Monday 18 December 2017

WHAT'S THE BIGGEST DANGER TO CHILDREN?

 
Because I am trying to host a sane, logical, discussion about the subject of child pornography, I am again being accused of spreading dangerous propaganda and sailing close to the wind.  Apparently my blog is policed regularly for evidence of some kind of misconduct.  Now I feel obliged to give that one regular reader a shout out!  Hiya, hope you're enjoying it thus far, but put your seatbelt on, I'm about to sail a bit closer to the wind. 
 
Firstly, I am as repulsed and disgusted at child pornography as any sane adult, and I'm not trying to legalise it or promote it.  As someone who always takes the side of the vulnerable and who has taken a stand in a courtroom against child abuse, I defy anyone to accuse me of supporting monsters.  My point, again and again, is why aren't the producers of these films, images etc, being arrested?  How about those actually defiling the kids in the images?  We keep hearing about child pornography, but we never hear about kids being rescued?  Why not?  Why aren't the actual victims, the children, the number one priority?
 
Every generation, going back hundreds of years, blames the arts, music, literature, the culture of their time, for society's ills.  I'm not claiming child pornography as an Art by the way, but I am concerned that the hysteria about images crosses so easily into The Arts sphere.  When someone claims an image is responsible for a criminal's behaviour, we should all be worried.   Some even want to criminalise cartoons ffs - there goes Family Guy and Herbert the Pervert!  The Arts are a mirror, not only do they reflect our lives right back at us, they capture the spirit of the times for all eternity.  That's why great writers (and wannabes like moi), carve our words with pride. 
 
Most of us, probably 99% behave with decorum in public, not so much online.  Not because we would be in the dock and held accountable if we didn't, but because that is how we were raised and because that is the right thing to do.  It isn't the Law that keeps us in check, anymore than it is the law that stops obscenities flooding the market?  Free will and the free choice of the majority NOT to view these images or visit these sites, keeps them off our screens.  Nobody wants them. They don't flood the markets because most people have no interest in them.  Supply and demand, the demand isn't there.   
 
With child pornography and child exploitation, the majority of us are so reviled by the it, that even underground suppliers would struggle and whistleblowers would be everywhere.  Ergo, the market is very, very small, very, very sleazy and always will be.  It's not a clear and present danger, just as the 4% of Muslims who make up the British population are not going to make a hostile takeover. 
 
The biggest danger to children comes from the home and from people who know them.  That's a fact.  The smallest danger to children is a predator on the internet.  I feel like Father Ted explaining small and far away to Father Dougal using pictures of cows.  More importantly, why is abuse always thought of as sexual?  Physical and mental abuse are far more prevalent and often prove fatal.  'So you were beaten to within an inch of your life, but did he TOUCH you? .  What of those disciplinarians who move in on young families and enforce inhumane regimes?  Those who think they can break a child's will by beating them or locking them up?  Is it OK to thrash a child, but not hug them?
 
Abuse comes in many forms, but only sexual abuse grabs the headlines.  As if dissecting the graphic details of a 40 year old grope will somehow help those children who are suffering today.  Those children going home to empty larders, empty cupboards and parents pushed to breaking point.  Or how about those refugee children desperately in need of safe home for themselves and their families?
 
As often happens, the discussion from the last blog has spilled over here.  Not least the ludicrous idea of banning whatever it is that turns paedophiles on - experts apparently can see things in pictures, that we regular people can't.  And I'm quite delighted about that.  Actually, I always look for the beauty around me, it keeps me sane(ish) and I think kindly of most people, until they give me good reason not to. 
 
However, the idea of pinpointing one generic trigger that fits all, is batshit crazy.  A movie might trigger one raging maniac to go on a killing spree, but it didn't affect all the millions who saw it in the same way.  And who is to say the movie was the trigger, it might have been one of the adverts?  That advert for Haribo sweets with adults talking like children, sends me demented!   I confess.  I did, as a teen watch 'The Evil Dead' after it was officially declared a 'video nasty', as indeed did everyone I knew, it was being passed on daily.  And no, no-one went on a rampage. 
 
The idea of banning things that MIGHT turn on this very tiny percentage of weirdos is in itself bizarre. How do you compile a  generic list of paedophile turn ons ffs?  would it include ice cream as claimed in the cesspit? How about a saucily shaped banana as cited in the Swedish case of two small cartoon characters?
 
I once looked after an elderly disabled gentleman, who's turn on was school girls in their short skirts.  Not an uncommon turn on, even among men who wouldn't dream of touching a child.  The netball matches in Lincoln's Inn Field had a very large audience of City gents.  My client's problem was he was very vocal about it.  He also used the internet to look up school girls etc, and he would often go out and photograph them.  He was often brought home by the police.
 
He was mentally and physically disabled, and couldn't nor wouldn't, ever hurt anybody.  He shared his home with another gentleman who was wheelchair bound, and during the night, he would check on him and bring him drinks.  He had a kind, caring nature, and just couldn't understand why he shouldn't whistle, leer at or photograph schoolgirls. He would cry and apologise and promise never to do it again, but he always did, he had short term memory loss.  Sadly, he would be just the kind of man an angry mob would take pleasure in hanging from a lamppost, there would be no time to explain or ask for compassion for his condition, that is where this hysteria has taken us.  
 
But going back to banning, should school girls go back to wearing their skirts one inch above the knee, because one poor old guy, couldn't hide his glee?  Should he be lynched?  Or should schoolgirls be aware that there are some unfortunate people in this world who don't know how to behave appropriately. And that they are not necessarily a threat to them.   Is it so difficult to spend a few moments explaining to a child how and why other people are different to them  and they should feel compassion rather than leaving their fears unexplained? 
 
I spent my early childhood in the shadow of the great Holloway Sanatorium in Virginia Water, and both my parents worked there, it cared for the gentrified mentally disabled and exhausted celebrities.  Visitors, including the Queen Mother, arrived in Rolls Royces.  Our small village was dominated by the Sanatorium, hospital workers and residents out for a stroll.  Both my father and mother instilled it in me to show kindness and compassion to the residents, just as they did. And I was happy to, I met some great characters, I feared no-one, and I learned very early in life that most people, especially the lost and lonely, just want a friend to cheer them up.  It breaks my heart when I see families and children flinch at the disabled, they truly don't know what they are missing.
 
Of all the jobs I've had, care work was the most rewarding and indeed most enlightening.  Seeing human behaviour in it's simplest form taught me far more than a study of the more complex characters. It was a huge learning curve.  Take a horrible character and strip them of their motivation, their vanity, their self awareness, their complex schemes, and you are left with the nicest basics and the nicest natures.  I just wish people could understand there is nothing to fear, that just because someone's looks different, it doesn't mean they will harm them.   I loved the time I spent with my clients, unfortunately, as much as they loved my 'big kid' antics, my employers didn't.  
 
I worry that these paedophile hunters and vigilantes do not consider the mental health of those men they go after.  The old guy I looked after wasn't capable of grooming anybody, but imagine if he was lured to a car park by an angry mob?  Unfortunately, history is littered with the mentally disabled being hung in error. 
 
