Category Archives: CelebrityCulture

Honesty, Reliability And Henry Bolton

It’s distressing. UKIP is enduring yet another self-inflicted crisis, this one created by our new leader Henry Bolton.

The Sun headline piece (here) on Thursday about Henry’s new relationship and last night’s Sunday Mirror piece (here) revealing his dumped wife’s views both indicate the nature of the crisis.

I had this article about it published on Kipper Central yesterday morning:

For me the issue is not about Henry Bolton’s private life.

Henry has told UKIP members that as a “national public figure” he is entitled to “a certain degree of privacy”.  I agree, although in the light of these sentiments it seems odd that his new girlfriend, topless model Jo Marney, should publish Instagram selfies of the two of them huddled together in front of a Christmas tree on Boxing Day. Henry knows full well that publishing personal pictures on the internet does not aid personal privacy.

The issue is, in fact, more about the party leader’s honesty and reliability.

During the leadership election campaign last summer and in full knowledge David Kurten’s political views and track record, Henry pledged that he would appoint David his deputy if he won the election. As the manager of David’s own leadership campaign, I realised this was a clever move: not only would David make an excellent deputy leader in the event that Henry won, but voters who found it difficult to choose between them could vote for Henry and get the two for the price of one.

A significant number of UKIP members took Henry at his word and gave him their vote.

Imagine my fury when, after his election as leader, Henry promptly reneged on his pledge and refused to appoint David. Clearly his word was not his bond and he had misled UKIP voters.

Also during the leadership election campaign Henry avoided publishing policies or a political manifesto, but instead deliberately turned the spotlight on to himself. He promoted himself as a solid reliable capable married man with an enviable track record and quality endorsements, whose Russian wife for work reasons lived abroad with their two young children. His personal character and track record were to be his vote winners.

And so it proved. After the shambles and chaos of the Steven Wolfe, Diane James and Paul Nuttall era, UKIP members were yearning for a solid, sensible, decent person of substance (to paraphrase Nigel Farage) and Henry won the job.

Yet now, under pressure from the media uproar surrounding his new relationship, he tells us that he and his wife in fact separated in July – before the leadership election started.

If this is true, why did he deceive us during the leadership campaign?

If it is not true, why is he deceiving us now?

UKIP’s all-powerful National Executive Committee meets next Monday, 8th January. We need a leader of honesty, strength and substance. In my view the NEC must hold Henry accountable for his unreliable behaviour and his broken pledges.

Professor Eric Anderson & Winchester University: Campaign Update

There has been welcome progress in our campaign against Winchester University and the dangerous depraved views of their American sociology lecturer, Professor Eric Anderson. BCMLogoDr Anderson is an influential commentator about sex and sexuality and appears in the media – such as on BBC TV  discussing gay marriage together with his ‘nanny’, and on ITV disputing why men cheat on their partners.

In a previous post I highlighted how Professor Anderson described in lectures how he likes sex with 16 to 18 year old boys – for which he is willing to pay if necessary – and wants sex with 1,000 more boys and men before he dies. He also claimed that the damage caused by child molestation is merely a “social construct”.

IMG_3461.JPGSuch foul views from a high-profile academic are threatening to the welfare of children and teenage boys, yet for three years a report on the lectures was available online without public comment from the Winchester University authorities. So our campaign group Because Children Matter started to protest.

In November the Sunday Times published (£) an article about the campaign and approached the university for a statement; the authorities responded merely that they have “reprimanded (Anderson) for his remarks”. Apparently they consider this private reprimand fulfils their public responsibility towards young people. There has been no public repudiation of Anderson’s views; no apology, statement of regret or insistence that he withdraws his lectures.

AlanTitchmarshIn December it was announced that celebrity gardener, broadcaster and media personality Alan Titchmarsh is to be appointed Chancellor of Winchester University in August 2015. I immediately wrote an open letter to inform him about Professor Anderson’s views and to ask him to reconsider his appointment. As Alan Titchmarsh’s views are of importance, I’m publishing here our correspondence exchange:

Dear Mr Titchmarsh,

We write on behalf of children and young people to ask you urgently to reconsider accepting your appointment as Chancellor of Winchester University.

Professor Eric Anderson is on the staff of the University’s Department of Sport & Exercise and in that capacity has visited other universities teaching unacceptable and amoral behaviour.

As an example, in a lecture at Trinity College Oxford he made the following appalling statements which were duly verified by the reporter:

“I’m going to cuss a lot and I’m going to break down all kinds of hegemonic structures. If you’re offended by discussions of anal sex, vaginal sex, rimming, cheating, having cum all over [your] face then you should probably leave.”

“[I have had sex with] easily over a thousand people.”

“I like sex with 16, 17, 18 year old boys particularly, it’s getting harder for me to get them but I’m still finding them… I hope between the age of 43 and the time I die I can have sex with another thousand, that would be awesome, even if I have to buy them, of course, not a problem, you pay for all kinds of entertainment and pleasure.”

When asked, Professor Anderson admitted with a laugh that he is a sexual predator and – worst of all in the current climate of concern about child abuse – he as Professor of Sport claimed that team sports are more damaging to adolescents than sex.

“The damage that’s caused by child molestation is socially constructed by the western world,” he said dismissively, and contrasted this to other cultures where children engage in sex with adults as a rite of passage.

