The National Police Chiefs’ Council Has Surrendered to Gender Ideology

Posted by ukvillafan on April 10, 2022
Posted in: Crime, Domestic Abuse, Feminism, Gender identity, Legal Issues, Politics, Sex and gender. Leave a comment

In light of the story today in the Mail Online, I have written to the NPCC as follows.

“Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you following the disclosure in the Mail Online this morning of your recent policy guidance on strip searches. Your organisation may think that, in prioritising alleged ‘inclusivity’ over the sex-based rights of both women and men, it is in tune with public thinking, but you most definitely are not. You have, like many other national and regional organisations, public bodies and businesses, allowed your thinking to be clouded by ideologues and you have done so, no doubt, for fear of being criticised by this very vocal minority. Either that or you just think it is cool to be trendy.

All trans women are biological males. Most trans women (between 90 to 95%) not only do not go through any gender reassignment surgery but do not have hormone treatment either. In addition, we have moved on from the situation where the majority of individuals who transition do so because of some deep-seated gender dysphoria. It is now just as likely to be a life-choice as it is to be related to treating a particular feeling of profound distress.

Whilst any right-minded person recognises that individuals can make whatever decisions they like about how to live their lives, including choosing a gender identity different to the sex into which they were born, that does not mean that rational thinking should be sacrificed on the alter of ideology. A strip search is, by definition, an extremely intimate procedure and hitherto the guidelines have been clear, as I understand it, that they should be carried out by officers of the same biological sex as the person being searched. Those guidelines were in place for very obvious reasons – the dignity and protection of both the person being searched and the officer performing the search to name but two.

There is no adequate reason for those earlier guidelines to be altered but your organisation has done so nevertheless. The very fact that the new guidance emphasises the feelings and sensitivities of a trans officer who might be involved in a search to the complete exclusion of the dignity and feelings of the person being searched tells us all that we need to know. I have no doubt that this change to your guidance has been influenced by Stonewall or another similar organisation. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the drafting of it was farmed out to someone with an activist agenda – it certainly reads that way.

Whatever else they might be, trans women are (and will forever remain) biologically male. The vast majority will have retained their full male anatomy, as detailed above. There are circumstances where it is perfectly legitimate to prioritise the needs of individuals based on their biological sex, especially women who have, historically, been the victims of aggression and violence perpetrated by biological males, including several police officers. A strip search is clearly such an occasion.

The mantra ‘trans women are women and trans men are men’ is nothing more than an expression of a political ideology which is, in fact, completely divorced from reality. It is a calculated tactic to obfuscate language with the aim of removing sex-based rights so that they can be replaced by those based on gender. No trans woman can possibly understand what it is to be or to feel like a woman. Any trans woman who thinks that this new guidance is appropriate and that it is thus discriminatory for a woman to object to being strip-searched by a biological male who ‘identifies’ as a woman clearly has not an inkling of what it really means to be female. If they did, they would know 100% that it is a violation of a woman’s dignity and personal space, not least because the likelihood is that the vast majority of women who find themselves in such circumstances will have had a lifetime of violence or abuse at the hands of men!

This new guidance is equally inappropriate for female officers who might find themselves being ordered to strip-search a trans woman who is a fully intact male on pain of disciplinary action if they refuse.

Your new guidance is misogyny writ large and needs to be withdrawn. If you do so, you might incur the wrath of the vocal activists but you will receive the support of the vast majority of the general public. It is time for organisations like yours to escape from the influence of the activist groups like Stonewall. Not only are they nothing more than a very loud voice claiming to represent a very small minority, but they do not actually represent anywhere near all of the trans community. Bullies become emboldened when no one stands up to them. The NPCC needs to take a lead by respecting the sex-based rights and needs of women whilst seeking to be, of course, inclusive towards trans people generally and, in so doing, rejecting the bullying tactics of ideological groups.”

The Labour Party No Longer Represents The Interests Of Women

Posted by ukvillafan on April 4, 2022
Posted in: Child Abuse, Crime, Feminism, Freedom of Expression, Gender identity, Legal Issues, Politics, Sex and gender. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

The British Labour Party is in thrall to a new Militant Tendency. I am not the first to say so. This time, however. the leadership is fully on board and in the grip of the ideologues.

Dawn Butler MP famously told Richard Madeley that. “A child is born without a sex”. In September 2021 Sir Keir Starmer appeared on the Andrew Marr show on the BBC and said that the words ‘only women have a cervix’ “should not be said.” This was in response to a direct question from Marr that arose from the fact that one of Starmer’s Labour MPs, Rosie Duffield, had said precisely that. In early March this year, Starmer gave an interview to the London Times where he stated categorically that ‘trans women are women.’ These are three of many examples that demonstrate unequivocally that Labour has succumbed to gender identity ideology and the consequences of this abject surrender could be catastrophic. For some, they already have been.

The cervix is part of the female anatomy. Males are not born with a cervix any more than they are born with a uterus or ovaries. Thus everyone with a cervix most definitely was born female. On the face of it, therefore, saying ‘only women have a cervix’ is not only permissible but scientifically accurate. However, the proponents of gender identity ideology cannot allow the norms of biology and sex to go unchallenged as this would fundamentally undermine the ‘theory’ upon which it is based. Thus it is essential for the gender activist that it is generally accepted that trans men are men (and trans women are women). It is Labour’s adoption of this mantra that enables Starmer to distance himself from Rosie Duffield, for if trans men are men then men can have a cervix too.

