Minor Attracted Person.

There have been many attempts to legalise paedophilia. 

Decades ago the Labour party had amongst their ranks the Paedophile Information Exchange. It took the Marxist terminology and used it to create a name for the organisation that disguised it's true purpose.

It was not created to exchange information about the illegal activity of paedophiles, as you would assume by the name. It was exactly the opposite: it was a network of Paedophiles using the organisation to exchange pornographic images of children whilst at the same time promoting a positive agenda towards the sexualisation of children and the lowering or scrapping of the age of consent.

This naming convention by Marxist organisations is a topic I may go into in a following post. It really is a marker that instantly identifies an organisation as extreme left in ideology.

Eventually PIE was broken up and members arrested for their criminal activity.

However, the ideology still pervades the left. Most recently it has co-opted the trans radicals in order to push the gender reassignment of children. By involving children in their sexual identity, it's involving children in thoughts about sex and is being used by paedophiles and their supporters as a wedge to gain acceptance more widely of the sexualisation of children.

The argument goes: Well, you talk about kids in a sexual way when it comes to trans rights, so why not other forms of sexuality?

As the trans rights movement came to the fore on the coat-tails of the successes made by the Gay Rights movements of the seventies and eighties, the paedophiles are now using the successes made by the trans rights movement to push their agenda.

Which now brings us to the term "Minor Attracted Person". This is a term now being used by the Left as a "less abusive" term to describe someone sexually attracted to children. 

Basically the thinking behind the term is to lump in those who actively have sex with children or trade indecent images of children (i.e. illegal activity) with those that think about having sex with kids but don't do anything about it. In effect it's a sexual preference or sexuality to be given protection like being Gay, or being Trans. 

If you see the shift, it's about de-escalating the issue. It's a way of saying "See, there are lots of people that think about having sex with kids, but don't actually do it", a way to make the activity appear more mainstream and therefore make it appear less fair if the activity is made illegal.

It's about normalising child sexual activity with adults. 

The current controversy regarding Police Scotland's use of the term Minor Attracted Person (MAP) on a recent report by the Chief Constable. The fact they then backtracked and gaslighted the public by saying they never use the term MAP. Except the term is in black and white on the CC's report. 

It's a worrying trend, if now the Police don't understand the ramifications of the use of the term. From locking up paedophiles for exchanging indecent pictures of kids, in five years we could have the Police bending the knee to MAPs as a protected characteristic of their sexuality.

Will a MAP be diagnosed as having a mental illness. Much like addiction, would they then be excused because "they can't help it"? 

Like alcoholics, will they then be able to collect benefits because their illness makes them unemployable?

Harry the Ginger Whinger Keeps Complaining About Stuff That All Families Do...

So more "Revelations" from Harry the Ginger Whinger about the Royal Family.

He and his brother had a scrap. Er, big deal, me and my brother had the odd tussle as well. It happens in families.

Charles kept asking if Harry was his kid: Er, we all know the answer to that, and credit to Charles he probably knew the truth decades ago, but still brought him up as his own child.

If the Royal Family were truly evil, Charles could cut Harry off and point him to his real father and say "Go sponge off him".

There are a lot darker things that happen in families. Was he killed by a relative? Was he raped by a relative?

Nope. He was given all the privileges afforded the Royal Family, but it still wasn't enough.

Well, it was enough until Megan arrived on the scene. Then it wasn't. 

It really is bad form for Harry to keep badmouthing his family. Shit happens in families all the time. Harry's revelations are really a bunch of so-what?-ness. Hardly the sort of shock revelations that the people that paid him money for the interviews were hoping for I guess. And that's the crux of the this: the seediness, badmouthing your family for money. Harry should know better.

But I suspect the motivation for the vitriol wasn't Harry initially. I suspect it was Megan. I suspect she saw a bunch of money for interviews and then a book deal and possibly a film as well. 

It's all very "American". 

And that's the telling thing: Brits don't wash their laundry in public. We certainly don't disrespect our families for money. I suspect Harry wouldn't be doing this except for the influence of his Mrs.

