Politicians, Policemen and Pornography

Politicians, Policemen and Pornography

Perhaps we should not feel surprised when we discover that a politician’s computer has been used to view pornography. Possibly we could feel disappointed but hardly surprised. It is unreasonable to expect that politicians are free of the vices to which the rest of us are prey. I accept that, if a politician has spent a career promoting chastity and moral virtue, then the discovery of a habit of viewing pornography may allow us genuine surprise at the discovery of their hypocrisy and deceit. But the simple fact that politicians may be lazy, or obese, or smokers, like the rest of us should really upset no-one; one would have to be very naïve to believe that they are very much superior to the rest of us. Like the rest of us they will be on tenterhooks when their browsing history is being reviewed by the computer repairman, their boss, or the police.

In the UK there are the beginnings of a scandal as retired policemen, Neil Lewis and Bob Quick, revealed that they had seen pornographic images on the cabinet minister Damian Green’s computer during an investigation into a cabinet leak in 2008. There is no reason to believe that any legal action was intended regarding these images they were simply discovered in the process of seeking evidence about the cabinet leak. These images, if they were present, were an unrelated find, so why have they been brought to the fore now ?

It is clear that there is a history between Bob Quick and Damian Green. Bob Quick had to issue a public apology, and resign,  8 years ago after he had made unfounded accusations of impropriety about Damian Green. There is a danger that this recent revelation may simply be the an old battle being fought on new fields. But there is a further, more worrisome, aspect of this.

When police work with us to prosecute crime we cooperate as we wish the guilty to be found and the truth established. We give over aspects of our privacy to enable this. If I was mugged while out walking one evening and the police, during their investigations, found I was not with my wife, it would not be reasonable for them to disclose this aspect and jeopardise my marriage. If they coincidentally find a crime, then so be it, but my private life is my own and this should be respected. If this respect is not given then I might be rather reluctant to contact the police if the victim of a crime for fear that I might be forced to reveal details of my life I wish to keep secret.

When I worked as a doctor I routinely asked patients about many aspects of their life, experiences, habits and opinions. This helped me form a diagnosis and to formulate a plan of treatment with them. However, I was bound by a contract of secrecy, and an professional oath, never to divulge this information. This information was only given to aid the treatment of the patient. If patients felt that they could not trust me to keep their privacy then fear and shame would certainly deter many people from seeking help.  This contract is rightly  inflexible and persist after my retirement to until my death.

Police are in a privileged position in our society, they can on occasion gain access to our private lives but they only gain this access with the contract that they can not disclose details found which are not related to a crime. If we can not trust this then we will be unable to work cooperatively with the police. If we fear that they may use information they collect for their own ends and advantage (such as settling political scores) then we can not be expected to share information with them.

Damian Green obviously has his problems at the moment as he is being investigated for “inappropriate behaviour towards a female activist” but this should be dealt with appropriately and not taken as a opportunity to refight old battles. He may well have to ‘fall on his sword’ for these present accusations, but more importantly the policemen who have breached the trust given to them, and broken their contract of privacy with us, should be investigated and if found guilty punished. The police can not see themselves as the law, nor as being above it, they are simply its agents.

Advertisements

Liar (ITV). Keeping the plebs ‘on story’.

Liar (ITV). Keeping the plebs ‘on story’.

 

There was never any tension in this drama. We knew from the outset that it would be, like all the others, a play in which the woman was the victim telling the truth and the man was the villain. I mean, could you imagine the playwright writing that the woman had told lies ? Think about it. Miscarriages of justice are staple fare for film and television drama; the innocent accused of murder, the unfortunate either deliberately or by coincidence accused of fraud or deception.  Dramas of good people trying to clear their name and reveal the truth are mainstream and common. However, though they will consider many crimes (murder, arson, theft, assault, causing catastrophic calamities) they never involve accusations of rape. That would be going ‘off message‘ and suggest that, however rarely, it is possible that the victim is not the woman but the man having been falsely accused.

This drama never deviated from the standard message. Like all clunky propaganda it beat us about the head with the party line. Listen, it said, it doesn’t matter if she has made unfounded accusations in the past, it doesn’t matter if the evidence doesn’t match her story, it doesn’t matter if she has been psychotic and held erroneous beliefs before, it doesn’t matter how you might construe her behaviour that evening – it’s simple stupid – she says she’s the victim so she is the victim.  Victims never lie.

And, just to be certain (in case you had any doubts) it doesn’t matter how handsome and successful he is , how believable his story might be, it doesn’t matter that he is a caring and kind doctor, it doesn’t matter that he is a single parent bringing his son up alone after being widowed, it doesn’t matter what he says – he is the man and all men are rapists. He is the one lying.