In the real world of course, as opposed to the virtual world of the social justice warrior, trans men are not men and trans women are not women. This is so obvious to the average person because few people actually confuse the concepts of gender and sex even if they might struggle with defining them. They know that a person cannot change his or her biological sex.

The debate began in academia, moved into esoteric political circles and is currently having a disproportionate effect on real life policy-making. Powerful lobby groups, such as Stonewall, have convinced political parties, not just Labour, that gender identity is more important than biological sex, that the trans cause is equivalent to the long-since successful battle for gay and lesbian rights and that if you are not fully behind this cause then you are a bigot, a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist), a transphobe or worse. Anyone with a different view is bullied, hounded and silenced. They are prevented from speaking on university campuses, targeted by campaigns aimed at getting them fired, intimidated into silence in the workplace, threatened openly with violence, told to ‘shut the fuck up’.

The gender ideologues are on a mission to replace sex-based rights because the binary nature of biological sex is inconvenient. Unless the primacy of sex is overturned then the central claims of trans women being women and trans men being men will be exposed for the nonsense that they are. The activists know this full well – cue the all out assault on language, science and rational thinking in the guise of a rights campaign. It has been a slick and successful one. The propaganda has infiltrated not just the political parties but major institutions such as police forces, business organisations, even the NHS. It is a seductive message of victimhood and oppression fuelled by misleading claims and targeted at the susceptible audience of the ‘enlightened’ left. Those of us who consider ourselves to be occupants of the liberal end of the political spectrum pride ourselves on being champions of the downtrodden and those who are society’s outcasts. It is a badge of honour for us, not because it makes us feel virtuous (although it does) but because we know it is the right thing to do. This is why the activists’ message is almost irresistible, but resisted it must be.

Those pushing this ideology say that trans people are the most vulnerable members of the community. In support of this they often state with certainty that trans people are more likely to be murdered than others or face greater levels of discrimination and thus need better protection, more rights. The objective is to change the law to permit simple gender self-identification where living as the opposite sex for three months and a statutory declaration that you identify as a man or a woman will be sufficient to enable you to be recognised in law as the opposite sex. Therein lies one of the biggest ironies of all. For while the activists denigrate the whole idea of sex-based rights and promote the primacy of gender, they want to be able to say that their feelings of identity mean that they ARE the opposite sex.

The truth behind the lies is illuminating. As far as it is possible to ascertain, there were seven trans-identified individuals murdered in the UK in the ten year period from 2008 to 2017 making trans individuals about one tenth as likely to be murdered than the average person. Of the seven identified murders in these figures three victims were sex workers and three others were killed by drug dealers or fellow drug users. Both of these lifestyles vastly increase the risk of being a murder victim (by 18 times in the case of sex workers in London). Only one of the cases suggests that the gender and/or sexuality of the victim may have been a major contributing factor in the crime. All of the victims were biological males as were all of the murderers.

Interestingly, over the same period there were more trans individuals who were perpetrators of homicides than victims. All of those perpetrators were biological males. There is thus no evidence to support the claim that trans people are at greater risk of murder in the UK than the general population. Indeed, quite the opposite, and being a trans man seems particularly safe.

As far as discrimination is concerned the fact is that transgender individuals have exactly the same protections as all other groups at risk, as the Equality Act 2010 makes being transgender a protected category. What the activists really mean is that when their dogmatic view is challenged by critics of gender ideology, they consider this to be hateful, transphobic and discriminatory. Being gender critical is categorised as heresy and the promulgators are harassed and hounded with all the zealotry one might expect from the fervently religious. Far from being the oppressed, trans activists are the oppressors. How else is it possible for someone to lose their employment merely for holding gender critical views, as Maya Forstater did? Why was it necessary for there to be an appeal court hearing to establish that her gender critical views are a protected belief? Without trans ideology having become the new norm, how does a respected academic like Kathleen Stock end up being forced out of her position?

Gender identity theory is leading political parties and major institutions down a path towards disaster. The insistence upon a change in the law to facilitate gender self-identification without any gatekeeping will lead to, amongst other things, unfairness in women’s sport, the elimination of sex-based rights and greater levels of violence and abuse, with women and children, in particular, being the victims. We know this because the perpetrators of such violence are adept at exploiting loopholes in the safeguarding processes.

The deleterious effects of gender identity theory are not a problem for the future because they are happening already. Trans offenders are placed in prisons according to their self-identified gender, leading to sexual assaults on female prisoners. The NHS has denied that a rape took place on a female ward on the basis that no male patients were present when, in reality, a trans woman was on the ward in question. The NHS has had to concede that the rape occurred. Sporting competitions have become farcical because male-bodied athletes have been allowed to compete in female only competitions. Lesbians are targeted because their same-SEX attraction is ‘transphobic’. Children are put on puberty blockers and a pathway towards hormonal and surgical transition with lifelong consequences.

The common thread here is that the victims of this new orthodoxy are, overwhelmingly, biological females or, as they themselves rightly describe themselves, women. Once again, the rights of women are being suppressed in favour of the rights of men and the ultimate responsibility for this rests with policy makers and politicians who have chosen to prioritise the dogmatic claims of a numerically small but noisy lobby. This is being done out of fear. They are afraid of being the next target of the cancellation process, fearful of being on the wrong end of the bullying and intimidation reserved for the heretics like Rosie Duffield, Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock, JK Rowling and many others. The Labour Party, above all, has to find its collective backbone and it can only do so if it begins to listen to real women.

