Forum Topic

The horrendous consequence of DEI

A sickening report but this is what DEI and 'gender equality' can lead to.Note that  the accused perverts have not been found not-guilty, only that the trial has been postponed to be restarted at a later date.https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15758847/Jury-discharged-trial-baby-allegedly-sexually-abused-murdered-teacher-process-adopting-boyfriend.html"Jury discharged in trial of baby allegedly sexually abused and murdered by teacher in process of adopting him with his boyfriend"'The jury in the case of a baby boy allegedly sexually abused and murdered by a teacher who was in the process of adopting him with his boyfriend was today formally discharged.Jamie Varley, 37, and John McGowan-Fazakerley, 32, were on trial at Preston Crown Court accused of sexually abusing Preston Davey, aged 13 months.Varley was also accused of murdering the tot, who was suffocated and died four months after being placed in the couple’s care.The pair applied and underwent a ‘robust’ vetting process via Oldham Council to adopt a baby and social workers expressed ‘no concerns’ about their suitability as parents.But over the course of the following four months Preston was ‘routinely ill-treated, sexually abused and physically assaulted,’ Peter Wright KC, prosecuting, said.He was taken to hospital by the pair on three separate occasions before he died, including once with a fractured arm.But each time the couple explained away suspicious bruises to doctors, who failed to raise any safeguarding concerns.A post-mortem found the tot had suffered 40 internal and external injuries – including severe bruising to the back of his throat. A pathologist concluded he had been smothered and had died of an ‘acute upper airway obstruction.’Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley were arrested later that day on suspicion of neglect. Varley claimed he had been bathing Preston when he nipped away for a short time and returned to find him drowning.But Mr Wright said the pathology evidence did not support that and it was the prosecution case that, earlier that day, Preston had been subjected to two serious sexual assaults by Varley which caused his death.Varley denies murder, sexual assault, assault by penetration, inflicting GBH, four counts of child cruelty, 14 counts of making and taking indecent images of a child, and one charge of distributing an indecent image of a child.McGowan-Fazakerley, a sales rep, denies causing or allowing the death of a child and two counts of child cruelty.The pair face two further joint charges of sexual assault and child cruelty.(Note the description of some of the acts using the baby's mouth).The trial, expected to last six to eight weeks, is expected to start again with a fresh jury panel on Monday.'How these men were given custody of the child is not explained.But the real issue is that any man or male couple should want to and can be given such a responsibility under any circumstances.In my view it displays freakish desire and behaviour.What is their real motive ?As commented in the Spectator -"But in Britain, since 2019, single men have also been allowed to buy babies. In that time 170 men have applied for parental orders.This is even worse than allowing men to work in nurseries. We know that men are vastly more likely to abuse unrelated children than women are. We know that 91.3 per cent of child sexual abusers are male. And we know that paedophiles relentlessly seek out opportunities to access victims. The chance of single parent abuser being caught will be very low, given they may well be the only adult who has regular contact with the child.'The balance between 'individual rights' and 'gender equality' and ordinary common sense is totally skewed in the wrong direction.One can only hope their new friends in Wandsworth jail give them a loving and warm welcome.

John Hawkes ● 25d27 Comments

Mr HawkesI agree he does seem to fall at an interesting point on the LGBT+... spectrum. Your questions are probably best addressed to Oxford University?Perhaps he's a world leader in biochemistry? In that case his students and colleagues might accept his foibles? (I doubt he's there because he's a world class rower.) Are you suggesting he'd break the law by acting inappropriately with students, who in most cases are over 18 and adults rather than children, and I'm sure Oxford has strong safeguarding policies and processes? Wouldn't some people be watching for even the smallest transgressions like hawks?Back in the early 70s my mathematical analysis lecturer stood in front of a blackboard, facing it, mumbled inaudibly and wrote illegibly - although somehow we managed to pass! Someone with a quirky personality might have kept us awake, more enthused, and been more acceptable! :)Interesting that you mention the Jolly Farmer; around four (five?) decades ago I used to meet friends in the Jolly Gardner, Lacy Road, when it was a Fullers pub. There was another small group of men who met there, one who wore a women's dress and shoes. No one in the pub seemed bothered. (I think he looked quite feminine so possibly in an early stage of transitioning sex?) Wasn't our business, he wasn't harming anyone. Not like one occasion years ago in the Spotted Horse when some very drunk macho bloke in the got into an argument, broke a beer mug and was about to smash it into another guy's face until a woman with him talked him out of it ... he was far more scary than a man in a dress.Back to Oxford; I understood from my wife and female friends who were there, that there used to be an elderly doctor who had a dubious habit of saying "take your clothes off" even when they said "I've a pain in my hand"!It takes all sorts - and appearances can be deceptive ...

