British police ensure you think the right thoughts
Lynette Burrows, a family campaigner, has had a visit from our (are they really ours anymore?) boys in blue regarding a comment she made on a live radio show.
From the Daily Telegraph:
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. “It is a risk,” she said. “You would not give a small girl to two men.”
A member of the public complained and a homophobic incident was recorded against her. A social worker police officer was sent round to lean on Ms Burrows. The officer apparently explained that
…it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.
Our increasingly spineless police authorities explained this piece of totalitarian intimidation thus:
A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were “priority crimes”.
It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. “It is all about reassuring the community,” said the spokesman. “We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.
“All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed.”
So: no crime, no laws broken, no charges. But you still get a police visit for expressing an opinion. Evidently this ‘assuring the community’ garbage is - as one might expect these days - only about assuring some sections of the community. The others can go to hell.
And some of you want these people to be able to lock us up for 90 days without charge?
“You would not give a small girl to two men.”
Sounds like a sacrifice. This is a “family campaigner”? Not a script writer for Hammer House of Horror? Is this her positive input into the adoption process?
I don’t think she needs a visit from the boys in blue, maybe just a boot up arse.
Comment by DE — December 13, 2005 @ 3:08 pm
Leaving aside the rather excitable subject matter touching as it does on pederasty and ‘the gayers’ for a mo Gary…
Somebody contacts police to report what they believe (whether we like it or not) is a crime.
The police are obliged to respond, can you imagine the response if they didn’t?
Comment by driverchris — December 14, 2005 @ 8:53 am
DE,
In context, she was comparing heterosexuals with homosexuals and drawing the same conclusion from that comparison. If you yourself might feel that placing a young girl with a pair of heterosexual men might be a little suspect you’ll get her point. You might not agree with it but you’ll understand what she means.
DC,
I would expect that, at the point the police realised this was a comment made by a family campaigner on a radio show that their first port of call - if there should be one at all - would be the radio station to ask what was actually said.
If the police are using an individual’s subjective appraisal of what constitutes a crime as a basis for paying people a visit then god help us. Objecting to gay adoption, mixed-race marriage or leftist tax-and-spend policy is a matter of opinion and people should be allowed to voice freely their views. Ignorance, stupidity - or simply being wrong - are hardly crimes. It is the totalitarian nature of the clowns who run our country that takes thought-crime out of the pages of novels and makes it a reality in the UK.
If Mrs Burrows had been black I wonder what the poor police would have done then? Such a conflict of interests!
Comment by Gary Monro — December 14, 2005 @ 10:06 am
Gary,
I can’t really accept this - it just says men of all flavours are ‘risks’. Lets just make it easy and only allow Lesbian couples to adopt?
Has she entirely missed the point - adoption is required in the first place because sometimes normal couples can’t produce a good home for children.
Comment by DE — December 14, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
The BBC broadcast this, they have to take responsibility for it. First knock on the door should have been at BBC towers.
Comment by Sam Roony — December 14, 2005 @ 2:02 pm
Frankly, DE, there are no guarantees when it comes to abuse - and sexual abuse is only one form so even if you get the ‘right’ mix of sexualities (how about a gay man and a gay woman?) there’s no assurance they won’t mess the kid up in some other way.
Nature provides children to heterosexual couples and it is they who, when all is said and done, provide the child with the best emulation of male-female relationships for the child to learn from and apply in their own adult lives. We learn like this. It’s far from perfect but much better than unnatural family set-ups such as gay men couples or gay women who unavoidably provide role models that will mostly not match anything the child will experience when s/he grows up.
Sam,
Agreed. But it appears that the necessity to ‘assure’ gay people when their feelings are hurt over-rules any consideration of common sense or, for that matter, the victim of their attentions.
Comment by Gary Monro — December 14, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
Gary,
Nature provides children to heterosexual couples and it is they who, when all is said and done, provide the child with the best emulation of male-female relationships for the child to learn from and apply in their own adult lives.