The best way to protect children is by educating the parents about the very real risks.  The new boyfriend, the over helpful neighbour, the always willing babysitter and yes, the professionals.   Like a mummy tiger helping it's cub out into the world, we must teach them how to ward off predators.  But we should also point out to them those most likely to be friends.  
 
Just like the animal world, predators are always on the look-out for the weak and vulnerable and steer away from the strong and confident.  The best gift we can give our children is the confidence to protect themselves.   I wasn't in the least bit perturbed when my 13 year old son began an online relationship with a voluptuous 18 year old called Lollypop Happy (yes the name was that unforgettable). He would keep me updated on his daily chats while I and his big brother teased him mercilessly.  I think what finally burst his bubble, was when I pointed out Lollypop Happy was probably a big auld hairy arsed builder in his fifties. 
 
Kids (mostly) aren't stupid, especially where the internet is concerned.  They have grown up with it, they understand it better than we do, or probably ever will.  Where they are naïve however, is in understanding the behaviour of others, they don't have the life experience to discern what is or isn't appropriate behaviour.  It isn't difficult to teach.  Children are mimics.  They copy everything you do and say.  If you won't allow  yourself to be disrespected, neither will they.  If you treat your child with respect that will be the standard they expect from all others, like the difference between right and wrong   A confident kid will know that it is not OK for an adult to make them feel uncomfortable and they do not have to tolerate it. 
 
It is ridiculous that the subject of child pornography is not open for debate, by and large, because the sane, reasonable and logical, dare not voice their fears out loud because of what people might think of them.   Resulting in the debate being dominated by hysteria and extremists who think mobs can be driven into a sexual frenzy by a cartoon.   
 

90 comments:

  1. '' I defy anyone to accuse me of supporting monsters. ''

    ( how about an apologist?)

    Shall we discuss your stubborn refusal to accept that the punisshment Chris Langham received was right ? Or that you wanted anyone who was reading your drivel, and who might know Chris Langham, to pass him your ''best wishes'' to him ? Or would you prefer to discuss your opinion that porn, including child porn,is like art in that it's all ''in the eye of the beholder'' ? Or shall we stick to you trying to use porn, and child porn, to identify all laws as draconian and all censorship wrong ? You're the worst possible campaigner for the freedom of everything movement you seem to advocate. Censorship was brought about in the first place to try and keep the reins tighter on lunatics so they might exercise some self control.

    You can kid yourself that making constant allusions to art and literature that you're some kind of scholar.You might even kid some of your more gullible readers too.But that's about it, really. Your pseudo bohemian facade falls off too regularly and easily as soon as your natural petulance, bad temper and spiteful nature burst through.Your kidding a few of the people most of the time but most of the people hardly ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous18 December 2017 at 15:01

      well said - I agree with you.

      Delete
    2. Oh dear anonymous, you are selective with the actualite.
      Can we present a more balanced argument here?
      I can’t recall Ros defending the known paedophile Clement Freud; past resident of PDL and friend of the McCanns, nor Nessling the convicted paedo image collector.

      Delete
    3. Not only a collector but also a maker.

      "Nessling, 59, now of Heron Close, Stowmarket, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children."

      Delete
    4. Anonymous19 December 2017 at 03:52

      ''Oh dear anonymous, you are selective with the actualite.
      Can we present a more balanced argument here?
      I can’t recall Ros defending the known paedophile Clement Freud''

      Does that mean it was OK to defend Chris Langham for what he did and what he admitted to when he wasn't even try to defend himself ? Was it right for her to pass on her best wishes to him then try to ridicule the laws that put him in prison and suggest they were draconian because they don't make allowances for 'artistic interpretation' ? We let that go because she didn't defend Clement Freud then. Brilliant thinking.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 15.46
      You forgot to mention Nessling the nonce in you response. Convicted paedophile and vociferous Mccann supporter. Why? Are you under instructions?
      Tiocfaidh ar la

      Delete
    6. So a nonce is equal to supporter of the McCanns in your world ? If he's a Manchester United supporter as well shall we boycott them ? Sort yourself out.

      Delete
  2. Hi Rosalinda
    and perhaps something for you as well Anonymous18 December 2017 at 15:01

    I just felt I had to mention the tragedy of poor Amanda Todd in the context of what we're discussing here.


    Few journalists, politicians or bloggers dare call in question society’s witch hunt for potential paedophiles, as you do Rosalinda, let alone talk about the few real dangerous child abusers in terms of human values.

    Your question regarding, “what’s the biggest danger to children”, if it can just be discussed in a civilised manner, may help us to put things into perspective. As for danger in general, we all know that children are most exposed to danger in their families and in close relations, but if we’re talking about child pornography on the Internet in relation to teenagers, which may lead to bullying, self-destruction, physical violence, sexual abuse and rape, a very short answer to that question would be SHAME.

    Some years ago a girl named Amanda Todd was asked to “flash” in front of her web camera on an internet forum, where teenager often met. The picture was then seen by an anonymous viewer who wanted to see more of her and threatened to send the “indecent” picture (possibly a few pictures) to all the people who knew her.

    She did what any girl in the same situation should do, but seldom have society’s support nor enough courage to do. She refused and the blackmailer did what he’d promised to do.

    Nothing would have happened had not the whole Canadian society turned its back on the poor girl, because of its moral principles, not just to condemn the abuser on the Internet, but also to stigmatise the girl, whose naked or half naked body had been exposed to the world.

    Despite having had the courage to defy her tormentor, she was still expected to feel ashamed and her society did, in fact, though in a figurative way, stone her death. In short, society made her take her life, while her school, her adult neighbours and friends and society as a whole should have taken her under their protection, comforted her and hugged her. Why did not that happen?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "She would have wanted everyone to know how much she hurt emotionally and how the same thing also hurt thousands of other children and youth each day. Amanda couldn’t stop what was happening to her and it was her dream to make it right for others. She thought it would help to tell her story for others to hear." - Carol Todd

      Delete
    2. It seems to me Bjorn that the 'Moral Majority' destroy far more innocent lives than the libertarians and the feckless. How can a giggly, semi nude picture of a young girl cause so much hysteria? Any one of us, male or female, were up to all sorts in our teens, as teens probably are now.

      It is just unfortunate that social media can now make our embarrassing moments public knowledge and the terminally offended want to make front page news of it. And bizarre that so many people are so offended and outraged at nudity. Happily, I've never been driven into a frenzy by the sight of a bare arse. Had what happened to Amanda been kept in perspective, she would be laughing at it now, it's because of those who would protect us, that's she's not.

      From a personal perspective, I find pictures of graphic violence far more distressing. They offend me in the sense that I don't have the mental constitution to cope with them. They are uninvited on my timelines, my laptop and my TV screen. I switch over, or off. I could write off to every producer of upsetting film or photograph, but life's too short. Besides which, I accept that graphic images can have powerful effects, especially in times of war.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 December 2017 at 14:25

      '' Besides which, I accept that graphic images can have powerful effects, especially in times of war. ''

      But they can't have any effect on a paedophile viewing graphic images you say.make your mind up.Or one of them.

