The Star of London

OK, OK, I had a look and I couldn't resist. The guy is a comic genius.

All four:

1



2



3



4

Equal Opportunities Offending

This guy isn't afraid to offend anyone. Good for him.



This is part 2 of four. I haven't investigated parts 1, 3 and 4 yet, but I will. If they are anything like this, it will be a treat.

What a shame that he will soon be collecting his P45. He will, sure as eggs. This kind of thing can't be allowed.

UPDATE: all four parts here. Couldn't resist.

Justice At Last

Amazing. The courts have finally started dishing out suitable sentences for those who promote ethnic violence. From the BBC, a story of a man (I'll call him X, for reasons which will become clear) who has been sentenced to 15 months for posting racially inflammatory material on YouTube. Sorry for the long quote, but I think you will agree it was worth it. Prepare to be astonished.

Man jailed for posting jihadi video clips on YouTube

A man has been jailed for 15 months for uploading jihadi video clips on to YouTube. X, 29, of Bognor Regis, earlier pleaded guilty to five offences under the Public Order Act at Leeds Crown Court.

The clips called for a "racial holy war" and were designed to provoke violence against the ethnic majority, particularly in Dewsbury.

When he was arrested, police found Islamic and jihadist memorabilia at his home.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the material came to the attention of police when a journalist researching Dewsbury on the internet came across videos X, of Longford Road, had posted and reported them.

Jihadi imagery

The CPS said they included titles such as 'Behead Those Who Insult Islam' and 'Dewsbury needs Sharia'.

They also featured jihadi references and imagery including an assault on a white man by an Asian man.

Stuart Laidlaw, reviewing lawyer for the CPS, said: "X decided to use the very public forum of YouTube to distribute videos of racist and inflammatory nature which he had edited, and which were designed to provoke violence against the ethnic majority, particularly those living in Dewsbury.

"They called for a 'racial holy war', described acts of violence and made supportive references to Islamic groups such as Islam4UK and al-Mouhajiroun."

Mr Laidlaw added: "Freedom of speech carries with it responsibilities.

"Publishing something that is abusive and insulting and that is likely to stir racial hatred is against the law and the CPS will work with the police to prosecute robustly anyone who does so."

Heh. Only kidding.

Don't you love that last sentence from the CPS?

Would you help a child? Seriously?

I posted yesterday about the ridiculous case of the dinner lady suspected of grooming a child for sex by offering a biscuit to the child.

I have two daughters, who are now in their mid-20s. When they were little, I was fully involved in their care and upbringing. I changed their nappies, I dressed them, I took them to the toilet, I bathed them every evening. It didn't seem at all unusual. When they grew older, they started to close the door when they were in the bath, and not run round the house starkers as they had done before. This seemed quite natural to me, and I took the hint, as by that time they were quite capable of looking after themselves. Parents start by doing everything, and then have to learn to fade into the background.

The thought that this was in some way wrong, or even questionable, never crossed my mind. Both girls were pretty, and slim and active, but I never saw them with anything but a father's eyes. I think there is an inbuilt mechanism in the brain which switches off certain responses where you own children are concerned, and it's why we are so horrified by incest and child abuse - it just goes against everything the human brain is programmed to do. The Julia Somerville case seemed more amusing, in a WTF? kind of way, than disturbing. Little did we know. When my girls were small, I had a lot of contact with children of a similar age, and I was known to be 'good with kids' - I could make them laugh, was happy to wipe their noses and pick them up when they fell down, I was even trusted to babysit on occasions. I trusted all the other kids' fathers and mothers implicitly - there was no reason not to. And I would not hestitate to approach and care for a child that I didn't know, if they were in any kind of distress or danger.

Of course, I haven't had that level of contact with young children since then, and probably won't now until mine start producing their own. So I don't often speak to young children these days. But then, the whole atmosphere is different. There is suspicion everywhere - single males, dads, uncles, grandads, and even fat middle-aged women, after a couple of high-profile cases - everyone is seen as a potential child abuser. If you want a job which might involve contact with children or 'vulnerable adults', then you will have to have a CRB check. The implication is: we assume you're only after this job so you can satisfy your unspeakable perversion - unless, of course, you can prove otherwise.

You can't be too careful ... And if it saves one child ...

But it has poisoned the relationship between adults and children, and between adults and other adults. We now routinely consider child abuse as a possibility whenever we contemplate adults and children together. Is this a good thing? In a way, yes. If we are more aware that this kind of thing can happen, we can take steps to prevent it. But we have gone much further than that. We have instilled an atmosphere of mistrust, which means that normal relationships between adults and children, whether family members or strangers, are viewed as potentially dangerous and abusive. When I was a boy, I was told not to take sweets from strangers (because some strangers might want to hurt you, was the reason). But I was not taught to distrust the whole of humanity. In fact, I was told, at a very young age, that if I were ever in trouble to find the nearest adult, who would look after me. I told my girls the same, and I see no reason to think that is any less true today than 20 years ago. But now the majority of children - far more than the number at risk of real abuse - now believe that all adults are suspect.

If I were walking through town and I saw a lone child, crying and obviously lost, what would I do? I would be bloody cautious, that's for sure. But I wouldn't let this atmosphere of prurient suspicion stop me from doing what any parent - any human being - would do, and that is step in and help. I would find it easier to do so if the child were a boy, for obvious reasons (I'm not gay and never have been, so it would be hard to prove malicious intent). But either boy or girl - if they were in distress, I could not pass by.

I reckon I would ask the nearest female adult to come with me, and then approach the child that way. But isn't it sad that we have to think like this?

I'm thinking aloud, really. Your thoughts are welcome.