Not true. Actually children spend most of their childhood being told not to do what their parents do (trivial examples: paint the walls, drive the car, light the fire, smoke, drink).
If indeed children actually did use what they learn at home outside the home, they would most likely be punished by their parents and beaten up by their peers.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — December 14, 2005 @ 6:28 pm
This police woman was OBLIGED to record this incident for some crappy pc reason (granted). Its not quite the same thing and doesnt involve quite the same level of policing as a terror investigation. In order to detain someone you would have to have some suggestion to suggest there was a problem in the first place - they cant afford to waste their time. This would involve the slightly smarter facets of security forces and anti terror investigation teams. It HAS to stand up to liberal judges, Liberty and the likes of Gareith Pierce who would quickly pick an allegation apart at the seams and be ready to sue. They are unlikely to pull someone in on terror charges where it will cost millions and end up as a charade.
Mr Taylor at this weeks ‘communities against terror’ nonsense conference (whos daughter was killed on July 7):
“As soon as you try to do something someone stands up and starts on about ‘rights’. What about the rights of my daughter or of the 50 odd people killed on July 7?”. I was delighted to see him on Sky also - a bread and butter Tory stating quite clearly who he wouldnt be voting for next time round. Perhaps they should have used his image on the front cover of the Sun that day?
Comment by Alison — December 14, 2005 @ 10:33 pm
In order to detain someone you would have to have some suggestion to suggest there was a problem in the first place - they cant afford to waste their time.
Sure they can. They can even afford to waste bullets.
They can afford to waste you.
Comment by Frank O\\\'Dwyer — December 14, 2005 @ 11:26 pm
Alison,
Holding a person is relatively cheap I imagine. Bacon and eggs time 90? Not a lot all else considered.
You may well be right that they need to persuade a judge that the holding was legitimate but the final effect is that the police can hold you or me for up to 90 days and then release us with, it seems, no questions asked.
They only waste their millions if there is a trial involved - and then only if they lose their case.
Yes, Mr Taylor sounds like he would have been a slightly better person for the Sun to have used on its front page. Either way, that paper - owned by an anti-monarchist foreigner - cannot lecture me on loyalty.
But remember this - even if you still do not agree with people like myself on the 90 day issue: I do not give a fig for the rights of terrorists. I care about your rights and my rights and the rights of my fellow countrymen. And I care deeply about the behaviour and conduct of a country I love. I do not want to see England descend to the ‘lock ‘em up and then see if we can pin something on them later’ tactics of banana republics. I want to be able to say that my country is better than the rest and for it to be true - not because I shout it more loudly but because, when the **** hits the fan, we remain constant in our principles and in our traditions. Thisis more easily said than done - and I am sure I actually won’t be consistent on this - but the intention should be there and it should be pursued with vigour.
I realise how abstract some of this might sound. I once held opinions similar to yours so I understand how such thought processes work. I am not condemning them at all and I do appreciate the severity of what we face. But I would urge all patriots - which I am sure, having seen your site (but unable to comment on it!) includes you - to not be prepared to see England washed into the cesspit of a police state simply by the actions of the imported filth of alien cultures.
An end to wanton immigration, the securing of our borders - by whatever means necessary - and an expansion of our intelligence gathering measures may be our best bet against these people. 90 days - or ID cards, for that matter - would not have prevented the London bombings and stand little chance of preventing the next attacks.
Comment by Gary Monro — December 15, 2005 @ 10:04 am
Frank,
You’re mischief making again. You know I’m not referring to painting on walls, staying up late or eating too many carbs. I’m talking about slightly deeper things - the nuances of human relationships, hierarchies, authority and trendy stuff like anger management, conflict resolution and so on.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Comment by Gary Monro — December 15, 2005 @ 10:12 am
THANK YOU Gary - really very thoughtful post and quite likely to pursuade me to your point of view. Though i still have some doubts that the likes of you and me would be arrested. And would like to know what happened to those guys the independent enquiry noted were serious terror suspects released after a week b/c the police could not get sufficient evidence. Not sure why you cant comment on my site - ive had other people say the same thing - basically i cant work the comments thing out being relatively new to blogging. If u tell me what the problem is ill see if i can fix?
