Rod Liddle

The net is closing in on Father Christmas, the old perv

15 December 2012

9:00 AM

15 December 2012

9:00 AM

Does Santa Claus really exist? I have to say I have become very sceptical in recent years. There is something about this character which simply does not ring true, not to mention his rather sinister retinue of airborne reindeer. I am not saying that he definitely does not exist, simply that we should not be too credulous, too ready to believe what the authorities tell us.

A junior school teacher in Dorset is in trouble for having allowed into the minds of his eight- and nine-year-old charges a similar element of doubt. According to news reports, when asked by some children if Santa really existed, the educator reportedly ‘raised his eyebrows’ in a slightly sardonic manner — and now the parents are outraged and the school has had to issue an apology and, indeed, a correction. As an investigative journalist, I am naturally suspicious of this rather Orwellian reaction: it makes me think there is something going on, that they are trying to keep something from us.


Then again, even if he did exist, would we really want him grooming our kiddies with promises of reward from behind that strange white beard? A few years ago a man purporting to be Santa in a Melbourne department store had to be reprimanded for repeatedly saying ‘ho ho ho’ — because the authorities rightly calculated that this ejaculation could prove offensive to any black women in the vicinity. He was told to say ‘ha ha ha’ instead. So, a borderline racist who behaves inappropriately — at best — towards children. It seems to me almost certain that if he does exist, he will currently be under investigation by the police, possibly for hate crimes, but without question under their comprehensive and vigorous Operation Yewtree, which has resulted in the arrest of so many similarly worrying public figures. Most of those arrested have been rather old — 82 years old, in the case of the retired sports broadcaster Stuart Hall; so the fact that ‘Santa’, or to use his nom de guerre, St Nicholas, is — improbably to my mind — something in the region of 1,500 years old should not deter the police from pursuing their proper inquiries. I assume they will be sending officers back to 4th century Lycia, where the young Nicholas would prowl the narrow streets of an evening, offering ‘gifts’ to attractive young women, i.e. grooming. We know all about that sort of thing, thank you; apologists may say that it was acceptable behaviour back then, but it is highly dubious by today’s more civilised lights and that, therefore, is how we must judge the matter.

It seems almost certain to me that at least one of these women whom he importuned will now come forward to explain that her life has been destroyed by the mendacious old perv, but only now, all these aeons later, has she found within herself the courage to come forward and inform the authorities as to what, precisely, according to her excellent memory, happened back then. Luckily we now have plenty of support groups and charities to give succour to such a woman, should she come forward, and prosecute her case with great resolve, insisting that no matter how long the passage of time which has indeed elapsed, she must be unequivocally believed.

Thank the lord that we do have these sorts of people around. I was a child in the 1970s and it seems, upon reflection, incredibly lucky that I was not touched up or buggered by roaming packs of feral BBC disc jockeys, light entertainers, actors, broadcasters, producers and the like every time I stepped outside to take a quick spin on my Raleigh Chopper. The horrible possibility I must face up to is this: perhaps they did not find me attractive enough. It may well be that as I was pedalling along the streets of Middlesbrough in late 1973, Morecambe and Wise and Dick Emery and maybe Derek Nimmo were peering at me gimlet-eyed from behind a hedge, mulling over if I was an appropriate victim for their depraved sexual lust and deciding, on balance, that I wasn’t — move on, move on, nothing to see here. If this does turn out to be the case — and I can think of no other reason why I, almost alone in the country in the 1970s, was not subjected to a sexual assault by a famous or quasi-famous person — then it will feel singularly slighting and I may file for some form of monetary redress. And counselling.

So what is it now? Another 25 slebs, largely from that sexually ravenous decade, about to be hauled in over the Christmas period, held in the cells for 12 hours, cross-examined and then released into a new world where they are now hated, rather than regarded with a certain nostalgic fondness. And the harridans from the charities and pressure groups screaming ‘Arrest more of them!’ and apt to believe everything they hear, because it conforms to their long-held view that men are always up to stuff like this, always have been, the bastards, and that there has been an establishment conspiracy to cover it all up, because the establishment is full of men and they’re probably up to it too. One of these spokesmonkeys even described it as ‘Watergate’ and described people who were a shade sceptical about the fury as ‘abuse-deniers’. And because the issue has thus become politicised in a Gramscian sense, taken up by the middle-class faux left, there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Doesn’t it have the faintest whiff of a witch-hunt to you?