This was not drama. This was not an attempt to show something that is usually hidden from our view, this steadfastly ploughed the accepted furrow. This was not an attempt to subvert harmful stereotypes or caricatures, this play had the standard new-age tropes a plenty. This did not try and foster sympathy for a currently abused or disadvantaged group. It did none of these laudable dramatic aims. This was simply a play to make sure the plebs “get with the programme“. It was preparation for the jury room. If you find yourself on the jury remember there is no need to weigh up the evidence, no need to consider the testimonies, no need to seek the truth. Because, we already know the truth, just stay strong and remember “the victim never lies”.

I have not seen, and may never see, the final episode but I’d wager it will be the last stage in the public education. It will be an episode which shows how terribly wrong things go when the victim is not instantly believed. If the episodes so far have not made it clear enough this is just the warning of the harm you can do when you step out of line.

 

Propaganda like this is so crude in its socialism-vs-capitalism-propaganda-poster-1crafting that it resembles the Soviet posters with capitalist monsters (looking like the fat controller from Thomas the Tank Engine) debasing heroic proletarians, or the Nazi equivalents with hook-nosed Jews preying on the fair Aryans. As they become more  crass they become more transparent, Hopefully people will see through them and they will loose some of their effect. Hopefully, because this is no way to improve society for women and men. Indeed, this probably worsens matters by continuing to attempt to polarise the argument when it is clearly the case that the truth is equally important to women and men.

jew0295e59a781Although the writers, Harry and Jack Williams, may deserve  (for crimes against drama) the unjust and distrustful culture they are helping to create the rest of us don’t – but we may be obliged to share it. A future where prejudice reigns is unlikely to be a better one for our sons or our daughters.

Google’s Shame

Google’s Shame

The story of the “Google Manifesto” continues and becomes more worrisome. For those who do not know what this is about it refers to a document written by one of Google’s engineers, in which he expressed his views on gender differences, and for which he was sacked.

The full text of his document is here. I give this link as often this document is commented upon by people who have not read it. They describe it as a “rant”, a “screed”, a “diatribe” or a Men’s Rights Manifesto. While there have been rants about the document and many diatribes about the author (often by women keen to show that they do not conform to any stereotype by using aggressive and hostile language) the document itself is not one of these.

It is an article considering the reasons that gender disparities exist and suggesting that there may be evidence that, at least in part, these differences have biological roots. It further suggests that Google, as an organization, has become to wedded to one world view as to be blind to the possibility of any other divergent views.

Considering first the gender differences; whether he is right or wrong about the relative importance of nature versus nurture in the differences between the sexes, or races, or individuals, he is clearly not wrong that this plays a part. (Anecdote alert n=2) I have recently watched my grandchildren, a boy and a girl, raised by modern forward thinking parents who eschew gender stereotypes, and it was clear that despite their rearing their biology still determines aspects of their behaviour.

The author of the Google Document felt that nature is more important than is generally credited but he does not suggest that individuals are bound by their genes. Further he is clear that these effects affect groups and averages and does not imply that no individuals can outperform others in in

It really would only be either a fool or an ideologue who felt that nature played no part whatsoever. Unfortunately is seems a lot of the latter hold positions of influence inside Google. But it really doesn’t matter whether he is right or wrong on this matter, as long as he is neither abusive or threatening, he should be allowed to express his views. How else can he recognise any errors he may have, how otherwise can others learn what he thinks.

But his views are seen as a heresy – too dangerous to be allowed to be heard for fear that they might damage the faith. Just as the Church of old used to snuff out any discordant views (and often the discordant person at the same time) the clerisy of present day thinking about diversity will not tolerate views that are out of step.

This was the second theme of his paper; that Google was intolerant of divergent opinions. Unfortunately he has proven his thesis is a very sad manner, after the involvement of the Head of Diversity, he was sacked because he “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender”. He had written that he worked in an “ideological echo chamber” and having “shaming culture and the possibility of being fired”. There could not be more proof of this than his own fate. It truly is Orwellian and would not be at all out of place in “1984” to read of the Diversity Officer arranging the firing of the employee for his divergent views.

I am very disappointed in Google. I had often though their “Don’t be Evil” tag meant something but clearly not. I had allied myself with their services for this reason, but it seems it is time now to distance myself.  I don’t want to use a search engine that thinks there is only one truth that can be heard. I do not wish to share my data with an organisation that feels it can decide what is appropriate to be in someone’s mind. So the search is on to find ways to reduce the revenue I generate for them. I’m away to rediscover Edge and DuckDuckGo.