Michael Ixer ● 18d

Mr Hawkes, to be fair, I probably do suffer from unconscious bias - I think we probably all do - as it's "unconscious" it's probable that I'm unaware of it? Looking at the points you highlighted with your '*** s' I was going by the tone of your posts but, as I noted previously, I put them with question marks as they were inferences not statements which were soliciting a response from you, which you've given, thanks.However, you seem to be implying falsely that I support terrorists or "freedom fighters". I'll happily take the compliment of being a liberal progressive (let's drop the "faux"?) as I try and keep an open mind and consider new or alternative ideas - isn't that the way the human race has developed with time? Obviously, some ideas have to be rejected.I think there was an inference I'm a Muslim supporter; I've made it quite clear in several previous posts I'm an atheist so obviously I don't support any religion but you choose to ignore that. I do try and live alongside muslim neighbours, colleagues, friends in the same way that I do or have done with Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Hindu, Sikh, etc friends and colleagues. Some Muslim acquaintances, friends or colleagues have even joined me in the pub for a pint so, as I always say, these things aren't "binary" ...These relationships must have mutual respect without coercion, and obviously people must practice their religion within the laws of the land. Of course, I hope you'd agree we should condemn people of all religions who use it as an excuse for terrorism? I guess people who are non religious as well!I'd note, if you bother to look at definitions of homophobia, they're broader than just your fears; they extend to the impact people's attitudes and have on the that community. In answer to your question in response to mine, to save time I've asked Mr Google to draft my response (also Mr Google gives standarddefinitions so I can't be accused of bias ...): "transsexual refers to individuals who permanently transition their bodies (via hormones/surgery) to align with their gender identity. Transvestite is an outdated term for a cross-dresser, someone who wears clothing associated with the opposite sex but generally does not wish to change their assigned sex" Or perhaps you were referring to transgender, which "refers to a deeply held identity where a person's internal gender differs from their birth sex, often leading to a desire to live, or transition, as that gender?"I do wonder if you're asking for those definitions if you have a clue what you're talking about?With regard to "unconscious bias" I note that your alma mater, University of Oxford, seem to take this seriously.https://lifelong-learning.ox.ac.uk/events/view/unconscious-bias-maintaining-objectivity-as-a-researcher-25Perhaps you should direct your questions to them? With regards to IC it comes under administrative support services for all four faculties. Hence, I'm not sure it's an area any faculty researches, perhaps the obtain course material from elsewhere, perhsps Oxford? As IC gets a lot of funding from industry and foreign student fees I'm not sure its much of a cost to UK taxpayers, and perhaps there are benefits in better science and medical research in the faculties, such as not testing everything on white middle age males? :)Apologies, this was put together in a rush: I was at Solar & Storage Expo, Excel, then the theatre yesterday (I do recommend Miller's Prices at the Marylebone, good to see lots of Jewish people in the audience), and need to get to the gym and a concert today - have a nice day!