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Geoff


    • Austin Barry

      Strangely, I’ve only ever knowingly met one BBC personality, its principal food critic and voice-over merchant, about forty years ago on the overnight train to Inverness. Somewhere beyond Nuneaton he tried, unsuccessfully, to importune the startlingly beautiful youth that was me. I have no difficulty in believing that the BBC is, and always was, a marshalling yard for the odd.

  • Ernest Falquero

    Some extremely simplistic views from a very immature brain… on all the subjects covered, full of strained old cliches and euphemisms… that don’t work at all, unless one is eight years old… and even then, I doubt it!

  • MichtyMe

    They were “eight and nine year olds”, was this some kind of special establishment or perhaps one of these new “faith” schools.

  • Sarah

    “As an investigative journalist” who has never spoken to a rape victim, been to a rape crisis centre, interviewed a victim of historical child abuse, watched a sex crimes unit in operation, I feel qualified to use my platform to promote stuff I feel in my heart must be true if the world indeed does conform to my prejudices.

  • Sarah

    “all these aeons later”
    Or 20-40 years later.

    “back to 4th century Lycia”
    Or the 1970s.

    “apologists may say that it was acceptable behaviour back then”
    Or illegal.

    “we must judge the matter.”
    Or investigate it.

  • Sarah

    “must be unequivocally believed”

    Because that’s what happened.

    And that’s what will happen in court.

    • Eddie

      You’re not very good at this ‘innocent until proven guity (with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt)’ ting, are you Sarah Psycho.

      Maybe we should apply you ‘guilty as accused, and arrest proves it’ ethos to other crimes – for example, all those women whose babies and children get covered in bruises, malnourished. made obese, emotionally/violently abused by their ‘loving mums’ (or fiddled with by mummy’s latest shag), or all those babies and children who die at home at the hands of their mothers. Let’s apply the SAME logic there eh? They’re all guilty because someone says they are – let’s hang them!

      You dirty little witch-hunter mad psycho manhating obsessive loon-bint Sarah. What made you hate men so? Did the boys call you names at school? Was your father a compete shit? Or were you raised by an old hag as bitter and twisted as you are and thus brainwashed into man-hatred, Estella-style.

      You must be a very lonely and sad person. HA HA HA!
      To be honest, the only thing that surprises me is that you haven’t posted some angry hissy-spitty demand for equality in Father Christmas-hood – why not Mother Christmas eh? (Though of course she’d probably be too fucking obsese to get down any chimney and has probably already killed a baby or two…)
      Move to Russia, Sarah. They have Father and Mother Frost there – on 6 December I think. Usually some fit HO HO HO of a Russian dancer from a nightclub plays the Mother Frost character – not some old hag of a diseased dawrf like you. But maybe they have a vacancy for an Elf or a Pixie? You could join Smiley, Stinky, Dopey, Druggie, Mafiosi and Grumpy. Maybe they could call you ‘Bitchy’, eh?

      • Sarah

        You’re not very good at understanding how this works are you, Zebbeddie.

        How it works is like this:
        A person, let’s say a woman, or it could be a man, goes to the police and reports a crime, let’s say a sexual one.
        The police investigate it and if they feel it is appropriate they call in the alleged perpetrator, let’s say a man, or it could very rarely be a woman, in for questioning.
        The police collate the results of their investigation and pass it to the Criminal Prosecution Service.
        The CPS, let’s say a group of men, investigate the data and if they feel there is a case to answer they forward it to the courts.
        The courts, or let’s say a group of men with historical prejudices against sexual abuse victims, investigate it, assign a defence lawyer to the alleged perpetrator and hold a trial in front of a jury of his (or more rarely her) peers, or let’s say a group of men and women with historical prejudices against sexual abuse victims.
        The jury decide if the case against the alleged perpetrator has been proven, using the benchmark of giving the benefit of the doubt.
        If the jury decides the case against the allied perpetrator has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, the alleged perpetrator is declared a perpetrator.
        The judge, or let’s say the main man with historical prejudices against sexual abuse victims, passes sentence and the perpetrator is put in prison for a short time or given a small fine.

        Meanwhile the free press, or let’s call them a group of men with historical prejudices against sexual abuse victims who use sexual abuse to titillate and sell papers especially at Christmas when they like a good sex killing, will set to work to dehumanise the perpetrator, discredit the victim and spread misinformation throughout the land.In a bastardised version of the gospel according to St Misogynist.