Comment by Alison — December 15, 2005 @ 10:52 am
Alison,
I’ve posted on two instances of what I regard as the misuse of the anti-terrorism legislation (old bloke refused entry to Labour conference, young woman arrested for walking when she should have been cycling on a cycle path). This is me and you (although I only feel 80 - I’m not yet half that). When authorities have the power to do stuff they eventually do do stuff…
Anyway, it’s nice that we have an understanding of alternative views - it’s the best thing about blogging and has consistently shown me that once we start digging few things are black ‘n’ white and nice ‘n’ easy. I’m getting very used to being wrong.
Shortly after our last tete a tete I wrote a longish comment on a very nice post of yours about, I think, that new bronze war memorial in London. Only when I finished did I realise I had to have a Blogger id in order to actually post it…
Anyway, I have a Blogger ID now - and a new blog to go with it. Possibly you could try altering the criteria for commenting on your blog - allow ‘all’ to comment but make them fill in those anti-spam thingies. Just a suggestion…
Comment by Gary Monro — December 15, 2005 @ 1:51 pm
I dont disagree about the silly application in the hands of plods rather than anti terror police per se - but i think youll find in both instances they were released within hours.
Thanks for the heads up i think ive fixed this now. Im so sorry about the set up, how annoying.
By all means please comment on the post you refer to if you feel like it!
I know weve had our moments on various blogs but you are right that blogging does open up a variety of views.
atb
Alison
Comment by Alison — December 15, 2005 @ 5:28 pm
Gary,
You know I’m not referring to painting on walls, staying up late or eating too many carbs. I’m talking about slightly deeper things - the nuances of human relationships, hierarchies, authority and trendy stuff like anger management, conflict resolution and so on.
Oh well why didn’t you say! What makes you think those are any different? They aren’t learned in the home either, any more than kids show up at interviews in romper suits, or weddings in short pants.
Other things being equal, there is no evidence that kids turn out any different whether they are brought up by two parents, one parent, gays, lesbians, polyamorous lovers, grandparents, the next door neighbors, your invalid aunt, a hippie commune or a travelling circus.
(Well, I’m not sure about the travelling circus.)
Monkey see, monkey do.
Monkey get clip round the ear.
Until they leave home…at which point they shrug off parents influence as easily as they take off the dorky clothes they made them wear. Out of sight, out of mind.
Comment by Frank O\\\\\\\'Dwyer — December 16, 2005 @ 12:27 am
“If Mrs Burrows had been black I wonder what the poor police would have done then? Such a conflict of interests! “
Just out of curiousity, Gary… what would this conflict of interests be?
Comment by Biodun — December 17, 2005 @ 8:49 pm
Biodun,
Blacks - like gays - have a special value to the left. They are symbols, vehicles by which the left furthers its political aims. Now that a substantial part of the working class has had the audacity to not be poor anymore other groups must step in and take up the roles of primary victims so that the left can champion them and, in so doing, further subvert the ‘forces of conservatism’ (Mr Blair’s phrase).
The conflict is in finding that one of your pet victims is thinking wrong thoughts about another. You want to defend one but you don’t want to alienate the other.
Sending the police round to visit a middle-class white woman who insists that family is a good thing is easy. Sending them round to somebody you consider to already be a victim of the police is quite something else.
Comment by Gary Monro — December 17, 2005 @ 11:40 pm
Gary,
This issue has nothing to do with left versus right. It is about authoritarianism. Whether one is forced to goosestep to Blair’s marching anthem or that of Burrows is just a matter of detail.
In many respects Blair is arguably to the right of the Conservatives as were anyway.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — December 18, 2005 @ 1:17 am
Frank,
It’s not just authoritarianism. It’s authoritarianism directed in a unique way.