The Labour Party Has Officially Lost The Plot

Posted by ukvillafan on March 15, 2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

Time was when I could never have voted anything but Labour. It was the only party that reflected my political passions – fairness, equality of opportunity, justice, tolerance, enlightenment and a truly liberal mindset. I joined the Party, went on the campaign trail, became active in my trade union and moved in political circles. Then the Blairites took over and Labour became all about PFI money and getting into bed with the City and the corporate world. I cancelled my membership and joined the Green Party, largely because its manifesto reminded me of the left of centre stance that Labour had long since abandoned. I could, perhaps, have rejoined the fold had Corbyn been allowed to flourish, but his fence-sitting on the EU would have been a block to that for me. Now I know I will never go back. The Party has lost me forever and I am not the only one.

The Labour Party has been captured by a new ’Militant Tendency’ but this time, the leadership is fully on board with the madness and in the grip of the ideologues. The ‘New Agenda’ is gender and woe betide anyone who does not toe the line. For so long the natural political home for many gay and lesbian activists, feminists and supporters of a variety of liberal causes, the Labour Party appears intent on aligning itself with a philosophy that is inherently sexist, misogynistic and homophobic, seemingly without even realising that it is abandoning core liberal values, scientific truth and, ultimately, a good proportion of its traditional voter base.

Recently, Anneliese Dodds could not define the word ’woman’ and Yvette Cooper went so far as to claim that to even engage with the question was pointless, refusing in her words, to go down the ‘rabbit hole’. In 2020 Dawn Butler famously claimed that all children are born without a sex (presumably because she had swallowed the ideological position that sex is ’assigned’ after birth) and last year Keir Starmer said that it was wrong to claim that only a woman has a cervix. Starmer’s position here is based on the ’fact’ that trans men (who will have a cervix) are men, and not women; thus both men and women can have a cervix. David Lamy subsequently went down his own rabbit hole by suggesting that trans women could, in some unspecified way, develop a cervix, after surgery or hormone treatment for example. Now Starmer is on record as claiming not only that trans women are women but that this is the legal effect of the combination of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equalities Act 2010. He is wrong on both counts but, in this debate, truth has been the victim for some time.

At the core of the problem is a confusion between the concepts of sex and gender, a confusion that has been actively promoted by gender identity protagonists. Sex and gender are two entirely different concepts and it is wrong to conflate them. Sex is biological. Every child is born male or female (almost without exception) and one cannot change one’s sex. There are only two sexes and a person’s sex is determined at conception and by the development path taken in the following 8 or so weeks in the womb. Hence why Dawn Butler’s comment about all children being born without a sex is nonsense. On the other hand, there is no evidence that gender is anything other than a social construct. Certainly. the idea that every person has some innate gender identity is nothing more than ideological speculation with no supporting scientific data. It is this imprecision that is fundamental to the idea of gender identity. There are plenty of difficulties with the concept of gender, especially as employed by the gender identity lobby. I would recommend taking a read through the article ’Gender Is Not a Spectrum’ by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper for an excellent exposition of the logical difficulties that abound with the concept.

A woman is defined by primary sex characteristics. The term woman means ’adult human female’ and it does not equate to a specific gender. In order to swallow the nonsense that trans women are women one has to accept that the term woman means nothing more than a collection of gender-related behaviours and characteristics. This is exactly what feminists have been fighting against for decades, so it is no wonder why passions are raised. It is time for the Labour Party to reflect upon its direction of travel and hit reverse. A trans woman is not a woman, however much any particular trans person might believe it to be the case. Believing something to be true does not make it so, and being truthful in the face of false claims does not make a person hateful or bigoted or transphobic, it just makes them honest. We could do with a generous injection of honesty into our politics just about now.

Of course, it is not only the Labour Party that has been infected by this philosophical virus. The Green Party, the SNP and the LibDems have likewise fallen prey to it. Indeed, the SNP has recently introduced a Bill that would amend the Gender Recognition Act and make gender self-identification a simple tick-box exercise usable by anyone from the age of 16. I am, effectively, politically homeless as my political family has become lost in an identity cult. Yes. it is that serious because of the consequences of making gender the centre of political policy making.

Taking up the mantra that ’trans women are women’ puts the Labour Party on the same side of the argument as Karen White, a sexual predator who, after declaring himself trans, was placed in a women’s prison and then committed further sexual offences. Women and children need safe spaces to protect them from sexual, physical and emotional violence which is almost exclusively perpetrated by men. Allowing simple self-identification creates a gap in the safeguarding system that perpetrators will walk straight through, as sure as eggs is eggs (and sperm is sperm).

Why The Trans Debate Matters – Part 2

Posted by ukvillafan on March 13, 2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

It is one of the most controversial areas of current political debate and the opposing sides could not be further apart. This issue matters because at its heart is a fight between reason and unreason, fact and fantasy, scientific truth and wishful thinking. The potential consequences of the wrong side eventually triumphing are catastrophic. And, yes, there is a ’wrong’ side. The rights of women, in particular, obtained after centuries of struggle are at risk of being eroded and ideology is the weapon of choice. We all need to wake up and take a stand to combat the rise of a new false narrative. Part 1 of this blog covers some of the main issues.