        Meanwhile sad, lonely men with only one present to buy will rush to the message board to keep harping on in a reedy voice: “unequivocally believed!!!!”

        • Eddie

          Blah blah blah… I really can’t be arsed to read your mentalist post, Psycho Sarah.

          Your posts all expose you as a mentally deranged fantasist with more issues than any magazine…

          The only thing I can see in your posts is a sad lonely woman who likes to think anyone who disagrees with her bitter and twisted view of the world is somehow sad and lonely. Really REALLY weird.

          Now fuck off, your shrivelled piece of manhating misogynist snot.

          And stay away from men and boy-children eh? I know – but one of them plastic babies that you can cuddle over Christmas – when you rip it apart in a fit of femi-rage, no-one will get hurt then. (Need I remind you that most babies who are killed are killed by women, most of whom get away with it).

  • Sarah

    “It seems almost certain to me

    1) that at least one of these women [or men] whom he importuned will now come forward to explain that her [or his] life has been destroyed

    2) all these aeons later,

    3) has she [or he] found within herself [or himself] the courage to come forward and inform the authorities as to what, precisely,

    4) according to her [or his] excellent memory, happened back then.

    5) Luckily we now have plenty of support groups and charities

    6) to give succour to such a woman [or man], should she [or he] come forward,

    7) and prosecute her [or his] case with great resolve,

    8) insisting that no matter how long the passage of time which has indeed elapsed, she [or he] must be unequivocally believed.”

    “because it conforms to their long-held view that [wo]men are always up to stuff like this, always have been, the [harridans], and that there has been an establishment conspiracy, because the establishment is full of [wo]men and they’re probably up to it too. ”

    • Daniel Maris

      Thanks Eddie.

      • Eddie

        No problem!
        Hilarious and horrible how very predictable the psycho Sarah is eh?
        What tickles me is that the silly bint cannot see the massive irony in her always demanding justice for women (though what she means is not that really) while at the same time assuming all men accused of rape or child abuse are guilty (in fact, in Sarahworld there would be no trials at all, just long lines of castrated men hanging from lamp-posts – a bit like Hackney really, but less black).
        You have to laugh eh? Sarah assumes that she speaks for all women – when in fact most women dislike the gruff man-bashing or feminasties like her. Most women are normal and lovely and have husbands, partners, boyfriends, sons, brothers – and quite often, fathers. Most women do not hate men or think they are all rapists and paedos because they possess a penis. That is misandrist – but it is also misogynist and an insult to women, to assume they are all the same and like sad psychos like Sarah.
        Funny too that Sarah seems to consider herself possessed of magic powers as a mind-reader: she tells Rod that he has never been to a rape crisis centre or interviewed rape ‘victims’ (who Sarah and those like her believe automatically are the victims without hearing the full story of any event). Well, how the FUCK does she know? And does one actually have to visit a rape centre (many such places exclude men actually) to have an opinion on rape.
        Well, I can only hope that sad Sarah finds some peace this Christmas; and I can only pray that she has no male of the species near her when she starts carving the turkey (though it’s gotta be nut roast with her eh!) – otherwise the poor bloke will end up in pieces with his member on top of the Christmas tree! Yikes!

        • Sarah

          Eddie, you have repeatedly accused me of believing people are guilty before being proven innocent.
          Could you point out one time, just one will do, where I save ever said any such thing?

          I have in fact (repeatedly) supported legal process for any accused person.
          You, on the other hand, have (repeatedly) not. You, on the other hand, support trial by how much does Eddie hate women.

          • Eddie

            Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

            This is the constant chorus spewing out of your shrivelled little lemon-sucking lips, you little liar.

            Here are a few examples of your disgusting posts: you accused me and others of being rapists, paedophiles, for supporting child abuse, for wanting to let guilty men go free and avoid justice, for hating women, and on, and on and on – like a great big long FEMI-FART of lie-juice!

            I have always stated that I want all PEOPLE to be treated equally in law – men and women – and that we must NOT have a witch hunt against anyone the usual hysterics brand as paedophiles (with NO evidence whatsoever – perhaps an accusation by someone atttracted by the compo – but no REAL evidence). You assume all men accused are guilty, and all those who accuse them are innocent: thus your lies and lain bare, binty.

