Eurogeddon – Facts Not Fear


You would think from all the pro remain wailing and tearing out of hair that Eurogeddon was upon us. The UK has withdrawn from the EU and the Blood-bath is underway.
It appears that they actually started to believe many of wild scare stories that Project Fear was peddling and can now only view reality through this distorted lens!

Since even honest economists accept that Economic forecasting is a fool’s game:

“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”
John Kenneth Galbraith

Let’s try and stick to the verifiable facts:

The Stock Market

FTSE 100


After a short dip as markets were caught unaware it has now risen past its Pre-Brexit level. It is up 14.9% against the year’s low of 5,537 on February 11th.

FTSE 350


Not quite back to it’s Pre-Brexit level, but very close and 12.7% up against this year’s lows.

All Share Index


Not quite back to it’s Pre-Brexit level, but close and 12.2% up against this year’s lows.

Even the FTSE 250 The worst performing index and the one the Remainer’s have suddenly defined as the “one true measure”, is up 6.5% against this year’s lows.

The fact is that the markets do not show a Eurogeddon “market meltdown”, they show very little overall change to the situation before Brexit. There are certainly big losers, Banks and Construction, but these are offset by big winners, Manufacturing exporters, Pharmaceuticals, Tourism, Mining.

Cost of UK Government Borrowing

The UK’s credit rating has been cut by the major credit ratings agencies.

Fitch has cut it from AA+ to AA
Moodys remains at Aa1 but the outlook has changed from stable to negative
S&P cut it from AAA to AA

This does not mean that the UK is not credit-worthy. Indeed even at the lower ratings it is rated more highly than Western European Countries such as Spain, Portugal, France, Greece, Ireland and Italy. As well as Asian countries such as Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait, Qatar. The worlds fastest growing economies China and India. A full list can be viewed here

But why do Credit Ratings even matter ?

The theoretical problem with a lower credit rating is that it could make it more expensive for the UK Government to borrow money. However, as with most things in economics, it’s not quite as simple as that. There are many things that impact the cost of government borrowing.

The fact is that the current cost of borrowing for the UK government has fallen below 1% for the first time in its history and is at record lows even after the credit rating down-grade:

10 Yr Gilt Yield


Export Job Losses and The Single Market

Now it is clearly too soon to know what sort of deal the UK will manage to negotiate with the Brussels bureaucrats. Let’s assume for the sake of argument the worst case. The EU will not give the UK any form of trade deal. Even though they export far more to the UK then the UK exports to them, they would rather lose jobs in their own countries than run the risk of the EU disintegrating all together.

In that case the UK would find itself trading with it’s neighbours facing the same tariffs as countries such as the USA or China who have no trade deals with the EU. These rules are known as the World Trade Organization (WTO), most favoured nation (MFN) tariffs.

(MFN) doesn’t mean a special deal, it just means that the EU can’t penalize any specific country, it must trade with everyone (outside the EU) on the same basis as its “Most Favoured Nation”.

Tariffs vary across products, but the overall impact can be determined by taking the trade weighted average tariff. i.e. if you take the value of all the exports to the EU from the UK and apply the correct tariffs. Total all the tariffs paid and divide by the total value of exports. The Parliament research team calculated this as part of the pre-Brexit analysis.

The overall tariff that the Remainers say will destroy British Industry and Jobs is…., drum roll, …… 1% (ONE PERCENT)


Of course tariffs are not the only thing that effects the price that our European trading partners pay for the goods and services we export to them. A far bigger impact is caused by changes in exchange rates between the Pound and the Euro.


The pound has fallen sharply this year against the euro. Most of the fall was before Brexit but the position for our European customers was made even better after the referendum. The Euro is 18.8% higher now than this year’s low. That means that UK exports to the Eurozone are 18.8% cheaper.

So even if no trade deal is completed and the maximum 1% average tariff is applied to all British exports into the EU they will still be 17.8% cheaper than they were in July. Hard to see how that translates into massive job losses for businesses trading with the EU!

The fact is that even the worst possible outcome (which I don’t expect) will only add an average of 1% to the cost of British exports into the single market. Currency fluctuations dwarf this impact and the fall in the value of the pound means that whatever deal is eventually concluded we will be in a much better position to export to “the single market” than before Brexit.

Sterling & The Cost of Imports

Of course whilst exporters will benefit hugely from the fall in the value of sterling the opposite is true for importers. As a country we import a lot of products and raw materials and these will all be more expensive since sterling has fallen.


Sterling is down 16.6% against its highest level of this year against the dollar. There is no doubt that a fall in starling will push up the price of imported goods.

However, many of the things we import can be swapped for domestically produced equivalents. If the price of French cheese goes up, the consumer can by English Cheese. If the price of BMW’s goes up, sales managers can buy Jaguars. If the price of holidays to Spain go up then holidays to Center Parks can be taken. Any substitution to domestic producers will be a benefit to the UK economy.

Other products may simply not be bought at all. If Swiss watches are too expensive then many people will decide to go without. Likewise for jewellery, perfume, designer french handbags and shoes, art and other imported luxury goods. Money not spent on imported luxury goods is available to spend on unrelated goods, many of which will be domestically produced.