Professor Anderson also gratuitously referred to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, now Master of Magdalene College Cambridge, Rowan Williams, as an “arsehole”, “a total bigot” and “a fucking liar”.

He bragged to his listeners that his previous employer, Bath University, had “practically ran me out of town because they couldn’t stand my research”.

A fuller report on Professor Anderson’s lecture may be found at the reference below*.

No doubt like most people you will consider these statements utterly reprehensible. Yet Winchester University has neither removed Professor Anderson from his post as apparently Bath University have done, nor publicly reprimanded him and repudiated his views. Rather the university authorities continue to shelter him and give him a platform from which to promote his views.

In the light of this we ask that you do not associate your good name with the University, and that you reconsider accepting your appointment as Chancellor.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Craig,

Director, Because Children Matter







Alan Titchmarsh replied:

Dear Mr Craig, 

I was extremely dismayed by the contents of your letter and have explored matters thoroughly with the Vice Chancellor of Winchester University. 

Like you I totally deplore what Professor Anderson said in his talk and in no way share his views. The lecture you mention took place over three years ago, and at the time Professor Anderson was severely reprimanded by the senior management team of the University. He subsequently apologised for his remarks, realising that they were not only inappropriate but considerably ill-advised. There has not been – and most certainly should not be – any recurrence of such an event.  

You may argue that his views will not have changed and that it is these which you find reprehensible.  I would only say that we live in a society where free speech, opinions and social mores (even those with which many of us profoundly disagree) are allowed to be expressed and exercised, provided they remain within the law. Although most people do not share his extreme views and find them, at the very least, distasteful, Professor Anderson is a respected authority on the subject of sexuality. 

It is an uncomfortable subject for many, and there are countless differing views as to what sort of behaviour is acceptable among consenting adults. This is something which a great many of us find difficult to assimilate, and I am very sympathetic to your feelings. 

 While I realise that you may well regard this as a poor defence, I would argue that I can do far more good for the University of Winchester by accepting the post of Chancellor than I would by turning my back and declining any involvement with the broader sweep of the university’s activities which, with some 8,000 students, is of considerable importance, value and scope. The wide ranging abilities of the University of Winchester’s students, the breadth of their experience and backgrounds, coupled with their subsequent achievements, is testament to the dedication and skill of the university staff and their overriding sense of values. These values embrace tolerance as well as deeply held principles. 

I am a committed Christian who admires and respects the university’s inclusive Christian ethos and to this end I will always make my views clear and continue to stand up for legitimate human rights, as well as showing tolerance towards those of different faiths and beliefs. To remove a person from post because their sexual mores differ from one’s own, is not, in my view, either justifiable or defensible. 

However, there are boundaries which should not and must not be crossed; boundaries which are very clear in law, especially when it comes to the protection of children. This is something of which I am profoundly aware and an area in which I will have no hesitation in making my views known and in encouraging action which I think is both appropriate and justified. With a conscientious and dedicated approach I will execute the role of Chancellor to the best of my ability and in what I hope will be regarded as a responsible and vigilant fashion. 

I hope you will understand the reasoning behind my stance, even if you do not agree with it. 

Yours faithfully, 

Alan Titchmarsh 

Following our exchange of letters the Daily Mail ran an article in January under the headline: “Titchmarsh, a gay lecturer and a row over teenage sex”.

KELVINMACKENZIEThen over the horizon charged the heavy cavalry of The Sun’s Kelvin MacKenzie – the newspaper’s former editor of Gotcha! and Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster! fame.

In a series of hard-hitting pieces MacKenzie damned Anderson as the “perv prof” and a “predatory creep”. He also:

(a) urged his readers to write to Winchester’s “hapless” vice-chancellor Professor Joy Carter about Anderson;

(b) offered to pay whistle-blowers at the university to let him, MacKenzie, know what is going on there and explain why the vice-chancellor is so silent about Anderson;

(c) encouraged parents not to let their offspring, especially boys, apply to Winchester University until the authorities disclosed what action they had taken over Anderson’s remarks;

(d) dismissed Anderson’s assertion that children in some cultures engage in sexual activity as a rite of passage with the killer-comment that “that should please the people of Rotherham”; and

(e) identified Anderson’s links with the disingenuous pro-paedophile lobbying group B4U-ACT founded by the convicted paedophile Mike Melsheimer.

Winchester University and Dr Anderson were rattled by the onslaught. Someone promptly prevailed upon the Oxford Student website to take down the report on Anderson’s lecture, which was done on 4th February. In response MacKenzie, sensing yet more skulduggery and sleight-of-hand, announced he was putting back up the offending report for all to see, this time on his own website.

It was tabloid journalism at its most effective and professional.

(MacKenzie’s columns of 29 January and 2, 5, 9 and 12 February are available on The Sun (£) website.)

pseudoscienceBut Anderson continues in his post at Winchester University and continues to publish his propaganda, pseudo-science and untruth. The London Evening Standard’s David Sexton reckons that Anderson’s latest academic offering is an “outstanding imposture” and a “rant” that is unconcerned about the needs of women, provides information and links for those looking to hone their masturbation skills (!), disseminates shamelessly unrepresentative research and should not have been published by Oxford University Press. Catherine Hakim in The Guardian agrees it is “a proselytising text rather than social science” and is surprised too that the book has been published by OUP.

