Wednesday, 19 October 2016



It seems to me that Freedom of Speech is under more threat today than it has been for a couple of hundred years.  It has been replaced by the Right to be Offended, some are even going so far as to ban words from our lexicon, the words in the Red Flag should now be sung 'while namby pambies flinch, and people with alternate opinions, sneer' we'll keep the Red (no offence to ginger people) flag flying here. 

Take this whole issue of misogyny. As an old bird (I can call myself that because I am one), I often have a chat and giggle with other old birds, and all of us (without exception), loved getting wolf whistles, saucy winks and offers to join the mile high club (Ok, made the last one up, but it remains on the wish list).  Too few men as it is, have the guts to suggest a quicky before work, ffs, the last thing feisty gals need are more laws to nobble the rest of them. It's no wonder most dating is done online these days, 'come and see my etchings' would see a young man imprisoned and placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

Of course, there will always be the creepy types out there who think flirting copping a feel and drooling 'cooorrr' is a turn on, eg. Donald Trump, but this is where stilettoes and elbows should be put to full use.  Actually the DT reference kind of negates my argument, I can't think of anything more traumatising than being groped by Donald Trump. 

But back to Freedom of Speech.  It's like everything George Orwell predicted is coming true.  Words are being erased or their meanings changed.  The freedom of information brought to us by the WorldWideWeb, has given a voice to everyone.  There are no valid or moral reasons for the 'authorities' to deprive individuals of internet access (their ultimate goal) and they couldn't even if they wanted to.  The only way in which to challenge those online who hold subversive views, is to accuse them of 'trolling'.  The more they convince the public that 'trolling' is an evil and heinous crime, the more likelihood of passing laws that will enable them to police the internet and round up their targets. 

Which takes us back to Freedom of Speech.  I am unashamedly a fan of Celebrity Big Brother, but I found the eviction of Christopher Biggins, deeply disturbing.  I didn't agree with his views or those of Renee (?), but I would have liked to see the discussion develop as it would in real life and as in real life, the better argument would win.  I'm afraid I have little time or patience with people who go through life carrying their Right to be Offended like a banner.  They leap on their opponent's argument, sifting through it with a fine tooth comb, or a wordsearch for Woman, Jew, Race, Age etc.  Who was that wailing creature weeping for, the entire Jewish race or her need for camera time?

As for CB's views on bisexuals, OK, they don't go along with popular opinion, but for all the bisexuals out there (and those who have dabbled), it would have made an interesting and enlightening discussion.  Quite clearly CB is not a hate preacher, and no doubt his views would have mellowed or changed if offered alternate opinions.  Unfortunately, CB's views are representative of a small minority, who's prejudices will no doubt continue because their views were stifled rather than challenged. It's like smacking a toddler without telling them what they did wrong. 

But the CBB incident is but a symptom.  Those who demand the Right to be Offended are starting to outnumber those of us who couldn't give a monkey's and it's their rules that going to be enforced.  Having been trolled, stalked and harassed for almost 10 years, I can confidently confirm that it is only detrimental to your health and well being if you allow it to be.  Once you understand the problem lies with the misfit, weirdo, chickenshit, not yourself, everything falls back into perspective. 

I find this move to prohibit words, language, comedy, lively discussion, sinister and undoubtedly motived by something evil.  For example, I would much rather see the Labour Party have a healthy debate about anti Semitism, Misogyny etc, unhindered by rules that restrict the language and the words used.  This whole idea of nicey, nicey politics, backed up with penalties appears to have gagged politicians to the point where the only means of communication they have left is a right hook. 

Stalking or harassing another individual online or anywhere else is against the Law.  There is no case for new Laws or the strengthening of existing laws to weed out those deemed subversive.  All those offended by what they read online have the right to reply, as we all do and they have the means to block the offenders.  Having your enemies imprisoned shouldn't be an option.

To those pleading the Right to be Offended, I would ask, why should the social media use of billions worldwide be restricted because your haven't got the social or internet skills to handles yourselves online.  You may choose to live in a sanitised bubble, but that would not be the choice for most of us.


  1. As you have im sure noticed...Its only the people with something to hide who want the internet policed, use gagging orders and threaten to sue. Remember a certain Jeremy clarkson issued a gagging order after he was photo`d kissing his producer...and hes a bloody journalist and has built a huge career over saying whatever he likes about anyone and anything. The word hypocite springs to mind. ( i am a big fan tho lol). Unfortunately everyone who has a few quid these days seems to be a meglomaniac. Just ignore them I say, lifes to short and I doubt anything will ever happen anyway.. (see #mccann for example). Keep up the good work and dont neglect the Mccann saga, I do enjoy your posts on it. regards

    1. I agree 17:30, it's those with something to hide who are most vociferous about 'privacy', those with a few quid especially. As joyous as having a few quid is, it can be tainted by everyone knowing what a lying, thieving, conniving bastard the blessed one actually is. Especially painful for those megalomaniacs who look to the public for adoration.

