Sex-shaming

1. Introduction

During my college years, I had one professor who said the words that have guided me throughout life: “all is linked to all”.

Short, precise, concise but filled with… all.

Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has triggered, and rightfully so and about time, a focus without precedent of sexual harassment by powerful men.

Other well-known people have been exposed both as assaulters and as enablers through their silence of harassment occurrences they knew to exist.

As expected, we fully support such focus and unreservedly condemn any and all perpetrators of such disgusting behaviour.

The issue ‘overflowed’ into Britain by the hands of The Times in its article by Henry Zeffman, Patrick Maguire, Grant Tucker, Alexi Mostrous and Billy Kenber, published on Saturday Oct 28 2017 “Sexual Harassment: Minister and three MPs accused of sex texts, misconduct and affairs.”

In it:

“Four MPs, including a minister, have been engulfed in sexual misconduct allegations swirling around Westminster.

The MPs, all male, are accused of harassing or propositioning young women inappropriately — in some cases over a number of years.”

The issue was followed up that Saturday with the Sun article by Holly Christodoulou “ABOUT TIME: Jeremy Corbyn FINALLY condemns ‘warped’ sex pest MPs after he was accused of ‘turning a blind eye’ to abuse in Westminster”

In it:

“It comes after four MPs, including a minister, had been caught up in allegations of sexual misconduct at Westminster.

The MPs, two Labour and two Conservative, have been accused of harassing or propositioning young women inappropriately according to The Times.”

And to be noted the first use of the words “sex pest” which we would see very much repeated and which is something we wish to address later in the post.

On Wednesday we received a comment which we decided not to publish, and even censor:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "New name and (NOT) an anniversary":

http://evolvepolitics.com/torysleaze36-names-36-mps-tory-sex-pest-list-leaked-onto-social-media/

Soon there will be nothing left to blackmail them with!

(Twitter link censored)

Wonder what (censored) secret is?

Makes you wonder how much longer before Mc swinger story has less impact than it might have done before this…

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 1 Nov 2017, 20:21:00”

The first censoring was for reasons that the Twitter link provided opened up a picture of the list with the names visible.

The second censoring was because a person was named.

2. Sex pest list revealed

We are fully aware that the list can be searched and seen on social media but we refuse to collaborate with sex-shaming people, even if they have engaged in criminal activity as some are accused in the list to have.

We prefer to trust in the legitimate authorities to pursue those who are accountable, without exceptions.

The reader may call us naïve and maybe we are, but as we are very wary of how uncontrollable vigilantism can easily become, we prefer to limit ourselves to being the ‘couch-journalists’ we assume to be and let such sensitive matters be dealt with qualified professionals.

And there are names on the list that shouldn’t be there, as we will address later.

Please note that we do not condemn the reporting of names of offenders by the media. There are journalistic ethics that and law compliance that we trust are met before such a thing is done.

The article linked by Anonymous was from the site evolvepolitics.com, by J.D McGregor, published Oct 31 2017 “#TorySleaze36 – The names of the 36 MPs on the ‘Tory Sex Pest List’ have leaked onto social media”:

“An un-redacted version of the ‘Tory Sex Pest List’ has been leaked onto social media, and the allegations are so serious they have the potential to bring down the government.

The shocking list names 7 Cabinet Ministers, 14 other government Ministers, as well as 8 former Ministers.

The most serious allegations contained in the list concern two Conservative MPs who have both asked women to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) – a prominent method of ensuring victims are silenced about alleged sexual abuse. One of the MPs named is a prominent Cabinet member.”

Of the names listed we will make an exception and reveal one, without saying of what he is accused of in the list, and that is Boris Johnson.

We’re doing it because we think that at this point in time he’s a relevant person in the Maddie case as we explained in our previous post “A new name and (NOT) an anniversary”.

We would like to highlight that the list contains 40 names and not only 36 and that not all named politicians are male.

So, if the objective of the exposure of this list was to expose male sexual harassment, then it’s clearly off-target, or better said has other objectives.

3. The accusations

We have seen two lists. As shown above and both censored by both those who published and us. Our censorship is in blue in both the black & white and colour lists.

List A

List B

It’s very interesting to see that they are not replicas of each other.

