This article is probably unpopular. The point of this blog is not to make you agree, but to make you think; if I did not express views which are not the view of the majority, there would be no point in writing at all. This is not an applause seeking echo chamber of popular sentiment.
Boris Johnson has no more ardent political opponent than I. But some of the hysteria about him is overblown.
As a teenage delegate to a Liberal Party conference in 1976 (I think in Llandudno), I had to fend off the amorous advances of a politician who persisted even after I plainly told him I was not gay, and I ended up stabbing his wandering hand with the pin of my delegate’s badge, after which he went away. I regarded his behaviour as over drunken and over randy, but took the attitude then and now that humans are not perfect and inclined occasionally to fall prey to their basic instincts, especially when drinking. If we expected everyone to be perfect, we would live our entire lives in a state of disappointment. I expect a majority of sexually active adults have similar experiences at some time. I do not believe it healthy or sensible to elevate them to serious crimes.
(For the sake of clarity, I should add that I have never personally been accused of an unwanted physical advance).
I really do not care whether Boris Johnson squeezed Charlotte Edwards’ leg 20 years ago. I firmly believe women are every bit the equal of men, and I do not understand why it is somehow reckoned that Ms Edwards, and others in the same position, were unable to stab his hand with a fork, throw a drink in his face, or embarrass him by telling him clearly to stop. I do not accept the notion that difference of age and status between full adults makes firm rejection impossible – that thought did not cross my mind with the politician in Llandudno, who was a good deal older, more famous and wealthy than I, and in a position to further my political ambitions. Ms Edwards saying nothing at the time, saving it up for twenty years and then attempting to use the claim to cause major damage, appears to me behaviour as bad as the original.
I do realise that in this I have outlived the mores of the times. But no matter how fiercely I oppose a no deal Brexit – and I think it would be disastrous for every one but a few nasty financial speculators – I do not think the approach of throwing the kitchen sink of accusations against Boris Johnson is good for the long term health of politics. It also obscures with chaff the allegations of real wrongdoing, like directing public funds and assistance to the company of a woman with whom he was in a sexual relationship. That should be investigated. That is real wrongdoing.
Johnson’s arrogance before the Commons in refusing to apologise for the prorogation of parliament was deeply unpleasant, but I do not approve of the effort to delegitimise his use of language. Words like “surrender”, “betrayal” and “traitor” have centuries of political use behind them. Boris Johnson is as entitled to free speech as anyone else. It is perfectly legitimate for opponents to argue that his language is deliberately divisive and thus people ought to vote against him in the interests of harmony. The electorate can pay heed or not to such argument, as they see fit. But it is quite another thing to argue that such language should be excised from public life. Robust debate is an important aspect of free speech. Controlling the language of your opponents is the antithesis of democracy. I am firmly with John Stuart Mill on this one.
People were offended by Galileo and Darwin, by Gandhi, by Jesus and Mohammed. Causing offence is important to human development. Everyone is entitled to do it, even Boris Johnson.
Finally I had the misfortune to see Jess Phillips on BBC Breakfast TV yesterday morning and she gave, as an example of abuse of MPs the fact that every time she speaks about anti-semitism in the Labour Party she receives emails stating that she is exaggerating, or is a puppet of Israel. A great deal of what MPs plainly see as abusive online activity looks to me simply like people expressing their disagreement. People can be entirely right or entirely wrong in their views, but they still have a right to express them to Members of Parliament. I found Ms Phillips objection to people expressing disagreement deeply worrying.
I have no doubt MPs do receive death threats – I do myself sometimes, generally originating in Florida for some strange reason. But I do wonder how much exaggeration there is of this.
The Laura Kuenssberg case is seminal here. You may recall that 35,000 people signed a 38 Degrees petition calling for her removal for pro-Tory bias and after a major headline news campaign headed by the Guardian and BBC, claiming that the petition was full of abusive and misogynistic comments, 38 Degrees deleted the petition. However I went through all the comments personally and could only find one comment and a single related tweet which was in any way abusive or misogynistic. When I challenge 38 Degrees to produce the evidence of abuse, there was none. That was a very worrying example of the limiting of perfectly legitimate protest against Kuenssberg, on an excuse of “abusive social media” which was a lie.
There is insufficient plain speaking already in politics and the attempt to further contain and constrain, and limit political thought to acceptable channels and vocabulary, is worrying. Let Johnson say what he wills, and let the electorate judge that.
As for behaviour, I do not wish to see any further correspondence of the Overton window with sex negative feminism. I can personally think of one mutually fulfilling physical relationship in my own history, where the crossing of that difficult line from friendship to physical intimacy did indeed start with the squeeze of a leg under the table. The initiation of more intimate physical contact is the most critical point in the complex courtship rituals of developed human societies. To insist that verbal agreement must always be sought before a move to kiss or an exploratory caress of a leg or a shoulder, is a fundamental change in culture which I am not at all sure is desirable. The essential qualifier is of course that, if the other person either verbally or by action does not welcome the tentative first move, then the initiator must desist immediately. It is my own belief that sex-negative feminism seeks quite deliberately to invalidate perfectly normal heterosexual courtship and that the chattering classes have far too readily adopted this, in the interests of identity politics.