(An aside: I’m not sure what left and right really are - I use the terms lazily - but I think I fit into both from time to time. Which is disconcerting to say the least.)
But whereas I judge a gay or black person by what they say and do I think the left see them as representatives of a history, symbols of a struggle and tools in a war against conservatism.
To me they’re humans. To the Left they’re causes.
Comment by Gary Monro — December 18, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
The comments which provoked the police response are questionable, but that’s why we need to meet them with free speech and discussion, not with the (thought) police paying a visit.
As someone engaged with the Conservative Party, I need to hear some very good reasons as to why I should trust the party on law and order/freedom of speech issues.
I’m glad there is recognition this is an issue of authoritarianism, but these cases only come to light when an easily championable one occurs (for example, the lady who was arrested at the cenotaph recently). What about when youngsters are assaulted by police for the sake of a snotsworth of weed, or just because they have a ‘reputation’? It’s all very well getting upset about this lady being hassled by the police for having an opinion, but such media spectacles obscure the fact that there are abuses of authority going on day in day out, but aren’t newsworthy for that very reason. They are also legitimised because the victim can’t be portrayed as an innocent martyr. Is there any place for their voice? Or will the party only tentatively address police brutality?
Comment by Ronan Dodds — December 19, 2005 @ 11:45 am
I think your assessment says a lot more about you, than it sheds any light on the inadequacies of these laws.
By your logic, there is a conflict of interest if a black person murders a gay person (or vice-versa).
I think it’s safe to say there wouldn’t be.
The problems with this law are to do with the implications it might have on free speech.
Trying to prove its ridiculousness with non sequiturs is counter-productive.
Comment by Biodun — December 19, 2005 @ 5:13 pm
Biodun,
First of all, if you wouldn’t mind, please expand on what you believe my assessment says about me.
Second, here’s a couple of examples of what it is I mean. Recently, blacks and Asians had a bit of a to-do up in Birmingham. Somebody had suggested Asians had gang-raped a black girl and all hell broke loose. There were some killings, a bit of destruction and so on.
Check the media reports on this story. Almost nowhere was it suggested that we had a racial conflict going on here where blacks and Asians were openly antagonistic towards each other. No sides were taken and there was a concerted effort by some leftist commentators to suggest we ‘just had to find ways of getting on better together’. Various people were wheeled out saying how nice things were generally between the two races.
What nonsense. The situation there is one of raw racism. Certain blacks resent Asian success, pure and simple. Certain Asians despise apparent black underachievement. Some overtly racist - and ridiculous - accusations against Asians are treated as if they were soundly based grievances.
As in my area where I know of Asian/black antipathy, some small number of members of these communities are easily as racist as the worst whites. You won’t read much about it though.
Because the approach to non-white racism is completely different to that of white racism. Whites who bash blacks and Asians are rightly regarded as low-life. When blacks and Asians go to it we have to be more gentle, more circumspect, more understanding. This is simply because we have two alleged victim groups doing to each other exactly the kinds of things that makes them qualify as victims in the first place. This complication is most unwelcome and it presents liberals with a dilemma.
Here’s another example. In education there is a hierarchy of success. The hierarchy is roughly this: Orientals on top, Indians second, whites third, Pakistanis fourth, blacks close behind them and Bangladeshis below blacks.
Yet when you read reports about Pakistani or Bangladeshi underachievement invariably the comparison is between the grades achieved by Pakistani people and those achieved by white people - the third-ranked students!
Why no comparison between Pakistanis and Indians? Or, better, orientals? These people are, after all, the successful ones.
Again, it’s the clash of interests. How can you possibly support a theory of white institutional racism when people who look and sound just like Pakistanis - but are actually Indians - are doing monumentally better than Pakistanis? (Not to mention better also than the white kids who should, one assumes, actually benefit from this racism?)
The answer is: you can’t. Rather than suggest the obvious - there may be cultural reasons for the relative differences between Indian and Bangladeshi results - we must instead suggest racism by the teaching profession.