Anderson remains malignly influential thanks to his prestige platform at the university and the protective wall of academia surrounding him.

So our job is not over yet…

“Child Molestation Is A Social Construct”

Over the past couple of decades the scale of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests and members of Catholic religious orders has shocked the world. Although it is reckoned that the prevalence of abuse in the church has now significantly declined the abuse and subsequent cover-up has massively damaged the moral authority of the church – and, by association, of Christianity itself.

abused boyIn the UK concern over child abuse has moved on to other infected institutions like the BBC and the NHS, and left the former’s reputation in tatters. In 2012 the nation was stunned when it emerged that Jimmy Savile, one of the BBC’s favourite children’s entertainers, and others had systematically abused children on a massive scale over many years on BBC and NHS premises and the BBC too had done a cover-up. And within two years BBC celebrities Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall and celebrity publicist Max Clifford had been jailed for similar sexual offences against minors.

Since 2012 also, when MP Tom Watson first raised the issue in Parliament, the Elm Guest House child abuse scandal has rarely been out of the headlines. In the 1980s, it seems government ministers, top policemen, senior civil servants, diplomats, barristers and other establishment figures were part of a powerful paedophile network linked to the hostel in south London where male orgies with boys took place and up to 100 victims were groomed and abused for sexual purposes. depressed adolescentThe trail of depravity leads even to Downing Street and, more recently, there have been accusations of child abduction and murder linked to the house.

Add to this evil the other child abuse scandals and the epidemic of Asian/Muslim grooming gangs such as those at Rotherham, Rochdale (and, separately, its former MP Cyril Smith), Oxford, Birmingham and Bristol, and it seems that predatory paedophiles operate in every area and level of society. Further it is clear that the state has little idea how to protect the vulnerable victims who almost always come from public care and/or grow up outside the security of the traditional family.

So I was concerned when a colleague drew my attention to the words, works and wisdom of American-born sociologist Professor Eric Anderson who currently teaches at Winchester University. In a lecture at Trinity College Oxford, which followed a similar address at Glasgow University, Professor Anderson claimed to have had sex with “easily over a thousand people”. When asked, he admitted with a laugh that he is a sexual predator.

Professor Eric Anderson“I like sex with 16, 17, 18 year old boys particularly,” the gay Professor crowed, “it’s getting harder for me to get them but I’m still finding them… I hope between the age of 43 and the time I die I can have sex with another thousand, that would be awesome, even if I have to buy them…”

Why gay sex is better than straight sex’ was the proselytising title of his lecture and Professor Anderson opened his speech to the predominantly LGBT audience with a depraved flourish: “My intention is to offend you,” he said. “I’m going to cuss a lot and I’m going to break down all kinds of hegemonic structures. If you’re offended by discussions of anal sex, vaginal sex, rimming, cheating, having cum all over your face then you should probably leave.”

Incidentally, in addition to discussing these predominantly unhealthy harmful sex games as well as bestiality and incest, Winchester University’s eminent professor called the then Archbishop of Canterbury now Master of Magdalene College Cambridge, Rowan Williams, an “arsehole”, “a total bigot” and “a fucking liar”.

In the midst of this obscenity Professor Anderson turned his attention to child abuse. He teaches in the University’s department of sports studies and in the US was a successful sports coach, but he claimed that team sports are more damaging to adolescents than sex. “The damage that’s caused by child molestation is socially constructed by the western world,” he opined, and contrasted this to other cultures where children engage in sex with adults as a rite of passage.

Sambian child abuseBy classifying child molestation as an artificial social construct rather than an absolute and profound evil, the professor was using his academic credentials to undermine society’s healthy hostility towards child abuse. And he is not alone; this misleading cultural comparison has been utilised by others too. In another context gay campaigner Peter Tatchell, for instance, cites man/boy sexual relations, often during manhood initiation rites, amongst remote tribes such as the Siwan of Egypt, Batak of Sumatra, Anga of Melanesia and Sambia of Papua New Guinea.

In a direct parallel, tribes and cultures outside the West also engage in female genital mutilation. It would be just as repulsive as well as untrue to suggest that the damage to girls caused by FGM is socially constructed by the western world and that consequently it can be tolerated, affirmed or even celebrated in cultures outside the West. FGM like child abuse is an absolute evil that should be universally opposed and proscribed.

university-of-winchester-bannerWinchester University continues to give a platform and cloak of respectability to Professor Anderson’s dangerous depraved views. So colleagues and I decided to campaign for his removal. “My prior university, the University of Bath… practically ran me out of town because they couldn’t stand my research,” he bragged to his audience during the lecture. We argue that the University of Winchester should follow suit.

Earlier this month our group Because Children Matter wrote to the University Vice-Chancellor and the Board of Governors as well as to outside stakeholders such as principals of feeder sixth form colleges, and we held a leafleting campaign in Winchester city centre. Our activities were covered by the Sunday Times , the Southern Daily Echo and on YouTube .

Watch this space for further developments.

Rising Gay Christian: Bright, Able And Wrong

Luke Tryl is an Oxford-educated young Tory-on-the-move. Luke-TrylHe was President of the Oxford Union in 2007; stood as a Conservative candidate for Lambeth Council in 2010 , a useful Tory precursor for a subsequent shot at Parliament; was appointed Head of Education at Stonewall after experience at various policy think-tanks ; and was elected chairman of Dulwich & West Norwood Conservative Association in March this year .

