The pink power play

Recently the man who is apparently responsible for everything to do with our children announced that he wanted children as young as four to be dissuaded from using terms like mum and dad and taught, if only on a rudimentary level, about homosexual relationships.
Ed Balls, whose name is an apt description of most of his intellectual output, is charged among other things with protecting, nurturing and educating the current and future generations. In a country where the literacy rates for all kids, but particulalrly white, working class boys, are falling through the floor; where exercise in schools is so pathetic that obesity is becoming endemic and where we are falling so far behind other countries in educational attainment that many companies routinely recruit foreign applicants at the expense of their Britsh counterparts, what worries our Children's minister most is that four year olds won't realise that there are alternatives to the traditional Mum & Dad family.
Why?
What is there about this subject that keeps him tossing and turning at night rather than contemplating the fact that illiteracy is now the default attainment of many young people?
The answer is that, in common with most of the current administration, he is in thrall to the homosexual lobby. Like all of the msot vociferous pressure groups in this country, the Pink lobby actually represents the views of a tiny portion of the population. Even if we believe the extremely dubious propoganda that one in ten people is homosexual, the proportion of those that are active members of groups such as Stone Wall is minute, probably fewer than 1%. So, the actual number of people pressurising Ed Balls and his pals represent probably less than 000.1% of the total population.
Why and how do they wield power that is so disproportionate to their actual numbers. Is it possible that there is some form of Pink Freemasonry operating at all levels of government? Do they hold some dirty pictures of key members of the administration, perhaps? Or is it a mixture of both?
Whatever the answer, it is astonishing that, with all of the problems assailing our society, precious Parliamentary time is going to be devoted to making it illegal for one 10-year old kid to call another kid's shoes "Gay" in a playground disagreement. If he does, apparently, it will be treated in the same way as if he had committed a racist or hate crime. And probably have more police time devoted to it than if one or the other of the little combatants had pulled a knife on his opponent.
Just in case Mr Balls doesn't understand these things, let me share a little secret with him. Being homosexual does not make someone special, separate or distinctive in the same way that ethnicity, handicap or ancestry does. Both of the latter are a matter of geneology. The former, i.e. homosexuality, is a matter of what certain people choose to do with their genitals. As simple as that.
They of course have a perfect right to exchange bodily fluids with each other in whatever private place they choose for their convenience, as long as it doesn't frighten the budgie. Beyond that, they should have no more rights or entitlement to special pleading than anyone else in our society.
If you give it to them, it won't be long before paedophiles, people who prefer oral sex, tantric sex, necrophilia, copraphilia, intercourse with animals or inanimate objects start their own lobby to be regarded as a distinctive group and we end with another typical Balls-up that benefits no one except for yet another select band of bewigged chancers - Human Rights lawyers.

A charter for paedophiles

The latest example of one unelected elite bending the laws of our country to benefit another small but extremely vocal elite was revealed last week.
Although bigamy - i.e being married simultaneously to more than one person - is illegal in the UK, the law only applies if you happen to be non-Muslim.
Muslim men who have grabbed their allotment of four wives under Sharia Law will, apparently, not only be allowed to stay married to them but be able to get the rest of us to pay for them if necessary. That means not just getting a tax allowance for each one but receiving benefits to pay for their accommodation and to feed them should the need arise. Trying to put a positive spin on this obsequious, discriminatory and extremely dangerous act, a Government lackey assured us that everything would be alright because " They will only be allowed to have the wives if the marriage took place in a country where polygamy is legal".
Well, since Islam takes the words and action of the Prophet as the template for its laws, that basically means every country in the Middle East and all of those in Asia, including Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia, where Islam holds sway.
As usual, however, the people that we rely on to administer our legal system and ensure its universal fairness haven't looked beyond the ends of their collective nose. More pertinently, they haven't bothered to investigate the age of consent or how and when marriages are contracted under Islamic law.
In this country the age of consent for sex is 16. The legal age for marriage without the consent of a parent or guardian is still 21.
The same is not true under Islam. Taking their lead from Mohamed who, if history is to be believed, was betrothed to his wife when she was 6 - yes, you read it correctly SIX - and married her when she was seven or nine depending on which version you believe, Muslims generally consider females ready for marriage once they have had their first menstrual period. This means that in some countries, such as Iran, the LEGAL age of consent is nine years old. In many others it varies from between 12 to 14.
To be fair, the age of consent in a thoroughly modern country like Holland is 12 , but only when the two people involved are both of the same age. A forty year old having sex with a twelve year old would still be considered a paedophile. However, under Sharia law, there is nothing to stop a 70 year old man having sex with his legally-contracted bride, even if she is only 12 at the time.
By legalising bigamy for Muslim men, we are effectively also condoning legalised paedophilia. I can't see anything to stop some Iranian heading back to the old country, picking himself out a nice child bride and then bringing her, perfectly legally, back to the UK.
As long as he has contracted the marriage legally in Iran and managed to obtain the right papers for her can you imagine any craven police officer or social worker demanding to know her true age? Of course they won't, for fear of being branded racist. Even if they did discover she was under age by English Law, how long would it take for some ambulance chaser to turn up and claim that our Laws breach the newly-weds' human rights?
Imagine as well the opportunities this relaxation of the law opens up for our own home-grown legions of kiddie-fiddlers. Once one of them has worked out how to go about things, I think we can expect a sudden surge in the number of middle age men who suddenly experience a personal epiphany and convert to Islam. The planes to Islamabad, Jakarta and all points east will be packed to the gills with new pilgrims flying off not to pay homage to their newly found Prophet but to bag themselves a couple of nice, fresh child brides.

Crooks and other types of politician

That Honorable Gentleman, Peter Hain, must be breathing a sigh of relief at the moment. Never can a Cabinet minister have felt so chuffeded to hear that his country is slipping inexorably into recession, that its streets grow more lawless every day and that it is about to hand over what little is left of its sovereignty to the Soviet Republic of Europa.

Hain, we should remember, is the man who not only borrowed close to £200,000 and forgot to report it but was so inept in the spending of this huge sum of money that he managed to finish fifth in a six horse race in which most of the other runners have been also-rans so often that they only get invted to parties to make up the numbers. Now, to most people the humiliation of losing out to the likes of Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn would concentrate the mind wonderfully. It would certainly bring into fairly sharp focus the fact that they had gambled away almost 200 grand on a long-odds loser. Particularly since the money came in the form of loans, now due for repayment, , since the favours - which might have been perceived to be in the gift of the deputy Leader of the Labour party- are obviously no longer on offer.

Hain is most definitely not most people. Correction: Hain is nothing but has never quite come to terms with the fact. Thus he spends his life trying to convince himself that he is something, even when this involves continuous flip-flops of beliefs, affiliations and frienships. All in all, a fairly typical - modrn politician, in fact.

Let us hope that some breathing space between Europe, the end of the world as we know it and death on the streets might present itself and Mr Hain can have his collar felt like any other money launderer and corrupt politician.

Talking of which, why has it taken people so long to catch on to Red Ken Livingstone? The man has acted as if London is his personal fiefdom from the moment he was elected. That he got away with it up until now is almost solely due to the inability of most members of the political lobby to look behind the public, Cheeky Chappy, mask. The man is a conniving, evil and bent little succubus who has had his teeth into the soft tit of London for far too long. With any luck, he and Hain might get to share a cell together some time soon.