“I bought a ticket to the world
But now I’ve come back again
Why do I find it hard to
snort write the next line?
Oh, I want the truth to be said”
Monthly Archives: July 2014
“I bought a ticket to the world
Always believe in your soul
You’ve got the power to know
Always believe in, because you are
(not satire – it’s George Osborne!)
Former escort agency owner and Dominatrix Natalie Rowe has posted a new photograph of George Osborne completely off his head and apparently dancing to Spandau Ballet in her flat:
This comes just hours after Natalie was arrested (but not charged) after she posted another previously unpublished photograph of George on Twitter:
Doesn’t look like the intimidation’s working guys!
Please feel free to comment. And share:
Question: How did paedophile Jimmy Savile sneak a young girl into Buckingham Palace without her parents ?
Pssst! the answer is, in plain sight!
It was reported last night that detectives had examined Prince Philip’s official diaries covering the period from January 1972 to January 1974.
It is not known if police have interviewed the Prince or other members of the Royal Family, but they are believed to have taken statements from former Palace staff.
Don’t blink or you’ll miss this tiny story in the Mailonline today.
Born: January 01, 1934 (age 80)
Biography: Lieutenant-Colonel Benjamin John Herman, LVO (born 1934), was Private Secretary to The Princess Royal 1974-1976. He was educated at Bedford School. He joined the Royal Marines in 1953, and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in 1954, receiving a regular commission in 1955. Herman served with 40 Commando, Royal Marines, and was Military Assistant and Aide-de-Camp to the Commandant-General Royal Marines in 1964. He attended the Royal Naval Staff College in 1966. He was promoted to Major 1971. He joined the Office of the Princess Royal in 1974, having been Equerry to the Duke of Edinburgh 1971-1974. After his service in the Royal Household he returned to the Royal Marines, and did the Senior Officers War Course in 1976, and joined the staff of the Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command, Commando Training Centre (1976-). He was Chief Training Officer 1977-1978, and was a Lieutenant-Colonel by 1981. The Household of The Princess Royal provides the administrative support to the Princess Royal, daughter of Queen Elizabeth II. It is based at Buckingham Palace, and is headed by the Private Secretary. The Household is separate from the Royal Household and is funded from the Civil List
A former aide to the Duke of Edinburgh has been accused of sexually abusing a girl in the early 1970s.
Benjamin Herman, 79, is charged with three indecent assaults against the youngster, who was about 12, between 1972 and 1974.
During this time Herman served as the Philip’s equerry, or personal assistant.
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Benjamin Herman, 79, will appear at Wimbledon Magistrates Court on Monday. He is charged with three counts of indecent assault between 1972 and 1974 on a girl aged around 12.”
Timothy Wentworth Beaumont, Baron Beaumont of Whitley (22 November 1928 – 8 April 2008)
Liberal and Green politician, Anglican clergyman, advocate for lowering the age of consent to 14, legalising incest and contributor to a ‘pornographic magazine’.
Seems like an interesting chap…
The full original article from The Times 22nd January 1976 is below (click on image to enlarge).
Who Really Wants A Change In The Age Of Consent ? – by Ronald Butt
Students of the working of our representative democracy should savour the appointment by the Home Secretary of a body called the Policy Advisory Committee which is to advise the Criminal Law Revision Committee in reviewing the law on sexual offences. They should particularly ponder the brief which this group of people little known to the public (with one or two exceptions) has been given. Mr Jenkins has made the first reference to it the question of the age of consent.
How did it come about that Mr Roy Jenkins decided to set this inquiry going in the first place, and under what sort of prompting? Who chooses its subjects and, in particular, who chose this first subject?
Lord Carr, the last Conservative Home Secretary, made it unambiguously clear that the age of consent was not in question. Why does Mr Jenkins differ in thinking that it may be? Should he not have made his full reasons and thinking public?
Is a wave of insanity sweeping the public, particularly parents, that the age of consent which protects young girls from exploitation is too high at 16? Is there public indignation at the lack of equal opportunities for homosexuals because of the “discrepancy” (as one civil servant urbanely put it) between the higher age of consent that relates to them and the legal age for heterosexual relations?