      Libel actions don't really prove anything, except maybe that the person bringing the action is a much bigger tosser than originally thought.

      All the libel actions brought by the McCanns haven't won them any friends or influenced people, the opposite in fact. The more they sue, the more people doubt them. Not only do they doubt them, they despise the notion of former suspects financially ruining the former detective who searched for their missing daughter. That is a pretty nasty precedent to set, and one that should be borne in mind by those detectives currently working on this case.

  2. There is possibly one thing more traumatising than being groped by Donald Trump, and that would be being bullied by Hillary Clinton for having had the misfortune to be groped by Bill Clinton. (Not that I would necessarily blame Bill for looking elsewhere, but he wasn't gentlemanly enough to protect the ladies concerned afterwards.)

    1. I'm not entirely sure all those women groped by Bill Clinton would consider it a misfortune 18:13 lol. The auld hound oozes charm and sex appeal, and I suspect his approach was rather more sophisticated than the baboon paw grab and accompanying grunts of Donald Trump.

    2. “You better put some ice on that.” is not that charming, but I know there’s no accounting for taste (lol). Fortunately, neither of them, is an option, too.

      On the other hand, being bullied by Hillary Clinton, as Anonymous 19/10 at 18:13 says, is a different kind of war.

  3. Freedom of speech is fine and necessary. A honestly held opinion should be allowed to be voiced without question. The grey area is when people know they are lying but their ego's drive them on to destroy other peoples lives.

    A case in point is the nutters of CMOMM, deliberately, maliciously and repeatedly smearing anybody who believes Madeleine did not disappear on Sunday/Monday. It is okay to state anyone has redress and the right of reply but at what cost?

    Cliff Richard can afford the best lawyers (good luck to him) but what of people like the nannies or Aoife Smith. Why should clowns like Bennett, Hall, Peter Mac and Hi de Ho be allowed to peddle their lies, and they are deliberate lies.

    Their drivel stands up to no sort of scrutiny but its there repeated day after day, year after year.

    Why should this hate mob be allowed to infect the lives of innocent people guilty of no crime and their futures and family life.

    With freedom of speech surely comes responsibility for your actions. The idiots of CMOMM show none and one could argue thats why the internet needs curbs. Perhaps that is their raison d'être.?

    It certainly is not to find the truth of what happened to Madeleine.

    1. Hi JJ, great to see you! And as usual, you have given me much to think about.

      As much as I despise the hatred that is posted on CMoMM and JATKY2, I still would not advocate censorship or banning.

      I'm actually quite philosophical about the lunatics on the web JJ, I apply an iconic line from one of my favourite films 'it's beyond my control'* [prize to first one who guesses the film, lol. That is, I accept that I only have power over myself and my own actions and reactions. I don't have that power over anyone else. I cannot stop what they say or do, my power lies in the way that I react to it. If I allow it to affect my life, it will, and if I don't, it won't. I'm not living in fear for anyone.

      If you are still with me, what I am trying to say, quite clumsily, is that trolls etc, only have the power we give them. My power is that I can whoop their asses if I feel so inclined, ignore, or get bored with them as has happened.

      In the case of the witnesses in the McCann case, the trolling etc, is a far more serious matter because the ghouls, as I think of them, are interfering in a criminal investigation. Witnesses have no right of reply or freedom of speech, which is why imo, the police should take action.

      In my experience, discussion groups, after a certain amount of time will find their own level. If the conversation is respectful and informative, the contributors will raise their game whilst those posting childish playground insults will find themselves isolated and ignored. There is a good reason why the cesspit and JATKY2 only have a handful of posters. As much fun as bitching might be, it has very limited appeal to a wider audience.

      In addition, each and every one of us has the means to rebut, disprove and ridicule the ludicrous claims of the conspiraloons. And we should.

      However, like yourself, my sympathy lies with the nannies and witnesses being stalked and harassed in the Madeleine case by Bennett, HideHo and Richard Hall. In my opinion, this should be a criminal matter and the police should intervene and offer protection.

