This is a genuine offer. I will pay £100 to any person who can provide a convincing reason why Denis MacShane’s expense fiddling, involving his creating false invoices, was not a criminal offence. Your argument does not have to be unanswerable – merely respectable. Up to three prizes will be given, for the three first and not essentially the same convincing arguments.
This competition specifically is open to employees of the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service; we would love to know their reasoning. It baffles me. I confess I can think of no single circumstance in this case that would prevent MacShane being convicted for theft and fraud. What is the answer?
Denis MacShane is a criminal. If he wants to try his chances with a jury, the libel courts are open to him and I am here.
“I’m not sure I disagree with her conclusion either, that the sexualisation of children by the MSM has a lot to do with paedophilia.”
Not by the MSM, in my book. Paedophilia is not something that arrived recently, god knows. And are the MSM responsible for bikinis for 7-8 year olds being sold in our shops? Or T shirts for kids with inappropriate slogans on them? Or ‘nail bars’ for little girls as I saw on TV not so long ago?
Not forgetting the whole “Toddlers & Tiaras” phenomenon which came to us (even Dublin, to my horror) from the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_beauty_pageant
These are things the MSM report on, sure. They don’t create them.
As for Toddlers and Tiaras, I blame low-IQ mothers who try to live (and win beauty prizes) vicariously through their daughters – plus the fathers who don’t put a stop to it. The whole thing is sick. And the famous JonBenét Ramsey murder has never been solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey
“I’ll suggest, rather, that the more barriers you put between the paedophile and his victim, the better. If children were not encouraged to imitate the signals of sexual availability, that would be a partial barrier.”
Hmm. The victims of a crime should behave in such a way as to discourage the criminal. Everyone, by extension, should therefore stay indoors behind locks and wearing burkhas. It is an unsavoury ‘they were asking for it’ road to go down.
“Everyone, by extension, should therefore stay indoors behind locks and wearing burkhas” – except that, of course, a vast amount of child abuse happens in the home.
If a person finds a seven year old in a bikini ‘sexy’ I suggest that person has problems not caused by a style of swimwear (stupid though it is); don’t you think?
Stuart Syvret is suggesting he is about to be thrown back in jail by the Jersey mob.
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/just-ask-damn-question.html?commentPage=2
(see comment at Sunday, 21 October 2012 18:34:00 BST)
Well said Mark and Nevermind. Why is the hag allowed so much airtime on the BBC, The Moral Maze, Question Time etc etc.
Nevermind are you saying that Joshua Rozenberg is not up to the job? 🙂
He is yet another BBC type of course. Always dragged on to comment on legal outcomes in the style of Frank Gardner on terrrrism. Rozenberg was in the High Court when the Dr Kelly case was decided. A lugubrious looking individual.
Technicolour
‘If a person finds a seven year old in a bikini ‘sexy’ I suggest that person has problems not caused by a style of swimwear (stupid though it is); don’t you think?’
There are people who, by being physically, sexual, mentally and above all spiritually abused in their developing years, which is a very large percentage of the population, can be left with disorders which they have no power to cure or control.
The argument against sexualising children comes from the same school of thought that says that alcohol is not a problem but some people abuse it the Tony Blair school of alcohol freedom.
Research shows that the ready availability of alcohol increases its abuse more than any other factor. The police have universally agreed that the Blair/ alcohol lobby have done a vast amount of damage by changing the rules.
Similarly with modest dressing, the de-sexualisation of female clothing may not affect those who are balanced and fully in control of their sexual desires, but many people, probably myself included are conscious of the fact that modest dressing and separation of the sexes vastly reduces temptation, not for seven year-olds in bikinis but for normal sexual attraction.
The purpose of modest dressing in Islam is to protect society from those ‘ in whose hearts is a disease.’ Very stupidly in my opinion modern Muslim UK businessmen have decided to relax these rules. maybe they were all brought up my loving supportive families unlike me who was dumped at 7 years old in British boarding schools.
Legislation should protect the vulnerable, and the strong can protect themselves.
Technicolour you are right about what you say. But as parents we all have a responsibility to help children develop positive values and that includes grounded learning and guided action as children, while they are children. Rather than rushing them to adulthood and encouraging them towards adult dressing and false behavioural emulation.
Surely paedophiles were poorly raised and educated (in their family/home environment) in what’s right and what’s plainly wrong. Its all part of the same, one, process, isn’t it?
That should have read: the argument in favour of the liberalisation of dress for adults or children …’
@ Mark Golding,
We have a pretender in Karel who seeks to claim our prize:-
“Courtenay Barnett,
to my horror, I have just noticed that you already and quite unashamedly claim as well as portion up the prize that I so greatly deserve. But should not a decent hunter wait before the game is in the bag? Even worse is that you are trying to bribe Craig by offers to buy his book. As you obviously try to make me to up your pathetic bribe, you are forcing me to conjure up a better option. Feeling raped, like that double A from sweden, I have no choice and propose to Craig that if he ever gets to Lyon, we have a modest grande bouffe in the Villa Florentine.”