I am perfectly aware that what I have written will offend some pleasant people and is against current fashionable thinking. I am also well aware that less pleasant people will utterly misrepresent what I have written as a justification of sexual assault. I deplore entirely any non-consensual sexual activity forced on anyone, and I believe that the slightest indication of disapproval should lead to an instant stop. But to deny the existence of non-verbal communication, and make an issue of non-violent initiation of contact outside an erogenous zone, is to me not legitimate. I would also refer you to my last post, and the extraordinary difference in the treatment in these matters by the media and political classes purveying identity politics of those within the neo-liberal “centrist” consensus, like Bill Clinton and Brendan Cox, and those outside it, like Boris Johnson, Alex Salmond or Julian Assange. This is a misguided and an extraordinarily selective outrage.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
IF YOU LIVE IN THE UK, PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION FOR OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL OSCE OBSERVERS FOR THE NEXT SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM
Craig seems to have lost the plot, sadly.
Someone tell him we are in the C21 not the C20 or earlier.
Spot on Sharp Ears. If you ever read The Catholic Orangemen there’s a whiff of this secret life of an Edwardian diplomat stuff on the very first page, which was no doubt written with a chortle, but left me perplexed.
In that or another book Craig also expresses – and also near the beginning – admiration for a male’s actions of fathering children all over the place without contributing to their upbringing.
Perplexing is the right word. Very.
Seems like the new dark ages to me.
The sort of overreaction Craig was expecting…
Someone tell him we are in the C21 not the C20 or earlier…
Unfortunately, the events he is talking about took place in the 20th century not the 21st century. So you’ll have to take your smug 21st century New Puritanism and do one.
Oh stonky don’t be such a snowflake. I’d love to see what would happen to the bloke that touched your daughter or wife’s inner thigh against her wishes.
Oh stonky don’t be such a snowflake. I’d love to see what would happen to the bloke that touched your daughter or wife’s inner thigh against her wishes…
Sorry shat I thought giyane was the resident Moslem on this forum. My wife and my daughters aren’t my property.
But if somebody touched the inside of their thigh 20 years ago I would have expected them to deal with it 20 years ago. Alternatively, if they needed me to deal with it, come to me 20 years ago. Because I’m struggling to understand the intensity of the pain caused today by someone who touched the inside of someone’s thigh 20 years ago.
Oh, and have a ‘virtue signaller’ in exchange for your ‘snowflake’. You really deserve it.
Why are you so angry stonky it was only meant as a bit of fun?
I’m not commenting on Edwards. I’m just saying that men of a certain age have a blind spot regarding sexual harassment. If a 20 year old friend of yours or your daughter’s told you a weird looking man she didn’t know touch her up her up her skirt at a works dinner I cannot believe you would be anything other than outraged by him and sympathetic if not protective to her, I certainly would be – it’s outrageous
As for Edwards in the times, it’s interesting, not whether she tells the story but why the Rupert Times – largely supportive of Johnson – would commission it or print it?
I think it’s probably to drive certain types of older voters to be more sympathetic to Johnson.
As for virtual signaller, well if that’s what you chose to call common decency then so be it.
Well I’m glad you said it Sharp Ears. Craig goes Gammon! ???
White male privilege is a real thing and it’s its particularly strong in Craig’s demographic. The fact is that white British men really do not understand sexual harassment from a woman’s point of view. Sure we’ve all been touched up my an older man, working in entertainment, I’ve been touched up by quite a few older women but it’s just funny we laugh it off, it is of no threat or consequence to us. It is a real black spot of ignorance, so Craig is applying he logical analytical brain to a massive blind spot in his understanding and returning with an epic fail.
Thank goodness there are at least a few men in this comment section who understand that Craig has a massive blind spot when it comes to the sexual harassment of women and girls. Having read many of the comments it is sad and disheartening to realise that so many men, in this day and age, just don’t get it.
Whilst I very much value Craig’s blog and his interesting and informative views, I was surprised to read in his memoir that as he left Poland by car with his wife he wondered whether his “mistress”, who he had just dumped (without telling her), will find out that he’s slept with her two sisters. Of course Craig has the right to deliberately make himself look careless and exploitative; none of us are perfect, and he doesn’t claim to be.
There is a difference between causing offence with choice of language, and using language to change the nature of an argument – Johnson is attempting the latter. He describes a piece of legislation as ‘The Surrender Act’. He does this in order to appeal to a constituency (the terminally dense, but usefully numerous) which he knows will respond in the way he wants: who’d want to support a surrender?. This sort of labelling is straight out of the Goebbels playbook.
Well said.
What you describe is part and parcel of how the totalitarian 1% rule, by making everything we say and do a criminal offence, from which they are exempt, as they decide who is charged and who is set free, hence the double-standard.
Except once an outsider is elected they are liable to turn the tables and use those very same laws to prosecute the 1%, hence their hatred for Trump and Corbyn.
“Except once an outsider is elected they are liable to turn the tables and use those very same laws to prosecute the 1%, hence their hatred for Trump and Corbyn.”
First point Trump has really prosecuted nobody as far as I know. He is not an outsider he is part of the 1% being a billionaire. All the noise that Trump makes is purely tribal and factional but not outside the system.
Corbyn has not been elected at least not yet and of course he is an outsider whose election would be foiled as much as possible. There is no similarity whatsoever between the two.
Trump has done nothing but serve the 1% (or 0.1%, to be more accurate) since he first got to office. His cabinet consists of the upper 0.1%, as is the monster himself. What the freak are you talking about, Dave? Who’s alt-right BS talking points are you regurgitating these days?