      Unfortunately, it is unlikely that these innocents will have any recourse to justice when this is all over, and sadly, it is possible that the smears will still be flying around. They cannot defend themselves for obvious reasons, but we who comment on the McCann case and who want justice for Madeleine, can make it very clear to those stalking the witnesses that their actions are abhorrent.

      When this case does eventually reach a conclusion, the likes of Bennett etc, will be shown up for the nasty, vindictive, charlatans that they are and the reputations they have smeared will be restored.

      Meanwhile, I suggest we keep repudiating their lies and point newcomers in the direction of Bennett's wiki page.

    2. Dangerous Liaisons. :)

  4. Ros - you posted on your previous blog:

    "we enjoy alternate views and open discussion, this place is unbound!"

    Please do not pretend that comments posted to this blog are always published. On your previous blog I posted (under my real name) 6 reasons "WHY THE ANTI MCCANNS WERE REVILED"

    My post was factual, accurate and not offensive. You did not publish it.

    Freedom of speech - blah - only when it suits you.

  5. Actually 18:14, if you are Dave Bottomley, your post was highly offensive. You gave a list of all the reasons YOU personally dislike me. Doesn't bother me a jot, but don't see why I should give you a platform for your hatred and negativity. If you are so keen to be published, try CMoMM or JATKY2 where you will find like minded folk.

    1. Never mind, 18:14. As Ros says:

      "Those who demand the Right to be Offended are starting to outnumber those of us who couldn't give a monkey's, and it's their rules that are going to be enforced."

      Ros being numbered 'among those of us who couldn't give a monkey's', your personal dislike clearly 'doesn't bother (her) a jot'. On the other hand, its those whose 'right to be offended' governs the rules.

      Your post - a list of your reasons for your (undisturbing) dislike of the blogger apparently - was 'highly offensive'.

      However, if your dislike can be disregarded, then the censorship must result from the 'right to be offended', surely, if we are to understand that freedom of speech and said 'right' are diametrically opposed.

      Of course it's 'her gaff, her rules'. But aren't the rules in this context supposed to be made by the reactionary 'them' rather than the liberal 'us'?

      It seems to me as though the author, named on the home team sheet, has turned up weaaring the away team strip.

  6. I see the bennett cesspit has now turned on Kerry Needham and bennett has said he will contribute to a fund to sue her and the Police!

    1. Thank you 12:08, sadly, I did see that. And naturally, Bennett's comments are timed to cause maximum pain to Kerry and her family.

      And to 'anonymous' from last night, I am not publishing Bennett's vicious smears against Kerry Needham, the man is sick.

      He can't get ANYone to interact with him anymore, even in a Courtroom, so he is trying to leech onto the legal actions of others. Suing a mother for her pain for her dead child is pure evil.

  7. I don't think I have agreed with many ( if any) of your pieces but this one is spot on Cristobell.
    I recall many years ago being 'assaulted' in a night club by an over friendly male. A quick kick to the shins with a 4 inch stiletto soon put him in his place, leaving him wounded & suitably embarrassed.
    The PC brigade, as you rightly point out, is out of control. Since man (& woman) first walked upright they have been copping a crafty feel & no amount of 'training' will alter that. If any one has ever been unfortunate enough to witness a raucous hen party ( I was when one landed at a restaurant I was in) then they would have to acknowledge the disgusting behaviour of some of these women. They were like wild animals.
    I'm not making excuses for real sexual predators but I suspect the easily offended, running for their 'safe space' are the same ones screaming for freedom of speech... As long as your speech agrees with them.
    What these militants, and they are militants, refuse to acknowledge is that there is a breed of women who make a career of chasing wealthy & famous men. At the risk of being vilified, I wonder if Ched Evans' accuser would have been so concerned with her memory lapse if said footballer had offered to take her to dinner the next evening? & I also wonder why she didn't raise concerns with police about the ( not famous) men she behaved exactly the same with days before & after the Evans incident?
    As far as Trump is concerned, I believe most of his accusers have been found to have close ties to the Clinton camp. I also believe he probably is guilty of some of the crass actions he's been accused of but personally I'd rather have him at the helm of the USA than the woman who has lied, cheated & fraudulently crawled to the top, climbing over the victims of her very real predator husband.
    Same goes for the antisemitism witch hunt currently surrounding the Labour party. I have asked several times online for an example of this supposedly heinous abuse. Unsurprisingly, no one has provided this information.
    Well done Cristobell!

    1. I agree, she’s a writer. Also, well done you 16:24, refreshing and interesting comment.

      Please keep on writing Christobell, if only for the civilized. :)