There are of course essential commodities such as Oil and Industrial Metals that we have no choice but to import and these will be more expensive. However these commodities are at historically very low prices.


With oil trading at $50 a barrel the cost in sterling has risen from what would have been £32 a barrel to £38 a barrel.

Increasing raw material prices are often offset by more efficient usage. If heating bills go up, people are more inclined to invest in better insulation. If petrol goes up people drive less and plan journeys more efficiently.

Industrial metal prices are also at five year lows:


The fact is that a falling pound will increase the price of imported goods. However the impact to the UK economy will be mitigated by a reduction in imports as people substitute for cheaper domestic goods where they can and forego some imported luxury products altogether.

Raw material costs will rise, offset in a small way by reduced usage driven by the economic incentive to be more efficient or substitute lower cost materials. However commodity prices are, in the main, at historic lows meaning that the cash loss to the country of the increased price is far less than many people fear.




Posted in Current Affairs | Leave a comment

Rolf Harris & Chris Brosnan

Chris Brosnan has recently provided a story to the Daily Mail headlined:

‘Rolf Harris called me his adopted son… but I knew I was living with a monster’
Which You can read here

As I said in my original article on the  Rolf Harris Conviction when time passes and the opportunity to make some money presents itself, it is amazing how much recollection of past events can change!

Below is the comment that Chris Brosnan made on my Blog post at the time of the conviction. He has recently deleted it, but I think people should know what he wrote at the time, when no money was involved.

“I know this as fact; Rolf Harris has been my close friend for over 17 years, in that time I have presented with, and supported him in literally hundreds of “gigs”, I have seen him sign autographs for literally thousands of people, of all ages and sexes. Never once, NOT ONCE, have I ever seen him abuse, or be inappropriate with ANYBODY and this is with me working closely with him, on stage, back stage, driving him, body guarding him, and sharing part of the same house with him for over 12 years.

Something in his recent “conviction” is very, very wrong. His trial was supposed to present evidence to convict, “Beyond reasonable doubt.” Well, sorry, there was so much “reasonable doubt” that the case should have been thrown out before it even started. The Judge in his summing up was no where near, “Impartial” and the media have done their best to bring on that “conviction” prior to the trial and needed a “soft target,” they got it in Rolf. A household name celebrity, loved by the people for being exactly who he is, a warm, open hearted, loving man. British justice has just left the building with this disgraceful verdict.

“The powers that be” have needed a “patsy” a “Scape goat” because of the debacle around Savile, (a total psychopath, sexual predator) to put the spot light on some other poor soul to keep the “Sheeple” of the world appeased and in fear, while the real pedophiles of the UK go untouched and remain cloaked and protected by the insidious perversions of the very establishments that have just “convicted” my dear friend.

So that you know, Rolf has totally supported me, a sexually abused, runaway kid, who had no real parents, no home and no sense of self worth until Rolf came in to my life. I will always love him very dearly and stand by him 100%.

To the justice system of the UK, shame on you, shame on you.

To Mr. Rolf Harris, you are my dear friend, I love you very much, I hold the vision of you safe return home ASAP to the arms of your beloved Alwen.

I say this in all truth.
Chris “Shining Bear” Brosnan”

Below is a screenshot of another comment posted by Chris  here, before his deal with the Mail:


Posted in Uncategorized | 203 Comments

Harriet Harman & Labours Fight For Equality


Ms Harman told activists the parliamentary party had previously been “intelligent-dominated”.

She added: “No one likes all-stupid shortlists. It feels really uncomfortable to rule out intelligent people from a selection.”

“But we tried everything else. We tried a stupid person on every shortlist, ending intelligent-only shortlists. Well, that caused a huge row and made no difference – still it was the intelligent people on the shortlist who were selected.

“We changed the rules so that the shortlists had to be half stupid – an even bigger row and still nothing changed and it was the intelligent half of the shortlist which got selected. So we were driven to the conclusion that it would have to be stupid-only shortlists.”

Ms Harman admitted these were still “hugely contested and controversial wherever they are proposed”.

But she said: “If you’re against all-stupid shortlists, you’re supporting inequality – defending a status quo in which intelligent people in the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) still outnumber stupid people two to one.”

“Discrimination on the basis of factors beyond the individuals control such as race, or gender has long been accepted as unjust. People do not chose to be stupid any more than they chose to be female or black, this group in society is under-represented in many key areas and we will not rest until this injustice has been rectified.”

“Once we have established equality for the stupid in the Labour Party we intend to address the issue in wider society. It is clearly unacceptable for NHS Hospitals to only employ intelligent surgeons or for private airlines to only employ intelligent pilots. For far too long the stupid have been shut out of career opportunities that are open to other members of society.”

Overall, of 650 MPs elected in 2010 across all parties, 147 were stupid, including sadly, Harriet Harman

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rolf Harris – Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

Rolf Harris has been convicted and for many that is conclusive proof of his guilt. However, we should not forget that the British justice system is not perfect, it can make errors, as these high profile miscarriages of justice show.

I do not know if Rolf Harris committed the crimes he was accused of. However, I find the fact that he was convicted, based on the evidence reported by the media, alarming.