When I posted part 1 I had not written this second part, mostly because I was not too sure in which direction to go next as there are so many strands. In light of what has been happening in the Ivy League swimming competition ‘across the pond’, however, the time is right to look at the impact of gender self-identification and gender ideology on women’s sport.

The problem, at its simplest, arises as a result of the conflation of sex and gender and the attempt by certain elements of the gender activist community to eradicate sex-based rights in favour of gender-based ‘rights’. Make no mistake, this conflation is deliberate. Its objective is to sow confusion as a first step before moving on to the utilisation of propaganda tactics in order to further a specific political agenda. The ultimate objective is that gender self-identification should be enshrined in law as the sole determinant of a person’s legal sex. If this were to come to pass, simply saying one is a woman would be sufficient for it to become a legal reality. The logical consequence of this would be the eradication of women’s sex-based rights at the stroke of a pen. To understand this is crucial to getting to grips with the complexities involved. The Scottish Government has recently introduced a Bill with this specific purpose at its core. The Bill refers to gender 244 times and mentions sex not at all. It enables simple gender self-identification with no limits and reduces the age when this can be done to 16.

We can see the sporting consequences of allowing any male-bodied person to claim to be a woman with the case of Lia Thomas. Lia was born male and continues to be fully male-bodied. As a male, Lia competed as a swimmer but, while talented, was not particularly successful in that environment. Having declared himself to be a woman and having taken a course of hormone treatment, Lia has spent this swimming season competing in female competitions breaking Ivy League swimming records, winning titles and, in the process, relegating other swimmers to ’also swams’.

In any version of the world where reality reigns, this would be denounced as grossly unfair. We know that by going through male puberty a man will develop into a much stronger athlete than his female counterparts. This is a permanent advantage that follows a male athlete and is not significantly impacted by hormone treatment. However, we currently live in a world where ideology is more important than reality, feelings are more important than fairness and gender is everything whilst biological sex is passé. As a consequence, not only have the Ivy League colleges and the relevant swimming organisations permitted and encouraged this travesty, they have tried to silence anyone who opposes them. The sole justification for this seems to be that because Lia has identified as a woman then she should be allowed to compete as a woman. This requires a devotion to ideology at the expense of common sense of quite staggering proportions. It also filters into why the mantra ’trans women are women and trans men are men’ is pushed so hard, because unless enough of the right people in the right places take up the chant, reality will win and that would be a significant blow to the gender ideologues. In every sense that is relevant to sporting achievement Lia Thomas is a man. with a man’s body and a history of male development into and past puberty. It is risible to believe that internal feelings are sufficient to negate all of that inbuilt male advantage. Lia Thomas can identify as whatever gender she likes, but that does not change her biological sex and it is the latter that is the mechanism for categorising sports competitions.

Naturally, Lia is not the only example. It is rife across many sports and it has been permitted because sports organisations from the International Olympic Committee downwards have taken a craven approach in the face of ideological activism. Like countless powerful groups before them, they have subjugated the rights of biological females in the face of demands from biological males. There can be no other conclusion in light of the known facts. Hormone treatment and achieving the necessary reduction in testosterone levels does have a dampening effect on performance, but only by about two percent. At the elite level, male world records are about 11 per cent better than female ones. It is obvious therefore that a simple rule about testosterone does not level the playing field. There is something else at the root of the performance difference. Could that have anything to do with male puberty, development, muscle mass, body shape etc? It is called androgenisation.

Don’t take my word for it, just look at the figures in swimming. Lia Thomas, when competing as a man in male competitions swam about 2 to 3 percent faster than when competing in the women’s competition over 200 yards. The men’s world record for 200 metres freestyle is 102 seconds compared to 113 seconds for women. That is a performance difference of approximately 11 per cent. World records merely tell us what we already know to be self-evidently true; men are, on average, bigger, faster and stronger than women. There isn’t a single sporting endeavour which relies solely on physical prowess where the best woman can get close to the best man. This is the reason why such sports are divided by biological sex and should continue to be so until such time, if ever, that the science changes. Couple that with an understanding that changing one’s gender identity does not alter one’s biological sex and we might start finding the right path.

This is not the only example, of course, because the sporting world. from the international Olympic Committee down has lost its collective marbles.

Why The Trans Debate Matters – Part 1

Posted by ukvillafan on February 27, 2022
Posted in: Feminism, Freedom of Expression, Gender identity, Legal Issues, Politics, Sex and gender. Leave a comment

I am a man. The person I live with is a woman. Twenty years ago, possibly even more recently, those two statements would have been both unremarkable and self-explanatory. However, the use of the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ is now fraught with controversy and their utterance risks attracting the wrath of a significant number of people, especially individuals and groups that ‘self-identify’ as ‘liberal’, ‘progressive’, or ‘left-wing’. It is particularly galling to me that it is this community, this coalition, that would be quick to brand me as a bigot or a TERF because of my views, as I am liberal, progressive and left-wing. I find myself in the company of noted and celebrated feminists, on the one hand, and right-wing commentators on the other. How can this be?