I suppose I should have added some caveats. Much of the media coverage doesn’t involve prosecutions in court but in the court of public opinion and the fear of Trump and Corbyn is due to what they can do when/now in office. Trump has greatly helped drain/expose the swamp by seeing off “Russia collusion”.
My Islamist friend used to advise a dodgy course of action such as borrowing money that was Haram and then insist I repay when I had no money to repay it. And when I sold s house to repay it he pocketed the cash.. As a new arrival to Islam I wasn’t expecting to be tied up and robbed by an Islamist liar.
Similarly Cameron offered the people a choice they didn’t know they had, viz to stop immigrants. They had no idea that their manufacturing jobs and groceries depended on thousands of lorries crossing to and from France ever day. They had no idea of the affect it would have on the NI troubles.
Cameron conned us and has whitewashed himself. He has pretended to criticise his closest colleagues. In a court of Law a judge would conclude we had been conned by a gang of criminals but caveat emptor. We did not know the stories were criminals.
We know now. Please draw your own conclusions as to what we do about it.
Like maybe never vote Tory.
The Bullingdon boys, working together, want to repatriate and change all UK law back from the EU and they needed our consent. We were conned. We were raped.
Since the mods want everything to be on topic, shall I describe what my ex told me about being raped? Her mum was terminally ill and she was looking after her and her younger siblings. Not much emotional support from her dad who had taken the family on a skiing holiday leaving her mum at home. He was busy chatting up the ladies and a ski instructor started chatting up her. She thought she might get a kiss and a cuddle and a first taste of sex. Instead she was rather forcefully raped.
When somebody touches your thigh when you are young and lonely there is no regulator knob for you to control what is done to you. Once you agree to intimacy there is no way to demand the love you are craving from your missing mum and dad. You get what you get and you have to deal with it.
If the Prime Minister wants to be prime minister in 2019, post me too Weinstein rape, both he and Craig are going to have to ‘ve into the 21st century as Sharp Ears rightly said. The office of Prime Minister in 2019 is not one in which a gang of elected or unelected men can intimidate and unseat Mrs May by refusing to vote for her democratically negotiated withdrawal agreement.
Boris Johnson stands for date rape, opportunist rape in his private life and country rape in his political life.
He is totality unacceptable in both areas of his personality and if there was any honour in the houses of parliament he should lose any vote of no confidence on both counts
Dave doesn’t believe a word. He came here to conflate Corbyn and Trump, as if that were possible, everything else is incidental.
Clearly, the world is divided into men who grab things (pu$$y for Trump – he’s nothing if not direct) and those who don’t (me for example and all of my male friends as far as I know). The information is useful to judge character in my view even if it is no bar to high office. I’m sure it has put some Tories off Johnson and rightly so.
Johnson is a nasty piece of shit. No if, no buts, he’s an elite who does what he wants, when he wants, and is as far removed from ordinary folks as one could imagine.
The language that he uses, the words that he uses, are all used to engender hatred. Like Adolf Hitler he raises resentment and hatred against the enemy within – and that Craig includes the Scots too.
Frankly I couldn’t care two shits about how many times he’s wielded his dick and with who. Tough shit unfortunately for the wee wifie and kids at home – but that’s what big dicks like Johnson do.
What I do care about is the bastard glad handing his floosies with taxpayerr cash and giving access to the levers of influence. Ditto his assertions that he will come to Scotland and tell Scotland’s First Minister to fuck off as he wraps the place in Union Jacks. Him and his kind have no mandate in Scotland but he’s going to fuck Scotland
Maybe someone should tell him or his Alister Jack to fuck off. A good boot in the balls , metaphorically, to any of the Tory bastards would be no crime at all. We are after all at war aren’t we when you listen to this creep’s incendiary Brittanic language.
Suspend parliament, tell the Scottish FM to fuck off, it’s all in the Nazi playbook and the English bastards are playing up to it.
But maybe I step across the mark for such language is totally wrong. The English are not bastards, some of them are very decent people. And neither are all of the Tories because some of them do have honourable intentions. But not all are the same.
But the language of this creep. It makes people’s blood boil, and he knows it. The Scots have fought for independence based upon the sentiment of pro Scotland and not anti England. Johnson would change that and is doing so in Northern Ireland where he’s going to tell them they get a border, or customs posts whatever they like it or not.
But who cares if a few English shoot themselves to transpose a comment by the big dicks father Stanley when he opined that about the Irish. Poor Stanley Johnson with his brains blown out across the pavement – who would care indeed – because that is what we are up against in these people.
So a message to Alister Jack or Jackson Carlaw as they get behind Boris. Think carefully about the whirlwind your leader wants to unleash. As the IRA said of Thatcher many years ago – “ today we were unlucky but she needs to be lucky all the time “
Not exactly the future any of us would want, but one that might be coming our way.
” Johnson is a nasty piece of shit ” That’s for sure.. privileged, Pampered Asshole.
And yes he thinks he can come here and tell Nicola Not to attend next years big Climate conference.. Well I think Boris is the one who can Piss off.. I see youtube have Mangled the link for the Video of Shithead Ranting about it..Strange..
“I’ll tell you what we’ll do. We make sure – with every policy we pursue, with every investment we make in Scotland, then we put a Union flag on it.
“For instance, the COP26 climate change summit that’s going to be held … the leaders of the entire world will come to Glasgow.