Still only in his late 20s, last month he was appointed Special Adviser to Nicky Morgan, the new Education Secretary. I wish him well personally as he continues his climb up politics’ greasy pole.

But Luke self-identifies as gay and Christian, and in an autobiographical piece for the Faith and Sexuality Project  he promotes the idea that because Christ never mentioned it directly, “Jesus… never condemned homosexuality.”

This is naïve and simplistic. The same for instance could be said about child brides. And incest. And FGM. And zoophilia. And cannibalism. And animal cruelty. And deforestation. And spitting on other people’s food. And a host of other activities, ills and evils.

Furthermore it’s a self-serving and untrue conclusion that cheapens the radical demands which Jesus lays on all his followers.

Luke has a personal agenda of course but regrettably he is not alone in his views. Soaking wet liberal clergy similarly misrepresent the issue. And last Christmas the tabloid news site HuffPost mockingly displayed a blank-paged Bible in response to its own headline, “What Jesus says about homosexuality” .

Candy-FlossFurther, with the doctrinal authority that accompanies celebrity, Elton John informs us that “if Jesus was alive today” (oops, fallen at the first fence; Elton clearly is not too strong on the most basic tenet of his religion) the Lord would be in favour of gay marriage for priests as “he was all about love and compassion and forgiveness and trying to bring people together”. And fairies, Father Christmas and cuddly bunnies too, no doubt.

So, leaving aside the candy floss of pink theology we can turn instead to the challenges of reality and truth:

During his three-year ministry Jesus engaged almost entirely with Jews in the land of Israel whose religious and cultural background was the Hebrew scriptures – what Christians today call the ‘Old Testament’. As is well known, the ‘Law of Moses’ found in these scriptures is formidably firm about much sexual morality: for instance it specifically prohibits incest (Leviticus 18:6f), adultery (20:10) and bestiality (20:15) as well as homosexuality (18:22).

Did Jesus try to alter or amend this Law? Absolutely not; he told his followers specifically that he did not come to change even “a jot or tittle” of the Law.

raising the barNot only that, he raised the bar significantly and told us we are judged on our thoughts and attitudes as much as our outward actions. “You have heard that it was said (that is, in the Mosaic Law) ‘Do not commit adultery’, but I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” he said in his Sermon on the Mount.

Time and again, using specific examples to illustrate the general principle, Jesus moves from the outward action proscribed by Mosaic Law to the deeper attitude of heart he requires of his followers. ‘Do not commit murder’ (outward) becomes ‘Do not even be angry’ (inward). ‘Take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ (outward) becomes ‘Do not even resist an evil person’ (inward).

So, although Jesus doesn’t mention incest, it is self-evident that if you are a follower of Christ you cannot copulate with your close family or even look at them sexually.

Similarly, although Jesus doesn’t mention bestiality, the man who proudly claims to have enjoyed “interspecies intercourse” with a dolphin and a dog  cannot – and hopefully does not – claim to be a committed Christian.

Therein lies the rub. Luke wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants both to follow Christ and to have sex with men.

Of course as a free citizen he is able to go to bed with whoever he chooses within the law. But if he joins the army he cannot fight for the enemy. If he signs for the local football club he cannot kick a rugby ball on the pitch. If he chooses to cycle to Birmingham he cannot travel via the motorways.

And if he decides to follow Christ he cannot bed another man.

merciful JesusChristians sin and do wrong, Luke and yours truly included, and certainly Jesus’ commands are radical and demanding. But it is disloyal, unChristian even, for us actively to promote a morality that is flat against his teaching.

(It is significant that singer-theologian Vicky Beeching, in an interview with gay activist Patrick Strudwick that inevitably includes a hefty dose of his agenda-driven vitriol about the church, avoided any reference to the Faith’s founder when she came out as lesbian this week.)

So what would Jesus say to Luke? Probably the same as he said to the woman caught in the act of adultery: “I don’t condemn you, but go and sin no more.”

Gay Marriage And Child Abuse

“I am writing to inform you of the gay wedding between Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow taking place this Saturday,” gushed the PR agent’s email from Essex that dropped into our GayMarriageNoThanks inbox a few days before the first gay marriage day on 29th March.

Drewitt-Barlows“We… actively invite protesters to turn up and be interviewed,” burbled the blurb. “The national press already confirmed are Sky TV, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The Sun. A significant number of regional publications, radio stations and TV channels are also confirmed…

“Stars of The Only Way Is Essex are among the many celebrities set to make appearances at the wedding of the gay dads,” the puff piece went on. “Elton John has been invited,” they oozed.

Clearly the event was to be an exercise in spin, hype and mirrors. The Drewitt-Barlows were legally bound together in a massively publicised Civil Partnership ceremony in 2006; they cannot therefore legally be married until more laws are changed, probably later this year. So there was to be a celebration, a party and a booze-up, but no wedding. The event was a fake.

We decided to go anyway. Having confirmed with the PR agent that no children would be in the media zone outside the event, and that we came in peace to explain our opposition to gay marriage not to protest, we set off with our GMNT posters (one shown below: ‘I want my Mum’) and arrived just before it started.