      Delete
    4. What a simpleton you are 16:49. Are you seriously comparing war images and their effects, mostly political, with the effects of images of child pornography?

      Delete
  3. Oh dear, you really are angry, bitter and confused. So censorship was brought in the first place to try and keep the reins tighter on the lunatics? Really? That's your understanding of censorship?

    Your final paragraph reminds me of the attitude of the some of the kids in remedial English, that is, you are lashing out at something you don't understand, you think art and literature is something for the elite, not you. It's clearly not I who is being petulant, bad tempered and spiteful - you might want to re-read your post.

    If child protection is your thing, which I suspect it is, then why don't you dismantle my arguments and prove me wrong? Tell my why spying on the public's private internet activity is a more effective way of protecting children, than actual policing?

    Perhaps you could also tell me why you are so hysterical about men looking at sexual images, but not in the least concerned about men who physically batter kids on a daily basis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who reads here can see quite clearly that it is you that is angry, bitter and confused - oh apart from you.

      Delete
    2. I'm very rarely angry or bitter 21:33, might have done a tad when I was younger, but even then, I always opted for a laugh and a good craic.

      I found true peace - if there such a thing, when I accepted full responsibility for every decision I have ever made, including the bad, and really bad, ones. The life I have, is the life I chose, I could have chosen something different, anywhere along the way. Some people's goals are getting to the top of their particular tree and a life of riches. Mine was, quite simply. 'A Room of One's Own'.

      Anger and bitterness are pointless, negative emotions, only harmful to those who feel them. Matters not one iota to anyone outside their narcissistic heads.

      Effectively, it is blaming other people for your every disaster. Not accepting responsibility for your own choices. If another person changes their personality, behaves in a different way, or obeys your commands,it still wouldn't make one iota of difference to the one engulfed in anger and bitterness.

      My philosophy is a mixture of philosophies I like 21:33, there are no angry, bitter or confused among my extensive list of Icons. Top of my list, is 'Uncle Dynamite' - he, who spreads sweetness and light courtesy of PG Wodehouse.

      I'm not sure where you are getting this anger, bitterness and confusion from 21:33? And presumably, you also think me disturbed?

      I'm afraid, you are going to have to be more specific, give examples......

      Delete
    3. ''I'm very rarely angry or bitter 21:33, might have done a tad when I was younger, but even then, I always opted for a laugh and a good craic. ''

      Nobody who reads you will agree if they read properly. Take a read of your last 12 months on here. Just your own contributions and responses. You're bordering on manic, and that's on a good day.

      Delete
    4. ''I'm afraid, you are going to have to be more specific, give examples......''

      Dark Forces Or Mischief Makers

      http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/dark-forces-or-mischief-makers.html

      Way back in August 2017

      These attributes you imagine you have, and insist on repeating ad nauseam to anyone who reads here, are not quite accurate are they, if we pause to try some honesty for once. The charm, the contentment, the humour, the openness , the love of open free debate,the hatred of censorship, the valuing of knowledge rather than mere guesses and opinions.The happy go lucky lover of fine wines, liertaure and art ( don't you just love the internet alternative life we can create?). The counterfeit nature of this portrait you paint can be seen as soon as you're challenged to support your musings, or to counter alternative musings with something other than insults and childishness.It goes without saying that evidence is normally the best weapon to use against an opposing view.But, if none is available, or you just can't find any, resort to attacking whoever holds the opinion or challenges yours.This, of course, never works.But it can go some way in garnering support from other like minded individuals who have no positive contribution to make but enjoy being part of a mob they think can intimidate a voice of dissent into silence.Or, to be more accurate,if you can't outsmart an opponent, throw stones at him or lock him out.That's very intellectual isn't it ? It used to be the way of the classroom for the under-5s. but online, it's open aged.Under-5s have an excuse.All the online mob have is a router and keyboard.

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 December 2017 at 14:57

      ''Anger and bitterness are pointless, negative emotions, only harmful to those who feel them. Matters not one iota to anyone outside their narcissistic heads''

      Very profound.I hope you and your regulars enjoy the link supplied.If it's just quotes you'd prefer let me know, there's enough to fill a book.

      Delete
    5. Wow, aren't I the clever one, I've managed to create the same character in the real world for the past 60 years too!

      If a poster is brusque to me and I am brusque in return, that is not throwing stones. And I never lock anyone out!

      The link you have given is, I note, one of my blogs. Thank you. It's still there and I would add, I'm not ashamed of anything I have written. Honesty and Integrity, has served me well. :)

      Delete
    6. .'' Honesty and Integrity, has served me well. :)''

      That you believe you possess them, let alone display them, is only confirmation of your delusional disorder.

      Delete
    7. Many thanks for that 23:28 - I'll be sure to let my next psychiatrist know, thus far they have been baffled.

      Delete
  4. "Because I am trying to host a sane, logical, discussion about the subject of child pornography,"

    But that is exactly the opposite of what you are doing.

    You are hosting an illogical, unbalanced, opinionated lecture of your views on child pornography.

    You are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have just wasted a perfectly good opportunity to tell me exactly where I am wrong 22:11, why didn't you?

      When have I have ever said I'm right? I'm the most 'umble person I know, lol. My joy in life comes from learning something new every day. When I first went into higher education, my eyes were opened as to how little I knew, and it's been pretty much the same ever since. That's why I thrive with an interactive blog, and value those contributors who are often wiser than I!

      I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with me, fire away......

      Delete
    2. ''I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with me, fire away......''

      It's not like you to lie so unconvincingly, Ros.I'm shocked.There's a huge amount of examples in the last half a dozen blogs you've put up here of people pointing out what you are wrong about.They explain why you're wrong often. You thank them by firing away at them with childish remarks or just unpleasantness.failing that, you just refuse to believe them or demonstrate why they might be wrong.The heels dig in to the ground, the fingers go into the ears and the ''lalalalala'' begins. It's your way.

      Delete
    3. Err, that's what open debate looks like 15:37!

      That these posters are failing to change my opinion is down to them, I'm listening and indeed publishing their arguments.

      You yourself, have just wasted another post telling me about my faults, yet zilch, nothing, nada, about why my views are so dangerous.

      Delete
    4. Why they're dangerous ? OK. If you leave your computer at some point and go back into the real world, share these views with as many people as you meet.That will answer your question far more effectively than any online post.

      Delete
    5. That's just silly 23:23. I reach thousands on my blog.

      Delete
    6. You mean you know why they're dangerous and why you wouldn't dare repeat them away from your computer.

      Delete
    7. 13:49, Err, I express my opinions in my own name and with my own face at the top of the page, I'm hardly hiding away. You, on the other hand, are anonymous.

      Delete
  5. Tony Bennett's terrifying eyes18 December 2017 at 23:39

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton18 December 2017 at 20:13

    ''Oh dear, you really are angry, bitter and confused. So censorship was brought in the first place to try and keep the reins tighter on the lunatics? Really? That's your understanding of censorship?''