Let me explain why:


“The woman said she was aged seven or eight when she queued to get an autograph from Harris at a community centre in Hampshire in 1968 or 1969. When she reached the front of the queue, Harris had touched her inappropriately with his “big hairy hands”, she told the jury.

The court heard that no evidence could be found that Mr Harris had been at the community centre. He also showed his hands to the jury and denied they were hairy.”

When they say that no evidence could be found that Mr Harris had been at the community centre, they don’t mean a cursory glance turned nothing up. They searched local newspaper archives between January 1967 and May 1974, council records and even conducted letter drops appealing for witnesses. Nothing, not a single piece of independent evidence that he was ever there!

It is hard to see how the uncorroborated recollection of an event alleged to have happened 45 years ago, when the witness was eight, can constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Consider for a moment, what you can accurately remember from when you were eight? I am not as old as the witness but I can’t remember the name of my best friend, my teacher, my birthday party, frankly anything. I have a childhood scar, it must have been caused by a significant trauma. I remember it hurt and bled a lot, but I can’t remember how it happened, let alone where, when or who was with me at the time.

Even if the victim is sincere in believing her own recollection of events, she may simply be mistaken. Memory is not a flawless recording device. It is very common for people to believe they remember things that can be proven to have never happened. If you find that hard to believe there is a very good TED Talk dealing with it here and another here.

As a principle of justice it seems absurd that anyone can be convicted simply on the unsupported “evidence” of someone else accusing them of a crime.

Only a few days ago a trainee barrister was convicted of falsely accusing a former boyfriend of rape. Here is another recent case and another. People make false allegations, for many different reasons; to take revenge on a former partner or in some cases for financial gain. In this case the “victim” made $1.5 Million before admitting years later that she made the whole thing up.

Making a claim against a celebrity is a heads I win, tails I don’t lose proposition for any opportunist!

If the accuser is believed they make a huge financial windfall.  If not, they still ruin their target’s reputation (no smoke without fire) and they almost certainly won’t be charged with making a false claim.

Nobody charged the false accusers of celebrities such as Bill Roache, or Dave Lee Travis or Jimmy Tarbuck or Jim Davidson or Michael Le Vell or the footballers Nile Ranger, Christian Montano, Ellis Harrison, Loic Remy or another 11 innocent footballers here.

No one who wasn’t there can be sure what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is an £11m incentive for people to make up accusations and without any corroborating evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.
(Since the conviction even loyal supporters of Rolf Harris such as Chris Brosnan have sold stories to the press that contradict their statements made at the time)


Another woman said she had been working as a waitress, at the age of 13 or 14, at a charity event in Cambridge in 1975 when Harris had put his arm around her shoulder.

“To start, it was a very nervous but a good feeling,” she said. “However his hand then moved and his hand went up and down my back and his hand went over my bottom and it was very firm.”

Again all we have is uncorroborated allegations.

I know that Rolf Harris said that he had never been to Cambridge and that this was shown to be a false statement, for many this was the silver bullet that proved his guilt. But, failures of  memory are not proof of indecent assault!

Remember, Rolf Harris is 84 years old and has been in show business for 60+years. He has been all over the country for various events and it is not at all unreasonable for an 84 year old man to forget having been somewhere 40 years previously.

Indeed Crime Watch presenter Sue Cook admitted she had forgotten being in the same show

If you think it through it would make no sense for Rolf Harris to deliberately lie about this.
He was not on trial for being in Cambridge and being there is not the same as committing the offence. If he knew he had been in Cambridge he would presumably know it was for a television show. In the internet age  there had to be a chance it would come to light and undermine his credibility as a witness. Why take the chance? If he didn’t believe totally that he had never been to Cambridge why not simply say, “I don’t remember being in Cambridge at that time, I travelled around a lot”

Then there is the seldom mentioned fact that the show actually took place in 1978, three years after the alleged indecent assault incident.

This would make the alleged victim 16 or 17 not the child of 13 claimed. If the accuser cannot remember whether she was a child of 13 or a teenager of 17, can we really ruin a man solely on the strength of her memory?

She also got the location wrong:

The alleged victim had suggested the event had taken place on Parker’s Piece, a large green in the centre of Cambridge.”

The show was actually filmed on Jesus Green a much larger, wooded park about a 6 minute drive north.


So the accuser couldn’t remember when it happened (or how old she was), she couldn’t remember where it happened and yet the jury found her 36 year old memory of the indecent assault to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt!

When we talk about the indecent assault we are not talking about something so traumatic, like rape, that it would understandably be burned into her memory. We are talking about a 17 year old having her bottom touched in the 1970’s, a time where bottom pinching was considered mainstream enough for popular TV shows such as Are You Being Served and on billboards for respectable brands such as Fiat .

Again, nobody who wasn’t there can be sure what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is an £11m incentive for people to make up accusations and without any corroborating evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

I will come back to counts 3-9, but first lets deal with:


Tonya Lee was a 15-year-old on a theatre trip from Australia to the UK when, she said, the entertainer fondled her.

Ms Lee has waived the right to anonymity granted to alleged victims of sexual offences. The three charges relate to one day in May 1986.

She said he asked her to sit on his lap before moving his hand up her leg and assaulting her.