“I guess I don’t mind seeing a Saltire or two on that summit, but I want to see a Union flag – I don’t want to see Nicola Sturgeon anywhere near it,.. Says Dickhead Johnson.. Lets see how he Achieves that Infantile Plan.
“Like Adolf Hitler he (Boris Johnson) raises resentment and hatred against the enemy within – and that Craig includes the Scots too.”
Got any examples of Boris Johnson “raising” anti-Scottish hatred? Or does he just do it by the way he stands?
“Him and his kind have no mandate in Scotland but he’s going to fuck Scotland”
Governments have no mandate in constituencies that returned Opposition MPs, right? Now apply that to the current minority government in Edinburgh.
“We are after all at war aren’t we when you listen to this creep’s incendiary Brittanic language.”
Better get your helmet on then. But seriously, no. War means bang bang, kill kill.
“Suspend parliament, tell the Scottish FM to fuck off, it’s all in the Nazi playbook and the English bastards are playing up to it. But maybe I step across the mark for such language is totally wrong. The English are not bastards, some of them are very decent people. And neither are all of the Tories because some of them do have honourable intentions. But not all are the same.”
Are you drunk?
“But who cares if a few English shoot themselves to transpose a comment by the big dicks father Stanley when he opined that about the Irish. Poor Stanley Johnson with his brains blown out across the pavement – who would care indeed – because that is what we are up against in these people.
Well that’s one example of an English person whose violent death you say you wouldn’t care about.
“So a message to Alister Jack or Jackson Carlaw as they get behind Boris. Think carefully about the whirlwind your leader wants to unleash. As the IRA said of Thatcher many years ago – “ today we were unlucky but she needs to be lucky all the time Not exactly the future any of us would want, but one that might be coming our way.”
Do you want nationalist violence or are you just predicting it, or don’t you care for the difference once you’ve had a few?
Whilst editor, he published a poem in The Spectatator that the Scots were a verminious race who should be kept in their ghetto and exterminated.
Raising enough hatred for you? A little incitement to genocide. All just a bit of banter eh.
You sound very rectal for a marxist N_, let me ask you, who knew about an establishment stooge Papen, chancellor of Germanys coffers, and his secret cooperation with Himmler, Hitler a.nd Goering before the shit hit the fan?
Answer nobody, it came out after the war. The resmeblances are stark and despite our human existence going linear intp a monumentally destructive future, holding on to the Union should be the last thing bothering you.
You put “a message to Alister Jack or Jackson Carlaw” followed by a quote from the IRA about murdering Thatcher?
Completely agree with you Craig. It seems parliament is filling up with those educated in ‘safe spaces’ and protected by ‘trigger warnings’.
That is EXACTLY the message that people are supposed to receive and internalise from the current propaganda.
Not offended in the least, Craig; you’ve spoken more sense here on the subject than I’ve read anywhere else. Thank you.
Stabbing someone in the hand was fucking ridiculous. Apart from that, good post.
Noone’s sexual activity makes him good or bad politician, it’s clear.
But when you make your mind if this man is good choice to represent your whole nation, then it matters.
Put his language together with his gestures (I mean putting his feet on the table in the Elysee palace) and the ‘thigh squeezing’ fits into the portrait.
Of course, it does not make him bad politician. It just can explain why some people don’t want him to represent the country.
I judge from myself, because I believe that all people in the world are the same. I would feel ashamed if Putin or Lavrov behaved like this.
It doesn’t matter about what happened 20 years ago. Boris is nasty. He is now trying to implement custom checks in Ireland. It is impossible and Boris is just kicking the can down the road. Reminds me of Stormont 1974…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl2yo727FSc&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1PuSnBxTd-Zmbmvhr3bSb0ajlfn3Dz38WjvIDEKp-gmD58zB5SweHUFOs
A hard Brexit and survival of the GFA appear to be mutually exclusive. Boris and the hard Brexiters are trying to convince us otherwise. It is this deception that has led to the current mess.
I’m pretty sure CM has covered it, but there’s evidence to suggest people like Gove and others have wanted to destroy the GFA for years.
And the DUP have always been against the GFA. Also there has not been any power sharing or devolved government in Stormont for a few years now.
… the reactionaries dream of a future past
The GFA is silent on customs checks- it mandates the progressive DEMILITARISATION of the RoI/NI border, and nothing said by the PM or the UK side to date suggests reintroduced checkpoints which will stop people as opposed to freight- and even the latter won’t be stopped at the border, just checked at the relevant destination, or port from which the freight will leave Ireland.
Old Mark, there are I suppose 3 possibilities.
1) you haven’t read the GFA.
2) you’ve read it and are lying about what it says.
3) you read it and are too thick to understand it.
Tell you what, I’ll let you choose which is the truth. Because anyone who has read the GFA knows that it puts massive emphasis on freedom of movement and fostering unhindered links between Irish communities and people on either side of the border.
Now, you seem to be distinguishing between people and freight. Do I need to tell you that trucks and vans are driven by people? Do I need to tell you that in order to check a truck or van you need to stop it first? Duh!
I’m leaning towards option 3 above, what’s your thoughts?
Hatuey
To be fair to old Mark, he is not alone in thinking this way as the same point has been argued by hard Brexiters and the DUP.
Although the question of hard borders is not directly addressed in the GFA, it would be inconceivable to implement the desired harmonious integration between the two communities and between the north and south, a thread that runs through the GFA, if you have a hard or any administrative border. The other big problem is of course that the GFA often refer to implementing EU policies as a standard when things have not been directly stated, and of course this will now not be the case with any form of Brexit. In fact a new look and a rewriting of the GFA may need to be done after Brexit. This also reminds me to look at what the proposed EU withdrawal agreement has to say on this matter.