Bad form Harry, bad form. 

Grow some balls for Christ's sake. Sort your life and your Mrs out. Otherwise it will end up toxic. 

My prediction is it will end up that Harry will eventually leave Megan, or Megan will leave Harry once the notoriety, fame and money-making abilities of Harry start to wane. Some premise will be engineered, like he beat her out of frustration with the Royals, or something like that. 

She'll get her wish of a never-ending money train as Harry pays to support her and the kids. 

The only question is would the Royal Family take him back into their fold once he's burnt his bridges with them and he's left Megan. Where will he have left to go?

What actual qualifications has Harry got, other than being a former Prince Harry? 

Looking in the cupboard, it's pretty bare. No talent, no charisma, no charm, no knowledge, no experience. Better watch out Harry, the scrapheap beckons. Really soon. 

The NHS: Dumpster Fire That No-One Has the Will to Tackle.

I've had yet another "interface" with the NHS over the past week. Not for myself, but for my 90-year-old Mother.

The "interface" was not a good experience. Yet more evidence of incompetence and lack of care.

One evening before Christmas she was admitted to the hospital with Pneumonia. Notwithstanding she was in A&E on a trolley for 8 hours before being seen by a doctor She was on oxygen overnight and also had two courses of IV antibiotics. 

She was discharged the next day, in the afternoon. I have yet to confirm this, but I suspect she was discharged with no regard to if the antibiotics had worked or her oxygen levels had improved. 

I say this, because that evening she collapsed whilst in her flat. Luckily she is in a block where there are support workers. She doesn't have any support at the moment (this will have to change) and onl;y by luck one of the carers called in to see how she was after her trip to hospital. 

Cue another call out of an ambulance and another trip to A&E. This time a 13 hour wait to be put in MAU again, where she was being assessed the previous day. 

This time, her stay is going to be a prolonged one because when she fell, she fractured her pubic bone. 

We suspect she may have had low oxygen levels and been unsteady enough due to this to fall.

Way to go, NHS. You just transformed what should have been a three day stay into a 6-8 week stay in hospital. All because you were too incompetent to check my mother's stats to confirm she was fit enough to go home.

As it is, this second stay in hospital has outlined even more incompetence. She is now on an Orthopedic ward. Yet the nurses on that ward do not know how to handle a patient with a broken pubic bone. Some of them have stated they have never heard of a fractured pubic bone before. 

Now, given the fact they hadn't had much experience in the care of a patient with such a fracture, you'd think someone in a senior position would discuss the nature of the injury and any special requirements. Bu no. Instead, nurses we pulling my mother's legs apart while trying to move her. Just the very thing designed to cause the most pain. Rather than the correct way, which is to move both legs together and cause the least amount of pain. 

The other incident was a young Doctor coming up to my mother and stating glibly "well, I think you can come off the oxygen now". Luckily my ex Sister-In-Law was with my mother at the time. She quickly retorted "So has the Pneumonia suddenly cured itself?" "Have you checked her sats to make sure she can come off oxygen?". To which he made some comment, faffed about with my mother's notes and promptly disappeared. 

Then later a nurse turned up (we assume by order of the embarrassed doctor) to remove the oxygen from my mother. To which my ex S-I-L let her know what had just happened with the doctor and to cover herself, the nurse may want to check my mother's sats before doing anything. 

Obviously, my mother's sats were depressed even with oxygen, so the nurse didn't withdraw the oxygen support, thankfully. 

But yet again another example of poor care. That doctor may have seen a dozen similar examples like my mother. But each patient is an individual and should be treated individually. I don't care how many 90-year-old ladies you've seen this year, there is going to be one that requires oxygen for longer than normal because she also has the added complication of having pneumonia. 

In other words, read the notes you fucking lazy quack.

These are the people the NHS needs to weed out. The incompetents, the people that have attracted complaints. The NHS needs to stop protecting incompetent staff. The NHS unions likewise.

These are the people causing the NHS to spend money settling lawsuits. And yes, I'm going to be looking into the circumstances surrounding the discharge of my mother before her fall.