    It's more about my understanding of lunatics. The rest of your post being an excellent example of why they need to be controlled if they are unable to control themselves.As for your last question ... ''tell me why you are so hysterical about men looking at sexual images, but not in the least concerned about men who physically batter kids on a daily basis?''... According to your recent thread that's carried on to this, the main theme of discussion is porn / child porn / and the right to censor it being so outrageous. No child get's battered on a daily basis on the internet. If somebody is disgusted by the thought of men looking at sexual images of kids , it's due to an inherent biological predisposition to protect the most vulnerable members of society, ie, kids. But you call it 'being 'hysterical'. You really are a charming piece of work.

    ''Your final paragraph reminds me of the attitude of the some of the kids in remedial English, that is, you are lashing out at something you don't understand, you think art and literature is something for the elite, not you. It's clearly not I who is being petulant, bad tempered and spiteful - you might want to re-read your post.''

    You liken me to a kid in a remedial English class.Is that the usual Rosalinda master tactic in play yet again ; insult and belittle who you talk to and what they say in order to sustain the image of being superior and scholarly ? If so, it was wasted. Did i say literature and art is only for the elite ? Did i say I didn't understand them ? No, I didn't did I ? You did. Drop the superiority complex until you've earned the right to have one. You only flirt with reality on the odd occasion.You're too deeply ensconced in the bitterness, anger and unpleasantness that has been your happy place for so long. The boho image you try to portray doesn't wash.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Blog replies 7.12.17Hmm, I too have that inherent biological predisposition to protect the most vulnerable, ie kids. As a young teen in a convent, I took many beatings, keeping sadistic nuns away from the babies and toddlers. In fact, a few years ago, I received a wonderful phone call from a guy in New York, who remembered as a 5 year old, the older girl Linda, who took his hand and taught him how to make daisy chains when he cried for his mum. All those years later, he phoned to thank me. Don't accuse me of having no instinct to protect the young.

    As I am focussing on the real and present danger to children, that is in their homes and from those who know them, and you are focussing on men looking at pictures and cartoons in the event that they might abuse a child, it is clear who's argument is the more logical.

    Drop the superiority complex you command. Hmm. You want me to keep to myself all the knowledge I have acquired over the years? Knowledge that may/may not, be helpful to students of literature, art, psychology, or indeed any of the multiple subjects I am proud to discuss in depth. Passing knowledge on, was the only part of teaching that I truly loved. And it has become part of the writing that I love. I hope my readers will find words within my texts, that interest and inspire them and raise new questions. New ways in which to see certain subjects, and see beyond the dominant ideology.

    I like to think that as I learn from readers, they learn from me. You actually sum up something my father often said to me 23:58, 'normal people don't want to talk about that kind of stuff Linda', though he said it kindly. And he was right. They don't. But with Cristobell Unbound, I have found others who do want to talk about the kind of stuff I do, that to me is one of the joys of the internet! I have found, or created, my very own ‘Bloomsbury Club’, and for that I tick a box. Getting drunk for a week with Jack Nicholson in New Orleans still remains :( OK, a JN lookalike will do, I’ve turned 60 and will leave my glasses at home, or maybe take them off when I get to tequila number 3. I jest, I’m much too vain to wear glasses. Ps. Hoping he’s a tad short sighted too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I lived my adult life in two parts 11:58. Part I, snooty, ridiculously naïve ex convent girl who voted tory. Part II, confident, educated woman.

      I discuss art, literature, culture, philosophy etc, in order to take the mystery out of them. For many people, including Part I, Snooty Girl, these subjects are seen as elite, bringing them into regular discussions, does, I hope, send readers off onto a quest as to why I, Bjorn, or T, love certain classics. If just one reader of my blog goes off and does a literature course, or starts their own journal or memoir, then my job is done. There is so much beauty in the world, why can't we take a moment for it now and again?

      Delete
  8. Perhaps, Ros, in fuure, when you choose a title for a thread, you could help potential contributors to it by including, in brackets, 'all about me' so we can understand more fully if you want an open discussion or redirect every comment back to what happened to you at some point and why what happened to you makes you an authority on everything else.

    '' Don't accuse me of having no instinct to protect the young. ''
    Could you be a good sort and tell us all who made that accusation ? You wouldn't be misquoting someone again to help support your own point would you ?

    ''Drop the superiority complex you command. Hmm. You want me to keep to myself all the knowledge I have acquired over the years? Knowledge that may/may not, be helpful to students of literature, art, psychology, or indeed any of the multiple subjects I am proud to discuss in depth''

    Not at all.But it would be a good start if you could understand the difference between knowledge and opinion.Students are taught that very early on.I don't think it's helpful if someone choosing to take on a role as another teacher hasn't understood it. You also need to understand the difference between skimming and 'in depth'.

    ''. I hope my readers will find words within my texts, that interest and inspire them and raise new questions. New ways in which to see certain subjects, and see beyond the dominant ideology. ''

    Recently, one or two contributors had the temerity to disagree with some of the many unsupported opinions you were trying to pass off as knowledge. You said you wouldn't tolerate them or anyone else 'disrupting the dominant ideology' of your blog. Anyone would think your stand against all forms of censorship was insincere- or selective.

    ''I discuss art, literature, culture, philosophy etc, in order to take the mystery out of them''

    It's the mystery that's the draw.You might as well remove the punchline from a joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, there's just no pleasing some people 16:42, why do you continue reading my blog if you dislike it so much?

      I won't go through your post point by point, but it seems you need me to stop being me, lol Perhaps I should re-title my blog, 'Cristobell Bound, Boring and Just Like Everyone Else', perhaps then it would have your approval?

      Matters not a jot anyway. Happily, hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people, read here everyday, without the need to tell me how to write. They like my style, they like my humour and they like my alternative take on the Madeleine story. Everything that makes my blog popular, and everything you insist I should change.

      There is no mystery to art, literature, culture, philosophy etc, ALL are accessible to ordinary people. That is the point you missed.

      Delete
    2. Ros -

      ''''I discuss art, literature, culture, philosophy etc, in order to take the mystery out of them''

      Ros a couple of hours later -

      ''There is no mystery to art, literature, culture, philosophy etc, ALL are accessible to ordinary people.''

      That's that cleared up then.

      Delete
  9. Hi everybody

    Since the topic of discussion has become pornography as something we relate to, let us at least try to discuss it on the basis of common sense and reason. It shouldn’t be about being for or against child pornography, but it should instead be about what child pornography and pornography really represent in society, and why or if we would need more legislation to protect ourselves or our children.

    It is a subject that is almost impossible to discuss among friends and not so easy in an open public debate either. Many of those who dare comment here get so upset and seem to believe that child pornography, can be clearly distinguished from pornography in general and that pornography as such is a distinctly defined form of visual expressions, but it isn’t.

    I, personally fear that more laws will limit our psycho-social freedom and that it can lead to an oppressive society on many levels. I therefore argue for a more liberal sexual legislation, but unfortunately I become accused of supporting paedophilia.

    Salman Rushdie has said that tolerance of pornography is directly proportional to society’s degree of civilization. I’m looking forward to reading a decent comment on the subject in question from someone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bravo Bjorn, how refreshing to read a reasonable, well considered argument.

      Discussion of pornography, child pornography especially, for whatever reason, quickly becomes hysterical. I think it is because some people are so anxious to prove that they aren't perverts, they have to take a particularly aggressive stance.

      I'm in no way advocating the flooding of social media with obscene images, yet those are the charges being laid against me. Ridiculous, as I am almost phobic about unpleasant imagery. I've probably got a Disneyesque internet history, lol, I like shiny things, royal tiaras, cute puppies and baking. I also like cute puppies playing with babies, but some might construe that as weird.

      I'm worried Bjorn, hat no-one understands the legislation with regard to pornography, because it is such a distasteful subject. Unfortunately, in burying our heads in the sand, the laws are being created and enforced by people with some very odd views. This places everyone at risk of arrest, teenagers especially with all their selfies. I agree with Salmon Rushdie, how ignorant and uncivilised that the police should have powers of arrest for images.

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda
      Thanks for feed back. Some laws regarding our sexuality, that we're about to inaugerate next year in our country, are just preposterous. It scares me, to be honest.

      I'm leaving for the wilderness in northern Sweden tomorrow, but I hope to catch up and read your blog next week.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 December 2017 at 21:48

      ''Bravo Bjorn, how refreshing to read a reasonable, well considered argument. ''

      Translation for the uninitiated : Bravo Bjorn for agreeing with every word I say and your constant praise of me. My ego adores you.

      Börn19 December 2017 at 22:11

      ''Hi Rosalinda
      Thanks for feed back.''

      Translation for the uninitiated : You're welcome and the same to you.

      Delete
    4. Björn19 December 2017 at 20:26

      ''It shouldn’t be about being for or against child pornography''

      Who mentioned, anywhere, about being for it ? Ros is a lone voice in the wilderness (for once) on the subject with her bizarre desire to invent some reason behind not banning or censoring it because it's like art and hard to identify.The attacking of a law that imprisoned the likes of Chris Langham who she described as being unlucky 'collateral damage' confirms her total lack of understanding of the subject and the complete lack of ability to view anything from any other angle other than her own, no matter how many people it offends.

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 December 2017 at 21:48

      ''Bravo Bjorn, how refreshing to read a reasonable, well considered argument. ''

      What a remarkable and surprising response.

      Delete
    5. Hi Bjorn, you are very welcome. It is, on this subject, reasonable and sane voices are hard to find!

      The discussion brought to mind an old episode of Brass Eye that caused a huge outcry and backlash when it was aired in 2001. Basically, it is comedian Chris Morris taking the pee out of the hysteria surrounding paedophilia at that time. Ironically, nothing has changed. It is well worth half an hour of your time if you can spare it Bjorn.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU If the link doesn't work, it is Brass Eye, Episode 07, Paedogeddon on YouTube.

      Let me give you my kindest wishes for your trip tomorrow, it sounds pretty amazing! Are you escaping Christmas, or having pre festive drinks with Santa and Rudolph? ;)

      Delete
    6. Hi Rosalinda and Merry X-mas.

      Coldn't keep myself from the Internet. (I'm now, when I'm away from home a Swedish citizen from Gavleborgs Lan on the Live Traffic feed list, which is a district located in the southern part of the vast northern regionon, while at home I'm a citizen from Ostergotland on the same list,which is a part of the southern region )

      Yes, I'm sort of escaping the commercial X-mas and I've just arrived at my remote and isolated cottage hidden in the snow, which recently has been connected to the internet world.

      In case Santa Claus would appear, I can always offer him a drink, but if not I'll just try to stay away from the phone and the internet by relaxing meditating, reading 19th century books that most people haven't ever heard of, visting a very special old but small church on X-mas day,where local artists are performing for spiritual reasons not for fame and success. So i'll be back reading and commenting on your blog, if you allow in January, and I'll watch the Chris Morris sketch that you mentioned later tonight.

      Delete
    7. Fantastic to see you Bjorn, and your break sounds idyllic - Very Rousseau! I love beautiful scenery, so I will look you up on Google maps! I'm guessing you are pretty far away from the City!

      I do hope you have a lovely log fire there Bjorn, and I'm delighted you have a hot toddy for Santa! I shouldn't tempt you near the internet, but I am interested in the beautiful sights you see and creatures you encounter, hopefully you will have much to tell us on your return.

      Yes, do watch Chris Morris, it caused an absolute uproar when first broadcast (actually, I think it's only been broadcast once), because the usual unenlightened took it literally.

      Delete
  10. ''they like my alternative take on the Madeleine story. ''

    The majority of pretendy detectives believe the parents are hiding their guilt and knowledge of where Madeleine is and what really happened.What's your alternative take ? I'm always up for alternatives, group thinking can be so boring.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why don't you make yourself a nice café latte, and read all my blogs 20:30 - all the alterative takes you could wish for :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I only asked for yours. Didn't you understand ? Your blogs seem to say you only have one take.It's the same as the majority of armchair detectives who represent a tabloid paper mentality.Or do you have so many alternative takes because you don't have enough confidence in just one.I thought you were confident and of no doubt that you know what happened to Madeleine McCann.Or are you just hedging your bets after all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have never once said I KNOW what happened to Madeleine, the strongest wording I have used, is beyond reasonable doubt, and that relates to the parents' involvement.

    I think those claiming to have cracked the case are ridiculous, ergo, I have never been among them. The reason being, I have never been stupid enough to paint myself into a corner.

    I don't know what happened to Madeleine, but I am patient enough to wait and find out. I don't need to make stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ''
    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 December 2017 at 00:19



    ''I have never once said I KNOW what happened to Madeleine, the strongest wording I have used, is beyond reasonable doubt, and that relates to the parents' involvement. '''

    So we can forget 'i have no doubt' and 'obviously' then ?Or referring to them as liars and deceivers. What about the digs about them having no conscience following TV appearances - forget those too ? Can anyone be accused of these things without being found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a court of law ? You've been asked similar before and your answer is that they're guilty in the 'court of public opinion' which isn't any kind of court at all, it just means a lot of misinformed people with no evidence have agreed on it. You've carried the Amaral banner high because his book holds what you believe is the truth-ergo that the McCanns are guilty.Why else would you do that ? Or is your message to Amaral now ' those who think they've cracked the case are ridiculous' ? Are you telling him too that he's been stupid in painting himself into a corner ? How about answering simple questions with straight answers instead of tying to backtrack ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone with more than two brain cells would know that I was referring to the armchair detectives, not Goncalo Amaral.

      Your pedantry is becoming increasingly tedious, maybe think for a moment or two before pressing send?

      Delete
  15. PLEASE stop referring to images of child abuse as child pornography. It is grossly ignorant and insulting to its victims. I am sure this has been explained to you before so please read, digest and memorise this once and for all. http://theconversation.com/whats-in-a-name-online-child-abuse-material-is-not-pornography-45840

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please don't come on my blog with authoritarian demands for political correctness. I don't take orders to read, digest and memorise articles from anyone.

      And just for your information, I don't ban words or expressions to spare the feelings of the permanently offended. And I wont ban them because, in the author of this article's opinion, they make the crime of viewing sound less heinous.

      Delete
    2. Your ignorance is not only offensive but damaging to the already damaged. Even when the finer points are explained you dismiss it as "authoritanian" as though being ignorant gives you carte blanche to carry on being a loud mouthed, loathesome bighead. Still, if you think that's just "not being politically correct" you reveal even more layers of ignorance than before. Were you and Katie Hopkins separated at birth, perchance?

      Delete
    3. LOL, why not go the whole hog and compare me to Hitler? I have as much in common with Katie Hopkins as I have with you 09:55.

      I don't want to see words and expressions erased from the English language because hysterical extremists can't handle them. This is pure 1984, you want to put a black pen through certain words in the dictionary. Fuck you.

      I was an abused child, physical abuse, that branch of child abuse you are not interested in, and just so you know, I am not offended by language used to describe it. I don't need you to get all worked up on my behalf.

      Delete
    4. And btw 09:55, how do you think those abused kids would feel about being referred to as 'the damaged'?

      Delete
    5. I was sexually abused. I am damaged by it. Why can't you respect that and stop calling that child pornography which implies I was a willing participant? You are a mindless, thoughtless idiot.

      Delete
    6. You have my sympathy 12:02, but I'm not removing a phrase we all understand because of a trauma you suffered in the past. Sane people don't for one minute think the child was a willing participant, who told you that?

      If you are offended by the language used in my blog, don't read it.

      Delete
  16. Hi Ros!
    Someone said your blog is, quote: "all about me" :end quote, meaning 'all about you'.
    I should bloody well hope it is! It's your blog! You chose to talk about yourself, your opinions, how you arrived at them over the years, how they were forged, how they can be shaped. It's dynamic and, by being you, you draw out every, oft forceful, flavour of opinion from everyone else. Even those who decry you benefit because they love it; they love taking you to task: they disagree, they agree, the remonstrate, they get angry, they are in accord et al - a microcosmic smorgasbord of human nature. Move over Marjorie Proops!
    Note, it is entirely possible to disagree with Ros without inviting opprobrium. It's called diplomacy and tact. I maintain that, if you call someone stupid expect to be called a lot worse back. Be honest, some of the best bits are the ongoing arguments, right? Like the apposite and oft humourous comments section of the Daily Wail spring from the content of their articles, sort of verbal aprés ski for the oppressed.
    Everyone's a winner.
    -
    SixYearsInaComaMan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure is good to see you SYIACM, sales of rocks, projectile missiles and rotting tomatoes have gone through the roof in this corner of the internet!

      My critics have always attacked the 'me, me, me' aspects of my writing, but they keep coming back for more, lol. I use personal anecdotes in the hope that my readers will connect, maybe think, I've done that, or I've thought that, or better still, 'at least I'm not that bad' lol.

      Ha, ha, ha, yes, you are spot on with regard to the arguments. I am a veteran of the forums, I know what puts 'bums on seats'. I have also, since early childhood, derived great pleasure from throwing cats among pigeons ;)

      However, as much fun as that is [throwing cats], it rarely goes down well in the workplace or Madeleine McCann forums. With the former you get escorted off the premises, but with the latter, I’ve had years of entertainment, especially with the extremists who take themselves so seriously.

      Unfortunately, it's a bit like knocking down skittles, they don't seem to have anyone with the wit or intelligence to compose any kind of credible argument. Calling me angry, bitter and disturbed is sounding a bit like a broken record.

      I'm almost tempted to write their defences for them, just to show them how's it done, lol. I could tear my own arguments to pieces if I wanted to [that's what deconstructing literature does to you], but I like watching them struggle.

      I reply to readers in the same tone they use to address me SYIACM, good manners and respect begets good manners and respect in return. Ridicule begets ridicule and I'm usually better at it than they are.

      Your posts SYIACM, are always uplifting, you can see the bigger picture, and you can see the funny side, a rarity in the McCann World!

      Delete
    2. Hiya Ros!
      My god! Well that's at least two of us that get it! "It" being you and your blog! All that free veg you get - imagine the size of quiche you could harvest from that lot lol!
      Your second paragraph is what I am banging on about. It's what is written between the lines as much as the lines themselves. I have found myself heartened by your disclosures, illuminating the human condition. I am sure that everyone who reads here, secretly sees a little bit of themselves in your musings. I don't expect many to admit that, but I do.
      The best debates can often derive from playing Devil's Advocate. Deliberate or otherwise. Can be used as a device or a heartfelt notion; matters not, it is always engaging and invariably compels people to chuck their two penneth in. Where's the fun in being "safe"? Indeed, if nothing else (it is much more) it is always entertaining.
      Oh and please continue to demolish those with a charisma bypass, the imperious, the bombastic smartarses who try their luck at the Cristobell coconut shy. They should know by know your coconuts are nailed on firmly (so to speak lol)!
      I'm a firm believer of touting your goods, letting everyone know what you are good at; none of that underneath bushels crap. Temper that with self-deprecation (I know you are your own biggest critic) then you will stir some harmonic resonance in the bleakest of souls. It's like psychological therapy where you can't hide from your own nature.
      Get it out in the open (oo-er!).
      In all, if here was so anathema to your detractors, why do they have season tickets? Unless they enjoy being humiliated. (If they don't I certainly do, observing their foot in mouth disease lol!)
      We all have different opinions, tastes, likes, dislikes - and like you, mine can shift from one end of the spectrum to the other in the space of a sentence. That is, not everything is black and white, even though such a condition wants it to be like that - ratified, ducks in a line, we can move on to the next thing, the bigger picture.
      You and your blogs are a welcome oasis in the otherwise enervating vicissitudes of life.
      Which is easy for me to say lol!
      -
      SIxYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    3. She isn't her own worst critic she's her own worst enemy.She doesn't humiliate anybody, she insults anyone who points her stupidity out.She doesn't want to hide from her own nature she wants to show it to herself and everyone, no matter how nasty it is.We do all have different tastes but that's no defence of the child porn brigade she defends.She demolishes nobody and nothing of any worth. Just her own credibility as a human being and as a woman.You can dip into your vocabulary builder all day for words that are supposed to sound clever, but you won't defend her any better with them.

      Delete
    4. 13:39. Where have I defended the child porn brigade?

      I don't defend child porn in any way whatsoever, and how dare you say I do. You can't just make up lies!

      Delete
    5. To: Anonymous20 December 2017 at 13:39
      Apart from that, she's ok, right?
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    6. yeah, an angel

      Delete
  17. Off topic.

    https://twitter.com/K9Truth/statuses/943286141142347777

    There remains a misconception about a photo on #mccann. The girl in the picture is Madeleine McCann.

    http://i39.tinypic.com/5dw2yp.jpg

    As I don’t do Twitter (sometimes I read #mccann), perhaps someone else could tweet?

    http://i39.tinypic.com/5dw2yp.jpg

    Just for the record.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The blog isn't 'all about' Ros. But, as unpleasant as that idea is, it would be better than her determination to minimise child pornography and her sickening defence of the put upon perverts who enjoy it. Trying to blame society's hysteria and out dated laws and its misunderstanding of how misunderstood and confusing sexual images of underage subjects are is disgraceful. I thought championing the cause to heap pain on two parents who lost their child was bad enough but this is a new level.Her usual defenders are no better.I guess it's true that you should never underestimate a sick mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are accusing me of having a sick mind 13:31? Seriously? Because I don't see the sexual connotations of a cartoon banana, and a kid in a swimsuit doesn't unhinge me.