First off Karel, get the facts right. Who said anything about buying a book off Craig Murray. Christmas is coming and both Mark Golding and I are prepared to accept the books in lieu of prize money, and here is proof:-
“Courtenay,
Yes, money has no memory – I would like a framed, signed photograph of the Craig family please – that would be splendid. Clark has my address.”
We are on to your game now. You are trying to confuse Craig so instead of giving two books as prize money, he thinks that he was being bribed, then gives the 100 quid to the third runner up. Well you may get a bronze medal for a tricky try, but the prize goes 50/50 to the two gold medal winners. Nice try – better luck next time Karel.
“If a person finds a seven year old in a bikini ‘sexy’ I suggest that person has problems not caused by a style of swimwear (stupid though it is); don’t you think?”
Yes, sure. I was sexually abused at the age of 8 by a neighbour in his 60s. And I was always dressed very conservatively, given that my family was very religious and we didn’t have much money, so my mother made all my clothes.
But is it really a good idea to dress 7 year olds as if they were 17? They themselves are not unaware of the connotations. TV has made sure of that. Isn’t commodifying the sexuality of women bad enough without starting when they’re little girls?
I’m looking at 12 year olds on the streets that look like 16 year olds did in my childhood, and it worries me. Can children not have a childhood anymore?
The now prevalent argument that adults should be able to do what they like , in dress or sexual behaviour, amongst themselves is twisted by paedophiles that they can agree amongst themselves to do what they like in front of or to children. Savile described himself as ‘bad’ not criminal and the chattering classes tended to agree with him, as did the sexualised people who were drawn to the professions of child protection, child residential care.
The chattering classes of sexual liberalisation like Craig carry a heavy responsibility for not ensuring better standards of whistle-blowing in these areas because they are the ones who broke down the previously existing social norms. They did nothing to protect even the children in their own families, let alone those vulnerable children in care, from the increasing normality of adult sexual predation. That is why Craig describes the problem as ‘low-hanging fruit’ rather than crime.
Loathsome, self-excusing, liberal failing to take responsibility for their own destructive behaviour.
“That is why Craig describes the problem as ‘low-hanging fruit’ rather than crime.”
No, Guano, he described certain named individuals as ‘low hanging fruit’ among a bunch of criminals. Their backgrounds were already known.
The children of sexually liberal adults like Craig and like my ex. frequently get to the age of 20 or 30 unable to achieve anything either socially or academically because, even though they themselves came from stable, loving, faithful families, they splattered their own families with the shit from their own self-anointed sexual freedom like Norfolk pig slurry.
Last time I went to Norfolk the smell was everywhere. In the all pervading atmosphere of sexual liberalisation, paedophiles like Savile get away with criminal acts because no-one can call them to account any more.
By the time you’ve read to the end of this, you’ll probably think I’m an unconditional supporter (or perhaps a close relative) of Mr MacShane. Rest assured I’m not. He deserved what he got…and more.
But still, I’m puzzled by the amount of stick he’s getting on this board, both from Craig’s initial blog and almost all of the commenters. Compared to a lot of his MP peers, the amounts he fiddled are relatively small, but he seems to be coming into much more savage criticism here than any of the other fiddling MPs.
I advance this with some hesitation, but could the reason not be that, as regards Craig, Mr MacShane was a minister at the FCO during Craig’s time in Uzbekistan and, as regards the commenters here, Mr MacShane is openly (and many would say excessively) pro-Israel?
I wonder if, for example, Mr George Galloway, if in the same situation, would be adjudged worthy of an individual blog and receive all these comments.
Guano 4 Nov, 2012 – 5:24 pm
“Similarly with modest dressing, the de-sexualisation of female clothing may not affect those who are balanced and fully in control of their sexual desires, but many people, probably myself included are conscious of the fact that modest dressing and separation of the sexes vastly reduces temptation, not for seven year-olds in bikinis but for normal sexual attraction.”
Sure let’s lock up our daughters to save them from ourselves. And the homos. Not that I’m gay mind but after a drink or ten. you know, your arse looks good. It’s ok behind closed doors, right? Men holding hands and all that. Must have been that last trip to Brighton. Or was it Cairo? Tempatation everyblinkingwhere. Kids gagging furit. It’s ok behind closed doors, right? Shush. Please silence the children in the back. I am so friggin lost. Get me another whiskey please.
Sorry, what were we talking about?