Michael Ixer ● 18d

Mr IxerI am more than happy for people to question and challenge what I post on this Forum.Provided they read the comment thoroughly first and do not make false claims.All of your comment between the ***s is pure conjecture and supposition your part with no supportive evidence provided.***'Mr Hawkes chose to use the word "normal", which could be interpreted as an unconscious bias that he considers gay couples as abnormal? I'm sure he'd deny that but given his apparent dislike of things that deviate from his norms of the past (trans people, Muslim culture, for example?) I'm not sure he'd be the best judge'***.As I said - "What makes you think you are competent to analyse what you claim are my views on these topics" ?"You claim that I have an 'unconscious bias' (more of your pseudo science) against gay couples and see them as 'abnormal'.And you presumptuously say that I would deny this".I also said - "Here is a definition of 'normal' - "conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected".'Gay couples' do not fit this description.But in my opinion they are not 'abnormal' in the pejorative  sense of the word.They are a minority group of which there are many in society society, in which as in other groups, are contained the good, the bad, the ugly and the stupid".This is not homophobic.I have no fear of any homosexual - individual or in a group and I am very pleased for your homosexual friends in their long term relationship which must have been bolstered by you making it clear to everyone that you are so supportive of them.But might I ask do you suffer from any 'unconscious bias' ?Regarding what issues ?I am pleased to read that IC is spending the higher education budget researching this topic.Do you know for what purpose ?You also made the comment - "that I have 'an apparent dislike of things that deviate from his norms of the past(trans people, Muslim culture, for example)'.As I pointed out this is both meaningless and unfounded. Would you care to make another attempt to explain and provide evidence to justify the claim ?You still seem to be "confused by comments I made that were critical of transvestites who wish to encroach on what most normal (yes normal) people would say are spaces designated for women and girls in which many (most I would suggest) appreciate for the safety and modesty they provide.You may disagree of course but unfortunately the law is not on your side.And it is further true that I am not uncritical of Muslim culture which I consider misogynistic and often maliciously racist especially towards Jews.I suspect you, a faux liberal progressive, see them as freedom fighters for a homeland stolen from them by white colonialists and renamed Israel.Forgetting conveniently what happened in October 2023.Happily such issues were not prominent in my past'.Finally, could you explain the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual ?

John Hawkes ● 20d

Mr Hawkes. Psychological isn't really my subject but when a world renown organisation such as Imperial College (of Science, Technology and Medicine) takes unconscious bias seriously perhaps you're showing your ignorance? IC isn't known for dealing in pseudo-science ...https://www.imperial.ac.uk/equality/resources/unconscious-bias/You make your opinions know on the views I and others have so it seems perfectly reasonable for us to comment on yours. You might notice I sometimes end sentences with a question mark which means the comment is up for debate? Because, as you say, we can disagree. However, I do take exception to you saying I've engaged in pseudo-science as I try and be very meticulous in checking authoritative references and attend numerous science lectures at IC, the BAA, technology events, etc to keep abreast of the latest developments. Perhaps you need to get out more to some?If I understand correctly, you say that gay couples don't meet the definition of "normal". The gay couples I know, at least one who have been in a relationship for over thirty years, would say it's perfectly normal for them - it's not a choice, just the way they are. They may well consider your comment homophobic, but that's possibly for them to judge not me.Well, "my side" isn't particularly trans (although you may have confused transvestites, who are often heterosexual, with trans-sexuals) but I am sympathetic with the few I've met who've obviously had difficulties in many ways, if only from negative attitudes, and, of course, laws can be considered wrong. At one time in the UK homosexuality was illegal, and lots of people don't like ULEZ or 20 mph speed limits. Some people just seem spiteful towards trans-people even if they're just trying to mind their own business and get on with their lives.But it's good we can agree that this appalling crime should never had occured.