            You do NOT support the concept of innocent until proven guilty with evidence: look at your damn posts, liar! You support the lynching of any man or boy accused by any woman or girl, because yoiu assume that no female can ever lie or do bad things, and all males of the species are by their very nature disgusting evil rapists and paedos. You brain is a nasty sick and dangerous place Psycho Sarah – thank goodness I don’t have to live there! You do – you poor bitch. Must be hell.

            Now Sarah – please get help for your obsessive and insane hatred of any male human being: it is unhealthy, weird and shows you to be a great big lump of fucked-up and bitter envy and hatred. You are no achieving anything at all by being that way – and most women certainly aren’t.

            Now tell us, binty, why do you hate men so much? Were you touched up when a teen? Did daddy abandon you or your poor mum? Did the boys pull your pig tails?

            Can’t you just buy a strap on and wear a suit – and maybe take hormone tablets like that feminist who grew a bread: then as a man you would be able to drink of (what you see as) the massive unfair advantage men have all the time (another fairytale).

            You hate men Sarah – and you hate women, most of whom see feminasty manhaters like you as really sad pathetic bints, actually.

      • Sarah

        Too subtle for you?
        Rod’s accusations against women: about seeing conspiracies where there are none, closing ranks, abuse of power, agendas, making assumptions, the attempts to discredit those you accuse, mischaracterising things, trials by media – none of that strikes you as deeply ironic/hypocritical given what he’s doing?

    • roger

      You seem to have forgotten 9) no matter how little supporting evidence.

      • Eddie

        Oh Sarah doesn’t believe in evidence! She accuses anyone who outargues her here of being a misogyniost, a rapist, a paedophile, a supporter of child abuse, a racist, and probably the person responsible for vandalising the Blue Peter garden too.
        Such liars do everyone a disseervice and make getting away with sex crime easier for criminals.
        Ergo, Sarah is promoting and facilitating child abuse.
        That is where crying wolf gets yer!

  • St Bruno

    Makes me wonder if it is really a witch hunt or an attempt to redefine our history
    to fit Agenda 21. Reproductive sex is bad. Gay sex is good. No chance to increase the
    population of the planet which, as we all know, is already unsustainable.

    • puss-in-plimsolls

      When I look at so many people on the planet, in my darker moments I would agree that ‘reproductive sex is bad’. The ones that like it best are often the worst among us. What does that tell you?

      • maurice12brady

        You sound like Stewie from the ‘Family Guy’

      • Macky Dee

        It tells me you’re a virgin

    • sarah

      Witches, men who screw kids and mistreat young women.
      According to Biblical men: Real and women’s fault.
      According to 21st century men: Fictional and women’s fault.

      • Eddie

        According to Psycho Sarah: all bad in the world is men’s fault; women are all innocent wickle victims who would never ever tell a lie.

        Now THAT’s a fairytale!

        PS It is WOMEN who are 1) way more religious than men throughout the world; 2) responsible for at least half of all child murders; 3) are more likely then men to emotionally and violently abuse children; 4) single mothers, and then allow strange men into their home’s to fiddle with their (and the absent excluded father’s) kids.

        The end result of all the false accusations of so-called abuse and ‘rape’ that are now made by all those trying their luck to get £50k compo and sympathy, is that when these claims are proven to be lies, no-one will take seriously such accusations ever again – and that will ultimately hurt people, quite apart from the innocent men accused of abuse.

        Now Sarah – sit down, shut up, pour yourself a drink (bleach perhaps?) and phone a helpline! The Samaritans are a wonderful organisation and can suggest where you can get treatment for your mental disorder. You know you want it, love…

        • Sarah

          Who you talking to Eddie poppet?

          • Eddie

            To all intelligent readers. Not you then.

            Remind us Sarah, exactly who appointed you to speak on behalf of all women and say what their opinion on this or anything else is? I can assure you, love, that the vast majority of women despise feminist manhaters like you – because most women do not hate men; nope – they have sons, husbands, boyfriends, partners (and fathers and brothers too) and thus they do not like seriously deranged manhaters like you want to see innocent men arrested and unfairly charged with rape or abuse just because some drunken slut says it happened.

            Now Sarah – go away, lie down and chill, baby. Open a bottle and pour yourself a drink (I’d recommend a cheeky little budget tipple called Domestos). And just stop your ceaseless bitter and twisted campaign of hatred against all men and boys! It is not only misandrist – it is also MISOGYNIST, because you actually hate women who do not share you twisted and dangerously weird views (i.e. 99% of them).
            It must be very sad and lonely being Sarah. Ho ho ho!

