Gay Horse
There’s been today a gay horse, a violently dangerous Greenpeace video and a violently dangerous Department for Education.
We all must know now that ["about ten"] paedophiles have been working as teachers in schools. Today there is new news of a convicted paedophile working as a teacher. The man in the news this time was convicted of sexual assault on a child in 1980 and yet the BBC deigns it inappropriate, one must assume, to use the politically incorrect word “paedophile” choosing instead to call the perpetrator of mental scarring and evil trauma on an innocent child as a “sex offender”.
Should I need to be shaking with anger over something so obvious?
And then Greenpeace suggests we don’t do anything that may cause Islamic fundamentalists to attack us in this video (thanks John). As I said on John’s site:
So, we’re to change our way of life, rely on Middle East oil and pollute our planet so that we’re not attacked?
Great, let’s all make our ladies wear burkas and persecute homosexuals so that don’t attack us too! Absolute, dangerous, nonsense.
And then, as if political correctness hadn’t gone mad enough a student of the University of Oxford makes what must have been a very funny comment (“Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”) to a mounted police officer and, instead of laughing it off or even giving a stern look, the police chose to arrest Sam Brown for “homophobic remarks”.
Thank goodness the CPS dropped the case, but what was going through the mind not only of the police officer riding the ‘gay’ horse but also of every one of his colleagues who didn’t say:
“Don’t be daft”
or words to that affect.
Some people should learn, despite all that is serious and nasty in the world, to take a few moments to look on the lighter side of some topics!
P.S. Thanks for the image suggestion – you know who you are.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
|
"
title="Digg this story" target="_blank">
| 
| 
#1 by James Hellyer on January 13th, 2006 - 8:58 pm
My takes a little different. The person convicted of abuse shouldn’t be allowed near children, while the PE teacher is potentially a different matter. He was never convicted and there’s no evidence that suggests he’s a danger to the public. People who are on the register shouldn’t work with children, I’m just uncertain as to whether he should be on the register.
#2 by Gav on January 13th, 2006 - 9:57 pm
He was cautioned. If someone does not fight a caution they are accepting their guilt. I will never be convinced (without new evidence) that this man has any right to be near children.
#3 by James Hellyer on January 14th, 2006 - 10:27 am
Actually he always maintained his innocence, and while accepting a caution can be seen as an addmission of guilt it doesn’t actually change the point that he was never convicted and that many people accept cautions as its the least troublesome option.
It also doesn’t address the fundamental point that looking at something is very different from doing. Does looking at pronography make a man become a rapist?
#4 by mark on January 14th, 2006 - 1:07 pm
Thanks James,
At least I’m not alone here. Considering that even if he had been found innocent in a court he would have been subject to vilification in the media, and possibly violence and intimidation, I would not blame someone for wanting to avoid a trial if they were innocent.
There could be more to this but for all we know he was viewing images of 17 year old girls, believing them to be adults. If the offence relates purely to girls (especially fully developed ones) then there is probably little danger in him working as a PE teacher with boys only.
Also, I agree that the person convicted of abuse should not be allowed near children.