He knows what he’s saying. He’s basically saying “fuck the GFA” and doesn’t give a toss about peace in NI.
Yes, if a man takes a big handful of your inner thigh, you might be able to put him off by sticking a fork in his eye or keying his car. That doesn’t mean it’s ok. It’s not a hand on the knee. How far is acceptable? Is it ok to put his hand down her front? To tear her dress off in the street? To put his hand in her knickers and pull out some hair?
Get a grip Craig.
Calm down Ron!
Fantasising about these things is not healthy.
Doug Scorgie
It’s not that fantasy is not healthy.
It civerts our attention from the subject in hand. Which is populism being used to drive through radical Tory change to our rights , freedons and expectations
Like every country in the world New technology allows governments to stop employing people on the ground working to their own semi independent discretion but to employ them centrally and anonymously at the end of a digital communication . Car parks nag military drones are examples.
With the introduction of 5 G government will exercise massive control over our political views and China apparently pirates a reward / penalty system that covers every aspect of citizens’ lives.
In order to transform and massively expand government power they need to totally transform our rights embodied in law. The excuse for this is Brexit and they simply don’t care about the cost of it.
They’ll QE it and crack the pound to get it done. Thomas Cook was casualty no 1.
Just as a rapist does not care about generations of psychological traume that follow minutes of illegal pleasure, so in the criminal minds of Tory MPs they do not care about putting centuries of human struggle for our rights in the bin
Sex, an overrated pastime, just the exchange of body fluids between humans? Or the expression of mutual love, to share their living experience of two humans and the desire to procreate, to have a family?
Johnson’s personality, it’s shallowness, is well understood.And then the issue is of, it is acceptable or dangerous, for him to be allowed political power.
I’d be rid of him on both counts.
Nothing to apologise for Craig. I was thinking the same myself. Johnson’s behaviour was cheeky not aggressive or abusive, and it was 20 years ago. I don’t think it helps for those opposed to Johnstone to be flagging up petty instances like this.
It is not like they were two students in a nightclub. At the time Johnson was an editor and the victim was far junior to him. He was in a position of power. It was abuse of that power. Her reaction would have meant losing valuable contracts and important contacts.
A thoroughly sensible piece by Mr Murray here. And food for thought during the silly season of election build-up. Thanks.
One of the best posts written by Craig ever. There are plenty of ways to excoriate Boris without resorting to something that is alleged to have happened 20 years ago. And there are plenty of women with or without political power who grab men’s bums, make “inapproiate” comments, make unwanted sexual advances and behave less than perfectly, but I don’t recall seeing ANY reports in the media about this. I’ve met many women in power, in the media, in the theatre, and in business who are utterly poisonous, controlling, manipulating and deeply unpleasant, roughly to the same proportion of men I’ve come across.
Jess Phillips is just one political example. While she berates Boris and others for speeches or quotes which incite violence or intolerance, it’s best not to forget that she is the MP who said she would rather “stab Corbyn in the front” than in the back. So one rule for her and a different rule for others, then.
There is a distinct lack of nuance in the way the media reports minor infringements of sexual and social conventions which are lumped together with genuinely serious transgressions, as though they are all equal. We are reaching the point where anyone can recall at will something that happened years ago and suddenly claim they have been irrevocably traumatised, and we seem to be primed to accept anything they say without evidence. All this does is devalue REAL and clearly obvious events in a mist of vague and very late accusations which have now become a weapon by which to gain a political advantage, rather than an authentic recall of truly traumatising episode.
I think Craig is trying to be scrupulously fair here, yet I see comments that he is somehow not in the 21st Century. On the contrary, I think his post is simply an attempt to introduce the concept of nuance into the discussion.
Another example is the over-reported but under-evidenced accusations of antisemitic attitudes in the Labour party, where any objection to Israeli foreign policy is taken to be a personal insult – see “The Lobby”, a brilliant expose of this phenomenon here https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/thelobby/
“There are plenty of ways to excoriate Boris without ……”
———
You cannot begin to do that while you refer to the creature Johnson as, “Boris“.
The brand name, “ Boris“, served Johnson well in securing his election as mayor of Dickhead City (AKA s London). His campaign teams are trying to repeat the trick across United Kingdom .Please do nothing to help them.
Fair enough, although I don’t quite see that using a first name is any less pejorative given the context of my post. But for the record, I do think he is a slimey toad and absolutely ghastly.
I have always been puzzled by Diane Abbot’s constant referencing to the PM as “Boris” in interviews – she should know better.
Craig, I see a pattern emerging: I often spit out my coffee over one or two assertions in your articles, more so recently. But whenever you include the “some of you may not like this…” rider I always think you have nailed it.
Why bother power sharing in Stormont when you can power share in Westminister?
It was a clever move by the DUP to refuse to compromise in Stormont and a god send to them when May called her 2017 election hoping for an increased majority but handing instead serious leverage to the DUP. This particular tail has successfully managed to wag the dog so far where Brexit is concerned.
It is obviously extremely undemocratic that such an arrangement means the DUP has a much bigger say on the future of the U.K. say than the SNP let alone Labour. Such is the terminal decay that we have sunk into. It would be a major coup if Sinn Fein decide to take up their seats in the Westminster parliament and tip the balance and change the course of history. But it seems that SF does not see this tactical possibility.