Phil
Can’t cope with truth? Don’t worry the British soap establishment media will keep you focussed on the horrible deeds of a dead man Savile. I didn’t think this bunch of liberal atheists would be able to handle a pinch of truth for more than two seconds before groping for their whiskeys and calling me mad.
Makes you sweat like Malaria, eh? Have a good shout and you’ll feel much better.
Jerôme 4 Nov, 2012 – 6:42 pm
“I’m puzzled by the amount of stick he’s getting on this board”
Speaking for myself it is nothing personal. I follow westminster details so little I barely knew who he was before this.
What I rail against is the arrogance. That he stole but, being of the ruling class, will not be prosecuted. And he knows it. It isn’t a flaw in his character, he is behaving exactly to type.
Courtenay,
you are a confused man or perhaps a woman. What should do with statements like “Yes, money has no memory”??? I have heard such nonsense before but never quite understood it. In my advanced age, I have neither money nor memory but can, when pleasantly drunk, still read the trash that you have written. Unless you are a fetishist or incorrigibly infantile I do not believe that you want “a framed, signed photograph of the Craig family”. What would you do with it? Can you tell us? Run with it to Sotheby’s or Christie’s? I guess not. You will probably tell us later that it was only a feeble joke of yours but I have to suppress my tears to laugh.
I am not trying to confuse Craig. Why should I? You have no sense of humor Courtnay. This deficiency is inborn and you will not get any better as you age. Are you a schoolboy by any chance? Trying to get some O levels? Or is it something else that schoolboys are trying to get nowadays?
I do not want a bronze medal, which you probably have not got anyway. But I have some at home which I can send you as a consolation prize, all probably worth more than 100 quid. I am not a runner up but you are. Only the sphinx and Craig knows.
Jesus Karel – lighten up.
I am a man. I have a profession, I have a family, I have a life.
My blogging here is just to exchange ideas on things that I have some interest in.
Not trying to score any points now.
Cheers.
CB
@ Guano,
Not here “chattering” but bantering and reasoning in response to your comment:-
” The chattering classes of sexual liberalisation like Craig carry a heavy responsibility for not ensuring better standards of whistle-blowing in these areas because they are the ones who broke down the previously existing social norms. They did nothing to protect even the children in their own families, let alone those vulnerable children in care, from the increasing normality of adult sexual predation. That is why Craig describes the problem as ‘low-hanging fruit’ rather than crime.”
I am not sure that you can blame all on Craig Murray or the “chattering classes of sexual liberalisation”. I really can’t see Murray condoning or ignoring sexual predatory conduct directed against minors. But – Murray is more than able to speak for himself.
Would it not be more honest to acknowledge that sexual abuses have occurred for several generations, pre-dating the current crop of scandals. If liberalism is to blame for anything – it might be for the greater good. Consider the Catholic church and deference to the infallibility of the “Holy Father”. Well liberals did challenge where conservatives dare not go. Look at the undeniable history of sexual abuse that was so hidden in times gone by when deference to authority and all the more so Godly authority, was the order of the day. In the US, in Ireland, in England and the truth comes out full force in the Sandusky case in the US. It was the subscription to the correctness or and deference to the standards of those in authority that prevented teachers, parents, and concerned others from whistle blowing on the sexual transgressions, molestations and predatory behavior of Father, Coach or abusive teacher, where in a more liberal and honest environment the truth would have greater acceptance and room for emergence once concerned and informed persons spoke out. This must be a point that you can honestly take into account and give some credit where it is due to liberal thinking.
Subject to correction, I read of two famous persons who were pedophiles ( or suspected to be so in the case of Charles Dodgson – better known as Lewis Carroll – an Oxford mathematician). One was the famous artist Edvard Munch and the other was the person who wrote Alice in wonderland, a mathematician and Anglican deacon to boot.
I do not share all the views of Craig Murray, and you ought not to as well once you have a free and inquiring mind. It is that same very free and inquiring mind that would lead to questioning:-
i) Why should this or that person in authority get away with this or that when the average person in society at large would be soundly punished for such conduct. The conservative approach is to go merrily along with the status quo and not question it for better or worse.
ii) The establishment cover-up is more a conservative predilection than contrasting conduct in public administration of challenging and question authority gone awry ( note: one Craig Murray) which must far more readily be affixed to a liberal predisposition.
iii) Conduct ( read: misconduct) in the armed forces is a perfect example. In the US with women now recruited to service in arenas previously reserved exclusively for males, the rape and abuse by their male counterparts is now steadily coming out. Is it more likely to be the liberal dissident or the run-of- the-mill conservative who is more likely to be the whistle blower about such misconduct.
Ultimately, if one is to be fully honest, then a mere political or ideological label does not provide assurance that right will always be done. What I am saying is that given a range of ideological and political mind-sets, then the ones who challenge and question the status quo more readily – namely the left wing and liberal ones – are the ones more likely to shine the light where sexual misconduct sits hiding in the dark.