We will call the first (black & white) as List A and the other list (colour) as List B and will number the politicians named. We will also highlight in blue what are the differences between the accusations in both:

#1 List A: Ashley Madison - handsy at parties

#1 List B: Ashley Madison. Refers to 2015 claim that he was member of adultery website. He denied this

#2 List A: Impregnated former researcher, made her have an abortion + had relations with other female researchers (censored)

#2 List B: Impregnated former researcher, made her have an abortion and had relations with other female researchers. No comment yesterday

#3 List A: Inappropriate with women, including interviews and paid a woman to be quiet

#3 List B: Inappropriate with women, including interviews and paid a woman to be quiet

#4 List A: Sexual relations with (censored) and inappropriate with women

#4 List B: Accused of 'inappropriate' relations with women. Previously resigned over sexting

#5 List A: Sexual relations with (censored)

#5 List B: Accused of sexual relations with member of his private office

#6 List A: NDA between him and (censored)

#6 List B: Legal agreement between him and female researcher

#7 List A: Inappropriate behaviour with women, asked (censored) to buy sex toys. Faces inquiry

#7 List B: Inappropriate behaviour with women, asked PA to buy sex toys. Faces inquiry

#8 List A: Inappropriate behaviour with female and male staff (censored)

#8 List B: Inappropriate behaviour with female and male staff

#9 List A: Odd sexual penchants and sexual with fellow MP (censored) a drunk

#9 List B: Accused of odd sexual penchants

#10 List A: Handsy with women

#10 List B: Handsy with women. No detail about who made claim

#11 List A: Sexual relations with (censored) and others

#11 List B: Sexual relations with researcher and others

#12 List A: Inappropriate with male researchers + (censored)

#12 List B: Inappropriate behaviour with male researchers

#13 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers

#13 List B: Accused of inappropriate behaviour with female researchers

#14 List A: Inappropriate with male researchers - long history

#14 List B: Accused of inappropriate behaviour with male researchers

#15 List A: Nicknamed Guy 'Copperfeel' - handsy with females

#15 List B: Nicknamed 'Copperfeel' - handsy with females

#16 List A: Impregnated (censored)

#16 List B: Accused of impregnating office manager. Couple live together, have son.

#17 List A: Dates his (censored)

#17 List B: Dates his researcher (our censoring). Already public, consensual

#18 List A: Perpetually intoxicated and very inappropriate with women

#18 List B: Perpetually intoxicated and very inappropriate with women

#19 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers + handy in taxis

#19 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers and handy in taxis

#20 List A: Inappropriate with male researchers and heavy drinker + touched (censored)

#20 List B: Inappropriate with male researchers and heavy drinker

#21 List A: Inappropriate with male journalist in a taxi.

#21 List B: Accused of being inappropriate with male journalist in taxi. 'I can't recall anything' he said yesterday

#22 List A: Takes his (censored) to the cinema and to private rooms at Carlton

#22 List B: Takes his personal trainer to the cinema and to private rooms at the Carlton

#23 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers and (censored)

#23 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers. Previously reported to of had six-month affair

#24 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers + uses prostitutes for odd sexual acts

#24 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers - uses prostitutes for odd sexual acts

#25 List A: Fornicated with male researchers while backbench MP + sexual relations with (censored)

#25 List B: Fornicated with male researchers while backbench MP

#26 List A: Inappropriate with male researchers

#26 List B: Inappropriate with male researchers

#27 List A: Inappropriate behaviour with female private office staff

#27 List B: Inappropriate behaviour with female private office staff

#28 List A: (censored)

#28 List B: Accused of inappropriate relationship

#29 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers and journalists + asked to take three females aides on holiday

#29 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers and journalists and asked to take three females aides on holiday

#30 List A: Inappropriate with male MPs after and pre-divorce

#30 List B: Inappropriate with male MPs after and pre-divorce

#31 List A: Inappropriate with females (redacted)

#31 List B: Inappropriate with females

#32 List A: Asked female researcher to do odd things (censored)

#32 List B: Asked female researcher to do odd things. He has denied this

#33 List A: Affair with (censored) who was married (censored)

#33 List B: Affair with female researcher who was married to local paper journalist. He confessed to this last year.

#34 List A: Video exists of three males urinating on him

#34 List B: Video exists of three males urinating on him

#35 List A: Injunction of inappropriate behaviour with a woman

#35 List B: Injunction of inappropriate behaviour with a woman

#36 List A: Affair

#36 List B: Affair. He blamed allegations of affair earlier this year as a 'vicious smear' campaign. No evidence of affair.