The problem arises from ‘identity politics’ and the current mantra that ‘trans women are women and trans men are men’. To the casual or disinterested observer this may sound both obvious and trite. Surely, one might say, if a man wants to identify as a woman or vice versa we should just let them get on with it? Have we not progressed as a society so that we can accept people for who they are?  Where is the harm? In reality, this terminology is used as a battle cry aimed at eliminating sex-based rights, in particular the rights of women. Like most slogans it is designed to be simplistic and easily repeatable whilst at the same time capable of hiding its true purpose. Make no mistake, the intention is to supplant sex-based rights with those based on gender identity.

The principal target of this campaign is the basic definition of what it is to be a man or, especially, a woman. It is fuelled by a deliberate obfuscation of the concepts of sex and gender with the specific intention of replacing the former with the latter. The average person might be excused for having only a vague notion of these concepts. Indeed, the warriors behind this attack on science and biology rely on this fact. Their approach is deliberate and reminiscent of many propaganda campaigns in history where objective truth is the intended casualty.

At risk are core fundamentals of biology, specifically the idea that a woman is defined as ‘an adult human female’ and a man is ‘an adult human male’. The reason that this is the target is that the activists who push the anti-science narrative know full well that they cannot win the argument from the science perspective. They resort to misinformation, bullying, threats and claims of discrimination with the specific aim of changing the law. What they want is for gender self-identification to be sufficient in itself for a person to be legally identified as male or female.

Sex and gender (or gender identity) are not the same. The former is based on objective scientific reality, the latter is not. Indeed, there is no agreement on what ‘gender identity’ means, how it might be identified or whether it exists at all.

Biological sex is a fact. Almost without exception, every child born anywhere in the world is either male or female; this is how nature works. Any suggestion that all children are born without a sex or that sex is ’assigned’ to a baby after birth is just plain wrong. A child’s sex exists as a consequence of biology and a person’s sex is immutable. No amount of wishful thinking or mental gymnastics can lead to an individual being able to change their sex. Once a biological male, always a biological male. One cannot change one’s sex; it is a biological impossibility.

According to gender activists and their supporters, the previous paragraph contains ’controversial’ ideas that, somehow, are worthy of ire, or worse. We are told that the accepted view is that a man can become a woman just by making the claim that it is true. The reality is that the suggestion that a person can change sex by merely asserting that they have done so is the truly controversial idea. It is not the mainstream view at all. Rather, it is a political statement with no basis in reality. Trans women are not women. They never have been and they never can be. The term woman is fundamentally grounded in biological sex and not gender.

In truth, what we are seeing is a resurgence in male-rights activism dressed, literally, in the guise of gender identity ideology. This is easy to discern from the fact that the central principle of the theory is that we all have an innate gender, something within us that makes us feel intrinsically male or female irrespective of our biological bodies. For this to be true (and there is no evidence for it) there would have to be behaviours, feelings, actions, emotions etc. that can be identified as typically male or female, and that is nothing more than a return to the promulgation of gender stereotypes. Who benefits from this? The same group that has always benefitted from mechanisms that seek ro control women – biological men.

Now, I do not really care how anyone wants to live, who they want to love, who or what gender they want to identify as, what they want to wear or, indeed, who they sleep with, provided those choices do not harm others. Since I first became politically active I have campaigned for equality, put my cross in the box next to candidates with impeccable progressive, liberal and left-wing credentials, contributed money to good causes. Yes, I can virtue-signal with the best! Equal rights is, for me, a given. However, this is not an argument about equal rights and discrimination, however frequently it is cast as such. People who identify as trans have the same rights as anyone else who has a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act 2010. No, this is a demand by gender activists for more rights than others, for rights that take precedence over the rights of others, especially the sex-based rights of straight women, lesbians and gay men, indeed, anyone whose safe space or way of life is reliant on the fact of biological sex. This is why the mantra ’trans women are women’ is central to the cause. Unless the very idea of what it is to be a woman can be redefined away from its direct connection with biological sex and into a gender-based concept, then gender self-identification will become a lost cause. For how can a trans woman claim to be a woman if that very term retains its definition, rooted in biology – adult human female?

.

Cornwall’s Northern Coast: Why Go Anywhere Else?

Posted by ukvillafan on September 12, 2013
Posted in: Cornwall, Devon, Travel. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

A recent trip to Cornwall – with images – that shows off the glory of its northern coastline.

Rocks abound on Bossiney Beach

Rocks abound on Bossiney Beach

Weekends are precious things and, for those of us who can make the time, can be a source of rest and relaxation more beneficial than longer periods away that involve excessive packing, train journeys, car travel, parking problems and, worst of all airports!

Travel light, pack a tent, don’t forget the sun screen, towels and swimming costume and head for the beach. Make the most of the summer whilst it is here and pick a less well-known destination to avoid crowds.

On The Way Down To Bossiney Beach

On The Way Down To Bossiney Beach

I live and work in the north-west, but a few weekends ago I jumped in my car at 6.00 p.m. on the Friday evening, drove down to Devon and spent Saturday through to Monday in the beautiful south-west corner of the country. I drove about 725 miles over the whole weekend but spent most of it completely stress free, on a Cornish beach or at a camp site drinking champagne cocktails and eating food cooked on a disposable barbecue. The big distances were at either end of the weekend, but I feel I ended up on the plus side, stress wise, despite the mileage.

Widemouth

Saturday – the sun was shining and after a relaxing start to the morning I was on the road again, this time pointing the nose of the jalopy northwards, with Bude in my sights and then a short trip west along the coast to Widemouth Bay.- pronounced Widmuth!!