      You're the one with the sick mind, constantly on the fecking look out for depravity, bending over backwards to root out anything you consider deviant, you freak.

      As for 'championing' a campaign. Wtf? What campaign? The fact that I will not subserviently accept blatant, and truly pathetic, lies as fact, because the liars are qualified doctors?

      Or is it because I oppose the campaign of these doctors to enrich themselves and ruin the lives of others, Goncalo Amaral especially.

      What other parents of a missing child relentlessly pursue the detective who searched for her? And compensation from him of £1.25m?

      Delete
    2. '' Because I don't see the sexual connotations of a cartoon banana, and a kid in a swimsuit doesn't unhinge me.''

      Don't try to misdirect, Christobell Unhinged.

      You've banged on and on about The law not being up to date when judging child pornography. You've asked who the hell police are to think they can arrest those who enjoy it.You've explained Chris Langhams prison sentence as bad judgement and claimed he was merely collateral damage (even though he has said himself he got what he deserved). You've theorised that the 'fuzzy' line is due to individual interpretation, just like art.You've failed to acknowledge that the line is clearly defined and it's drawn between childhood and adulthood and there are laws in place to keep it that way.

      ''You're the one with the sick mind, constantly on the fecking look out for depravity, bending over backwards to root out anything you consider deviant, you freak. ''

      The angry outbursts are not your thing (remember that one ?) If I'm a freak for challenging somebody who wants to minimise the damage done to children and to defend the perpetrators under some odd arty farty theory then I'm happy to be a freak. It was you, nobody else here, who claims to have had 40 years studying the area.

      ''As for 'championing' a campaign. Wtf? What campaign? The fact that I will not subserviently accept blatant, and truly pathetic, lies as fact, because the liars are qualified doctors? ''

      I was talking about your campaign to re-invent the laws that censor child pornography and to understand how the paedophiles were more victims of archaic laws rather than sick individuals.

      ''Or is it because I oppose the campaign of these doctors to enrich themselves and ruin the lives of others, Goncalo Amaral especially.''

      I believe one of your insincere statements above this post has you pretending to be open minded.... Quote : ''I have never once said I KNOW what happened to Madeleine, the strongest wording I have used, is beyond reasonable doubt, and that relates to the parents' involvement.'' Unquote.

      But then, mask removed we have this :

      ''What other parents of a missing child relentlessly pursue the detective who searched for her? And compensation from him of £1.25m?'' followed by ...

      ''The fact that I will not subserviently accept blatant, and truly pathetic, lies as fact, because the liars are qualified doctors? ''

      ''Or is it because I oppose the campaign of these doctors to enrich themselves and ruin the lives of others, Goncalo Amaral especially.''

      All those weird fixations in one short post; your irrational hatred of the parents, your blind worship of a detective who was removed, along with about five contradictary theories he's so sure about,and your rage against anyone who refuses to accept that child pornography is misunderstood.Very telling.

      Delete
    3. Very telling eh? It would give me great pleasure to tell you in great detail what you are 'giving away' but I'll save it. For now.

      What campaign? You can't pretend I am running a campaign to make your pathetic argument stronger, thee is NO campaign - I muse. I am not running a campaign, but I am raising some pretty important questions. Such as, if 95% of children are abused in the home and by people who know them, why are you in a frenzy over images, even cartoon ones? How are you so certain that a man who looks at an image will go on to abuse a child?

      Why aren't those who make these films being arrested and why aren't the children being rescued? Surely the children actually being abused should be top priority?

      You say the Law is perfectly clear, but it isn't. If a 17 year old sends her boyfriend a topless pic of herself, should he go the Sex Register?

      Why the fury at my questions? They are not unreasonable. Without knowing what the actual laws are, a lot of people could find themselves at risk of arrest, simply by having their names on a chain email.

      I'm not trying to convince anyone child pornography is misunderstood. More lies. I am crystal clear, I don't think child pornography should be tolerated in any way. You make things up about me, and then you agree with yourself, lol.

      I don't have an irrational hatred of the parents, they are not my favourite people, but I don't care enough about them to have strong feelings.

      Delete
    4. ''You say the Law is perfectly clear, but it isn't. If a 17 year old sends her boyfriend a topless pic of herself, should he go the Sex Register? ''

      Two points.It isn't a child and it isn't pornography.

      ''Why the fury at my questions? They are not unreasonable.''

      They are.

      ''I'm not trying to convince anyone child pornography is misunderstood. More lies. ''

      Start at the beginning of this blog and read down.

      ''You make things up about me, and then you agree with yourself, lol.''

      Start at the beginning of this blog and read down.

      ''I don't have an irrational hatred of the parents, they are not my favourite people, but I don't care enough about them to have strong feelings.''

      Start anywhere at all and read down.There's a suggestion for your next poll. Do you come across as a hater or not.


      Delete
    5. Or I could stand in the centre of a town square and you could all throw rocks at me, lol.

      I jest of course, I'm not that insecure. In fact, I'm perfectly at ease with myself, which is why I enjoy my own company so much. I'm great fun!

      Do I honestly think the majority who read here see me as 'hater'? Not at all, hate filled rants do no make pleasant reading, people rarely, if ever, return.

      Most find my writing entertaining and return every day - just because most don't comment, doesn't mean they aren't reading.

      I don't incite hate, that would be the complete opposite to my peace loving nature. I actually keep the discussion rational, and indeed compassionate. You cannot project onto me a personality I don't have!

      I know that kind, decent, and reasonable people read here daily. They wouldn't if this were a 'hate' site. It really is that simple.

      Delete
    6. So, alone, in your own company, you find yourself to be great fun. Can you imagine the picture that's painted for everyone who's read it.

      The suggestion was for a poll so this supposed majority you talk about can actually express themselves, rather than have you think and speak on their behalf with your trademark unbiased modesty.Nobody said you incite hate, by the way, just that you hate.Your attitude, that is present in everything you write, frustrates people who hope to see you living up to the sane, balanced, intellectual woman of letters that you frequently tell them about but seldom show.

      Delete
    7. I have never claimed to be sane and balanced, lol, As if! I've always been a Drama Queen :) Though I hasten to add more Lady of Camellias than Vicky Pollard.

      Why should the fact that I find myself great fun paint a disturbing picture? What a strange mind you have. Let me clean it up for you.

      I chat constantly 21:23, and when I'm not chatting I'm writing down what's going on in my mind, and when I'm not chatting or writing, my head is still whirring away with everything I'm going to chat or write about. Ergo, I test out all my funny lines and anecdotes on myself, in my own head. So yes, I am enjoying the laughs first, before they hit the page. Most don't get through, because of the nature of the subject, but fortunately my next book won't have any such restrictions.

      So yes, I do enjoy my own company. I am very well informed, have knowledge of a huge variety of subjects and I'm quite a wit! What's not to like? lol.