#37 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers (historic)

#37 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers

#38 List A: Known to have used male prostitutes

#38 List B: Known to have used male prostitutes. He quit as ministerial aide over this in 2014

#39 List A: Workplace relationship with (censored)

#39 List B: Workplace relationship with (our censoring). PPS to the Chancellor. Widely reported

#40 List A: Likes to have intercourse with men who are wearing women's perfume

#40 List B: Like to have intercourse with men who are wearing women's perfume

Note that we have uncensored what List A censored about politician #1. We have since seen an un-redacted copy of the list.

Evidently whoever censored List A confused Ashley Madison with the name of a person, when it is a famously known dating site used by many married people seeking to have affairs.

As can be seen, both lists albeit with differences have very similar accusations.

This makes us think that the list is real, and accusations have been made there.

However, these differences show that this was not a list leaked electronically nor even in hard paper format.

We sincerely hope that the pros disguised as antis (some of them with prestige among us) will not, at least this time, use the ridiculous argument that it’s Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software that is responsible for the differences between these lists, like they did to justify the blatant discrepancies between the various booking sheets and the miraculous appearance of typed characters in the Crèche sheets.

We think the lists made public are the result of journalists being shown a copy in hard-copy format but which was not handed over them.

Then they were free to take all notes from it and they did just that.

Then they went back to their desks and made up their own Excel spreadsheets. Some were more economical than other with words or decided to use different wording.

This list is not the result of journo sleuth but from a leak from inside the corridors of power. This is very important as we’ll show later.

4. Unacceptable misogyny

In terms of content we highlight some terminology used.

One shows clearly that the leaking of the list was not meant to expose sexual harassment by powerful people.

For example, we find the term “impregnated” rather dehumanising, not very respectful to women and pregnancy.

Not that it’s not scientifically incorrect but it makes pregnancy sound like a scene from Aliens.

It reduces the female reproductive system to a mere receptacle.

We consider its use crude, not to say misogynistic and not appropriate for a document supposed to be exposing the inequalities of gender, and the assault of one over the other, in the corridors of power.

But absolutely misogynistic is the use of the term “fornicated” which is used for politician #25.

It happens that #25 is a woman. She is said to have fornicated while politicians #4, #5 and #11, who happen to be men, are said to have had “sexual relationships”. Why?

It clearly shows that the list has no intent to expose harassment by powerful people but its only purpose is very clear and objective: sex-shaming.

5. Green light

As we said in our post “Summer Games” about Colin Sutton’s saintly appearance on May 3 in the Maddie case, politically sensitive issues need a green light somewhere up the stream:

“As we have said in another forum, more precisely on Facebook and then speaking about Sutton’s apparent good intentions, we are fascinated by the fact that how people knowing how politically sensitive the Maddie case is, believe that anything that is published in the MSM about the case is genuine and/or innocent.

We are certain that it is filtered, analysed and approved by the higher echelons in the corridors of power.

A story to see the light of day has to serve a purpose, accomplish an objective, that simple.

Anyone speaking against the McCanns in the official MSM should be immediately heard with the same suspicion as is anyone who speaks in their favour.

One thing is to want to speak, another completely different is to be heard. To be heard, officially, about Maddie one has to first pass a green light somewhere.”

It is not enough to know, one has to have the capability to propagate what one knows. And if one doesn’t have it, one can get it by getting permission to propagate it by those who do have the capability to authorise that to happen.

And it can’t get more politically sensitive than this kind of list.

Well, it can. And that is a detail of utmost importance.

This list is really, really politically sensitive, no question about that but if we would rank in political sensitivity, we can think immediately of one other list which would be much more sensitive than this one and that we are certain that exists – and which we will address later in the post – and that be one linking politicians to paedophilia.

But setting that paedo list aside for a moment, and taking into account the names on sex-pest list, or at least some of the names its release would represent lawsuits of enormous consequences if there hadn’t been a green light allowing it to be leaked.

Why we think this green light happened, and again we will address that later.

6. Sex-shaming

We evidently don’t think this list was released because of the Maddie case.

We are even certain that the Maddie case was not even in the back of the mind of the people involved in deciding to release it, in releasing it and propagating the list.

But we do think that it will have consequences in the Maddie case, as we will hopefully explain.

But one thing that stands out from it that is of relevance to the Maddie case and that we wish to focus on: the sex-shaming.

Because of this list, the Secretary of Defense has resigned in what the MSM is calling the “sleaze scandal”. Sleaze being the key word here. A term that followed the sex pest title.

We wish to address specifically and DIRECTLY all those who state with absolute certainty that if swinging was happening in Luz it wouldn’t be reason to be covered-up because it isn’t illegal and so no one would need to hide it.