        • roger

          Just a question, how many people get prosecuted for false allegation? And what’s the penalty.

          • Eddie

            It’s VERY rare – I only know of one case, where some mad woman who went on the street in north London offering sex – two Turkish blokes abliged and nailed her in a park. She then cried RAPE (and knew it was a lie as sex was consensual).
            The men had almost a year in prison, until at the trial it was shown that the mad bint had tried the same thing before – and was cautioned then.
            This time she got just 6 months for wasting police time, suspended for a year or two. Then men of course had almost a year in prison on remand, a destroyed reputation, lack of earning potential for a year and shame within their families. The men were named and shamed; the rape ‘victim’ (who was no such thing) retained her anonymity. Utterly unjust and wrong. Most women and men can see that.

            Yet, as the law stands, such a woman can accuse other men of rape, and the jury in a trial is not allowed to be told of the previous false allegations!

            We need anonymity for all men accused of such sexual offenses because they are not like others: people assume the accused are guilty. That is why they are a special case.

            The law is anti-men actually: a vestige of chivalric traditions which have no place in the modern age. But feminists don’t want equality and fairness – they want unfair advantage for women! The professional feminists at the moment have a campaign to stop ANY woman being sent to prison – yep, ANY woman, incl murderers, child killers, scum like Hindly and West.

  • Daniel Maris

    Sounds to me like you’ve been enjoying yourself far too much in soft Southern climes, Rod.

    Have a look at the wind turbines through your kitchen window to recalibrate your anger quotient.

  • maurice12brady

    When & if any of this comes to court (highly unlikely) there will be nary a conviction — Because in the words of that great philosophical philanthropist AE Neuman (Wot,me worry!) It’s all boll*cks!

    • Eddie

      Yes, I agree. And then I think all those who made false accusations against these innocent men – for reasons of man-hatred, witch-huntery, compo – should be arrested and charged for what they have done.

      Most child abuse happens in the home – very often done by mothers too.

      The insane fear of strangers that our hysterical culture has forced children to live under IS ABUSE in itself – and it bears NO relation whatsoever to the TINY risk of a child being abused or abducted by strangers.
      It is, actually, a deeply unhealthy and misandrist ethos – much promoted by psycho feminists who see all men as rapists and paedos anyway. I look forward to the truth coming out and the backlash smashing into these harridens like a tsunami of common sense.

  • puss-in-plimsolls

    So: When was the precise moment when Britain ceased to be a serious civilization? I’m assuming it was, once.

    Great new idea for reality TV show: ‘How To Be Stupid’. Just show Britain from dawn to dusk. No special effects required. We’ll all be agog at how stupid supposedly advanced people can be. I already am!

    • Eddie

      I think you’ll find Amanda that we caught this anti-paedo hysteria and self-obsessed ‘closure’ craving from you, over there in the United States of Stupid, actually.
      I agree that this paedo-hysteria is irrational and stupid – but it is also in its child-worship, puritanism and self-obsession, intensely and typically American in origin.

      I fondly remember a Britain of 30 years ago when child-molesters were caught and locked up, but where most men were not unfairly branded as ‘dodgy’ and ‘unsafe’ to be with children; we now have a situation when fathers of children are nervous of touching them just in case some hysterical bint calls the cops and reports child abuse! SICK! And this has destroyed trust and damaged children WAY more than any bottom-fondling ever could!
      Most abuse happens in the home; most is done by mothers; most sex abuse is done in the home by older children (one third of it) or family members (often step dads or mummy’s boyfriends – a context that was way less common 30 years ago: maybe we can start taking babies away from unfit mothers again now and adopting them out to save their little virginal arses eh?)

  • puss-in-plimsolls

    P. S. It wasn’t that you weren’t attractive enough, Rod. It was that you were in a nowheresville called Middleborough* instead of a happening place like Henley or Brighton.

    *Sorry: Middlesbrough. How could I forget? ;^o

  • Eddie

    Fantastic article! (and a special thanks is due to introducing me to the word ‘spokesmonkeys’ which I shall use oft and regoolar like, from now on).

