Paedophile Stuff

This is not a subject which I would normally be interested in, if only because of the potential for hysteria generated by ill-defined words such as ‘abuse’, and especially ‘child abuse’, and even more especially ‘child sexual abuse’. In that last phrase, especially, lies the potential for even the most trivial of physical contacts with a person under the age of ? (16? 18?) could be construed as ‘sexual’ and ‘abuse’.

When my three daughters were little, we used to have ‘bath night’ (not to be confused with daily clearing up messes of one sort or another). Wifey’s job was to bathe them. Mine was to accept them wrapped in a bath towel, dry them off and plonk them on my lap and brush/comb their wet hair to remove knots (they all had longish hair). Thus, for a time, they sat naked on my lap.

Did I derive any sexual pleasure from this situation? Absolutely not, of course. Did I derive any sensual pleasure? Indeed so. I am sure that readers know the difference between ‘sexual’ and ‘sensual’.

My eldest daughter’s hair was a browny/goldy colour and it was slightly wavy. It is important, when removing knots, to start at the bottom, near the nape of the neck or lower, depending upon the length of the hair. As the knots came out, and the brush-strokes became longer and longer, her hair shone and glittered amazingly. The hair of no. 2 and no. 3 were different, darker and less wavy, but none the less shiny and soft.

When they got older, we often went swimming at the local sports centre. We had lots of fun. They were all good swimmers. They would sometimes plot and all jump me at the same time. Inevitably, hands grabbed body parts during these encounters. Was there sexual pleasure? Are you joking? When three girls jump you at the same time, you are lucky if you can save yourself from drowning! Was there sensual pleasure? Again, indeed there was – slipping and sliding, clinging and slithering – sensual, lovely and entirely innocent.

Over the past several months, I have been reading Anna Raccoon’s take on the Savile business:

She was a resident of a live-in school for naught girls around the time that Savile was supposedly doing nasty things to the inmates thereof. Again and again, she has shown that the allegations of other residents, who claimed to have been ‘abused’ by Savile, could not have been true for various reasons – either that Savile was not there at the time claimed, or that the claims required the deliberate collusion of the ‘matron’ and many other staff members.

We have seen many ancient entertainers dragged before the courts, accused, but generally acquitted. But, in the last few weeks and months, one or two accusations have ‘stuck’. I refer especially to Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris. I feel sorry for these entertainers because I was ‘knocking around’ in the same period. We were all ‘sexually liberated’. I must admit that, as a regular catholic youth, I was shocked at the randiness of girls. Lots of girls were sexually voracious. It was shocking, but … well … WOWEEEE!

All of that was hidden behind a wall of ‘societal’ secrecy. Girls were sweet and innocent, and only indulged if they were ‘seduced’ or ‘raped’. It is a sort of inversion of Tobacco Company ‘seduction’ or ‘rape’ of youths to get them smoking. Youths do not start to enjoy tobacco because it is enjoyable. They do so because the Big Tobacco Devil overcomes their innocence and trust – just like girls have no desire for sex until ‘seduced’ by a male.


As I said at the beginning, these things are not my normal subjects. They are too BIG. I would rather concentrate on the lies of the  tobacco control industry. But in this instance, the headline in the Mail-on-line was too provocative to resist:

‘Powerful elite’ of at least 20 establishment figures may have been part of paedophile ring that abused children for decades.

A chief perpetrator, as with Savile, is dead, being Cyril Smith.


I would dismiss all this hysteria out of hand, were it not for the actual existence, in the past, of an organisation known as ‘Paedophile Information Exchange’ (PIE). It seems that several senior Labour figures, when they were young fanatics, were indulgent to these people  (presumably, because such groups of anti-establishment people would embarrass the Tories by making the Tories seem to be anti-antediluvian arseholes).


I could take this thing on and on, but I do not wish to. To me, it shows how defiled our MPs are. They will accept any atrocity at all if it furthers their political objectives, and that is why our political system stinks and stinks, and that is why people like Andrew Black are EMPERORS.

But what are their ‘political objectives’?

That is a very frightening question to ask. It seems to have been, for the last few decades, regardless of political party, that a monolithic entity, known as the EU, will encompass fascist, totalitarian, communist ideals. Everyone will be ‘equal’, provided that he/she conforms to the idea that some people (such as EU bureaucrats) are more equal than others.

The EU will produce civil war eventually. Why people like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband cannot see that is weird. It must be so, since it demands ‘level playing fields’. But the different States are not ‘level’.

But it is worse. The entity known as the ‘World Bank’ is an obscenity. That is because there is no ‘World Government’. For a genuine ‘World Bank’ to exist, there must first be a ‘World Government’. “The King can control the money supply, but the money supply cannot control the King”


The UN has its value, and so has the EU. But neither of them have, and cannot be allowed to have, any sort of AUTHORITY. Of great importance is the fact that the ‘World Bank’ does not really exist. It is an ‘artifact’. If it has any function at all, it is is simply as an a vehicle to supply structures like the FCTC with funds.