Meanwhile NI has no government since January 2017 and this does not seem to bother anyone.
Was it a clever move or was the DUP running away from a scandal that would have shown them to be as fraudulent scoundrels, SA?
Without a working parliament at Stormont, Ireland would have to organise a ‘binding’ referendum on a united Ireland.
At least it would be without those selfservers who sold their souls at the cross road. They could have bailed out Harland&Wolf with their billion bribe, could they not?
It seems Arlene Foster and her DUP friends are very taken with Boris Johnson and the extreme right wing Conservatives.
I would guess Boris has offered them to form a proper Coalition after the coming General Election ( if they win)
If Johnson obtains an outright majority at the next GE, expect the DUP to be thrown under the bus (and not an eco-friendly Wrightbus). Johnson’s issue with Theresa May’s deal was the NI backstop. The obvious solution to the NI backstop is Customs posts at Belfast, Larne and Warrenpoint.
Johnson has been careful to maintain a personal distance from the DUP, using J. R-M as an intermediary and J. R-M is very, very Catholic.
Would it be assault if you perceived someone undressing you with their eyes?
If they indicated clearly that was what they were doing, either verbally or by grotesque facial expressions, then it would be abusive, yes, especially if they were in a position of power. I know women who have suffered this publicly and it is frankly really unpleasant.
In one of the Thomas Hardy stories, some young women threw a pig’s pizzel at the man,
he is a bit shocked but that was the girls way of attracting him.
The character did not report the girls for sexual harassment
but it was 1860.
This is an excellent article and absolutely spot on.
When I was in my late teens in the 1970s I was invited by my brother to the Forth Valley NUJ annual dinner. The keynote speaker was a well-known actor, a big guy who was typically cast as a hard man. After the dinner I got chatting to him in one of the bars and was very flattered by the paternal attention shown to me by this famous TV star. I was sitting at the inside of a bench seat with a table. We had been talking for some time when he suddenly leaned in very close, put his big hand across the top of my thigh and my groin, and suggested we go up to his room.
I had hardly led a sheltered existence, but I came from a working class village in Central Scotland where there were no openly gay people at the time. I was shocked and horrified. I managed to extricate myself. The extent of my turnoil can be seen from the fact that when I told my brother about the incident I was crying – laughable behaviour from a young working class man in these days.
So I’ve been right in the same place as all the me-tooers. But for some strange reason I haven’t suffered decades of trauma as a result. In fact, from the moment I pulled myself together, about 20 minutes after the incident, I’ve never given it another moment’s thought. And the idea that decades later, driven by some bile-ridden spite, I might try to make capital out of what was nothing more than a harmless pass and try to ruin someone’s reputation in the process, is repellent.
As far as I’m concerned every victory or these phoney feminists with their contrived grievances is another nail in the coffin of any kind of society that’s worth living in. It cost Tim Hunt his happiness, his reputation, and all his plans for his retirement. And it looks like it might well cost Julian Assange his life.
Sorry to hear about your experience. Did you feel it was an abuse of his power?
Separately. Tim Hunt never groped anyone nor was he even accused of that. And as far as I understand he did nothing wrong even by the wokest of woke standards. He made a light-hearted remark, meant to be interpreted sarcastically, in a meeting about women in science that he had generously agreed to speak at. Fortunately it seems he has now resumed his career.
Sorry to hear about your experience. Did you feel it was an abuse of his power?
Thank you. Your sympathy is kind but unnecessary. I don’t feel it was an abuse of his power. The guy just made a pass at me. No harm was done. There’s no such thing as ‘abuse of his power’ in this kind of incident. That’s just made-up shit from fembot loonies
“So I’ve been right in the same place as all the me-tooers.”
No you haven’t. Not at all.
And the fact that you think you have just shows how little you understand about what women are talking about.
And I’m sorry you had that clearly upsetting experience.
A hard Brexit is tantamount to a sulk. I presume that after the 1st of November without any deal, there will be a major legal hiatus because part of the withdrawal agreement included the appropriate change in British law to take account of this, so without an agreement there is nothing to guide anybody where these laws are concerned.
Sooner a British government will have to complete this deal. I wonder whether until such a time any deals we have with any countries will have any meaning especially as we will be seen as a country that does not abide by treaties.
I agree SA, not paying for the commitments one made will have a bearing for our endeavours in trying to deal with 54 countries the EU has trade agreements with and those companies that used us as a stepping stone into the most lucrative market in the world, would soon realise what side their toast is buttered on.
Who would want to deal with a country that runs away from longterm commitments on the whims of some finance moguls who want to keep their tax evasions secret.
Look no further for for what has kept the UK behind.
The Tory Government has departed from the business of running the country to engage full time in the theatre of appeasing their base. Very Trumpian.
Her Majesty’s, Colonial Governor to the Province of Caledonia, Alister Jack has decreed that the May Day bank holiday will be replaced by Union day. Leaving aside the fact that Alister will be out on his erse at the next election, I for one will welcome the new traditions that will come with Union day. Barricades in the streets and Molotov cocktails in the style of Nothern Ireland.
The article has proven to be very popular. Distractions have been the order of the day with the introduction of identity politics. Matters that should usually be dealt with in society through a normal process of dialogue, reprimands and other ways of person to person interactions have become weaponised. Those who wish to insist on freedom of speech appear to reserve these rights to themselves only and the bullied are transforming into bullies.
