Partying with Laurence Fox

Kevin Keeghan got into trouble recently, for admitting that he didn’t like women commentating on men’s football; he explained why, and his reasons were valid, if debatable. For that he was denounced as sexist or misogynistic or some such. Well guess what. With very few exceptions, e.g. Sue Barker, I don’t like women commentating on most sports, even ladies’ sports. They’re shrill, tense, intense and false. I know that other girlies share this view. Kev has a point. Let him say what he thinks. Hang the thought-police, not Kev.

Laurence Fox said on GBN that he wouldn’t want to shag a certain woman journalist. Dreadful thing to say. Simply awful. And for that he was pilloried. But this woman journalist – not a very eloquent one – had dismissed concerns of male mental health as an attack on women. Dreadful thing to say. Simply awful. And for that she should be pilloried. But she played the victim card, having dismissed the idea of men being victims, and her crass, insensitive, callous words are overlooked.

While Foxy was being sacked for his comments (she should be sacked for being a lousy journalist), he was also being wrongfully arrested on trumped up charges over ULEZ cameras. He had suggested they be vandalised. In the meantime, eco-nuts do vandalise and cause mayhem to thousands and thousands and are given tea and biscuits by Plod and the Courts. One law for the right-of-centre, another for the lefty loons. Foxy was a popular actor before he was wrongly accused of racism on Question Time, and his marriage to a third-rate actress (or was she a fourth-rate singer) ended messily. Some say he never really bounced back.

Putting all those things together, I think Foxy’s mental health is suffering, which probably pushed him across the red line when he was responding to those crass comments on male mental health. Having mental health issues makes him – per the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 – a vulnerable adult, which means GBN had a statutory duty of care to protect him and not to make his situation worse. I hope he sues the pants off them. I’m not defending what he said at all; I’m defending his right to be considered per the Safeguarding legislation. But he’s a white, middle-class, right-of-centre British male, probably the worst possible combination when it comes to being treated fairly. Note that the relevant legislation is actually quite fair but is wilfully misapplied by those who believe they are above the law and are morally superior because they hold ‘fashionable’ views. Yeah well, we all know what happened to bustles – they became firstly unfashionable and then extinct. I can’t wait.

What kicked off this blog was the courses I’ve just taken in safeguarding, equalities and diversity, PREVENT (anti-radicalisation) and GDPR/data security. The latter isn’t relevant here. The first, safeguarding, was very useful and I learned a lot, like adult males with mental health issues should be safeguarded. The equalities and diversity course was a hoot. The test at the end was all multiple choice. I decided which boxes I really wanted to tick, then ticked the others instead and scored 93%. PREVENT was brilliant. According to the law, you do not have the right not to be offended, and just because you are offended doesn’t mean that the person who offended you is an extremist or that you are entitled to any kind of recourse. Thank you and good night.

Coincidentally, I received two comments on a recent blog. One person said they were offended. One person said they didn’t agree with me but they weren’t offended. Which proves the point that you can’t have the right not to be offended written into legislation, because different people are offended by different things and some are more easily offended than others. Therefore, the surest way to legislate against being offended is to cut everyone’s tongues out and chop off their typing fingers. Far fairer and more democratic for us free-thinkers to stand up to the bullying moralists, speak your mind, and for the snowflakes to get a grip. If we don’t pander to them, they’ll have nowhere to go except to man-up, or have a gin and a bitch with a good friend.

Bottom line, I’d rather party with a thousand Laurence Fox’s than one of his cancellers, because with Foxy you know where you stand, even if you don’t like him. With his cancellers, you know they’re always moralising and judging. And one day, they’ll turn on you.

Here endeth the 666^th lesson, and the voice of experience.