It is not accurate and it is not right to simply lay the blame in the court of liberalism without first thinking through some of the dynamic of the thought processes that incline to this or that type of conduct. So liberals are more sexually open than conservatives ( and I have made a guess at this one – along the lines that liberals when last I checked were not then nor now inclining to Victorian puritanical values) – but can one then leap from this “fact” to a conclusion that all wrong is attributable to liberal openness?
Freeing one’s self from the constraints of sexual guilt does not automatically lead to bedding the underage, the mentally challenged or the ones who should be left to enjoy their youth unmolested. Hard to say that liberalism that advocates consensual sex between consenting adults – versus – under cover activities of priests, misdirected custodians of one type or another is all attributable to “liberalism”. How do you explain Father’s ‘peccadilloes’ with the boys in the choir – due to liberalism I guess?
So – Guano – let the debate begin.
“I’m puzzled by the amount of stick he’s getting on this board”
Yeah, me too. So the guy is a thief, a liar, a hypocrite and probably a traitor as well. Big deal, what’s the fuss about?
O/T but please sign my petition to get Peter Sutcliffe paroled, the poor man has suffered enough.
http://www.freepetersutcliffe.org
Habbabkuk,
if the word “dei” excites you so much that you can no longer sleep and eat then look it up under.
http://www.romanesco.it/dialetto.shtml
Guano, you can twist yourself in knots trying to rationalise the proscriptions and diktats of extremist Islam (which correspond with those of extremist Catholicism in the past) but I’m afraid the idea that the way to stop violent and brutal behaviour is to segregate and cloister potential victims (in this case women and children) results in violence and brutality, and leads to an insanity of its own. Part of which is the assumption that the majority of men can take no responsibility for their actions or mindset, which is really quite absurd and insulting. As Phil’s post makes clear.
Dreolin, how awful. And of course I agree with you and Villager: that the state of childhood is one in which sexuality and gender appearance should play no part; certainly not when imposed by adults. And that this insistence on forcing girls into emulating the most exaggerated form of adult female display is both ridiculous and demeaning.
Courtenay,
I apologize for being too brutal. It is the bloody Sunday syndrome.
Guano 4 Nov, 2012 – 6:57 pm
“Phil Can’t cope with truth?”
I lack your certainty and can only talk from my experience. So please indulge me.
Long ago I used to take a lot of drugs. No doubt you would see this as a flaw and as I get old I might agree. A bit. Anyway, two of my long term partners in crime were second generation british muslim, bought up in devout families. None of their siblings indulged like we did. Some siblings became devout themselves.
No doubt you will say my friends were corrupted by external influences, by eastenders or me or something. So let me continue a little.
One of my muslim friends and I went on trips to two muslim countries. Being the depraved failures we were we sought out the local sinners. And did they exist. It was great. Happy days. And great gear.
I also saw rooms of men and boys, all muslim except me, drooling over dancing girls much like the men in the titty bars of soho. Except for the smoke that is.
The thing I found odd was that I never got to know one woman. I would only get a passing nod even from the host’s wife. Which was a shame because I like the company of women. I can even be with them without thinking how great it would be to give them one.
All I am saying is that people are complex and all sorts are everywhere. No doubt you think all my acquaintances bad muslims. Maybe worthy of judgement. But you only like people exactly like you. Because you have the truth.
great (interesting, thoughtful) post, Courtenay.
Phil;
“No doubt you will say my friends were corrupted by external influences, by eastenders or me or something. So let me continue a little”
.
Just an FYI. The etymology of ‘assassin’….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins
Karel,
“Courtenay,
I apologize for being too brutal. It is the bloody Sunday syndrome.”
I am a lawyer and been told more than once that my kind don’t have feelings.
So – you would have to be a lot more brutal to get me upset.
We remain blogging friends.
Cheers.
CB
I am with Guano on this one regarding our moral regard to over sexualisation.
Do we really know how this society has an effect on individuals. We can only imagine what our subconscious is up to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex
So Technicolour how the fuck can you control what is going on deep in your sub conscious.
It is how you react to immoral subversions and that is is represented by the moral fabric of society.
Presently that fabric is tainted. Wake up!
Ben Franklin (Head Honcho CIA Office for Craig Murray Operations) 4 Nov, 2012 – 8:14 pm
“The etymology of ‘assassin’…”
I’d forgotten we have a Head Honcho CIA Office for Craig Murray Operations! Ave an eart guvnor, don’t knick me, it was me ard life that dunnit.
As for the assasins: wrong time, wrong place, wrong everything. Phew, lucky escape. No, seriously, persian women are hot.