Elton JohnSurprise, surprise: Sky TV was not there. Neither was The Daily Mail. Nor The Sun. Not even Elton John.

But we had half an hour in the sunshine with the media nonetheless. We were interviewed by eight or so journalists and cameramen; most of them were local and – like most people – had never considered the adverse effects of gay marriage on children.

The problem is that all gay marriages are a counterfeit. According to the government and unlike conventional marriages, gay marriages cannot be consummated and adultery cannot be reason for divorce. So same-sex partners in a gay marriage are free to play the field whereas husbands and wives in a real marriage promise to be faithful ’til death us do part’.

By firmly bolting a counterfeit on to the hallowed institution of marriage, parliament has diluted, distorted and, in the end, dismantled an invaluable social institution. And it is the nation’s children, who need stability, commitment and faithfulness at home to best flourish, who will suffer.

Furthermore all children are necessarily created by both a mother and a father, and they have an innate right to the people that gave them birth. This child’s right should trump all adult selfish interests and rights, straight or gay. But fifteen years ago gay dads Barrie and Tony led the UK field in legally obliterating mothers from their children’s personal history (here). No mother is mentioned on their children’s birth certificates but rather Parent 1 (Barrie) and Parent 2 (Tony). It is a legally-sanctioned form of child abuse and the documents are a physiological and legal lie.

GMNTIwantmymumFurther, the gay dads deliberately have allowed no mother figure in their children’s upbringing and they have stated clearly they want to keep it that way (here).

For anyone, including the state, to refuse or absolve a mum of her child-rearing obligations without good reason also is a form of child abuse; offspring have a right to their dad and mum partly because “both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child” (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; Article 18). Children should not be passed around like possessions or bought and sold like slaves.

What’s more the Drewitt-Barlow kids have suffered a further form of abuse. A few years ago Barrie and Tony displayed the children’s pictures on the gay-dating website Gaydar where it seems the two dads advertise for male sexual partners; apparently they prefer “firemen, married men, muscle men and rugby players” (here).

The Drewitt-Barlows are well-connected media-savvy millionaires who run surrogacy businesses in Essex and California. Tony runs seminars on same-sex parenting and promotes himself as a public speaker. Barrie claims he an expert in same-sex parenting too.  Barrie also informs us that he is a social worker whose “aim at all times is the welfare of all children born through surrogacy” (here).

What a masterclass in falsehood and hypocrisy!

From A Father’s Heart To Tom Daley

Dear Tom,

I never knew your late father Rob of course, but through even the distorting prism of media reports and as a Dad myself I can appreciate his outstanding paternal commitment to you. Young diver Tom Daley going for gold for his father RobertHe clearly spotted and supported your talent on the diving boards well before your age was in double digits (here), he was rightly protective of you (here), he sacrificially gave up his business to mentor you, to accompany you to events and to support you when you were under the pressure of national and international competitions. He even gained the sympathy of hard-bitten journalists for fulfilling his difficult parental role in your developing teenage celebrity life (here).

The cost to him of your career was high, but his love for you was such that he will hardly have noticed. Instead he will have been full of fatherly pride in you and your achievements, and relished the close affectionate and bantering relationship between you. Your words “my best friend, sounding board, taxi driver and biggest champion” (here) would have meant the world to him.

When he finally succumbed to cancer aged 40 just a few days after your 17th birthday, the hole in your life no doubt was massive. Your anguished tweet “I love you so much Dad” moved many hearts. Your prime source of support and security had gone. He’d been solidly there for you for all your life and, away from the bright lights of your burgeoning celebrity and diving fame, your feelings of emptiness and vulnerability must have been gut-wrenching.

But nature abhors a vacuum and vultures pounce on the vulnerable. So, a matter of months later, onto your personal stage steps gay activist and glittering Oscar-winning Hollywood screen writer/film producer Dustin Lance Black aged 39, just about the same age as your father.

81st Annual Academy Awards - ShowYou’ll know by now that Black is obsessed with MSM (men who have sex with men) issues and has written the script for and/or produced a number of gay films including The Journey of Jared Price, Something Close To Heaven, On The Bus, Pedro and, famously, the award-winning Milk. He campaigns too; provocatively he wore the pro-gay marriage White Knot (here) on stage at the sumptuous 2009 Oscars awards where he won the Best Original Screenplay prize. He’s right up there with Tinseltown’s top glitterati although regrettably, Tom, all that glitters is not gold.

You’ll also acknowledge that even before your Dad died you had become a major gay icon and focus of sexual interest in the gay community. You have been named ‘Sexiest Man of the Year’ by Attitude gay mag, ahead even of David Beckham (here). And to your credit you took it in your stride; the award is “very cool“, you said amiably. “I’m not (gay) but I wouldn’t be ashamed if I was… I’d love to have a girlfriend.” (here). It was a warm and presumably honest response.

Certainly I’ll defend your right to choose whatever friendships and relationships you like – even when you are vulnerable on the rebound from the loss of your Dad.

But it is relevant for you – and, given your national sporting and celebrity status, for the rest of us too – to wonder about Black’s intentions. Does he, like your Dad, have your interests at heart?

Or let me put it less delicately. When daily you were strutting your stuff poolside in your skimpy Speedos, freshfaced, athletic and focussed, your father would have watched over you full of paternal pride, protection, concern and support.