We would like to ask those people (and how surprised we would be if we got an answer) what is illegal about the following accusations, made explicitly in the “sex-pest” list:

#1 – Ashley Madison / Ashley Madison. Refers to 2015 claim that he was member of adultery website. He denied this

#2 - and had relations with other female researchers.

#4 - Sexual relations with (censored)

#5 - Sexual relations with (censored) / Accused of sexual relations with member of his private office

#9 - Odd sexual penchants and sexual with fellow MP (censored) a drunk / Accused of odd sexual penchants

#11 - Sexual relations with (censored) and others / Sexual relations with researcher and others

#16 - Impregnated (censored) / Accused of impregnating office manager. Couple live together, have son.

#17 - Dates his (censored) / Dates his researcher (censored). Already public, consensual

#22 - Takes his (censored) to the cinema and to private rooms at Carlton / Takes his personal trainer to the cinema and to private rooms at the Carlton

#23 - Previously reported to of had six-month affair

#24 - uses prostitutes for odd sexual acts

#25 - Fornicated with male researchers while backbench MP + sexual relations with (censored) / Fornicated with male researchers while backbench MP

#33 - Affair with (censored) who was married (censored) / Affair with female researcher who was married to local paper journalist. He confessed to this last year.

#34 - Video exists of three males urinating on him

#36 - Affair / Affair. He blamed allegations of affair earlier this year as a 'vicious smear' campaign. No evidence of affair.

#38 - Known to have used male prostitutes / Known to have used male prostitutes. He quit as ministerial aide over this in 2014

#39 - Workplace relationship with (our censoring) / Workplace relationship with (censored) PPS to the Chancellor. Widely reported

#40 - Likes to have intercourse with men who are wearing women's perfume

One may agree or disagree with the sexual choices of each one of the individuals above.

We may even find some of them completely disgusting, such as the urology fetish, but none of the above listed is illegal.

As we have said, we are fully in favour of political-shaming. But let’s write that again: POLITICAL-shaming. Not sex-shaming.

If that political shaming involves some sort of sexual activity then we’re all for it to see it exposed.

Let’s use an example. If a politician campaigns fiercely against prostitutes and wants to criminalise prostitution and then is caught with a prostitute then he should be exposed.

Not because of the sexual act per se, nor would it be a question of legality as only pimping and forcing someone to prostitute is illegal in the UK.

The shaming would not be sexual but political as the exposed would be the politician’s hypocrisy.

Another example would be if a politician would be against abortion, then it would be known that his partner would be getting one with his knowledge. Exposing that would be exposing the politician’s hypocrisy.

Political-shaming is exactly that, hypocrisy revealed.

But if the above politicians were not for criminalising prostitution, in the first example, or not against abortion, in the second, then neither of the above instances should be on the news. It would be their private life and that should be respected.

And in the case of the abortion example, the politician in question if he didn’t know of the pregnancy (and so wouldn’t know of the abortion) or if he found himself in the situation of having no power in the decision, such as him not wanting it but his partner disagreeing with him then there would be no hypocrisy on his part and so the sanctity of his private life should be respected.

If two people who work in the same place engage in sexual relationships in the workplace and their work is paid by the taxpayer as MPs are, then that sexual relationship should be exposed because of where it is being consummated and not because it is a consensual sexual relationship between co-workers.

What they decide to do consensually outside their workplace is no one’s business but their own. In this case, to expose their relationship is simply wrong.

One may enjoy using prostitutes, have an affair, enjoy being urinated on and even have the fetish of women’s perfume on men with whom they are intimate with or whatever other odd sexual penchant but that’s their business and no one else’s.

Yet, the British media has them on a “sex pest” list. In a sleaze scandal.

Can anyone say in what way are the following 2 in any way reprehensible, legally, morally, socially or whatever other values one wishes to use?

#16 - Impregnated (censored) / Accused of impregnating office manager. Couple live together, have son.

#17 - Dates his (censored) / Dates his researcher (censored). Already public, consensual

What is there disgusting about this that is worth being mentioned in a sleaze scandal?

They seem to portray perfectly happy people. But thanks to list they are now part of the “sex pest” fest.

Now imagine being accused of swinging, that legal activity that we all agree is legal.

So, from now on, to anyone who again utters the ridiculousness of saying that swingers would be perfectly fine with being outed, we have only 3 words for them: sex-pest list.

7. The specialised intel

But let’s get back to the high level of the game, the political level.

