers where in the very same place.

This place reverberated sounds from my past, the coming and going of patients that swayed along hallways to pliable chairs for hours and hours before being examined by a doctor that poked and prodded you in different areas of your vajayjay. Thirty years previously I had been one of those patients that were being poked and prodded. After giving in my piss pot to an exceedingly nice nurse so that it could be examined, then gave back after being cleaned out for the subsequent visit.

I’ve had four children at this maternity unit, my youngest offspring will be 24 years old in December, and things have not transformed since then, I mean not anything, apart from the personnel that runs the maternity unit at Basildon Hospital, in Essex, and I was utterly shocked to discover that nothing had altered, apart from the entry that you use to come in the maternity unit. Following thirty years, you would imagine that at a minimum they would have changed the paint on the walls, or at least make it a little more aesthetically pleasing.

They have updated a few other portions of the hospital, why not this annex?  Mind you, going back to when my sons were brought into this terrestrial sphere, rooms for childbirth were nothing exceeding broom closets, so why would I conceive that a cosmetic upgrade would be any different?