Tom Daley divingHow, in comparison, do you think Black viewed you on the diving boards? Was his interest in you selfless and sacrificial like your Dad’s? Was he concerned for your diving career and sporting development like your Dad? Was he motivated by self-giving love like your Dad?

Or rather was it by something altogether more self-centred, recognised universally as carnal desire?

One day you will discover for yourself the true answer: Despite protestations that he is besotted with you (here), his ‘love’ is not sacrificial like your Dad’s love. It’s much more sinister and selfish.

And now as you climb into his bed, note well that you are no longer just a gay icon; you’ve become Black’s gay trophy too. Not just a personal trophy as he delightedly deflowers your virginity and teaches you gay sex, but a massive trophy for gay ideologues and activists around the world.

You see, your diving success and fame have made you a role model for many ordinary teenage boys. This is an awesome responsibility that you have actively sought by publishing your autobiography (here) and promoting your personal TV series Splash! (here).

Cat mouseMany of these teenage boys too are subject to advances from older gay men; gay writers from Michelangelo Signorile (here) to Kirk and Madsen (here) indicate that gay men’s attraction to boys is intrinsic to the gay scene.

At a stroke you have both emboldened predatory gay men and encouraged many boys to submit to them. So we must have a look at the hedonistic unhealthy adult gay world which you yourself have now entered and into which, unwittingly, you are leading others:

First read what gay businessman Ivan Massow wrote with riveting honesty earlier this year (here)?: “Am I the only one to notice that the gay scene today seems obsessed with drugs? Obsessed with sex. Unable to take responsibility for its part in the spread of HIV. Inhabiting a soulless and empty world of hedonism… We the gay community are becoming a group of people who suddenly have everything and nothing, all at once… It’s a miserable way to live. Chemically-induced highs and kids addicted to ‘chem-sex’ is all fake b****cks. B****cks that leads to depression and, frequently, death. B****cks that is just plain boring and ultimately empty.”

AfterTheBallThen, to show things were just the same on the gay scene yesterday, read After The Ball published before you were born by gay authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (here). With similar searing honesty they tell us “the gay lifestyle – not our sexuality but our lifestyle – is the pits” (p 276), and then for 60 pages give us chapter and verse exactly why – the pathological lying (p 280), the rejection of morality (p 289), the narcissism and self-centred behaviour (p 295), the HIV/AIDS-inducing contempt for ‘safe sex’ (p 299), the self-indulgence and self-destruction (p 302), the fear of aging and loss of youthful looks (p 317), the transience of relationships (p 318), the drugs and heavy drinking (p 336). “(T)he fast-lane lifestyle leads to exhaustion and dissatisfaction, loudly expressed, by gays who feel that ‘something is missing’, that their lives are ‘empty’ – as indeed they are: of health; of peace of mind; of contentment; of love; of genuine interconnection with others” (p 305).

Is this really the world into which you want to lead your young fans Tom?

With much concern for you and for other young people, and wishing you a really happy Christmas whether you are at home in Plymouth or with Dustin Lance Black in Hollywood,


Alan Craig

Best Place To Be Gay?

“We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British parliament in one of its periodical fits of self-righteous morality.” Or so Macaulay might have said about the nights of 21st May and 16th July this year when MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of same-sex marriage, accompanied by much cheering, applause and self-congratulation. madnessThe votes created, too, an oleaginous and telling unanimity amongst government and opposition party leaders, the latter of whom is paid by the taxpayer actually to oppose the government in power.

And at the subsequent celebration party at Downing Street for the gay great and good (surprisingly and unnecessarily excluding Peter Tatchell (here)), the parliamentary smugness turned to colonialist superiority – originally honed no doubt on the playing fields of EtonEton – as the prime minister promised to export gay marriage around the globe (here). This of course closely followed his previous threats to cut overseas aid to poor Commonwealth countries and former British colonies that refuse to jump to his gay agenda (here).

Apparently, therefore, we British are the world leaders on gay marriage and the uncivilised untutored peasants in Africa and Asia need to follow our lead or be brought to heel. The sun will never set on Britain’s imperial reach while David Cameron is at No 10 as, clearly, he now intends to re-paint the whole globe Empire pink (here).

There was more prime ministerial politics of fiction and special effects too: “We’ve set… something of an example of how to pass good legislation in good time,” the premier opined to the fawning company (here). bulldozerBut his legislation was without democratic mandate or legitimate consultation, was rushed and bulldozed through parliament without full debate, is without safeguards on matters of conscience for public servants like teachers and registrars, and is recognised to be full of unplanned and unintended consequences. Only a self-satisfied politician with his head in the clouds could consider this “good legislation” delivered in “good time”. Your mirror is lying, Mr Cameron.

The superior and exclusive nature of the celebrations would be irrelevant if they weren’t so spot-on symptomatic of the whole wider issue. Brendan O’Neil has written searingly about how the top-down elitist drive for same-sex marriage by ”tiny handfuls of sharp-suited gay lobbyists, lawyers, celebrities, commentators and the Notting Hill/Hampstead sections of the political class” has “completely destroyed the meaning of social progress” (here).

He is killingly accurate too in describing the new gay marriage conformism – “the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under pressure to accept that which has been defined as good by the upper echelons of society” (here).