“He was moving back and forth rubbing against me,” she said. “It was very subtle, it wasn’t big movements.”

The jury heard that Harris had then patted her on the thigh and moved his hand upwards. She said she had “started to panic” and rushed to the toilet.

When she came out, she said, Harris was waiting for her and gave her “a big bear hug” before putting his hand down her top and then down her skirt.

Harris denied ever meeting Ms Lee.

It was also revealed that she had sold her story for £33,000 to an Australian TV station and a magazine. She said accepting the money had been a “huge mistake”.

Here we have the uncorroborated accusation of a woman who has already cashed in, to the tune of £33,000!

She also claimed in her evidence that the sexual assault caused her to lose six kilos in weight during the six week theatre tour. It was then proven in court that the alleged incident could only have taken place in the final week of the tour!

As the defence QC pointed out:

“Are you really saying between this alleged incident on May 30 and six days later that you lost all that weight….in six days? You have blamed the loss of weight and inability to eat upon Rolf Harris.”

At best it appears that the witness has a confused recollection of events, not surprising after 28 years, at worst she was simply lying for financial gain.

Again, we don’t know what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is an £11m incentive for people to make up accusations and without any corroborating evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

The remaining allegations concern the childhood friend of Rolf Harris’ daughter Bindi.


Seven of the 12 charges related to a childhood friend of Harris’s daughter Bindi. Six charges related to alleged abuse when she was aged between 13 and 15, and the seventh to when she was 19.

The court heard that the abuse began when she had been on holiday with the Harris family at the age of 13. Later, the woman said Harris had performed a sex act on her at the Harris family home, with Bindi asleep in the same room.

Further assaults took place at the Harris home and in her bedroom at her own home while her parents were downstairs, she said.

The convicted celebrity admitted having a sexual relationship with the woman – but stressed that it had been consensual and had begun after she had turned 18.

However, the relationship had “ended in a very acrimonious way,” he said.

The court was shown a letter Harris sent to the woman’s father in 1997, after the end of the relationship.

The letter said: “I fondly imagined that everything that had taken place had progressed from a feeling of love and friendship – there was no rape, no physical forcing, brutality or beating that took place.”

Here we do have actual evidence, of sexual activity between an older man and a much younger woman.

Rolf Harris admits to having a sexual relationship with her when she was 18 years old. She is now 49, so at the time Rolf Harris would have been 53, an age gap of 35 years.

To many of us such a large age gap seems unnatural, but it is certainly not unusual for famous older men to have relationships with younger women: 73 year old Patrick Stewart Recently married Sunny Ozell, 38 years his junior Michael Douglas is 25 years older than Katherine Zeta Jones. James Woods has a girlfriend 46 years his junior, Alec Baldwin’s wife is 26 years younger, Doug Hutchinson is breaking up with his wife who is 34 years younger, Woody Allen’s wife is 35 years younger than him, Dick Van Dyke’s wife is 46 years younger and the biggest age gap I could find was Hugh Heffner whose wife is 60 years his junior.

The fact that large age gap relationships make most of us uncomfortable, does not make them a crime, or evidence of sexual abuse. Some women find famous, rich or powerful men sexually attractive regardless of their age and almost all men find at least some 18 year old women sexually attractive!

The letter evidence proves a sexual relationship that we may disapprove of, however, it is not evidence of criminal activity.

If the alleged abuse started when she was 13 it was in 1978. They had, by all accounts, a consensual relationship from when she was 18 in 1983 until it was ended in the 1990’s when she was in her late twenties.

They had an adult sexual relationship for around 10 years, whatever trauma she alleges she had suffered, she had clearly forgiven him. Or could it be that there never was any abuse? At the age of 25 or 26 she was clearly an adult, so why stay in a sexual relationship with a former abuser?

The relationship ended acrimoniously, so she certainly had a motive to turn vindictive.

There are a number of issues with the statements of this witness:

Firstly, during the period of the alleged sexual assault on the family holiday, the victim kept a diary. Here we have a written record, made by the alleged victim at the time. Far from being distraught at these alleged sexual assaults the diary recalls a very happy holiday. The entry for the actual day of the alleged assault was that “The day was great”

Now it is of course possible that a diary might not contain the full details of a sexual assault, but is it really credible that the whole diary of the holiday period would portray a happy holiday and that the day of a sexual assault would be described as “great”?

Secondly the story told by the witness changed. The victim claimed in court that she had been molested twice at the side of the Harris family home. Her statement to the Police stated it had only happened once.

Thirdly, there are some other minor parts of her statement that are at best questionable. She claims one assault happened in the afternoon after sunbathing on a Jetty at the Harris home. Evidence was submitted that the Jetty is in shade from 10:00am onwards.

She claimed that she was assaulted one morning on holiday as she came out of the shower in her hotel bedroom. How would Harris have gained access to her (presumably locked) hotel bedroom while she was in the shower! Bindi testified that she shared the hotel room with her and that the only way somebody could gain access to the room was if they were let in.

There was also the testimony from Bindi about the holiday, she told the court that her father paid the two girls little attention, that the girls were stuck together like glue during the holiday and that she saw no change in her friends behaviour.

It is not disputed that the alleged victim had asked Harris for $45,000 although she disputes it was an attempt at blackmail as Harris claimed.