    Don’t worry about Father Christmas (and thanks for calling him that instead of the Dutch-American corruption ‘Santa Claus’; I expect you call presents presents too, and not ‘gifts’ which are ‘gifted’, according to all TV ads these days.)

    Father Christmas lives at the North Pole (or Lapland, wherever the fuck that is), with lots of little elves and a herd of reindeer.

    I think we can conclude therefore that the sexual appetites of his big red sack can be easily met by sticking his Christmas wish up any passing elf’s Gary Glitter – or perhaps getting Rudolph to rim him, if that’s his thing.

    By Christ, the old perv’s almost a Muslim! Maybe some kind British Asian family will send him a young girl from Bradford that he can forcibly marry and rape for a change – elves must get so annoying after a while…

    Never forget either that Father Christmas is only latterly been appropriated by the Church as a de facto St Nicholas. He is really based on the Norse god who rode through the sky in a sleigh drawn by reindeer, and 25 December (the shortest day often) was the midwinter feast and the start of 12 days of feasting in Nordic cultures too. All mixed up with lots of ancient and modern pre-Christian and other myths and traditions, in a typically syncretic way.

    The only thing about Christmas is the name. Oh yes it is, vicar! (And leave them choirboys alone this year eh? Pay for a rent boy like everyone else you tight-fisted Jeepers-juice-guzzling skinflint!)

    • Eddie

      I’ve just heard this morning that there is a 1970s has-been TV celebrity (somewhere in Surrey, I think) who HASN’T been arrested because of accusations of sex abuse (put forward by those knowing they’re in for £50k free money if he goes down, so to speak).

      Can this possibly be true?

      It all sounds a bit far fetched to me…

      Typical fucking media – they really do make it all up, don’t they? It’s just non-stop tabloid exaggeration and salaciousness with them, it really is.

      Everyone knows that ALL penis-possessing TV personalities (as was) who had sex in the 1970s were rapists and paedos and perverts: it is now in law, I think, or on the internet, or someone has accused them of it.
      So it must be true.

      Merry Crimbo, Father Christmas, you reindeer-rimming tit-tickling old perv! Try not to spill too much of your big red sack this year, eh?

  • Sarah

    It’s funny, but I don’t remember Rod “Investigative Journalist” Liddle having such a problem when the men being taken in for questioning over a conspiracy to cover up historical sexual abuse were Roman Catholic priests.

    And I don’t remember Rod “Investigative Journalist” Liddle having such a problem when the men being taken in for questioning over a conspiracy to cover up historical sexual abuse were Muslim boys/teenagers/fast food outlet owners/taxi drivers/families/teachers, local councillors/police/Home Office/media/’free’ press/investigative journalists.

    And I don’t remember Rod “Investigative Journalist” Liddle having such a problem when the men wanted for questioning over a conspiracy to cover up historical sexual abuse was an Australian cult leader.

    This has all come about since Rod “Investigative Journalist” Liddle found the men wanted for questioning over a conspiracy to cover up historical sexual abuse worked in the media and ‘free’ press.

    After the first article “They love it, the little minxes” one might conclude, Rod “Investigative Journalist” Liddle was just a bit of an insensitive cliche, merely one of the millions who make up juries and who harbour ignorant attitudes about sexual abuse which they have never bothered to investigate.
    After the second article, “This is all going a bit far, sexual abuse is amusing and trivial”, one might conclude, Rod “Investigative Journalist” Liddle was still an insensitive cliche, and protecting his mates at the BBC for benign, if misguided reasons and definitely not in a conspiratorial way.
    After the third article, “This has to stop now, 3 whole people have been arrested, including my mate Max Clifford”, one might conclude Rod “Investigative Journalist” Liddle was still insensitive, ignorant, but was now starting to support the corruption of legal process.
    After the fourth article, “Sexual Abusers don’t exist, like flying reindeer victims make unreliable witnesses and sexual abuse doesn’t really hurt people and they’re women with a political agenda, apart from the male ones who are encouraged by women with a political agenda”, a cynic might start to wonder whether Rod “Investigative Journalist” Liddle is indeed doing a Max Clifford and getting his defence in early.

    • Eddie

      And I don’t remember Sarah ‘All Men Are Paedos’ Psycho ever saying anything remotely sane either.

      Lithium is your fwend… And if you take a whole packet with lots of booze you can be a feminist wole-mod-elle too…
      Try it, eh? There’s a good little misandrist nutjob.