And as usual with upper echelons, the travails of people in the inferior classes are ignored. It is not just coincidence that while the gay leadership were drinking Pimms and hobnobbing with Mr Cameron on the manicured lawns of the sunlit gardens at Downing Street and he was telling them with monumental insouciance – but without noticeable dissent – that Britain is now “the best place to be gay, lesbian or transgender anywhere in Europe”, the real gay community outside the bubble was and is undergoing a huge health crisis.

party scene“Alarming rise in HIV amongst gay men,” cried the recent headline in The Independent (here). Based on a study published in The Lancet it showed that the 20%+ annual increase in HIV infections amongst gay men was due to their increased use of party drugs and unprotected sex. “This is one of the most serious public health issues we face in the UK and it must be treated as a public health priority,” said Yusuf Azad of the National Aids Trust.

“Young gay men 15 times more likely to develop genital cancer than straight men,” shouted Pink News (here) on the day the same-sex marriage Bill became law, using figures taken from the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections. The HPV virus can cause penile, anal, throat and cervical cancers as well as penile and anal warts. As the lifestyle and behaviour of gay young men makes them particularly susceptible to the infection, the British Medical Association has argued that the NHS’s HPV vaccination programme should be extended to include them.

Even more concerning was an article by businessman and gay campaigner Ivan Massow (here) published three weeks earlier. “Am I the only one to notice that the gay scene today seems obsessed with drugs? Obsessed with sex. Unable to take responsibility for its part in the spread of HIV. Inhabiting a soulless and empty world of hedonism. 

“Each week the number of kids who die while out clubbing or in south London apartments from drug overdoses or choking on GHB goes up… Prosecutions are practically non-existent as the gay scene hides behind its new anti-discrimination laws and calls any such policing ‘homophobic’. 

“We the gay community are becoming a group of people who suddenly have everything and nothing, all at once. 

depressed man“It’s a miserable way to live. Chemically-induced highs and kids addicted to ‘chem-sex’ is all fake b****cks (my asterisks, Alan). B****cks that leads to depression and, frequently, death. B****cks that is just plain boring and ultimately empty.” 

Massow, who personally pushed hard for gay marriage, admits with surprising honesty what we all knew, that gay leaders like him in steady leafy civil partnerships are “not representative”. No, neither are the gilded gay groupies who attend Downing Street soirees.

Same-sex marriage will, in the event, be taken up only by a miniscule minority who will be feted, facebooked, photoed and make glossy national headlines out of all proportion to their numbers, no doubt alongside a beaming self-congratulating David Cameron. It will be media heaven.

But meanwhile gay young men will be ruining their lives and dying for lack of appropriate intervention, alone in the hell of empty south London flats. Same-sex marriage has done nothing for them.

I doubt they think Britain is the best place to be gay.

Human Trafficking Horror

This weekend’s horror story about the illiterate Indian woman who was enslaved, beaten, raped and starved at the hands of three different families in Middlesex (here) is appalling but of less surprise to me following an informative but distressing Oxford conference on human trafficking that I found myself chairing last weekend.

Domestic violence - conceptual imageIt is 200 years since the UK government abolished slavery and the slave trade and began to enforce abolition around the globe thanks to the then all-powerful British Navy. Yet we were told by speaker Ben Cooley of Hope for Justice (here) that there were over 2,000 identified trafficking victims here in the UK in 2011 and that the real rate of trafficking for sexual, criminal and work purposes is substantially higher. Another speaker, Sgt Dave Turtle of the Met Police, confirmed that both migrant and internal trafficking is rife in the UK and that rates of successful prosecution are disturbingly low.

The Voice for Justice UK (here) conference included talks by the vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking Michael Connarty MP and another Labour MP Jim Dobbin. But it was clinical psychologist Josephine-Joy Wright and convenor of the Lords and Commons Family & Child Protection Group Lisa Nolland who challenged us most.

Josephine-Joy stirred us with horrific stories about her patients. She told us of young women who are unable to have children because of physical damage from being repeatedly raped and others with appalling mental scars from years of abuse and exploitation. “In Britain we still have the mentality of ‘not in my back yard’,” she said. “So open your eyes. See what’s going on under our noses. Learn the children’s language so you can spot the signs,”

Alfred KinseyLisa traced the sexualisation of society and our children back to the junk science of 1950s father of sex research Alfred Kinsey who was himself a sex pervert and who abused children in order to gain statistics on ‘child sexuality’ (here). His impact on western society has been profound and the resulting ‘anything goes’ sex ethos makes it difficult to protect children. Lisa didn’t mention it but the BBC’s liberal luvvy culture that allowed Jimmy Savile and other celebrity child abusers to flourish is, presumably, a case in point.

So slavery and human trafficking is alive and well in the UK. Indeed Oxford has had a Rochdale-style child sex ring in its own back yard (here). Ben Cooley told us that 21st century anti-trafficking campaigners are standing on the shoulders of abolitionists like William Wilberforce (here). Wilberforce must be turning in his grave at the extent of today’s slavery, two centuries after he thought he had terminated the trade.

There were a hundred people at the conference; there ought to have been a thousand. They were mainly middle-aged; where were the city’s young people and university students?

Josephine-Joy was right. There is much work to be done.

Neeson’s Nonsense

We took our eight-year-old to see Narnia – The Voyage of the Dawn Treader on Saturday.

