Drawing a line

Eddie Shah's plea of foul sounds hollow, just because he was caught doing what a lot of others were doing at the time does not absolve him for being responsible for his own action. He is right of course there is a distinction to be made between the actual act of violating another person against their wishes and a technical definition of a act against a minor.

An adult of course has an overiding duty and a responsibility to protect the innocence of youth, to understand their immaturity, their gush of unchannelled surging hormone and rising desires with their lack of perception of the realities against the fantasises in their so vivid minds. That is why we have the technical definition of rape with a minor, consummated or not, to protect our not yet adult and mature young. Fine.


If an innocent and naive pubescent youth decides to strip off their clothes and gyrate infront of a adult male to draw their attention to them and that that adult male decides to consumate their sexual arousal, it is not an unexpected consequence. Maybe the youth had no comprehension of what consequences might follow but they had put themselves in a very vulnerable and highly sexually charged position, not the best spot for cool dispassionate reflection. Still not right. The adult being the adult should control their desires even when provoked by a 'willing' minor clearly lacking in modesty or inhibition. Not right , not defensible but understandable perhaps in the circumstances.


What we, our society, has to ask are the harder questions. Why is a minor so free of all restaint or guardianship as to be alone with a unknown adult, so free as to be able to shed their clothes? How come our minors consumption of sexually provocative images and behaviours are so common place that they think it right or natural for them too to act that way? Why do our youth reject the counsel of older and closer family members and instead become fixated with illusions of celebrity razzmatazz. Why are our teens so resentful of authority and so willing to flout any self-control, getting so blinded out of their minds as to be incapable of making any judgement of their exposure to risk. We have a youth mentoring problem. This cult of the youth, this rapacious selling to the youth market, this capitulation to a youth driven agenda has supplanted the norms of restraint and caution. 

So clearly Eddie Shah was wrong to take advantage of a minor, offering what a minor should never ever have been in a position to offer, but we too are to blame for allowing our minor's to get so beyond our reach that they feel no constraints on their actions. Our duty is to protect them in a safe enough environment until they have matured enough to make their own mistakes when they have some skills in realising the consequences. We, not just Eddie Shah, have failed them all.

Freedom of the Press

It is so childish when the rich and the famous complain about the intrusion of the press and the need to restrain their freedom to poke and delve. On the one hand these self same people are more than happy to expose their private life to the glare of publicity and the wider public attention when they have a product they choose to flaunt. Then, having incited the general public's appetite in their doings, cry foul when the public with their whipped up interest, want even more gossip about their private doings, when they have decided they no longer want to be a public and now choose to live off camera.

There is one fundamental truth behind all this, a plain, dull, uneventful life does not generate any news worthy of any interest. Only those who claim privilege, advantage and special treatment find themselves compromised by their inflated sense of importance. As such prime candidates for debunking and taking down a notch. The last thing we need is a shackled press with restrictions on when, where and how they can seek out the truth. The famous and rich are powerful with access to to all manner of means to bar, ban or conceal uncomfortable truths. It would also be exceedingly convenient for the government if they too could call on the same restrictions to prevent the airing of news that might be embarassing to them. A free press is our only hope of lifting that armoured curtain and exposing the flagrant abusers. So an absolute no to legal statutes which restrict the press and favour concealment by the rich and famous.

Which is not to endorse an unrestained press free to rampage over all sensitivities, able to traumatise at will people  already going through tragic circumstances. There can be no justification in the hounding survivors of some dreadful tragedy, just to get a column inch of newspaper or a photo opportunity. What it comes down to is, if you find the means of getting a 'story' distasteful, lacks respect and consideration for people who rightly deserve our heart felt smypathy, then cancel your subscription, standing order or diret debit and refuse to buy copy from those who show a consistent disgrade for decent standards. We get the press we deserve and that we support by continuing to buy their shameful exploitations. 

As a last resort of course the rich and the famous can take the press to court if they publish false information or invade their privacy. Then twelve respectable men, or their surrogates, will decide on the merits of the case and hopefully award punitive damages if found to be true. This is the best route to curb press excesses. Granted not a route for the common person but where the rich can take the strain the rest can follow.


Except of course it is not a level playingfield as it has been heavily scewed by the press Barons. The papers are now run by amoral proprietors, formerly Maxwell and now Murdock, where circulation, at any price, is the mantra. Circulation equates to increased share standing. The Papers are now just a route to ever greater gilt edge status leading to ever more powerful and gargantuan media conglomerates. What price truth, compassion, integrity or even principles when the proprietor insists on circulation at any price? Which underling is able to stand ground and gainsay? See also Living the Make Believe for getting people back incharge of running companies and restoring proper social values. Without this, the usual corporate greed of profit first results in a disregard for the normal human decencies being the norm and being ingrained in the corporate psyche. Just remember that if you do not like that which is being done with your complicit approval then say so loud and clear. Refute your association with it and tell the world.