    • mikewaller

      Ignore the poltroon below, this is bang on the money. Consistency, rather than being “the hob-goblin of small minds”, is the bete noir of journalists. They usually start with what they think will please their audience and tailor the argument to suit.

    • rod liddle

      I’m afraid, you thick bint, you are very wrong. I commissioned a lot of stuff investigating the “hysteria” over alleged clerical abuse of kids when I was at the BBC. And it’s not three people, and Clifford most certainly isn’;t a friend. You are a dluded and half-witted absolutist.

  • Liz

    To paraphrase David Hume:
    “Which is more likely: that there is an organised feminist conspiracy throughout British government and its legal profession, or that an old man should tell a lie?”

  • GaryEssex

    Not sure Stuart Hall was retired. I’m pretty sure his fantastic football reports on Man City and the like were still be aired on 5 Live – that’s until he had his collar felt by the Old Bill. And, perhaps understandably given the organisation’s alleged involvement in the paedo scandal, the BBC seem to have dropped him like a hot spud, so I guess he is retired.

    • Eddie

      Sturat Hall is lucky he’s alive to defend himself against what are almost certainly exagerrated reports of socalled ‘abuse’ from compo-craving gold diggers. If he were dead he would have been branded a pervert, paedo, rapist, (racist, papist?) monster! Like poor Mr Smith and all the other innocent men whose corpses are being ripped apart by the screeching self-righteous blob of a mob in this politically-inspired witch hunt (against all men).

      I believe in rational approach. Therefore, we need to arrest all the people – BBC staff, canteen staff, nurses, secretaries – who were aware that ‘abuse’ was happening but who did nothing: that is aiding and abetting a crime. If you know a murder will happen but do nothing, you can be charged with murder. I look forward to these accessories to any crimes being dragged weeping to court – in the interested of equality and justice of course.

      • roger

        How can a 40 year old alleged offence be prosecuted? evidence,witnesses, forensics? Or are we allowing single statement convictions?
        Justice faces both was, or does in a lawful society.

        We seem to have everlasting police cautions and endless police bail and ‘absolute’ offences so perhaps English justice is in big trouble.

        • Eddie

          Yes, and we have to accept that money IS a motivation here: get a successful case and you get £50k. What may well happen is that these men will accept a caution – that does NOT men they accept guilt or admit the offences either, but that a caution is easier than a trial!
          I strongly suspect the police are now ‘trawling’ – visiting possible accusers and suggesting that if they accuse so-and-so they’ll get £50k: they’ve done that before and men who have worked in care homes have been wrongfully imprisoned, just on the witness statements of unreliable witnesses.
          In the next couple of years, this scandal will break – and the men now branded paedos will be identified as victims – just like that poor sod teacher who the papers called a murderer and who turned out to be 100% innocent and unconnected with his tenant’s death.

          Wouldn’t surprise me if some of these men were driven to suicide by the screaming harriden mob – and what they are going through is way worse than the teeny-weeny stress than self-lynching Indian nurse had to put up with (she must’ve been very weak and fragile anyway).

          What I always try and get through to members of the screeching pitch-form wielding mob hunting their imagined witches, is this: ‘what if it were YOUR father/son/brother/husband accused of doing something like this – what if it were him assumed to be guilty as accused with NO real evidence’.
          Of coursem anyone prepared to be rational is predicably accused of being a paedo or a paedo-lover with cries of ‘what have you got to hide’ from the sort of scummy people that should in a better world have been abortions.

          Easy solution: we need FULL anonymity for all those accused of child abuse or rape now. This is thankfully now what is going to happen in schools – where some ‘innocent’ (HA!) kids and their scumbag parents use accusations of abuse as a weapon of revenge.

          Those who falsely accuse others of rape or child abuse should be given mandatory prison sentences too – 5 years minimum.

          All this crying wolf and witch-huntery is actually making it more difficult to identify and stop the REAL abusers of children – mpst of whom are family members in the home.

  • Michael Harris

    Saville carried out his atrocities for years and years. In all that time nobody at the BBC sought to expose him. Rod Liddle worked for the BBC for a number of years-did he know? The point of the ‘witch hunt’ is to send a message that those in authority who cover up for such people will eventually be exposed. During all these years Esther Rantzen ran ‘Child watch’-did she know? It certainly shows up the hypocrisy of certain people. Of course, Liddle may think it not worth pursuing after all this time but most people do. The reason is that we are punishing their actions. ‘Punishment’ is an unacceptable aim apparently. Well most people don’t agree.