Michael Ixer ● 20d

Mr Ixer'Mr Hawkes chose to use the word "normal", which could be interpreted as an unconscious bias that he considers gay couples as abnormal? I'm sure he'd deny that but given his apparent dislike of things that deviate from his norms of the past (trans people, Muslim culture, for example?) I'm not sure he'd be the best judge'.What makes you think you are competent to analyse what you claim are my views on these topics ?Other than the fact you always give me the impression that you believe you are the unbiased face of reason and expertise on pretty much everything.You claim that I have an 'unconscious bias' (more of your pseudo science) against gay couples and see them as 'abnormal'.And you presumptuously say that I would deny this.As I said, I know you think you are an expert on most issues but as regards knowing what I think, this is a topic you are unqualified to pronounce upon.Here is a definition of 'normal' - "conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected".'Gay couples' do not fit this description.But in my opinion they are not 'abnormal' in the pejorative  sense of the word.They are a minority group of which there are many in society society, in which as in other groups, are contained the good, the bad, the ugly and the stupid.Another typically illogical and unfounded claim of yours is that I have 'an apparent dislike of things that deviate from his norms of the past(trans people, Muslim culture, for example)'.I don't recall having 'norms of the past' (whatever that means) regarding these topics.I think you are confused by comments I made that were critical of transvestites who wish to encroach on what most normal (yes normal) people would say are spaces designated for women and girls in which many (most I would suggest) appreciate for the safety and modesty they provide.You may disagree of course but unfortunately the law is not on your side.And it is further true that I am not uncritical of Muslim culture which I consider misogynistic and often maliciously racist especially towards Jews.I suspect you, a faux liberal progressive, see them as freedom fighters for a homeland stolen from them by white colonialists and renamed Israel.Forgetting conveniently what happened in October 2023.Happily such issues were not prominent in my past.But I am pleased for Sir Elton and his husband/wife David who, having homes in England, the South of France and the US, plus private jet etc etc were missing what they really wanted, namely children, and were able to afford surrogacy and so bought two.But at least we agree 'the root issue is vetting and supervision by adoption authorities irrespective of an adopter's sexuality but looking at the individuals'.Though I think some are more suitable than others.So to get back to the start of this thread, is it not a pity and disgraceful that these authorities failed so abysmally in the case of the baby abusing perverts ?

John Hawkes ● 20d

Mr Brigo'"Meaning that DEI gave these two men had the same kind of right to adopt a baby as did a normal male and female couple. "So you are saying gay people aren't normal?'You really can't handle a serious discussion can you.All you can do is nit-pick and take words out of context.Social behaviour attitudes and beliefs and also practise , probably throughout all known history, have deemed that from conception onwards the most satisfactory upbringing of a child is performed by a man and a woman.That is what is meant by 'normal' - 'conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected'.That after all is how the child came into the world is it not ?Hence I believe it was wrong that the fashionable concept of  DEI was used to give the same right to two men.Not that all men would abuse this right, but that it gave cover for some perverted ones to do so.As we have seen.This has nothing necessarily to do with the sexual inclination of such men.Are you saying that they were gay ? You ask whether I think gay people are 'normal' ?Not according to the above definition of the term for they are a minority group.Does it mean that they are all paedophiles ?Of course it does not.Does it mean they should be discriminated against ?Of course not and equality laws rightly give them protection against this and the same rights we all share.Only you seem to equate homosexuality with paedophilia.The people who committed the appalling acts and to whose defence you are so quick to leap were paedophiles of the most barbaric kind.Are you just trying to prove how smart you are ?Unfortunately you just prove yourself to be completely the opposite.

John Hawkes ● 20d

Mr BrigoDiversity: Refers to the presence of a variety of characteristics within an organization, including race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, disability, veteran status, and cultural background. It emphasizes engaging with a broad range of communities and perspectivesEquity: Focuses on fairness and justice, ensuring that individuals have access to the same opportunities and resources. This may involve adjusting treatment based on unique circumstances to achieve equal outcomes, such as fair pay for equal roles or accessible facilities for people with disabilitiesInclusion: Involves creating a culture where all employees feel valued, respected, and empowered to contribute. Inclusion ensures that everyone’s voice is heard and that individuals feel a sense of belonging within the organization.Note the continued reference to the 'organisation' and hence the world of work and employment; not family life. My original point which you obviously did not read or did not understand was that the laudable objectives of DEI can be manipulated by such as the perverts that abused this baby against both those responsible for its welfare and the natural common sense of the general public, and used to achieve their foul aims.However much you wish to show how open minded and liberal you are, it is not natural that a young baby's welfare and upbringing be placed in the hands of two men.DEI gave them some sort of quasi-legal support with regard to the authorities responsible for the child's welfare in  and achieving seeking their aim of gaining custody, with horrendous consequences.Their aim was perverted sexual gratification.And you seem to be supporting them ! Do you know many men that would want to take on this responsibility and if so why did they feel that way ?The natural parenting of a child should be in the hands of a male and female couple.The natural birth parents or properly accredited foster parents.Human biology tells you that.If two blokes want something to make a fuss over they should buy a dog.Plenty available at Battersea Dog's Home. 

John Hawkes ● 21d