Or has the public seen the light being held up by the lobby of the child-molesters, who are now euphemistically called paedophiles? Is the nation urging the Government to heed the call of the pressure group calling itself the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which is campaigning for the removal from the statute book of the ”unjust laws” which “define mutual end loving relationships as assaults”?
Is Mr Roy Jenkins perhaps impressed by the attention given to this movement by Mind Out, (the journal of the National Association for Mental Health), which recently listed PIE as one of the “organizations to write to” for sexual minorities, and printed the plea of a “paedophile”: “Society makes it almost impossible for our relationships to exist… We are warm and gentle people. What has to change is attitudes to children’s sexuality and parents’ attitudes to their children.” (Mind Outwhich quoted this from a “two-day workshop”, did, it is true, record the opposing view that children “could be” harmed and, most bizarre of all, it cited as an argument against the claims of the paedophiles, that they might well cease to be attractive to a paedophile, once they reached a certain age, and their incomprehension as to why could affect later relationships”.)
Sick though society may now be, I do not notice any demand for any of these things from the public hypnotised into silence though it tends to be by any self-appointed ”expert” who stands up to testify, as though to a revealed and absolute truth, that even the most unspeakable beastliness is therapeutically ”good ” for somebody. So what is it all about? What has happened that the Home Secretary feels a need to respond to?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is not invariably a fallacy, and when one thing follows another there may be cause and effect. The only explanation that I can suggest for Mr Jenkins’s decision is a willingness (and the views of certain Home Office officials in this as in other matters are not to be disregarded) to heed the pressure groups campaigning in these fields. Their activities reached their apogee with the report more than a year ago of the working party of the Sexual Law Reform Society, whose members included that exemplar of moral thinking, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
Among other recommendations of the Sexual Law Reform Society’s working party was the reduction of the age of consent for girls and boys to 14, legalizing incest for people over 14, “notwithstanding the strong but irrational revulsion that may be felt against it” and the legalization of brothels.
No doubt incest too will eventually be in the Criminal Law Revision Committee’s brief, and that of its policy advisory committee. Fortunately, the CLRC is a responsible body, and more fortunately still its chairman, Lord Edmund-Davies is also chairing the work of the Policy Advisory Committee.
It is important for the politicians who represent the people to be vigilant in face of the subtlety with which the law can be changed, and the standards of a growing generation manipulated, by the activities of self-styled experts. The fact that the House of Lords last week devoted some seven hours to discussing sex education in schools-which is in many ways the other side of the coin being studied in the Home Office- is a sign that the politicians themselves are increasingly aware of the problem.
As Lady Elles expressed it in a brilliantly documented speech which opened the debate, what is called sex education differs from other subjects in that it may determine the immediate and future behaviour of children and change the whole climate of society. There was a remarkable consensus among the majority of those who spoke about the need to teach it in a moral context, and about the reasons for fear that this is often not done.
Significantly, the only peer with a sharply different approach was Lord Beaumont, who wanted the teaching of sexual mechanics to be considered as a completely separate subject from moral teaching, which he regarded as teaching children to make their own moral judgments. Since Lord Beaumont is a contributor to a pornographic magazine, we might not take his views on moral education too seriously. But what he is saying is precisely what is happening in too many cases.
Children are often given the facts about contraception in a way which could suggest to some of them that it would not be unreasonable, if they chose, to make use of it. There is also the practice of teaching contraception in terms of girls and boys rather than men and women.
Lady Elles was surely right to argue that parents should be told how the subject is taught and allowed to withdraw their children if they disapprove. The danger is that we shall first allow children’s behaviour to be changed by the assumptions that are communicated to them as a captive impressionable audience and then change the law on the grounds that it does not fit the facts of behaviour. The Government, which provides grants for the sex education work of the Family Planning Association, a body much criticized in the debate, also has a responsibility. Where there is public money, there must be political responsibility.