  • John Steadman

    I recall hearing, some weeks ago, on the radio, while the Saville revelations were a daily occurrence, that one BBC employee had stated that there had been an occasion when she had been briefly fondled by a well-known fellow employee and broadcaster.

    Sounds pretty damning – obviously the buggar was deserving of a good cum-uppence and a few years in clink, or perhaps a castration, as a reward for this behavioiur. Totally….’unacceptable’ ! Certainly that was the impression the listening audience was left with at the end of the piece.
    But what this lady didn’t tell us (at least on this occasion) was this:
    1) How long had she worked in the company of this monster?
    2) What sort of workplace relationship had she had with him? Had there been any history of sexual banter, the sort of thing that takes place daily in the work place a thousand times every day, and to which both parties are in consent (even in these times of close PC awareness/scrutiny). Had she ever shared with said villain a joke based on sexual innuendo? Never? Not once?
    3) If she had such experience, had she ever made it clear at any time that the boundary had been reached, and that things must go no further? Or had she, at that time (and perhaps perfectly understandably) just gone with the “mood”and given the impression that a bit of coarse humour, or even overt flirting, was not something which she found objectional?
    4)If the alleged assault – for such was it considered to be, as she presented it – came totally without context – out of the blue, as it were, did she report the incident to her line manager, and, if she did, what was his/her response? Was she satisfied with this response? Or did she do nothing, nothing at all?
    5) And if she did nothing, then why had she decided to do something now? After so many years, why was she able to act now, when clearly she had been so burdened for so long? If justice was on her side now, why would it not be on her side then? If her behaviour or actions – or non-actions – were determined and hence explicable by the prevailing atmosphere at time, why can the actions of her alleged assailant not be similarly understood? That is, if the prevailing “culture” (ugh) explains her inaction – her behaviour (Oh,you just couldn’t say anything in those days!) – then why is it so unacceptable as an explanation for his?
    I think that before we condemn all these geriatric media monsters, as so many seem so willing to do (it’s quite the fashion, in some circles, surely?) as a broad response to recent events, we really ought to take the bother to ask some searching questions of their accusers (which one assumes the courts must do) and if such thinking (allowing for trade mark ironic exagerration and humour – always appreciated by me anyhow) – is at least a part of what our host Mr Liddle is saying, then I’m with him. And as things stand at the moment it smacks of band-wagon witch-hunting to me.

    • Eddie


      And what about all the young drunken women who think it’s their right these days to be leery and physically assault young men eh? Ask any barman what he has to put up with from these shameless sluts. Why aren’t they arrested? They grab men’s arses and genitals ‘for a laugh’ yet accuse men who have ‘fondled’ their colleagues (who didn’t seem to mind at the time) back in the 70s of being rapists in waiting!

      Some have commentated on the leery, coarse, sexual jeering that women call out fo male actors in theatres and musicals – Mark Lawson and others have written about the feminist double standard here: any man who did the same for a woman on stage would be called a pervert and a dinosaur and a sexist and an ‘abuser’ blah blah blah.

      It’s one rule for men and one rule for women – as promoted by professional feminists who claim they want equality when in fact they only want ‘equality’ when it means men suffering inequality which favours women! Well that’s a better joke than you’ll find in any Christmas cracker, innit!

      I think a lot of people need to take an anti-hypocrisy pill for Christmas.

  • jasonjapanwhite

    Stop Press: Santa arrested.
    Well, he does fit the profile. Late age, bearded deviant with Savile fashion sense, sneaking into to kids’ bedrooms in the middle of the night, emptying his sack. Handing out presents, propensity for sitting kids on his lap…
    Slammer time beckons.

  • roger

    We often forget that St. Nicholas has a sidekick called Black Peter (‘crampus’ in the Balkans) who sorts out the bad kids, bring it on.

    • Eddie

      Yes – and there are campaigns to end this blacking up ‘WAYCISM’ from the usual swarthy whingers.

      Black faces too in many British traditions. But black Peter – common in Holland, Belgium, and I think Spain – is the best! Maybe they’ve classified him as ‘honourary Afro-Carribean’ to get round the pc regulations! (no-one seems to bother about blacks painting their faces white though…)

  • Alex

    Am I alone in thinking Rod really ought to be PM?