Excellent article that tackles a growing problem which few dare to address.
I’ve read joining the European Economic Area is the get out of jail free card!
Completely with you on the article. You’re absolutely right in your assessment. It’s a very tough time for some people and unfortunately they are being misguided by the media here. Therefore, any article for enlightenment is always welcomed.
I think the subliminal message of sex outrage culture from women is that underneath it all, many of those women want a man as a sex toy, a bit of a marital prostitute, giving them sexual pleasure to order. They are not into submitting to male ardour in any way, seeing that as a betrayal of wimmin.
It is hard to argue that they cannot live happy lives with a submissive wimp if that makes two humans happy, what is very easy, however, to argue is that transposing personal preferences into societal conditioning is the apotheosis of totalitarian nonsense.
I have lived in a family of totalitarian dictators who lie that ‘you can do anything you want’ until I do precisely that rather than be a slave to their repressed fantasies. Not one single penny has been spent on me doing as I desire, mainly because I refuse to see them as ‘socialists’ when they are grubby little narcissistic/psychopathic shits. The rubicon came when putting my health at risk was seen as de rigeur and when I sorted my health out by stepping off the unhealthy train, I was treated abusively. Once that happens, all concepts of love, respect, political allegiance, go out the window. You may still hope for a few years for better, but your bottom line is that they are what they have proven thenselves to be. It is no surprise that better has never ever emerged….
As for women expressing outrage at a hand on the knee/thigh, start asking serious questions about women using security service surveillance technology to put 40 year old MA PhD MBA employees under 24/7 surveillance without their consent. If that is nothing but a hand to the knee is a crime, then women have gone stark raving bonkers.
Such behaviour should not be dealt with through the courts, it should be dealt with by a kettle of boiling water straight over the head. It is the only way that McKinsey and KPMG’s organised crime families will be brought to heel….when third degree burns sees skin falling off faces, disgusting criminals aided and abetted by the City of London will have learned the only way that working class scum will ever learn….it is a better alternative than killing their children….but there is no way their children cannot be fully educated that they are the sons and daughters of organised criminals…
The same must I am afraid apply to the BBC. Every climate bedwetter in that organisation who owns a car dies, every one of them who travels overseas dies. Any foreign jolly organised sees 500 death sentences. Anyone eating meat is tied to a tree and told to eat grass. They will starve and shrivel up within days…..
The BBC will set the lead in carbon negativity and any transgressions have neoconservative bombing campaign implications. David Shukman, Roger Harrabin et al will live lives of saintly carbon free purity or they die…..
Very quickly you will find out that the BBC believes in nothing but sponging billions to enjoy overseas jollies as a reward for engaging in mass brainwashing. The minority spongers on a jolly to Doha right now can be cut straight away: vast overstaffing, enormous amounts of mindless verbiage. One presenter, three commentators/analysts is all that is required: 95% of budget can be ripped out quite happily. See how they get on with austerity cuts…..and start with that total waste of space, ‘Radzi’. Him being an Asian homosexual will not stop the axe falling. Move on to the verbal waste of space, Denise Lewis, ditto Paula Ratcliffe. Sack Gabi Logan for being as ignorant as can be. Absolutely no value add anywhere there. None.
Then you can strip out £20m from the bloated football budget without raising sweat. Never employ one when you can you employ three to say the same thing is the BBC’s mantra: time for that to stop, starting with cutting Dan Walker from the roster as the BBC now insist on referring to. Cut 50% of the analysts or halve all their pay. You will not see any difference in quality as none of them do anything but drone mindless inanities.
Then cut all NFL. BBC cannot afford to cover cricket and NFL does not need nannying as the richest sport going. They can survive on a commercial channel.
Dear me, am I giving salivating Tories scythes to take to the BBC fat?
What a shame…..
Just teaching the BBC what climate bedwetting will do for them…..
You sound like a very troubled person. If you were someone I knew personally, I would suggest that you seek professional help. This is not meant in an insulting way. It sounds as if you have a great many problems and traumas that you are overshadowing you.
I think there’s a lot to like about his style. Like a modern day Blake.
” I have lived in a family of totalitarian dictators who lie that ‘you can do anything you want’ ”
My ex shacked up with a guy who said adults could do what they liked. So she did and the household became so crazy that the kids got abused and she had to leave the house. So he bought it off her cheap.
In retrospect I realised that he knew very well the difference between right and wrong and was surprised that she didn’t. He just thought she was green as grass and let her fall into his trap.
Anybody who ever invites you to do something you know is not right is setting you up to exploit you and trap you by your own conscience. I’m afraid that applies to Craig and his armies of visiting adults.
The problem with giving the same right to offend to public figures who are supposed to be leaders as other citizens is that they have influence. They can by their words increase the frequency of abuse or attacks on innocent people, and the attackers can and do quote them in support of their actions. It is not for nothing that incitement to murder is a crime, even if the speaker doesn’t carry a weapon.
For this reason, as I see it, puiblic figures have an added responsibility. What should be done when they abuse it is not an easy question. One possibility, to begin with, is a censure by a competent authority, perhaps the Speaker in the case of MPs (including ministers)..
Sounds like you have a serious class problem. If you want a role model, buy a packet of Wheaties.