“The court has previously heard that she was an alcoholic by the time she was in her late 20s

There is, considerable scientific evidence that alcohol abuse is linked to confabulation (also called honest lying) where people make things up and honestly believe them

The standard of guilt in a criminal trial is supposed to be, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only evidence is the statement of his accuser, which contradicts her own diary of the time, her previous statement to the police and the evidence of two other witnesses. (Rolf and Bindi Harris). Some of the claims also contradict common sense (appearing in a locked hotel bedroom as she was getting out of the shower, or sunbathing in the shade)

Without any corroborating evidence of under-age, on non-consensual, sexual activity can it really be beyond reasonable doubt that this could be a vindictive attack by an ex-partner, or a confabulated tale from a confessed alcoholic, or an attempt to gain financial advantage from somebody who admits previously asking the accused for money?

Some will doubtless say that even if individually these are not compelling, when taken as a whole they paint a picture of an abuser.

This is a very dangerous conclusion, lots of nonsense is still nonsense:

Many people have claimed to be abducted by aliens. Individually their accounts are not compelling, but (even though there are lots of them) taking them together they still don’t paint a picture of extra-terrestrial attack!

The media, in its orgy of “Savilization”, has been encouraging people to come forward. The press is also awash with stories of compensation for “victims”, if any social climate was perfect for false accusers to try their luck, this would be it.

I really don’t know (and nor do you!) whether Rolf Harris is an evil paedophile monster or an 84 year old national treasure who has been ruined by greedy/malicious opportunists.

I do know that if  all it takes to send a man to prison and ruin his life is an uncorroborated accusation from 45 years ago,  then no man is safe under British justice.

If you agree


line break
Posted in Current Affairs | 890 Comments

In Defence of “Rape Porn”


Sex is a certainly popular on the internet. 25% of all online searches are pornography related and 43% of internet users view porn online. So, like it or not, viewing pornography is a pretty main stream activity.

As a libertarian my views on pornography generally quite simple. As long as only adults are involved and nobody is forced to make it, or forced to watch it, then its none of my business. People should be free to do whatever they like, as long as they don’t harm others in the process.

David Cameron has announced that watching “Rape Porn” will become a crime.
The reason presumably is that he believes this is a particularly terrible form of pornography that does in fact harm others.

I don’t think that view stands up to logical examination for a number of reasons:

Evidence: The Facts About Exposure to Violent Pornography

Lobby organisations like  “End Violence Against Women” and sensationalist news rags like the Daily Mail repeatedly claim that watching violent pornography increases sexual abuse and rape by men.

However, the scientific evidence has stubbornly refused to play along with this view:

U.S. Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (1970) found no evidence of a causal link between pornography and rape

Pornography and rape: theory and practice? Evidence from crime data in four countries where pornography is easily available” (1991) B Kutchinsky

Examined what happened to the rape statistics in four countries (USA, Denmark, West Germany and Sweden) during periods where the availability of violent pornography went from extreme scarcity to relative abundance.

Quoting the report: “The results showed that in none of the countries did rape increase more than nonsexual violent crimes. This finding in itself would seem sufficient to discard the hypothesis that pornography causes rape

More detail on the incidence of rape in the USA during the internet “porn explosion” can be seen in the graph below, taken from Anthony D’Amato, a Professor at Northwestern University’s Law School, essay titled Porn up, rape down Capture

Another research paper, “Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic” (2011) found:

“Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change.

As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase.

Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.”

These studies show the exact opposite of what is being claimed. Increases in pornography seem to reduce the incidence of sex crimes. The evidence supports the common sense idea that pornography acts as a substitute for, and not a promoter of, sexual violence.

 Double Standards For Men and Women


Whether the puritans or the feminists like it or not, it is a fact that many women enjoy rape fantasies as explained by this female journalist.

Erotic literature such as Fifty Shades of Grey featuring bondage, spanking, hair pulling, fisting and pinwheeling generated sales of over £10M in six months, to a predominantly female audience.

On a more scientific level, a 1988 study by Pelletier and Herold found that over half of their female respondents had fantasies of forced sex.

Nobody (quite rightly) suggests that women who expose themselves to this sort of “violent porn” literature, or who engage in sexual fantasies of rape are more likely to go out and put themselves into situations where they will be raped.

People clearly understand that there is a world of difference between enjoying rape as a sexual fantasy and the violent, painful reality of actual rape.

The same reasoning must logically apply to men who enjoy rape fantasy and rape porn. There is a world of difference between enjoying rape as a sexual fantasy and the violent reality of actual raping another human being.

To assert that women can enjoy rape fantasy, porn and violent BDSM literature without harm because they understand the difference between fantasy and reality, but men do not is nothing more than misandry 

Enforcement: The Problem of Defining “Rape Porn”

The legal definition of rape covers a number of circumstances. High street sex shops such as the fairly respectable Ann Summers sell naughty schoolgirl outfits, but presumably watching porn featuring such outfits would risk a prison sentence as representing sex with a schoolgirl is representing sex with an under age girl and therefore rape.