It’s the third in the Chronicles of Narnia films which are based on the seven fantasy books for children by       C S Lewis. It is entertaining stuff about the difficulties and temptations of life, but I’m not sure the final climactic battle with the powers of darkness warrants the low-threshold PG classification; the troubled face behind the Polarised 3D glasses beside me indicated that a 12A classification would be more appropriate. Thankfully as yet we’ve had no nightmare-induced knocks on our bedroom door.

Liam Neeson provides the rich deep voice for Aslan, the gentle powerful Lion in the film who represents Jesus. In Lewis’ first Narnia story, The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe, Aslan dies in the place of one of the children and then comes back to life thereby breaking the power of the White Witch, aka the devil. It is a clear reflection of the New Testament account of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Neeson does a good job in the films – but off-film the Catholic-raised Northern Irish actor who professes admiration for the Province’s hot-Prot preacher Dr Ian Paisley (here) has just said some rather silly things: “Aslan symbolises a Christ-like figure but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries,” he opined (here) .

Now apart from Christ, which of these ‘great spiritual leaders and prophets’ was killed on behalf of others? And which of them claims to come back to life thereby defeating death and the devil? None except Jesus of course.

Multi-cultural multi-faith politically-correct censorship has done its hatchet job on Neeson. As a public persona he evidently feels the need to reduce all culture, morality and religion to a heart-warming sweet-smelling potpourri that is as inoffensive as it is untrue. In the pc lexicon the virtue of ‘discernment’ has been dumbed down to equal the new vice of ‘discrimination’, and we are not now permitted to distinguish between people-groups or values. Everything is equal and everyone must have prizes.

It’s facile and unintelligent and leads to category confusion and the conflation of opposites. It’s also potentially dangerous, as when then-Home Secretary David Blunkett equated right-wing evangelical Christians with Islamic violent extremists (here) and thereby downgraded the threat from the latter.

Media consultancy Lapido Media has recently instituted a Religious Illiteracy Award and bestowed the first such honour on New Statesman political editor Mehdi Hasan (here) for his inability to discern a difference between the Pope and the anti-Semitic, gay-stoning, FGM-supporting Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

I’m nominating Liam Neeson for the second.

Gay Marriage and the Elephant

US psychology professor Albert Mehrabian (here) argues that 55% of human communication is through non-verbal behaviour such as body language, 38% is through tone of voice and only 7% is through the words themselves. Personally I reckon that significant information is also communicated by what is not said at all. Gay ex-cop and former naked I’m a Celebrity contestant (here) Brian Paddick is a case in point.

I met Brian a couple of times when he was running as LibDem candidate for London mayor in 2008. On the luvvy liberal left and now promoting himself as a ‘TV personality’, he would undoubtedly consider himself as right-on, politically correct and progressive. He was also friendly, likeable, modest and – unlike Ken and Boris – interested in other people. I was just one of the minor party candidates, but when I bumped into him at a railway station six months later, he still remembered our election encounters.

At a mayoral campaign hustings in a north London church, he had related from the platform how an officer at Scotland Yard had led him to Christ some years before – although he admitted wryly that many Christians would not agree with his lifestyle since then. “But once planted, faith does not simply go away,” he said.

(It was at the same hustings that atheist Ken Livingstone claimed that many of his political views are based on the teachings of Jesus. Hmmm.)

But to the point: Brian Paddick gave a speech about gay marriage at the LibDem party conference last week and it appears that what he did not say was so typical and illustrative of the PC liberal-left mindset that he easily could have been a senior staff member at the BBC. “Yes, we have to be sensitive to religions and what they feel on this issue,” he said (here), “and we are not talking necessarily about forcing religions to marry same-sex people in their synagogues and churches and temples. But what we are saying is that there should be equality. If I want to marry my same-sex partner then I should be allowed to do that.”

Did you notice that all-important missing word? I checked with other media reports of his speech and it was missing in those too. So I’m confident he didn’t say it: “Mosques”.

Why not same-sex marriages in mosques as well as “synagogues, churches and temples”? Did Paddick simply forget about Islam? That’s unlikely as the politically correct like Paddick are hard-wired for inclusion; to exclude a significant minority group – especially the Muslim community – is a mortal sin in our multi-cultural society.

I reckon the best explanation comes from outspoken atheist, leading commentator and fellow gay, Johann Hari: Paddick left out “mosques” because of Fear, the elephant in the room wherever Islam raises its head.

A couple of years ago Hari publicly identified this elephant and with stunning honesty admitted to his own cowardice, confessing that considerations of personal safety had tempered his comments about Islam, especially when compared with his scathing attacks on Christianity (here). Hari describes the elephant as a “pincer movement trying to silence critical discussion of Islam. To one side, fanatics threaten to kill you; to the other, critics call you ‘Islamophobic’”.

So fear of Islamic violence or verbal abuse shuts down public debate. In the liberal mainstream Islam is ring-fenced and protected against challenge, in this case over marriage in mosques. Judaism, Christianity, even Hinduism can be confronted, but not the ‘religion of peace’.

Like I said, sometimes it’s what is not said that is most instructive. And we’ve learnt that even the former boy-in-blue ex-Met Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick can be silenced by fear. Presumably Hari would accuse him of cowardice too.