I agree with the broad thrust of the argument. Courtship and seduction were, as you say, ways of bridging that critical point in which two people might change the nature of a relationship, not a thing easily or lightly done. Changes in mores have made things more complicated and more dangerous for people pursuing relationships, especially those in the public spotlight. But what I’d point out is that just as there were people relatively better and worse off under the old way of doing things, the same is true of the new, and I don’t think it’s true that it’s only to the benefit of sex-negative feminists that the culture is changing.
A mjaority of resourceful people will fend off unwanted advances with a pin, fork or stomp of the foot, it’s true. However this is no succor for a small but significant part of the population who are extremely shy and averse to confrontation. Predators can rely on that knowledge, moving from target to target until they find someone too timid to speak up and defend themselves, and when they find one that person is truly in danger. We can hardly blame such a person for being shy if it’s in their nature. They may not be much safer in the moment now than before, but if playing in the mind of the predator is the possibility of future comeuppance for an act they’re about to commit, that is a deterrent.
You might say this is a ‘think of the children’ type argument, and personal responsibility is a mantle every adult ultimately has to assume, but my point is that a culture of explicit consent does in fact help some people who might not otherwise have been able to help themselves.
In the old days it was enough to ask a girl if she wanted to come back to your flat to see your etchings…
Society has lost all subtlety. If you asked that today most would wonder what you meant and suggest you go get the etchings and bring them back to the bar.
Can’t recommend this enough; https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU
I think many would answer today:
“Etchings? Yuck! Why do you want to show me your itchings?”
But I don’t think it’s about “subtlety. It’s about social taboos and circumventing them. You can ask someone if they’d possibly like to share a sexual experience without making up stories about etchings (or having a cup of coffee). It’s hard to believe sex before marriage was a shameful thing until the 1960s.
Of course, grabbing some unsuspecting woman’s thigh is just filthy. “Cop a feel” I think they called it in Carry On movies.
Nobody should forget that Boris Johnson’s political morality allowed him to support Al Qaida terrorists fighting against the Syrian people for USUKIS. His anything goes attitude about sex is exactly the same as this Tory governments attitude to human life. In 2010 Cameron, Hague and Clegg set up a new foreign policy that Hague said would be different. The difference was that the catastrophe in Iraq stopped british politicians from embarking on criminal wars and the Tories decided to come out the closet with terrorism and use it as the main tool of neocon war.
Libya was trashed using terrorists and USUKIS bombs, Then Cameron gave the order for false flag sniper shootings in Syria. Clinton built a string of concrete bunkers to house the cockroaches which Russia helpfully bombed flat. Boris Johnson is a key figure in the false flag chemical attacks in Syria and in the buffoonery surrounding the Skripals.
What Craig is asking us to do here is to see no connection between the millions of killed and homeless in Syria and Libya and Oaf-face’s casual attitude to sex. Mmm. Know what? That’s complete and utter shit.
” I do not understand why it is somehow reckoned that Ms Edwards, and others in the same position, were unable to stab his hand with a fork, throw a drink in his face, or embarrass him by telling him clearly to stop.”
There’s an easiest thing rule which dominates a lot, maybe most, human behaviour. Reacting the way you suggest is a BIG statement which can be far more difficult than silently suffering the discomfort. Especially if its sudden and unexpected, if its borderline, or if there’s a power imbalance or a work context where you think you might damage your work environment if you kick up a fuss. Not hard to understand when people put up with things like domestic abuse for years even.
Having said that – its not the crime of the century, which I think is partly your point.
That (to date) was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 – which Johnson voted for and is partly responsible for. Hundred’s of thousands of dead… and no-one even mentions it…
Notomassmurder
Iraq? Arent yo u forgetting his involvement in the neocon destruction called Arab Spring Tunisia, Libya Egypt , Obama ‘s Islamic State, Syria and Ukraine?
I grant you he might have more blood on his hands than he has on his dick , him preferring used Tory slags.
I had previously contact 38 degrees and there bias reporting and deleted my subscription.
There bias is obvious.
I wonder it it’s run by the 1922 committee.
History will look back at Britain and see a handful of moral men and women fighting for truth and justice against Tolkienesque armies of brainless monstours.
The Oaf, tuning his public school accent to maximum drawl , has mustered his Tory troops of mixed species, some hard some soft, against the voice of truth and reason, Jeremy Corbyn, in deepest Mordor.
Never in the history of human valour have so many been so unthankful to do few.
The millions who eke their living out with state benefits installed by Labour and defended by New Labour, and all of them baying for the Oaf to win after which he bankrupt them all.
” WE DON’T WANT BENEFITS IF WOGS GET THEM AS WELL “
You paint the most beautiful pictures with words sometimes, Giyane.
It is not only women who are used and disdained. Look at the way these overprivileged and immoral louts treated the staff at their jousting.
Nor do they seem to mind disrespecting the environment provided for their amusement, ultimately at the taxpayers’ expense.
Sexism, vandalism and bullying: inside the Boris Johnson-era Bullingdon Club
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/07/oxford-bullingdon-club-boris-johnson-sexism-violence-bullying-culture
Oh sorry. It was written by a woman!, namely Harriet Sherwood, late of the Guardian’s Jerusalem bureau.
PS Milord Patten (late of Hong Kong, the BBC, the EU, the Thatcher government and so on) is now the Chancellor of Oxford University, Trust an end has been put to the Bullingdon type antics.
The same Oxford University at which scholarscof Hebrew Latin Greek and Arabic 500 years ago recognised and concealed the truth of Islam and the falsity of the state religion of the venal Queen.