      Your problem is 21:23, I am never going to become the kind of writer you want me to be, though I'm kind of touched that you are devoting so much time trying to change me.

      You have several options. 1) Create your own blog using all the guidelines you have dictated to me, I'm sure it will be a great success. 2) Read bloggers you like.

      People have been trying to change my personality since I was 5 years old 21:23 (my parents - never), without success. You, and all those who are frustrated at my failure to turn into a paragon of virtue will, I'm afraid continue to be frustrated.

      But here is a little advice for you. The only power you have is over yourself. You cannot change the behaviour of others, it is not within your control. You can however, change the way YOU react to other people's behaviour. YOU can allow it to anger you, you can allow it to keep you up nights, it's all down to you. Your decision.

      Your only other option is draconian laws to imprison people who say things you don't like, or gulags maybe. I suspect you will continue to opt for these.

      Delete
    8. A splendidly overlong explanation. Why so many people wanted to change you, only you and they would know.Why your psychiatrists have failed to sort you out only they would know.But, i haven't suggested any guidelines nor did I say you angered me or anybody else.You seem to have invented that in your own head. All i said was that you frustrate people.So, in exchange for your advice, here's some from me : Listen before you answer, read before you reply.I understand why my mind, according to you, is 'strange'.My mind works fine.Nobody, including me, has suggested you become a paragon of virtue.Then nobody asked you to become a rambling or bad tempered egoist either.It would be a welcome departure to find a part of you that could at least pull off a good impression of somebody reasonably well adjusted. Your final little paragraph ( draconian laws ) is superfluous and becoming quite humourous in a Monty Python kind of style. Is that what you're going for ? Or are you serious ?

      Delete
    9. I personally don't associate with people I find unpleasant 14:08, and I certainly wouldn't waste my time reading their musings. Given the option for example of reading any of the works of Tony Bennett or having my toe and fingernails extracted with pliers, I would opt for the latter.

      Life is too short to focus on the ugly 14:08, especially when we are surrounded by so much beauty and kindness. I accept that I'm not your cup of tea, and hope that you can find the kind of reading material you are looking for.

      You want me to at least to pull of the impression of somebody reasonably well adjusted. Why? What difference does it make to you? Will your life become less frustrating if I imitate a sane person?

      Actually, as I have got older I have become far more discerning. In the real world, I literally have zero tolerance. I don't argue with people like you 14:08, I simply walk away. For people I like, I have all the time in the world.

      I struggle to understand your frustration 14:08. The choice to read here is entirely yours. The choice to be angry or distressed is also your choice. Nothing I do will make any difference whatsoever to your mental state, or who YOU are. Do you not understand that?



      Delete
    10. ''You want me to at least to pull of the impression of somebody reasonably well adjusted. Why? What difference does it make to you?''

      Other than enjoying what I read, nothing. Your stubbornness combines with your contrariness and only provide a block to your creativity - a sort of writers block. You think too rigidly. As for so much beauty and kindness that are surrounding us in the world, which world are you talking about ? The world we call Planet Earth has never been in such a precarious and dangerous condition.Chaos and ruin are running wild and those who caused it only want to accelerate it.The evidence is impossible to escape.

      '' I don't argue with people like you 14:08, I simply walk away. ''

      There's the rigidity. You know nothing of me but you know you'd walk away because I don't praise you.Because i don't agree with you or praise your writing you make a judgement about me as a person. How did you arrive at this personal philosophy if you have so much knowledge of Psychology ? Is the miracle of communication that you celebrate as the greatest gift to mankind confined only to a world that's virtual ? Virtual is virtual. Real is real. You seem oblivious to the limits that a virtual world places on the ability to make trustworthy judgements.You seem too ready to place the same limits in the real world when you don't need to.it's a strange inner eclipse. It comes with the territory when you fall too deeply into the well that is the internet.

      Delete
    11. You are reading far too much into this 14:08 - let me give it to you in a nutshell, I don't give a monkey's what you think.

      Delete
  19. What's the biggest danger to children ? The attitude of adults like you Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 20.12 15:11

      "What's the biggest danger to children ?"

      The attitude of adults!

      The so well-known and much discussed 'how can we be at fault?' attitude of those under a duty of care would be frowned upon by the man on the Clapham omnibus.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

      T

      Delete
    2. Why thank you T - I'm ashamed to say I have never come across this 'standard measure' before, and I am finding it fascinating! Though I am not sure the concept has aged well, the man on the Clapham omnibus is likely to be any nationality or social class and what does nondescript look like these days? Regardless, this will be filed under 'learned something new today' :)

      Delete
    3. He looks like 'the man in the street, and 'joe public' or mr or mrs average.

      Delete
  20. Nice to see that you're ending the year with yet another meltdown, Ros. 12 months and about 50 meltdowns. What you lack in sense and personality you more than make up for with stamina.maybe our dear old Queen will include you on her New Year's Honours list.Services to complete nuttiness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You wind me up, then pretend to the victim when you get a belt round the ear, lol. And that wasn't a meltdown - you haven't seen a meltdown :)

      Delete
  21. "Damian Green sacked as first secretary of state after porn allegations"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A UK Tory PMs good right hand done for being a bit too busy enjoying himself on a computer.How novel.But then with irrelevant little matters like 70,000 families now in sheltered accommodation and looking for the Brexit way out, it's not like he had much else to do.From Heath to Thatcher to Cameron to May.Nothing changes except for the worse.They're crumbling now ,the useless, parasitic psychotics. Let's hope Damien's departure is an Omen.

      Delete
    2. Damian Green misled the public.

      Delete
    3. Damien Green was the deputy to May and used his time in the workplace to feed his obsession instead of waiting until he got home.They're like rodents.

      Delete
  22. 21.12 05:21 (!)

    "Let's hope Damien's departure is an Omen."

    Let's hope Damien's departure isn't The Omen.

    :)

    T

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://www.nydailynews.com/newswires/entertainment/latest-london-orchestra-releases-conductor-duties-article-1.3715108

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Child rapist uses computer to access children ( children who are not members of his family or even known by his family, incidentally). Commits disgusting acts. Found guilty. Receives a suspended sentence.Who know what the judge was thinking. Maybe he thought he laws were archaic.Or that words like stop' and 'no' meant 'go ahead'. These people in high places have their own priorities, regardless of law.I'd like to see the judge behind bars. Elsewhere that day, in Florida, a man received a 5 year sentence for trying to sell a legal plant - an alternative to cannabis . Drugs are big business to the lawmakers, so he had to go, as a warning to anyone else trying to spoil the game.

      I'm reminded of the day lovable family favourite and veteran BBC reporter, Stuart Hall, was found guilty of 14 charges of historical child abuse and received a 3 year holiday ( later reduced). Elsewhere that day, a man received the same sentence for spraying graffiti on a city centre wall in the midlands.

      https://www.activistpost.com/2017/12/child-rapist-gets-no-jail-time-father-son-sentenced-years-selling-plant.html

      Delete
  24. 22.12 19:07

    You are right again. Thanks for the link.

    Merry Christmas, comrade.

    T

    ReplyDelete