Another One

"Dame" Joan Bakewell does a John Humphrys :

Writing in Radio Times, the presenter said: 'The liberal mood back in the 60s was that sex was pleasurable and wholesome and shouldn't be seen as dirty and wicked. The Pill allowed women to make choices for themselves. Of course, that meant the risk of making the wrong choice. But we all hoped girls would grow to handle the new freedoms wisely.

Then everything came to be about money: so now sex is about money, too. Why else sexualise the clothes of little girls, run TV channels of naked wives, have sex magazines edging out the serious stuff on newsagents' shelves? It's money that's corrupted us and women are being used and are even collaborating.

I never thought I would hear myself say as much, but "I'm with Mrs Whitehouse on this one".'

Another innocent abroad. "Everything has been about money" - or in earlier centuries, power, forever - but that tendency used to be heavily moderated/controlled by Christianity - which was why we didn't send the mill-girls up the chimneys on a Sunday. What did she think would happen when that went ? The Age of Aquarius ?

Joan Bakewell is a Dame of the British Empire that she so heartily detested while it existed. Mrs Whitehouse never picked up any gongs or public appointments for her work, while even the grubbiest leftie careerist gets an OBE. I guess we get what we deserve.

As I said of Humphrys :

If you have no religious perspective and sex is a pleasant leisure activity, why should you not explore its dimensions, watching, participating, selling, buying ? After all, these dimensions have been around for a very long time. Mrs Whitehouse would have been well aware of these issues. As time passes the Humphrys view (1960s version) looks more and more out of touch with reality, and the Whitehouse version more and more realistic and worldly.

A Blunder AND a Crime

I don't know. If you wanted to dismay your friends and add a few new enemies I don't think you could do much better than Israel did yesterday morning. AS I understand it, in international waters (aka the "high seas"), you are governed by the laws and regulations of the country whose flag you are flying/country of registry of your vessel. You can be boarded by the authorities of that country but in theory no-one else.

If you are flying no flag/do not have a clearly defined country of registry, then you are de facto a pirate and can be boarded/challenged by any naval vessel.

Those Turkish ships hardly fall into either category vis a vis the Israeli navy. Attacking vessels on the high seas is piracy, isn't it ?

It's not as if the boats were carrying arms. Cement isn't a deadly weapon. And no matter who did what on the boats, the IDF had no right to be there at all.