Rod Liddle

Who would have thought that about Ted Heath? Well…

8 August 2015

9:00 AM

8 August 2015

9:00 AM

In another blow for freedom and the protection of the vulnerable, Conservative MP Mark Spencer has suggested that anti-terror legislation should be used to punish teachers who hold ‘old-fashioned’ views about homosexuality and perhaps divest themselves of these views to their pupils. I assume this could mean simply reading out bits of the Bible — that pungent little verse in Leviticus, perhaps, with its reference to ‘detestable acts’. Or maybe he would be OK reading out bits from Leviticus if he then made it clear that the Levite priests, and God Himself, were totally wrong on this issue and that homosexuality is absolutely lovely.

But never mind the Levites. These ‘old-fashioned’ views would include doubting the legitimacy of gay marriage and might incur an ‘Extremism Disruption Order’, according to the Nottinghamshire MP whose incandescent brilliance first came to light when he won the coveted ‘2011 Brake Road Safety Parliamentarian of the Year Award’.

So this is where we are. To be caught in the possession of one or two doubts about gay marriage is enough to label one an extremist — and (cue Carlos Santana playing ‘Samba Pa Ti’) not just any old extremist, but a Mark Spencer MP extremist. I think there is a difference between having doubts, rooted in the Christian faith, about gay marriage and pushing homosexuals to their deaths off tall buildings — but to Mark, they’re apparently one and the same thing. These days even the mildest dissenting view — even a mildly dissenting view held by the majority or a large minority of the population — is extremism. This is the new absolutism at work.

Long before Mr Spencer impinged himself upon the public consciousness, I think we all knew that Ted Heath was a poof. I use the term that would have been commonly applied during his spectacularly awful period in the highest of offices, by the way. The word ‘gay’ had not, by February 1974, completed its transformation in the British consciousness — it was in a sort of halfway house by then, sort of like those transgendered folk who have had their breasts stapled on but have not yet got around to slicing off their old fellas. ‘Poof’ or ‘queer’ were the descriptions du jour, along with more puzzling pejoratives relating to nine-bob notes and butcher’s hooks.


I suppose there would have been some naive and sheltered souls who thought that Prime Minister Heath’s organ-playing was a sad and solitary pursuit, rather than a thoroughly collegiate experience (ladies not invited). And probably many more besides who, out of expediency, just did not give it a moment’s thought. But his gender preference was pretty clear, really. It was all there in the coded references of that less worldly time — ‘confirmed bachelor’, which always meant ‘poof’. That Sir Edward’s sexual preferences needed to be shrouded in secrecy is, I suppose, an indictment of those times. If he had been ‘out’ when he turned up for his first selection meeting in Bexley, in 1949, I think it is fair to say that he would not have got the nomination. He would have been booted out with precisely the same rapidity as if today a candidate of any of the four main parties — Con, Lab, Lib Dem, Pict — dared to proclaim themselves homophobic.

The laws of the land change; I am lucky enough to have enjoyed my youth during that brief, liberal interregnum where neither homosexuality nor homophobia were illegal. Do what you want, think what you want — it did not last terribly long, that concept.

But a pederast? Well — frankly, yep, maybe. I have to say that the allegations against Sir Edward didn’t shock me to my boots and I don’t suppose they shocked you either. The consequence of a certain prejudice, I would guess, even if it is the sort of prejudice we school ourselves to expunge. They are very serious allegations against Heath: two counts of child abuse, with several police forces investigating. But of course nothing has been proved. Nothing has been proved in the case of the former Home Secretary and European Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, either, but if you had asked me to name one politician from the last 40 years who might have indulged in a bit of kiddie-fiddling, ‘Sir Leon Brittan’ would have been my immediate and jubilant response. Oh, apart from maybe the utterly loathsome Cyril Smith. Sir Peter Morrison, meanwhile, never really featured on my radar: he is the exception which proves the rule.

They are all dead, these people. So you can argue it one of two ways: it is easier to make accusations against them because they cannot respond or they are now comfort-ably beyond the reach of the law, having hitherto been protected by the establishment. I would tend to the latter argument.

I knew all along, then! About Ted and Leon and Cyril — and Jimmy, for that matter. This is not entirely hindsight, although I daresay hindsight might have intruded of late. Nor do I really mean that I ‘knew’ — that I knew properly or had anything other than, hell, a mistrust of those people and a visceral misgiving. A while back my colleague Hugo Rifkind wrote a very good and typically thoughtful piece for the Times which suggested that ‘Eeeeuw!’ was not sufficient as a response to the gay marriage debate — that as an argument against it did not quite win the day, or indeed come anywhere close. He was right then, I think.

But there is nonetheless a case for ‘Eeeeuw’, isn’t there? Tell me that when you looked at Jimmy Savile, Sir Ted, or Rolf Harris, or Sir Leon Brittan, you didn’t inwardly shudder and think: ‘Eeeeuw!’ Back in the day, when they had tenure, when they were on the TV all the time, pontificating or grandstanding — was there not something a little creepy, sexually, about them? We are taught, these days, to discount our immediate reactions to another person as being superficial and based upon a whole bunch of signifiers — prejudice, in other words. But those instinctive responses are often right, are they not?

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Rik

    Morning Rod,Mark Spencer does us an enormous favour,he highlights how the new powers and laws our “masters” are calling for will never be used at the targets they claim exactly as OFSTED rather than closing Islamist terror academies have closed rural Christian schools.We already have ample laws and powers in place we simply don’t have the will to use them.
    As for Heath,its just deflection,throw yet another dead,old,iron hoof to the wolves to try and draw attention from the live monsters in parliament that hide and cower under layers of privilege and protection.ABC in Australia has broadcast the truth hence Heath.

    • peter parfitt-king

      Sir Edward, Leon Brittan, Cyril Smith: all apparently convicted post death on no evidence, as Charles Moore bangs on yet again – the public have a duty of care to alleged victims; now Mr Moore’s tack seems to be that the Establishment are exempt from posthumous enquiry, but only the Establishment – this is dishonest and I wonder not why he is upset, and more so because Mrs May wishes to bring these various investigations under one roof…

      A recent leader argued that the question should be : why were allegations not made at the time. Anybody with even a smidgeon of understanding would know that when abuse is perpetrated against children, especially, there is fear because predators often frighten them by saying, “it is our secret” or “I am X, nobody will believe you”.

      Janner’s dementia is germane only as to whether he can face trial ie fit to plead; it does not mean that there is a prima facie case against him.
      be praised
      Rod Liddle has, as usual, hit the nail on its head, and should be praised: Mr Moore’s perpetual pomposity and lack of understanding, by contrast, should face approbation.

      Peter Parfitt-King

  • WFB56

    Well done for naming and ridiculing the fool Mark Spencer. Also, for the best line of the week, “This is the new absolutism at work.”

    • The Bogle

      The new absolutism at work – does it remind you of “1984”?

  • post_x_it

    I sense a conspiracy.
    Heath considered getting married to Moura Lympany.
    He ended up with Myra Ling-Ling (in what capacity is not quite clear).
    The names are too similar to be a coincidence.

  • Rod – you’re right, we’re being encouraged to discount our gut feelings and natural instinct, which are an integral part of the human experience, in favour of a purely cerebral, rational response. But that’s like asking a human being to cut themselves in half with Occam’s Razor. Nasty!

  • right1_left1

    I’m with albert Steptoe:
    Practical homosexualty lessons should be part of the national curriculum.

    He didnt express it exactly like that but thats what he meant and may even have forseen.

  • BFS

    I’m normally a fan of Rod’s and, even now, despite this load of hackneyed old shite, I can’t really dislike him. How does he do it?

    To the point though, this is a really lazily derogatory piece. Boiled down to an essentialist, paranoid, and cruel apologia of a not-much-missed point of view that if you’re not heterosexual you might as well be a kiddie-fiddler. Fear puffed up as freedom of thought.

    It’s gutter stuff, and not well argued either. Sir Edward might have been gay and he might have been a peado… but Rod (or anyone else) imagining or “feeling” there to be a causality doesn’t make it more or less possible, it just exposes the louty and lazy thinking of a bully.

    I actually find those “instinctive responses” often not to be fair-minded. Knee-jerk, yes. So — frankly, no, not really. Sir Edward (or in fact anybody) is not possibly the worst thing I am able to suspect him of being…at several removes…on a bigoted day…with a following wind. And anyway, it’s a pretty shitty and exhausting way to live – always suspecting (expecting?) the worst…

  • Ngaire Wadman

    That gut feeling that non-heterosexual relationships and practices are just WRONG… I tend to trust my gut over the fashionable spoutings of liberal intellectuals and the Professionally Outrageous. I’ve worked with camp gay males, no problems – they’re great company and rather nicer colleagues for a woman than most fully hormoned men – but my gut feeling has always been that they are, somehow, Not Quite Right. Same goes for lesbians, who give me the heebie-jeebies.
    Why does this gut feeling exist? Is it learned, is it innate, and above all – is it CORRECT? And if it is, in the sweet bye-and-bye when free speech and free thought are again permitted, how will we return to respecting it?

    • Standish79

      Thanks for sharing your insecurities with us.

    • Neil Saunders

      How times change! Traditional morality has been stood on its head in the space of less than two generations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxOXoi2olB8

    • hippiepooter

      Is it learned? I don’t think so. When we first heard of homosexuality at school it was so utterly revolting it was hilarious. Noone taught us to feel this way. It was innate. I have no doubt that many homosexuals are afflicted from birth with their aberrational desires, but it is no coincidence that a vastly disproportionate number of homosexuals and lesbians suffered from childhood sex abuse. For many, their sexuality is a disorientation. There are half as many self-identifying lesbians as there are homosexuals, and for a good number their disorientation stems from abuse by men in their childhood.

      Oh what a Brave New World we are creating when natural abhorrence is being criminalised.

      • alfredo

        Is yours a voice from the tomb? Were people still wearing buttoned boots when you were around? But in one thing you are very much up to date- in substituting ‘feelings’ for reason.

        • Ngaire Wadman

          Ah, the ever-so-fashionable response to an honestly expressed opinion that happens to be contrary to current Politically Correct teachings. Mock and squash.

          • alfredo

            I abhor politically correct teachings. You are not expressing an opinion; you are expressing a taste. Your attitude to your fellow human beings should be based on something more rational than that.

          • hippiepooter

            Thank you for your ‘non-politically correct’ thought policing. I’m sure I must have something dreadfully wrong with me not to spot any difference with PC thought policing.

          • Nonsense.

      • Steve Moxon

        Lesbians typically hate men, and they are not ‘abhorred’ as are male homosexuals (male homosexuals are picked on for being male and ‘different’ in the extreme; not because they are homosexual per se). They are not as they are through mistreatment by men. I’m not aware of any evidence that links homosexuality in either sex with any childhood mistreatment; sex abuse or otherwise.
        Male homosexuality is very clearly ‘innate’, and excluding female ‘bisexuality’ in the much more ‘fluid’ sexuality of women, female homosexuality proper is likely also to be ‘innate’.

        • hippiepooter

          Google and ye shall find.

          • Steve Moxon

            Not from any scientific source I won’t, judging by when I’ve looked into this before.
            Do you have science citations?

          • hippiepooter

            You must have a PC filter on your Google.

            Women turning to lesbianism after childhood heterosexual abuse is police experience from a documentary.

          • Steve Moxon

            Supposed lesbianism often is merely stretched sexuality, a degree of which is usual for women — anything even vaguely sexual produces implicit sexual arousal in women; even films of lowly mammals copulating. Exclusive — actual — homosexuality is another matter. And that goes even more so for males.

    • Steve Larson

      It is learnt, for most of known human existence it was not that big a deal and it is not a big deal in the animal kingdom either, not that they could know either way.

    • I suspect it is not correct any more often than it is incorrect. The disgust we feel at certain conditions such as extreme ugliness seems to have evolved as an evolutionary protection, but it has no force in determining the character of an individual. Merrick the so called Elephant Man may well have made people shudder, but he was an innocent human being, in no way responsible for his extreme ugliness. Gut feeling may be all well and good when it helps one select a mate, but I doubt that it is a great way to decide about the character of an individual. If that were true, con-men would have a much harder time than they do.

  • Michael Candlin-Pass

    What a terribly lazy and intellectually barren piece for the Spectator.

    Rod allows his obvious homophobia to get in the way of mere facts and leaps bravely to his desired conclusion.

    On Mr Heath, the two main complaints are from:

    (A) a former teenage rentboy, now 65, who was interviewed earlier this year by the Met who decided to proceed no further. Given the climate post-Saville, it beggars belief that the Met would have dismissed these supposed complaints if they had a shred of credibility.

    and (B) the Filipino Madam from Salisbury whose lawyers have now stated (paraphrased) that she had never met Ted Heath and had nothing to do with him.

    Since the remaining complaint appears to come solely from a retired Police Officer, a more illuminating line of enquiry might be to wonder at the motivation of such complaint. Especially following the Plebgate saga.

    Admittedly out of context, I agree with another commenter that the article is a “load of hackneyed old shite”! As for those who praise the concept of a “gut feeling”, they should note that the gut is somewhat removed from the brain.

    Must try harder. Much harder.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Mick:
      Savile, one “L”
      Filipina, female

      • Michael Candlin-Pass

        much obliged.

      • Neil Saunders

        Spot on. SaVILE serves as a handy mnemonic for the first item.

    • Jamie Stevenson

      Ditto to both yourself and BFS before you. I used (long ago, I am afraid) to be, like BFS, a fan of Rod Liddle’s straight-talking, PC-busting and, above all, humorous and generous-spirited journalism. No more and this article really is the last straw. The humour and generosity of spirit have long gone. The original ideas have been getting rarer and rarer over the past couple of years, and the use of crude vernacular and (not so) pretend ironical hate-language for laughs (ever fewer) has become desperate and cliched. This piece of repetitive recycling of low-level gossip has taken Liddle to new depths of journalistic nihilism. What earthly insight is it adding about anything? Where is there the remotest sign of even a modicum of journalistic investigation beyond the media noise? And the allegations against Edward Heath are, as you point out, substantiated by absolutely no evidence whatosever and have, so far, been totally disproved. How long can the Editor justify continuing to employ a lazy, bigoted, foul-mouthed pub bore simply because he was once the sharpest iconoclast of the commentariat? Come on, Fraser, man up and clear out this sad old has-been before he really does pollute the Spectator beyond the pale.

    • David Woodhead

      MC-P and others are absolutely right. If Ted Heath were still alive, writs would now be flying around, one of them directed at the loathsome Liddle, who would never have had the courage (or foolhardiness) to write such libellous tosh about a living person on the basis of wholly unsubstantiated stories (some of which were already demolished as or before the 8 August issue went to press). Your editorial judgement is seriously tarnished in allowing this contemptible piece to appear, compounded by your failure to publish any response in the print version of the magazine. You allowed Liddle’s rubbish to defile your columns in defiance of your own precept that “those who are being accused deserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty”. If and when Liddle is accused of a serious offence (and it must surely be ‘when’ if we adopt his approach) he must not mind if articles are written which assume he is guilty until proved innocent. This poisonous diatribe was unworthy of The Spectator. So far as Ted Heath is concerned, I believe he conducted his life according to the precept he set out in a speech in 1965 (after the Profumo scandal): “It is idle to pretend that any of us in public life should think we can afford standards of conduct … which do not bear looking into.”

  • I think that if you’re heterosexual, it’s natural to dislike homosexuality, that liking one is the same as disliking the other. That doesn’t mean it’s OK to persecute anyone. Everyone should be treated in a civilised way. I also expect the allegations against Heath are a load of **** and I see them as being part of the same witch-hunt-type phenomenon as Operation Yewtree. I normally enjoy Rod, but this article seems to be encouraging the mob mentality.

  • Claire Thinker

    Yes a good under-stated article, There was a window of real tolerance in Britain between 1967 and 1997. Thirty years when homosexuality was legal and nobody had invented “homophobia”. Now we are living under a Terror state with Gaystapo police patrolling every action and thought.
    The Conservative party has been taken over by people far too extreme even to be in the Labour party.

  • Neil Saunders

    What a surprise! This might come as a shock, but I always thought that there was something a bit dodgy about that Savile bloke, too…

    • I never liked Heath, but there is a world of difference between him and Savile. Savile was on TV week after week in the sixties and seventies on Top of the Pops with his hands all over fourteen year old girls and openly making lascivious faces, licking his lips while looking at them in a clearly lustful fashion. I can well remember this and my mother’s remarks that he was a horrible pervert. Everyone knew this, and his colleagues knew full well that he was having sex with girls as young as twelve and thirteen. People saw him with them, one production assistant surprising him with his hand up a child’s skirt. Contrast this with Heath….. One retired rent boy suggests that he was assaulted by him and an ex-brothel keeper denies she ever knew anything about Heath and boys. Bear in mind that for about forty years he had close personal police protection with him at all times.

      • Neil Saunders

        In other words, he wasn’t on the telly all the time and he had a copper or two watching over him at least some of the time.

        With deductive powers like that you should be heading the CID.

        • Heath was supervised by close protection at all all times. He did not, like Savile display moronic lasciviousness openly on TV, pawing youngsters with his eyes goggling and his tongue hanging out. If these differences elude you, you should have a carer looking after your interests.

          • Neil Saunders

            And what might your qualifications be for prescribing “care” for complete strangers, whose casual remarks you merely happen to have disagreed with on an Internet comments thread?

          • Like most people, I recognise someone who isn’t quite all there when I come across them. Your initial post just had that ‘smell’ about it of unreasonableness. You’d completely failed to read what I’d said. But listen – there’s no point in us conversing further. If you think that Heath (who like I said I never liked or admired) is like Savile your judgement is so bizarre, I’d best leave you alone in your crazy world.

          • Neil Saunders

            It is your own reasoning that “smells”, person with a silly monicker.

            Of precisely what, common decency forbids me from stating in explicit terms.

          • Take a look back over this conversation of ours Neil. It was YOU that started the personal remarks in response to what was from me an ordered and logical discussion of the facts of Heath Vs Savile as very different characters. You began the ad hominem, not me.

          • Neil Saunders

            Not true.

            I criticised your reasoning (admitted, with the use of irony), but I did not – unlike you – attempt an amateur psychiatric diagnosis in response to a difference of opinion, nor in support of this did I call upon some ill-defined coalition of the right-thinking to impugn your sanity.

            To return to the point under discussion on this thread, I believe you are mistaken in concluding that Heath could not have abused boys. I do not know whether he did, but I am sure he could have found ways to do so if he were so inclined, and personality differences with Jimmy Savile or anyone else are quite irrelevant.

          • “Of precisely what, common decency forbids me from stating in explicit terms.”

            Is this some sort of code? It reads like one and means nothing to me.

  • The_greyhound

    The most notable feature of the Heath allegations is the figure of the Filipina brothel keeper. Are there no British women who can carry out this straightforward task? What are our Universities doing to remedy this skills gap?

  • Sean Grainger

    That’s butcher’s ‘ooks Mr L — you should and indeed you do know better, Guv.

  • Martin Baker

    By coincidence, ‘Eeeeuw’ is what I thought about this lazy piece of writing. Oddly this isn’t the first time I’ve thought this about Rod Liddle’s articles. Maybe there is something ‘Not Quite Right’ about him, given that he seems to have spent his entire life imagining up the sex lives of the multiple people within this article, along with his fairly open prejudices.

  • I don’t really care about the sexual preferences of others and am not terribly interested in the crimes of the dead. You made some good points early on about how intolerant our masters are becoming in their pursuit of tolerance and what this says about the Tory party. The rest is literally history.

    • Callipygian

      Without history we are nothing and without a knowledge of same we are moral fungi.

      • I didn’t say I don’t care about history, I said I’m not interested in the crimes of the dead, especially when they divert our “overstretched” police force away from dealing with contemporary villains.

  • Rush_is_Right

    At last, somebody talking sense on the subject. I can’t agree about Rolf Harris though. To me, at any rate, his conviction came as a complete surprise.

    • serge

      Bang on. Let anyone who’s remained sexually pure cast the first nasturtium.
      As always, some sanity and a good laugh when Rod lays on with the rapier.

      And I don’t think you putt from the rough either…

    • Chamber Pot

      It was really a case of tie me kangaroo down sport by the only Australian not out before lunch time.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        ‘n’ take me koala back, Jack
        Take me koala back
        He lives somewhere out on the track, Mac
        So take me koala back
        Altogether now!

  • hippiepooter

    The overwhelming national feeling about Rolf Harris was profound warmth and affection. It was an utter shock that he turned out to be a nonce. I’ll tell you what my instinctive and immediate thoughts are on Maggie’s legislation in the 80’s to ban the promotion of homosexuality in schools: spot on. What led to this legislation was looney left Islington Council indoctrinating it’s children on the matter. We subsequently learnt that child sex abuse, overwhelmingly homosexual, was rife in Islington ‘care’ homes. Who’d a thunk?

    Take a look at the statistics (that the Home Office have not kept since the Blair Government). Proportionately, homosexuals are far more likely to commit paedophile offences than heterosexuals. The majority of homosexuals are not paedophile, but a substanial minority are. Then consider that His Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has caved into pressure from Stonewall and given them access to the CofE’s 1.5 million schoolchildren to teach them that homosexuality is normal. In those halcyon days of the 70’s when we still had common sense, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn about grown men wanting access to little boys to teach them getting buggered is normal.

    All this fuss about historic child sex abuse must be viewed as abject cant when we are brewing up a tsunami of child sex abuse for the future.

    • MrGrowser

      IF we are going to go all scientific and statistical, let us, at least, get our nomenclature right. A substantial minority of homosexuals are NOT paedophiles [i.e. sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children] However, they may/may not be pederasts [if we allow the term ‘boy’ to mean any post pubescent youth up to the age of eighteen] Possibly, though, you may prefer the more technical term of’ephebophile.’

      Sloppy thinking doesn’t help anyone except the press in its endless cause of titillation under the guise of faux outrage.

      ‘It ought not to be allowed’

  • Chamber Pot

    I am extremely upset about this as I thought Madame Ling Ling was that lady panda from Whipsnade zoo and had nothing whatever to do with pandering or dead chickenhawks ?

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Can’t help noticing the Spectator is in full damage limitation mode.
    “We are only obeying orders.”
    So whose orders would those be?

    • towhommaybe

      It’s like when they told the parents that the headmaster at school was a b*gg*r. ‘How can you say such a think, an upright educated man like that.?’ But of course it was true enough but grown-ups refused to believe it!

  • Callipygian

    .

  • Terry Field

    The fact that the ruling mindset either is, or loves gay life, does not in any way remove the simple verity that enormous numbers of people consider homosexual life to be less than fragrant.
    And that will no change.
    Because we are human; and are possessed of human nature.
    Elites come.
    Elites go.
    Loathing of homosexuality has been around for enormous passages of time.
    It will outlive the new fascism.

  • Joseph Hooker

    Kill two birds with one stone, make Muslims practice homosexuality to prove their allegiance to Britain and allow Gays to bugger them senseless.

  • Garnet Thesiger

    The intolerance of the “gay” (surely a misnomer of titanic scale) community to anyone opposing their stridently held views reminds me so much of the socialists and their “if you’re not one of us you’re vile” attitude.
    As “coming out” is now no longer a news worthy item and will no longer satisfy the desire of the attention seekers expect to see more extreme and outrageous new “loves”… The fight for the right to marry your mummy has barely begun!

  • Joseph Hooker

    I always said to people that I felt unease about an aged single man cavorting with children (Jimmy Savile) the usual reply was that he had raised lots of money for charity and I was mistaken. Human instinct is there for a reason and is not to be ignored, millions of years of evolution have provided us with a natural defense mechanism that we should use. I for one squirm when I see Elton and David married with their happy little family, but time will tell if the designer children are unharmed when the reach puberty and adulthood.

  • This piece fills me with misgivings because what the sainted Rod is saying is that it is perfectly fine to entertain the most severe suspicions of a person’s character on the basis of what might be called gut feeling, without any shred of evidence. So I don’t like the look of someone – Leon Brittan was a pretty ugly fellow – he must be a very ugly individual in other ways. Some time ago, I had cause to upbraid a classroom assistant who remarked about a male supply creature that he gave her the creeps. When asked by the woman who appointed supply teachers what she meant, the woman replied, ‘He just gives me the willies – eeuuuu,’ and shuddered. I’d watched this fellow teaching and he performed well, so I asked if she had seen or heard anything which backed up this ‘feeling’ of hers. Of course she had neither seen any kind of inappropriate conduct, nor heard him say anything of the sort. I pointed out that the reaction she experienced was her problem not his and that it was entirely unfair, without cause in his conduct or knowledge of the same to bad mouth the man to others.

    I for one am pretty glad that we have up until now had a long tradition of requiring actual evidence of misconduct to justify prosecution or publication of damaging suspicions.

  • Steve Moxon

    With no evidence against either Rolf Harris or Jimmy Savile (neither of whom appearing worse than ‘a bit of a lad’), and Heath being merely homosexual, with not even a whiff of the ephebephilia that overlaps with male homosexuality (never mind paedophilia — which is the exclusive attraction to pre-pubertals; that is, under-tens, given the age of puberty today); I’d have hoped the wonderful Rod Liddle would be taking issue with the truly monstrous anti-male hysteria behind police/media ‘trawling’ re supposed child sex abuse.

  • mrs 1234

    I didn’t realise Kermit was that old.

  • zookeeper

    Well written Rod.

Close