What if the actress is 18 years old but in the authorities opinion she looks younger than 16, could this be “rape porn”

What about porn featuring people who are pretending to be drunk. The legal definition of rape means that if someone appears to be too drunk to give consent it is “rape porn”.

Then we have the problem of Hollywood movies featuring rape. If you have a copy of Oscar winning Hollywood film The Accused or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo in your DVD collection are you in possession of “rape porn” ?

David Cameron was unable to define pornography, so who can be 100% sure?

Before falling into the naive trap of assuming that the authorities will use good judgement to decide what constitutes “rape porn”, consider the case of Simon Walsh and his spurious prosecution for possessing “extreme pornography” under Section 63 of the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.

Consistency: Watch Simulated Violent Murder But Not Simulated Violent Sex


If people genuinely believe that watching images encourages people to act out what they see, then why is there no outcry to ban horror movies?

Extreme horror movies often depict cannibalism, torture, mutilation and gruesome murder from beginning to end and yet people seem perfectly capable of recognising them as simple escapism.

Indeed if we were to accept the premise that underlies the demands to ban “Rape Porn” then it is a very small step to demand that we remove all violence from television, then all bad language and anti-social behaviour, then all people smoking drinking or eating junk food. Ultimately total state control of the media and the internet.

Whether it floats your boat or not, there is no reason to ban “rape porn”


Posted in Current Affairs, General Principles | 5 Comments

Passing Anti-Freedom Laws – Sheeple Manipulation Made Simple


The state appears to have a tried and tested method of getting public approval for laws or regulations that the take away our freedoms:

This is the approach that works so well, both historically and today:

Step 1:
Identify issues that invoke outrage, fear or other powerful emotional responses in the public

Step 2:
Wait until a particularly heinous event of the type identified in step 1 occurs, or engineer/invent a suitable event

Step 3:
Allow the popular press to sensationalize and simplify the issues, while whipping the public into a suitably outraged or terrified frenzy, demanding “Something must be done!”

Step 4:
Propose a law or regulations to “Address The Problem” The actual law will in fact take away the freedoms that the state objects to.

Let’s see how it works in practice, starting with one of the states favourite “Hobgoblins” -attacks by terrorist groups. Now terrorism is certainly real, but to put it in context in 2011 you were 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist, 12 times more likely die by accidental suffocation in bed! You are in fact almost 3 times more likely to be killed by a lightening strike! 

The Reichstag fire Berlin on 27 February 1933

1. The issue used, fear of terrorist attacks

2. The German parliament (Reichstag) caught fire, probably as a result of an arson attack by the communists. (Although in 1946, Hans Gisevius, a former member of the Gestapo, indicated that the Nazis were the actual arsonists)

3. Prussian Press Service reports “This act of incendiarism is the most monstrous act of terrorism carried out by Bolshevism in Germany” The Vossische Zeitung newspaper warned its readers that “the government is of the opinion that the situation is such that a danger to the state and nation existed and still exists”

4. The day after the fire Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution: “Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

The 9/11 Attacks on the World Trade Centre

1. The issue used, fear of terrorist attacks

2. Two hijacked planes flown into the World Trade Centre in New York, causing the buildings to collapse and thousands of innocent workers and emergency services personnel killed. Al Qaida are widely accepted as having been responsible, but many Conspiracy theories question if the US Government was involved.

3. The event was so horrendous that factual press reporting was enough to concentrate legitimate outrage. However, most US headlines use the phrase “War” versus virtually none that use the more obvious word “Murder”. The Bush administration was very quick to link Saddam Hussein and Iraq to the attack. Despite the fact that Iraq was not involved 4 out of 10 Americans still think the War in Iraq was retaliation for 9/11

4. The US PATRIOT Act was rushed through Congress in just 6 weeks, becoming law on October 26th 2011. Containing 132 pages, it was according to Senators not read.
The Act sweeps away many freedoms including

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

and the US Government has not been slow to use the provisions of the Act against non-terrorists

Another favourite issue, callously used by the State is Paedophile Murder. Again this is a real issue, but putting the figures in context a child is far more likely to be killed riding a horse, playing football or even being a passenger in a car.

The Murders of April Jones and Tia Sharp

1. The issue used, fear our children will be murdered by a Paedophile

2. April Jones  disappeared on 1 October 2012, after being sighted getting into a vehicle near her home. A 46-year-old local man, Mark Bridger, was subsequently arrested and charged with Jones’ abduction and murder. Tia Sharp was reported missing from the home of her grandmother in London, in August 2012. Police discovered her body in the loft of the house seven days later, Stuart Hazell a former boyfriend of Tia’s mother was charged with Tia’s murder.

3. The press simply assume that watching porn caused the murders. Psychologists have been trying to demonstrate that violent porn increases rape for many years, both with direct experiments and statistical analysis. They repeatedly, find that there is no such link there is even evidence that watching porn acts a substitute and reduces the incidence of sexual crimes. 

4. David Cameron announces a raft of measures, designed presumably to ‘protect us from child murderers” but instead amounting to default Internet Censorship (Not of Child Pornogrpahy, that is already illegal) but any pornography and sites that involve: Smoking, Alcohol, Web Forums, Anorexia, Suicide and other sites deemed offensive. Backed with the threat of legislation if the ISP’s don’t tow the line. The next step, following the Australian experience will be to block the sites of political groups and down the slippery slope to the sort of government censorship common in less democratic countries.