Racial distrust is rife. All the communities - even within apparently homogenous communities (which are sometimes nothing of the sort) - like ‘blacks’ (Africans vs West Indians) Asian (Indian vs Pakistani) - have it. But politically correct necessity states that some groups’ racism cannot be treated the same as others’ because we then end up with a conflict caused directly by victim groups themselves.
This is what I mean when I say that a black insulting a homosexual provides a conflict of interests. Blacks and gays are supposed to be the victims of prejudice - not the source of it. If you regard a black or a gay as a symbol this conflict becomes accute. If you regard them as human beings - as I do - there is no conflict. Just ordinary people doing ordinary things - some of which will be unpleasant things.
Over to you.
Comment by Gary Monro — December 19, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
Gary,
You’re preaching to the converted here.
Make no mistake I find the lumping of blacks and asians into one homogenous group, based on the erroneous “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” logic a bit silly.
I have also recognised a seeming reluctance to label comments made by certain people as racist, even though they obviously are. This could very well be due to the media not wanting to call it racism if the parties involved are not calling it that, or, it might like you suggested, be due to some discomfort in acknowledging the fact that these two groups do not get along.
Last month, I made a comment about the Birmingham riots, here and if you care to read it, you will probably find our conclusions to be the same.
I was hoping that your “conflict of interest” statement would shed some light on real conflicts of interest that might occur with freedom of speech, - it did not.
Your response was that gays and blacks are causes to the left. Perhaps, but not really relevant to the free speech issue.
Besides that, there is no evidence for your assertion with the whole gay v black thing, unlike the asian v black thing which you just mentioned.
A case in point is the recent banning of Elephant Man from the MOBOs for his homophobic lyrics. It is common knowledge that many afro-caribbeans are aggressively homophobic. I haven’t seen anybody pretending that this is not the case.
My point is that I think you used a bad and incorrect example based on your perception and not on any fact and in any case it did not shed any light on the free speech issue.
So what does your assessment say about you?
That in your rush to point out the fallacy of putting diverse groups under one victim umbrella, you’re actually the one doing the generalising, and not the government/left/media/police/whoever you were castigating.
Perhaps, I should have made that clear in my last post, as I can see how you might have thought I was accusing you of something a bit more sinister.
I understand it might seem as if I’m nit-picking your post here, but there is nothing more irritating than seeing my race used as a bad example for what could possibly be a good point.
Comment by Biodun — December 20, 2005 @ 1:23 am
Biodun,
I didn’t think you were nit-picking - but feel free to if the urge ever grabs you. I do it all the time!
When I find a moment or two to even breathe I will read your post - thank you for the link.
My original post wasn’t directly about free speech. It was about attempts to influence the way people think about issues by using the police to enforce certain ‘accepted’ views - or, leastways, to enforce a ban on views that aren’t illegal but which are also ‘not accepted’. Which, of course, is closely related to free speech but I was concentrating more on the method than that issue itself.
Nor was I particularly commenting on a gay vs black issue. If there is an issue between the two then I don’t know about it. My comments are specifically about the liberal-left ‘intelligentsia’ - not gay people, not black people, not anybody else. With respect, you have taken an aside made in the comments section and promoted it into an issue bigger than the subject of the original post.
That’ll teach me to be more careful about throwaway comments…
The general conflict I was referring to was simply that which can exist in the liberal-left mind when two groups, allegedly victimised by the white, (apparently) classist, sexist, homophobic, racist majority exhibit the same discredited behaviour towards each other. Be absolutely assured here: I was not meaning to use your race to prove any point at all. That small comment was aimed directly and squarely at those who regard a person as being first and foremost a gender, a race or a sexuality - not at the people so labelled.
Hope I’ve clarified a little.
Comment by Gary Monro — December 20, 2005 @ 9:17 am
Ah. Now I see.
Comment by Biodun — December 20, 2005 @ 10:21 am