This list shows us 2 very important things: the giving o the green light and the specialised intel.

The first we have already touched upon and promised to speak more of in the post.

What we want to highlight now is that it shows that intelligence was collected and collated about members of parliament.

Or to put it plainly, dirt on MPs was collected and put on a list.

And about why this is done, we fully agree with Ben Gelblum in his London Economic article published Oct 31 2107 “Leaked list of Conservative Party sex pest sleaze published, shaming THIRTY SIX current Tory MPs”. In it he says:

“Katie Perrior, the PM’s former head of communications, appeared on BBC One’s Breakfast, insisting details were “kept away from the prime minister” but “information is held by the whips, because they use it to make sure that MPs know that other people within the party know exactly what they’ve been up to, and that behaviour either is not acceptable, or it will be used against them – you will vote in a certain way or we will tell your wife exactly what you’ve been up to.”

Or in other words, unless anyone else can see it differently, blackmail.

But the point we want to make is that this sort of information doesn’t just get together by itself, line up and walk into an Excel spreadsheet.

There has to be a structure. An organisation. People paid by the taxpayer to collect dirt for politicians on other politicians. Dirt that can be used to ‘influence’ their decisions and public attitudes and opinions on many number of issues.

Convenient decisions and public attitudes and opinions.

For example, just to use one and as this blog is about that, the Maddie case.

But as we have said, we would think that a similar list but on paedophilia would be much more sensitive politically and damning for those on it.

Now, we know that Jim Gamble worked on Operation Ore. Operation Ore was about paedophilia.

If, and we’re purely speculating here, Jim Gamble had a similar list as the sex-pest one but relating politicians to paedophilia, one can imagine the power the man would have to influence some very influential people and also imagine how willingly these influential people would be to cooperate with anything they were asked to do, say or decide.

A list linking politicians to paedophilia, would be much more politically sensitive than this one.

But, as we said, we are just speculating. And we’ll let the reader link up that speculation with the Maddie case, if they believe it may apply.

8. The “sex-pest” ‘Murat’

As we have said, for this list to have been released, there had to be authorisation for it to be released.

We can only speculate.

Looking at the importance of some of the names mentioned we have to assume it came from the highest powers indeed.

From someone who needed to loosen up, not to say to really let go of the stranglehold the person felt exerted by others in influencing his or her decisions.

And we could speculate that those people exerting this influence were the ones and the same we have called here the “Brexit elite”.

With the exposure of this list, that person would show very clearly that there was no more room for games, that things could get really serious (let’s imagine that this is not the only sex pest list or that there are many more details that could be added to it) and would be telling those people, by showing s/he can to order their dogs to back off.

Once message sent and understood, it was needed to contain it. Not let it propagate any further than absolutely needed.

Remember the little boy who in July allegedly disappeared in Luz, something we said happened just to stifle the news coming out about Ben Needham that were going out of control?

Here, the little boy was Michael Fallon.

He, in our opinion, was used like Robert Murat was in the Maddie case: someone was needed to attract attention and a scapegoat was chosen for the sacrifice.

Resigned because he put his hands on a woman’s knee.

In this case, again we repeat that we are speculating, Michael Fallon has stopped the issue going to other inconvenient places and will be the only name the public will remember from the sex pest sleaze scandal.

But others – and not only those on the list – have been warned and know they have been warned.

Depending on the size of the skeletons in their closets, they can either continue sharpening up their knives or discreetly put them away and pretend they never had them in their hands in the first place.

And to those saying that this has weakened Theresa May’s position, so it must be against her, we would ask them to stop and think for a moment, if it’s in the interest of the Conservative Party to have new elections at the moment.

We would say, that it is in the interest of that party for that not to happen.

Oh, and we can also reveal that Theresa May’s name does not appear on the list, while other names do.

Worse than being accused of covering-up for a deed, is being accused of having done the deed itself. The deeds on the list, or others that may have been held back.

At least, that’s what we think.

9. Conclusion

The sex-pest list is way above the Maddie case. Its leaking had nothing to do with it.

However, as we said, we do think that it may have consequences.

Firstly, because we think the position of the “Brexit elite” has been significantly weakened. Their power significantly reduced.

Then, because we feel that it softens the blow if truth is to be outed as after this, the public won’t be half as shocked to find out that sexual peccadilloes, swinging to be specific, is behind the entire cover-up.

We make ours the Anonymous words:

“Makes you wonder how much longer before Mc swinger story has less impact than it might have done before this…”