Other examples of scandals used in attempts to remove fundamental freedoms include:

The “Phone Hacking Scandal” and attacks on freedom of the press and the “Parliamentary Lobbying Scandal” and  attacks on the freedom of trade unions

When it comes to taking away our liberty, there is nothing the state likes more than a Tragedy/Horror/Scandal to outrage the sheeple and get them bleating for “something to be done”!

Unfortunately, as often as not, the something is done to them, rather than for them.

Posted in General Principles | 1 Comment

The Scale of UK Government Debt Explained

Politicians are more than happy to throw around terms like £Billion and £Trillion when talking about Government spending or debt. (Although many don’t know the difference between the deficit and the debt)

At the time of writing The UK Government debt is around £1.2 Trillion.

But what on Earth is a Trillion, what exactly does £1.2 Trillion look like ?

Lets start with something that we all recognise, the £50 note. The highest value unit of currency we have in a physical form. Most of us would agree a £50 note is quite a large amount of money, but physically it is very thin (0.113mm to be exact).

So let’s see how big a stack of these valuable £50 notes you need for a Million, a Billion and finally our UK Government’s debt of 1.2 Trillion…

A £1 Million stack of £50 notes would be 2.26m (7ft 5 inches) high
Which is about the height of a very tall professional basketball player:

Pavel Podkolzin

A £1 Billion stack of £50 notes would be 2.26km high (1.4 Miles)
Which is the height of 5.1 Empire State Buildings stacked one on top of the other:

A £1.2 Trillion stack of £50 notes would be 2,712 km high (1,685 Miles)
Which is the height of 306 Mount Everests stacked on top of each other

If you were the lay the £1.2 Trillion stack of £50 notes on the ground it would reach from London to Reykjavik:

You might find it easier to relate to time rather than distance, if so, imagine you were told to shred one of the £50 notes every second; 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

You might think you would get through it fairly quickly as you would destroy:

£3,000 a minute
£180,000 an hour
£4.32 Million per day

However, it would actually take you 761 years to get through them all:

Well actually longer now, because in the time its taken you to read this article the debt has increased again:

Posted in Current Affairs | 2 Comments

“Rape is Rape” – or is it?

Eddie Shah has caused outrage by daring to call into question the politically correct and widely accepted mantra that “Rape is Rape”. The same outrage that we heard when Ken Clarke said virtually the same thing back in May 2011.

A key benefit of free speech and internet anonymity is that you can objectively analyse such contentious issues, and even dare to reach an unpopular conclusion, without running the risk of being run out of town by the outraged/offended mob.

So is it true that “Rape is Rape”?
(Including its inferred conclusion, that all rapists should be treated equally severely)

Because this is an issue that arouses such mind-fogging passions, let’s start by examining what we mean generally by the statement “Something is Something”.

We might mean that the two things are identical i.e.

2 is 2 or, as Ayn Rand might prefer  A is A.

In this tautological sense the statement “rape is rape” is true, but it tells us nothing about how we should deal with it. Not only is it true by this logic that “rape=rape”, it is also true that “crime=crime” and that “human action=human action”.

Nobody would seriously suggest that all criminals should be dealt with the same because “crime = crime” (with the possible exception of Draco).

The person who parks on a double yellow line and the serial killer are clearly morally different and deserving of different punishments in any rational legal system. Taking it even further if we must treat all human actions the same because “human action = human action” then the murderer and the life-saver are morally no different!

Clearly this cannot be what advocates of the doctrine “Rape = Rape” mean.

The other sense that we use “Something is Something” statements is slightly more subtle and means;

An entity is a member of a group (and therefore we can infer it has all the properties that define the group.)

This is the meaning that I believe the “Rape is Rape” advocates have in mind. What they are trying to articulate is the following argument:

Premise 1: This specific rape is a member of the group of actions called rape

Premise 2: It is a defining characteristic of the group of actions called rape that they are all terrible crimes

Premise 3: All terrible crimes should be punished equally severely


Conclusion: This rape should be punished equally severely with all other rapes

However in this argument, premise 2 is demonstrably false.

The definition of rape does not explicitly require the attribute “terrible crime”, the definition is simply: Sexual penetration without legal consent. This covers a wide range of different circumstances, some of which are clearly terrible crimes, other acts caught by the definition are not particularly terrible at all.

At the most terrible end of the spectrum you have the stranger who snatches and aggressively penetrates a woman, overpowering her physical resistance with violence.
(What most people are thinking of when they use the term “rape” in everyday language. What Ken Clarke referred to as “serious rape” and what Eddy Shah termed “Rape” Rape)

At the least terrible end of the spectrum you have the emotionally mature 15 year (and 364 days) old girl, engaged in enthusiastic and willing first time sex her with her 16 year old, long term boyfriend.


The horny husband who lovingly wakes his highly sexually demanding wife with gentle penetration, without waking her up to gain explicit consent first.

(What Eddy Shah calls “Technical Rapes”)

If you really think these acts are equally terrible crimes then your moral compass must have been hijacked by the Feminazi movement.