It would be unreasonable to expect politicians like the Prime Minister to understand that. But he is not stupid.

If he put his mind to it, and had a few chats with the right ‘sort’ of people, he could make Britain ‘great’ again.





7 Responses to “Paedophile Stuff”

  1. moss Says:

    In the light of recent events concerning the abuse of children, the zealots war cry, ‘it’s the children we’re thinking about,’ takes on a completely different meaning. In that these people have time without number proved themselves to be among the biggest liars on the face of this planet, what self-respecting parents of of average intelligence would ever trust these people anywhere near their children?
    I’m pleased that you mentioned Mr A Black because his name had escaped me. But his statement in a recent anti meeting remains indelible. Close enough to his statement – He couldn’t care less about adults smoking they could smoke themselves to death for all he cared. It was the children who he was concerned about.
    This means when analysed, that he was not concerned about children not having any parents.
    The mind boggles, a would be Emperor, Junican? If you’re talking about penguins – you’re probably right!
    The only thing Mr Black has going for him, is that he can talk through the south end of his anatomy without it sounding like flatulence.

    • junican Says:

      But what Black says is ‘flatulence’. The problem is that no politician seems to be able to sniff the stink.

  2. nisakiman Says:

    As a father of two (now adult) daughters, I would echo your sentiments about the sensual pleasures of caring for two young girls. I loved having daughters; indeed, I still do – we are very close, my having divorced their mother and remarried notwithstanding. And I think the closeness of a father / daughter relationship is both natural and normal.

    I also agree about the ‘witch-hunt’ aspect of the current hysteria. Back in the 60s and 70s, I bedded many a young lady. It never occurred to me to ask how old she was, and to be honest, if I had asked and she’d told me she was fifteen, I doubt that would have stopped me anyway. If she had the right shape and appendages, that’s all that interested me. However, had I the misfortune to be a well-heeled, well known celebrity, doubtless some of those (then) willing young ladies would now be telling the gutter press and the courts how I ruined their lives with my predatory ways.

    And for some reason I can’t quite put my finger on, I have a deep suspicion that those who shout loudest and call for draconian measures and punishments for paedophiles are themselves repressed paedophiles. They certainly seem obsessed with the subject.

    • junican Says:

      “Love from day one for ever” is the only way that I can describe by relationship with my daughters – even if they are now in their forties. My sister had three sons, and I am sure that the same applied to her.

      Back in the 60s and 70s, I bedded many a young lady.” Erm …. I suspect that you have that the wrong way round…….

  3. cherie79 Says:

    Anna raccoon has done a wonderful job analysing the whole mess. I just can’t understand why no one in the MSM is prepared to break ranks and expose the lies as Anna has said of course they know but I guess the truth doesn’t sell papers.

  4. beobrigitte Says:

    Great post, thank you, Junican!!

    I am glad that I brought up my children when I did!!! Although their father and I had separated when they were little, I thought it very important to:

    A.) not restrict their father’s right to see OUR children at any time.

    B.) to further involve their father fully into the childrens’ daily routines; which also involved bathing them and then putting them to bed.

    This is a loving parent – children relationship and has NOTHING to do with “sexual pleasure”. If anyone would hint something like that to my childrens’ father, he’d just turn round and say: “you are a sick person to even consider that!!”
    There most certainly are many things I could fault my ex on – but I could NEVER claim that he was a bad father!!! Very much the opposite! He even sat the last 16 hours of my first labour next to my bed, enduring a lot of verbal abuse from me, without even going to the toilet. When my daughter finally was helped into this world, her dad held her first. And that for a long time. I simply fell asleep for an hour. I woke up, watching my ex cuddling his daughter, watching every little move!!!
    He missed the delivery of number 2 (stuck in a traffic queue) – nevertheless, when he finally got to the hospital, he did the same. Hugging… watching…
    He was there with number 3. The same reaction as two times before.

    Parental love. It is precious.

    I wonder if men nowadays are very cautious of hugging their children, or let them sit on his lap. They – and especially their children – miss out on the most nurturing behaviour: relaxed physical closeness between parent-children.

    Yes, we cannot deny that paedophiles exist. (If I remember correctly there was something absolutely ludicrous about lowering the age of consent in the 1970s).
    The 60s and 70s were also about ‘sexual freedom’ – meaning WOMEN, not children!!
    I was never into it as I am strictly monogamous (just my nature) but I did support the idea. And still do. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganter.

    Getting gradually to Rolf Harrison – WHAT is the point of this 84 year old going to prison? Didn’t the BBC 30/40 years ago ignore his behaviour? And now it washes whiter-than-white, digging out then 16 year olds who claim their “life-has-been-ruined”?
    I’m sorry, 16 is the legal age for sex. (Yeah, you can’t have a drink, you can’t smoke but you can spread venereal diseases!!!)
    By the time I was 16 the person touching me inappropriately knew about it – it induces the sharp pain a “shiner” that is being constructed usually does!!!!

    A lot of things are going horribly wrong these days.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: