Young Harry* was seduced two years back by a physically mature female and faces prison as a result.
The pair come from the same needle-raddled sink estate near Glasgow. Rita* is 17 now. She was about 16 when she enticed Harry into a disused caravan in a parking lot. She is still strutting the mean streets while he, now a decent family man, is already branded as a predatory paedophile from whom not even his six month old baby is considered safe.
For the record, paedophilia is the sexual abuse of a pre-pubescent infant, not fumbling with a big, willing lass in a pert uplift bra, who wears high heels and mini-skirts like Kylie Minogue. Precocious adulthood is certainly infinitely regrettable, but, thanks to cutie-pie sexiness oozing from kiddies' TV and the clinical sexploitation of the ad men, it is no longer the exception.
Rita's story is being played out all across Britain - sink school education, passively condoned childhood promiscuity with BMA encouraged abortion on hand, the inevitable experimentation with more experienced males, finally implacable, legal retribution on those older lads - including endless psychological torture from the PC morality police, and, more often than not, jail.
The question is unavoidable - if so many children, many as young as 10, are having babies aborted (and, with BMA connivance, often behind their parents' backs)then where are the "paedophile" fathers who impregnated them? Or is real under age sex quite permissible if the inseminator is under 17 years of age. Is the novel "paedophilia" tag merely an age thing which pops up like a red flag when you stop looking cute?
Obviously, common sense has fled. No longer can a prurient "care Industry" recognise the difference between dangerous criminal sex predation on innocent minors and what has become nothing less than a culturally admitted, even encouraged, norm (abhorrent as that happens to be to most mainstream religious parents). It is also apparent that those in authority don't know even the meaning of the word "innocence".
So, as a result of a car park encounter when young Harry thought his luck was in with a teenage slut, life for his new wife will never again be the same. A shocked recluse, she hides away even from family and friends. The State - a stalking Nemesis - has caught them up at last and taken their baby girl away from him. He must never see her unless accompanied by social workers.
With her man branded a paedophile for life, and unemployable, her marriage is all but doomed. This pretty girl from a good working class home seems unable to come to terms with the Puritan "witch hunt" against Harry. The overwhelming authority of official action against him, plus the media propagated stigma and public fear of "paedophiles", has ineradicably subverted her feelings towards him. She forgave his exploit; after all it was committed before they met, but she feels abused by the revelation amid such public clamour. When she complains that she was "stripped naked emotionally", cliché has become the mot juste.
Her ordeal began when two policemen and a policewoman, accompanied by three social workers, knocked on the door one evening and pushed past her. Harry was ordered to leave home at once. The only explanation given him was that a complaint had come to the attention of "the department". As he was being physically bundled into the street, one policeman advised him: "Don't make it harder for yourself."
At first they thought he was being "done over" because of a recent motorcycle crash. He was later released but cautioned, on pain of immediate re-arrest, not to go near his own baby unless in the company of a social worker.
It took days for them to realise that, because of the Rita affair, Harry was now considered a paedophile and was suspected either of sexually abusing his own six-months old baby or being tempted to abuse her. The social workers involved have no medical or psychiatric competence but they know a "case" when they see one. This particular team of enthusiasts pretentiously call themselves "the Pathfinders".
This insensitive "care" juggernaut which so catastrophically invaded Harry's home has also made his mother ill, destabilised the lives of his wife's parents, and left even the baby noticeably disturbed. It has turned the family and relatives into local pariahs as well.
As such occurrences emerge in the media, people sense that this CAN happen to them too! It's a phenomenal political bogeyman. Discomfort at State intrusion, although politically formless, can eventually provide an insistent dynamic to drive change, demographic scientists agree. Material interests obviously dominate voting trends ... but general social discomfort provides impetus nevertheless and may impel novel, sometimes volatile, factions into power - given an appropriate activator. Massive concern at the spectre of a Federated Europe is obviously such an activator. The emerging idea is that a deeper distress is now driving it.
Fascinatingly, a UKIP canvasser told me that people promising him their vote were not so much star stricken by Kilroy Silk as reacting against State encroachment into "their space". One woman had told him: "If I hear another automaton bleating, 'if you don't do nuffink wrong, why should you be bovered about CCTV/intrusive officialdom/arbitary security laws/ social workers, etc.' I'll kick him in the ankle."
However, an even more potent dynamic is fuelling pressure in the enormous British "under-class". This significant population, ideologically excluded from the mainstream culture of the West, is being subjected to penal laws for breach of obscure ethical codes which they are incapable of recognising. Angry and frustrated, they are ripe for exploitation. And there is no latent or educational moral inhibition to moderate extremism in their ranks.
Neither Harry nor the perky little harridan he so briefly encountered ever saw inside a church so far as I know. It is unlikely that they learned Christian virtues at Sunday school. The pagan Cicero's Principii and his argument for Natural Law was probably not on their school syllabus either.
Nobody, it seems, ever told them about any Ten Commandments. Louche TV programming is the Pierian spring slaking their culture-thirsty streets. It is the first fount of information, the matrix of social intercourse, even the arbiter of acceptable behaviour. Should they not, then, be grateful to those rich, privately educated, thatched cottage dwellers who dug the moral cess pit which thus forms them, and which, with exquisite irony, they dress with titles like "Big Brother"?
What schooling this lad and lass received was from despairing teachers, prevented by law from exercising any physical authority over teeming classrooms. Lessons were shouted across chaos at pre-adults whose best expectation was the dole queue or the minimum wage? A keen kid might try to listen, but the obvious option was to sink into seething frustration and vacuous incomprehension - ingredients which, when allowed to foment, usually erupt into mindless violence.
Just one bully in the best of schools can bring fear to many young lives; but in dreary sink estate Comprehensives the gang rules; and is often pushing drugs for suppliers at the school gate. It is also a ferocious enforcer. The term "school bully" dissolves into near nostalgic innocence before the apocalyptic reality of the drug culture school yard.
How do they get kids to stay in such sink schools anyway? Quite simply, if you don't go, your dad (usually the breadwinner) will be jailed. If you have no father your mum will be jailed. That fact, to the awful shame of this nation, we have already witnessed. And it happened to one terrified mother more than once. The UK media were left impressively unperturbed by this monstrous State intrusion into a society which still blithely perceives itself as a free citizenship. Elements of the Liberal press actually applauded the authorities.
But as the man from UKIP noticed, reaction is now energising voters. (Editor's note: UKIP - United Kingdom Independence Party - is a new political party whose platform is to keep Britain out of the European Union.) The authoritarian excesses being endured by the under-class seems at last to have scared the strata above. Our young victim of the system didn't vote this time. Harry's generation were not inculcated with pride in citizenship or taught to endure all the responsibilities which that ancient "right" entails. He and his car park paramour languish at the bottom of the great social test tube shaken up by trend obsessed socialist leaders of the Swinging 60s - like the late Roy Jenkins.
As to virtue or sin; they don't use words like adultery or unchastity in the sink estates. The word is "nookie" or something a lot more crass, although if you want to "get laid" and stay out of the dungeon at the same time it would be handy to have a law degree.
Incidentally, who, reading this, has any inkling about the actual age of consent in Scotland? How many teachers can positively answer that? Isn't this the land of Gretna Green and runaway 14-year-old brides? Is the old smithy a silent accomplice in paedophilia.
Rita, the little State-crossed strumpet was not seduced by her "trick". She it was who seduced him. But she was seduced nevertheless. Her real seducer, the man who deflowered her precious childhood will never be brought to justice in this life. He is the man who tore down, in the name of selective Liberalism, the fabric which had stood for ages in Britain to protect her even from the sight of lewd behaviour; the decent norms illuminated by any kind of Church and enforced by the Crown.
That person has despoiled the innocence of, literally, millions of British children. He is the swollen demagogue who sold us the lie that money sanitises everything and in less time than it took to fight off the Nazis, had bought up and turned our theatres, cinemas and TV screens over to the billion dollar porn industry. He's the creep who wants equal rights for rent boys so that he can escape jail for renting them. He's the chancer who has made millions from dirty ditty pop tunes. If you want to find him look among the new titles in the land, look among those put in charge of our "entertainment" industry. In the end he attacked the family itself; that first of all the protectors of children. Is that not why, some ask, the dreaded social workers treat British homes with such open disdain - well so long as they are in working class catchment areas?
Who dares say Harry's home deserved such disrespect? Encouraged by a voice once well known in our islands but sadly muted these past four decades or so, we might examine our own consciences. For when a lumpen youth is so brutally arraigned for succumbing to the temptations of the flesh, which of us men, if given the chance, would piously stop a pretty damsel with outraged palm and pontificate: "Desist woman! Before I indulge your intemperate overtures I must request your European Federation identity card to secure my legal status and discover your exact date of birth. I mean EXACT date of birth ..."
Aye, right! But them's the older rules about throwing the first stone. First settle that problem then, perhaps, when our leaders shed tears for some notorious girl's lost childhood there will be less obnoxious crocodile weeping to mop up. At least there might be a damn sight fewer young lads banged up in prison with "untouchable" effectively branded on their foreheads.
*Harry and Rita are assumed names to protect identities