I have deliberately dealt with the two extreme ends of the spectrum to demonstrate the logical error as clearly as possible, but many real cases fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Certainly more terrible than a teenagers assignation, but also less terrible than brutal abduction and violent forced sex by a stranger:

Examples quoted by Clark and Shah were date rape, the circumstances of which are not always clear cut, or a 15 year old girl (40% of who are already sexually active) who may look like she is in her 20’s,  lies about her age, and willingly engages in sex with an older celebrity.

With such a wide range of different circumstances caught by the legal definition of rape, it makes no more sense to treat all rapes exactly the same as it does to treat all crimes exactly the same.

To be crystal clear to those in the outraged/offended mob, who cannot follow a reasoned argument, but are never-the-less rushing to put on their white hooded cloaks and tweet death threats to me:

I am not for one moment suggesting that legal rape is not usually a terrible crime and deserving of the severest punishment, nor am I saying that cases that fall in the middle of the severity spectrum are not serious or that those convicted should not be be punished.

I am simply saying that there is no logical case for treating all actions legally defined as rape the same, without reference to the specific circumstances of the case. The worst offenders should get the worst punishments, the less worse offenders a less worse punishment.

People who blindly support the “Rape is Rape” position are probably committing the fallacy of equivocation and conflating their mental image of rape (violent forced sex by a stranger) with the legal definition of rape (any sexual penetration without prior legal consent).

In reality, the argument (and its unspoken implication that all rapists should be treated the same) has no rational foundation or logical underpinning.

Posted in General Principles | 26 Comments

75% of my £500 bonus went on Income Tax, VAT, Duty, Etc – How Much is a “Fair Share” ?

Lets Imagine I am a top rate taxpayer and I receive a £500 bonus, if I spend it all, how much goes into the real economy to buy goods and how much is taken by the government in taxes, duties, etc as its “Fair Share”:

     Tax     Goods 
Bonus  £  500.00
Income Tax -£ 250.00  £  250.00
National Insurance -£    10.00  £    10.00
Cash Received  £  240.00
Fill Car
Petrol -£    21.04  £    21.04
Fuel Duty -£    21.08  £    21.08
VAT -£      8.42  £      8.42
Buy Pack Cigarretes
Cigarrettes -£      1.64  £      1.64
Tax -£      5.83  £      5.83
Buy 2 Bottles of Whisky
Single Malt Whisky -£    35.00  £    35.00
Tax -£    25.00  £    25.00
Buy gift for wife
Cost of Gift -£ 101.66  £  101.66
VAT -£    20.33  £    20.33
 £           –  £  340.66  £  159.34
68.1% 31.9%

So it would appear that a “fair share” for the state of my hard earned £500 bonus is 68.1% ?

But, that’s not the whole story, because the £159.34 of “goods” is paid to the companies that produce them and a good part of the cost of those goods is made up of tax.

Assume that the companies involved pay 50% for materials, 40% for Labour and make a 10% pre tax profit:

Revenue  £ 159.34
 Tax   Goods  
Materials -£  79.67  £  79.67
Net Pay To Workers -£  45.79  £  45.79
PAYE -£  11.45  £  11.45
Employers NI -£    5.95  £    5.95
Employees NI -£    0.55  £    0.55
Pre Tax Profit  £   15.93
Tax -£    3.19  £    3.19
Dividends  £   12.75
Income Tax on Dividends -£    1.27  £    1.27
Dividends Received  £   11.47
 £    22.41  £ 136.93
14.1% 85.9%

So the state’s “fair share” is up to (£22.41+£340.66)/£500 = 72.6%

But there is more:

The raw materials of £79.67 purchased by the companies represent the revenue of the companies for whom the raw materials are the outputs and are increased in cost because of tax. So assume 14.1% of that amount also goes in tax, another £11.15 for the state.

(£22.41+£340.66+11.15)/£500 = 74.8%

Allowing for the fact that this process continues further still down the supply chain  It does not seem unreasonable to assume that ultimately the state will take 75%+ of the bonus.

I get to keep just 25% of the value in free market goods and services and the state takes the rest. Yet, still the left demand higher taxes so I pay my “Fair Share”!


Posted in General Principles | 4 Comments

The Libertarian Criminal Legal System

This is my final post in answering @simonr916 questions on the practicalities of a libertarian legal system which looks at the mechanics of a free market criminal law system.

To cover all the theoretical nuances is simply not possible in a single blog post. For anyone wanting to study this area in depth I highly recommend: “Anarchy and the Law” which is a fantastic collection of essays on the subject by a number of leading libertarian thinkers.

I am including links to the text and audio or video material to make it a bit easier to digest for those who don;t want to read it all.

A good place to start is Morris & Linda Tannehill:  Chapter 9: The Market for Liberty

Followed by Rothbard – Police, Law & Courts, Chapter 12: For a New Liberty

David Friedmann – Police Courts & laws on the market. Part 3 II – The Machinery of Freedom

There are also a number of societies throughout history that have operated forms of private law without a state. The most interesting ones are:

Iceland between the 10th and 13th Centuries

Irish Celtic Brehon Law from the bronze age right through to the early 17th century

Kapauku Papuans of West New Guinea


Posted in General Principles | 1 Comment