This is a charming family-friendly beach with a small car park and a little cafe – ideal for a cold beer or two for the non-drivers. This was late July and yet the beach was pleasantly empty. It was an idea spot for a lazy day in the blistering sun and an evening beach barbeque.

The evening in the camp site nearby, at not much more than a tenner per tent, was a perfect ending – friends enjoying Prosecco cocktails in the fading light. Glorious.

Good Things Sometimes Require Effort

Sunday was as glorious weather-wise as the previous day and the opportunity was taken to visit Boscastle, which has recovered remarkably from the dreadful battering it received a few years ago. Don’t pass through but stop, have a late breakfast and take the short walk down the river to the sea. You will be rewarded with a stunning view – just don’t leave your camera in the car like I did!!

Looking west at Bossiney

Looking west at Bossiney

The beach on the agenda was at Bossiney. The picture above shows the view west whereas the one below shows the opposite end of the beach. As you can see, the views are stunning.

North east from Bossiney

North east from Bossiney

However, it is not the easiest place to find and for the reward of the sand and the views you need to pack some decent footwear and take a steep 20 minute hike down to the beach, and I mean ‘down’!

You Also Get Rock Climbing Practice

This way off the beach is not an easy stroll!

This way off the beach is not an easy stroll!

If you look at the attached picture carefully you might be able to spot some handrails near the top right. Getting to them involves scrambling up the rocks, with the aid of a conveniently situated rope – and that’s the easy part of the journey back! Whatever the weather, be sure to save plenty of water to keep you going on the steep climb back up towards the car park – it is neither short nor flat!

Having said that, the beach itself, as you can see, is well worth the effort and if you remember to look back as you climb (and rest assured, you will take every opportunity to stop on the way up!) you will be rewarded by excellent and inspiring views!

Beware Wildlife

 

Jellyfish wash up frequently.

Jellyfish wash up frequently.

If you are the sort who likes to brave a dip in the ocean – and it is the Atlantic out there – keep your eyes peeled for the wildlife, including the odd jellyfish. You will see some on the beach as well as in the water, as in the photo here. Jellyfish on the beach are NOT dead, so leave them alone would be my advice!Given the water temperature, you might fancy a wet suit too, although the initial chill will still get you, it will pass as the suit does its job. Ideal protection against those jellyfish too!

Sunday Evening – When A Little Pre-Planning Might Have Helped

 Padstow – if you intend staying there, book in advance. We didn’t and ended up driving back to Devon instead after trawling around a few B&Bs and finding them all full – on a Sunday night.

Personally, I feel like renaming Padstow ‘Steinstow’, as Stein’s influence is difficult to avoid. Given the option I’d go to St Ives instead, it is more varied and has better beaches. Of course, it’s a little further away too, so not necessarily ideal for a very short weekend break.

First Surf, Then Turf

Neither surf nor turf, but sail!

Neither surf nor turf, but sail!

 Or, to be more precise, The Turf Pub on Exmouth Bay at the estuary end of the canal. Fine food, fine views and a glimpse of how the other half lives – see the photo of the posh boats attached!

Having returned from the coast earlier than anticipated an alternative was required and The Turf filled in for a Cornwall beach admirably. There was still plenty of warm sunshine, despite the breeze, and there’s a certain something about al fresco dining…..

David Cameron – Who Do You Represent?

Posted by ukvillafan on September 12, 2013
Posted in: Politics, Religion. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment

David Cameron, the British PM, attended the G20 summit recently and supported military action against the Assad regime in Syria. Following defeat in Parliament and a clear lack of support from the public, just who is Cameron representing? I posed this question in a blog elsewhere a few days ago.

Dear Mr Cameron,

August 21st 2013, Damascus. Syria sees yet another display of barbarism by way of the use, it would seem, of chemical agents upon the defenceless civilian population. The clamour arises immediately for a military response directed at President Assad and his controlling regime. It is at this point, in fact, a matter of speculation as to who is responsible for the use of these weapons, but the cry is heard, nevertheless, ‘Something must be done!’.

After recalling Parliament early from the summer recess in order to debate the crisis in Syria and, in particular, to seek parliamentary support for military action in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, you will remember, no doubt, that you failed to obtain such support.

Indeed, MPs, in a rare demonstration of an understanding of the will of the British people, rejected all versions of the proposed motions that would have supported military action, including one that would have permitted action following receipt from UN inspectors of positive evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Assad. In the main vote, 49 members of your government coalition, approximately 20%, voted against military intervention, including 30 members of your own party.

Following this comprehensive and humiliating defeat, the BBC reports you saying, “It is clear to me that the British Parliament …. does not want to see British military action.”

In subsequent polling, both the BBC and The Independent report that somewhere in the region of 65-70% of the British public supports the decision taken by their MPs.

It seems fairly clear that neither Parliament nor the average Briton wants a repeat of the mistakes made in relation to Afghanistan and, particularly, Iraq. The general view is against military intervention even if there becomes available incontrovertible evidence that Assad and his supporters were responsible for using chemical agents against his own people. Evidence which, I might remind you, has yet to be independently forthcoming.

It is also abundantly clear that to weigh in on the side of the rebels in Syria carries with it enormous risks, specifically by providing succour and support for the very terrorist organisations a succession of UK governments have identified as the main threats to peace and stability within our own borders. A threat seemingly so great that we have fewer freedoms in this country than we have had in living memory, all on the back of the claimed need for restrictive and intrusive anti-terrorist legislation so we can all sleep better at night.

At the G20 this week, therefore, I was somewhat surprised to see that you were actively supporting the call by the US, France and others for military action. Clearly, despite what one might assume, you have not attended the G20 intent on putting forward the will of Parliament or the overwhelming view of the British people, so just who were you representing at this summit?

Presumably, you were putting forward ‘the Government’s position’. But what is the purpose of government if it is not to reflect the wishes of its people? If it has been your intention all along to portray the UK as a supporter of military action, why seek parliamentary approval in the first place? Were you so arrogant that you assumed you would obtain such backing with little difficulty? Are you now merely seeking to rescue the ‘special relationship’? Do you have so little respect for the British people, and their representatives, that you feel you can carry on regardless?

There is no legal basis for military action without UN support; the people of Britain are solidly against iintervention; Parliament has struck down your attempt to pursue an unlawful course of action. It’s about time, Mr Cameron, for you to grasp the nettle and show some backbone on the international stage and actually represent us, the citizens of this country, and not your own cynical, pro-war political agenda. For my own health, however, I will not be holding my breath.

Yours sincerely,

The British People

Michael Le Vell: The Fallout

Posted by ukvillafan on September 12, 2013
Posted in: Child Abuse, Crime. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Michael Le Vell: The Fallout

As was inevitable, the print and online media contain several stories reporting on the outcome of Le Vell’s trial. I have blogged already about the questions his acquittal raises in relation to the decision-making of the Crown Prosecution Service and this theme is reflected in the output from national media chains.

The Daily Mail online has several different stories, one reporting on Le Vell’s reaction to the verdict, one querying why the prosecution was ever pursued and a third suggesting that the answer to that question lies in a change of approach in the post-Savile world since Operation Yew Tree. It has others – one can hardly accuse the Daily Mail of missing an angle!

To be fair to the Daily Mail, its blanket approach is ‘mirrored’ by other online media sources, such as the Daily Mirror (two of its stories can be seen here and here). Naturally, the ‘serious’ press covered the story in depth as well, as can be seen by these articles in the Guardian and Independent. The latter also has a short article focussing on the Crown Prosecution Service, but in reality, all of these stories in some way raise questions about the prosecution process.

The combination of these articles merely serves to demonstrate the potential consequences of a failed prosecution in this area, as I mentioned yesterday. Once the furore of this has died down, as it inevitably will, serious questions still remain. What led the CPS to change its collective mind and recommend prosecution, having initially refused to do so? Did the CPS change its position as a result of threatened action by the complainants family, as one of the media articles I have referred seems to claim? Did the Savile affair alter the thinking within the CPS?

More importantly, perhaps, given the CPS is funded by us all, how will the general public find out the answers to the above questions? Where will the scrutiny come from? For their needs to be scrutiny, if only for one main reason; the children and young people of this country deserve a justice system that promotes the disclosure of legitimate cases of abuse, discourages false allegations and secures the maximum likelihood of convictions for perpetrators. The internal decision-making of the CPS is central to those issues. Poorly-judged prosecutions that end in acquittal, if this can be categorised that way, do no service to anyone.

If this is causes you concern, as it does me, why not write to your MP with a query. You can easily find the necessary details on the web pages for Parliament. Perhaps you could write to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the official with overall responsibility for the CPS. Indeed, there are relatively new interim guidelines in this area that the DPP has posted a video about. He actually asks for public consultation, although he does not say when that is to end.

Whatever you choose to do, do something, or else you will lose a prime opportunity to make a difference.

Michael Le Vell

Posted by ukvillafan on September 12, 2013
Posted in: Child Abuse, Crime. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments

Michael Turner, otherwise known as Michael Le Vell and famous for having played Kevin Webster in Coronation Street for decades, was acquitted this week of a series of sexual offences against a child, including rape.

In the current climate the case against Le Vell could not be categorised as ‘historical’, as the complainant is only 17 now and her allegations covered the period when she was aged 6 to 14. This is in contrast to the plethora of enquiries, charges and prosecutions variously relating to such celebrities as Stuart Hall, Dave Lee Travis, Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, to name but four (not all of which have children as the complainants, of course, although all have a sexual element). Hall’s offences for example, which he eventually admitted, took place between 1967 and 1985. As such, there isn’t the issue, commonly argued in relation to the ‘historical’ cases, of the lapse of time leading to blurred or otherwise faulty recollections. (In saying this, of course, I start from the premise that the memory of abuse, sexual or otherwise, is often both painful and very clear to the victims.)

This raises a number of crucial points, not least of which is the competence or otherwise of the original decision to prosecute by the Crown Prosecution Service. The defence barrister is reported as claiming that the victim’s allegations against Le Vell were “inconsistent”, “unbelievable” and had an “agonising lack of detail”. Of course, it is the barrister’s job to defend such allegations vigorously, but if those descriptions are even close to being accurate, several concerns arise.

I keep an open mind as to the decision-making within the CPS, which carries an enormous responsibility, but it is in no one’s interests for the CPS to bring weak prosecutions, if that is what has happened here, in cases of the alleged sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

Child sexual abuse has long been something the majority of the public would prefer to ignore. It is known to go on in households up and down the country and in all classes, income brackets or whichever other way of classifying families one cares to utilise, but it is such an unthinkable crime to many that it often produces a ‘bury the head in the sand’ response, in the hope that it might just go away.

Now, it may be that the alleged victim in Le Vell’s case just wasn’t a good witness, or she was lying, or she had other difficulties; I wasn’t there so I cannot pass an opinion on any of the evidence. However, an acquittal on such serious charges means that the complainant was not believed to the required level – the case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For all relevant legal purposes Le Vell did not commit any of the alleged crimes.

Failed prosecutions can have two principle concerning consequences. They discourage other victims from coming forward and they reinforce the idea that children lie about such allegations. As a society we have to be satisfied that the CPS makes appropriate and accurate prosecution decisions in such cases. The public is unlikely to discover the specific details of the decision-making in this or, indeed, any other specific case, but it is crucial that there is a full and effective mechanism for these decisions to be reviewed independently if possible.

Privatisation: Dogma At The Expense Of Reason?

Posted by ukvillafan on July 30, 2013
Posted in: Capitalism, Economics, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Today, NHS Direct announced that it is to withdraw from the nine remaining contracts (out of the eleven it had originally tendered for) relating to the provision of the NHS 111 service. It withdrew from the other two earlier in the year. NHS Direct says that it cannot make money from the 111 contracts, that they are not ‘financially viable’. The government’s apparent response to that is that 111 is working very well but that, sadly, NHS Direct just ‘got its sums wrong’.

There are a number of words and concepts in the above paragraph that the majority of readers should find alarming in the context of patient-accessed emergency health care. ‘Tendering’ and ‘financial viability’, to name but two, should have you up in arms. They relate to the fact that this service, part of the NHS, has been privatised, sold off to the lowest bidder, many of whom are there to make a profit.

If ‘NHS Direct’ sounds familiar, you’d be correct. It was the name for the national service of out of hours telephone advice that the 111 service is designed to replace. I use the term ‘designed’ in the loosest possible sense, of course, as it would appear that ‘design’ wasn’t a concept fully envisioned by those who ‘masterminded’ the change. I use the term ‘masterminded’ ironically, of course, because … well, you see where I’m going with this I’m sure.

Previously, if you wanted health advice over the ‘phone for something that did not require the use of 999 then NHS Direct was the place to go. It was a national service i.e. one country, one NHS, one NHS Direct. However, this government decided it needed changing because it wasn’t working well enough. It may well, indeed, have needed some changes, but the Tories applied the only principles they really know to the problem – if something needs to work better, try to make it smaller (it it’s a public service), open it to competitive tendering, drive down costs, aim for minimum satisfactory quality and maximum profit, because, as we all know, profitability means efficiency! Superior quality usually means greater cost and, hence, less profit.

So, one organisation operating one contract with the aim of providing a patient-led service becomes 46 contracts, to be competed for by tendering, where the lowest price offered has an advantage and where, if you want to make a quick buck at taxpayers’ expense, go right ahead!

The telephone lines are not, generally, staffed by qualified medical practitioners. If you think you are ringing a specialist medic of some sort when contacting 111 you are sadly mistaken. There is no guarantee, even, that there will be medically trained personnel available or even on the payroll of the organisation responsible for the particular service you are contacting. In order to be able to tender for contracts and offer a price that might enable them to be successful, NHS Direct made thousands of nurses and qualified staff redundant. When you call, you get someone who is in front of a computer screen. The 111 website says the staff members are ‘fully trained’; what it doesn’t say is what, exactly, they are fully trained in! You can be sure it isn’t any form of health care profession, mostly.

The National Health Service; the clue is in the name. It should be national, it should be a service not a profit-driven enterprise and it should promote health, not line the pockets of the already rich making more money on the back of misery, pain and desperation.

The problem, however, is not with the idea of a 111 type service. After all, that’s what NHS Direct was, albeit with a less useful telephone number. The problem is one of ideology.

The Tories believe that private companies, driven by profit, are more efficient. Indeed, in an unfettered business world where there are no safeguards for health, no protections for employees and unions are weakened to the point of impotence, they are right. In such circumstances the profit motive drives down wages, drives down material costs and drives up selling prices, all for the purpose of maximising entrepreneurial profit at the expense of others. This is a vision likely to prove too orgasmic a fantasy for your average Tory, but make no mistake, this is the ultimate objective. This is why, over the years, unions arose to defend the rights of workers, to prevent exploitation in the name of profit. It is also why this government is waging a war on employment rights, making it easier to sack people, and, in its latest attack on the average worker, making it costly to seek redress for unfair dismissal through the Employment Tribunal.

Our NHS is not about profit and privatisation but health and well-being, putting patients’ interests at the forefront. In the current climate the emphasis is on cutting – cutting the deficit, cutting the need for the government to borrow. To achieve this, the government is intent on cutting public spending, cutting down ‘big government’, cutting out ‘waste’ etc. As a consequence, it is cutting down employment rights, cutting benefits for the poorest in the community, cutting down access to justice. However, it is not cutting one thing – profiteering at the expense of the ordinary person, the taxpayer, by the rich and already wealthy, the bankers bonuses.

The Tory Party agenda is to privatise as much of the Health Service as possible. It has begun it already and will continue to do it for as long as it can get away with it; for as long as the British population lets it do so. What will you do?