OVERHEARD IN HARRIS & HOOLE...
(An occasional feature)
7tth May
I have been very ill for the past week or so. Today is my first day out - slowly recovering. I went to Mass this morning and afterwards met up with Mary Winterbourne, Tony of the Big Saloon and Sugarboy Nando in Harris & Hoole. Wonderful chocolate eclairs and freshly roasted coffee lifted my spirits. The following conversation could be overheard:
Mary Winterbourne: I see from your blog Gene that Detterling is still wittering on about this Kiesle case. Why? He and Dawkins have been beaten out of sight on this issue.
Gene: Yes Mary. Among other things he keeps using the expression 'unfrocked'. That's not a word in the Catholic lexicon. I think he is talking of laicization. But he does not understand the meaning here. From the day that man Kiesle was first charged with his offences he was never again given permission to minister as a Catholic priest.
Tony of the Big Saloon: I thought you played a masterstroke Gene in bringing up the subject of the pinko/liberal Left and the Paedophile Information Exchange. How Detterling squirmed and wriggled.
Gene: Yes Tony. He had no answer did he? However I wish to now go easy on Detters. After all he is eighty - a very old man. I think the publication of Granny Barkes affected him a lot. I think it caused him to look back on his life and see what a failure he has been. He compares this with his friend Gene: Gene who has been a great success as a teacher and is now a critically acclaimed writer.
Mary Winterbourne: And on the subject of your writing Gene, what will be your next publication?
Gene: I was hoping to publish my one-act play Nancyboys Ahoy next. Unfortunately I just can't find my original manuscript. However, I have a feature entitled A Delia Divertimento coming up on this blog. It will be presented in serial form, in periodic instalments.
Mary Winterbourne: I'm sure it will be written with the ineffable delicacy and lightness of touch that characterises all your writing Gene.
Gene: Thank you so much Mary. I hope to begin posting this feature this week
Sugarboy Nando: Any news about the publication of Detterling's memoirs?
Loud laughter from all.
No, Gene, you have not recovered: you are still barking mad.
ReplyDeleteRepeating the same nonsense in this tired and badly written dialogue with your imaginary friends does not make it ring any truer: nor does desperate quibbling about "laicisation" constitute a point worth making.
No, Gene, you are simply repeating the invented piffle which has already been completely refuted. But, as you are simply not going to wear me down, I say again.
[1] "the pinko-liberal left" does not exist as a choate political entity with a unanimous opinion. A non existent body can neither condone nor condemn anything.
[2] You have been completely unable to prove that any body of left wing opinion such as the Parliamentary or National Labour party condoned the PIE. It is true that several left wing figures were simultaneously members of the Labour Party and the National Council for Civil Liberties. This does not mean that they condoned the PIE.
[3] The British left-wing did not condone the PIE, but even if they had, this would have had nothing to do with the fact that an American priest's abuse of children, which could have been prevented had Ratzinger unfrocked him when he was asked to in 1985, was allowed by this criminal dereliction to continue for another three years. This happened irrespective of any left wing viewpoints in another country. To suggest that there is a connection is demented. [4] The NCCL membership comprised all shades of political opinion, and despite being challenged to several times, you have offered no evidence for the political allegiances of its members.
"Compare this to the case of the PIE which advocated adults having sex with children and which was affiliated for almost ten years to the pinko/liberal extreme Left NCCL. Plus two future Labour Government ministers were involved up to their eyes. Plus a Labour Party parliamentary candidate, Peter Tatchell, advocating adult sex with children."
Simply repeating this pack of lies is yet another proof that you are barking mad. And as for this ridiculous allegation: "You and your ilk condoned all this Detterling", that is the kind of offensively moronic and cowardly filth to which you would not dare to sign your name, and I will not dignify it with a response.
I have neither bluffed, blustered or slithered in this matter. I have acknowledged what is true - that the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL what time three Labour politicians were also members of the NCCL, that Mr Tatchell also supported the PIE what time he was a Labour candidate - although in supporting the PIE he was speaking on his own behalf, not the Labour Party's. I have pointed out the falsities, fallacies, lies and smears involved in your nonsensical attempt to prove that a non-existent body of left wing opinion condoned or condones the PIE, as well as pointing out why you are doing it - your complete failure to defend Ratzinger.
FACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" Ratzinger enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
There is only one true thing in your farrago of nonsense - that I am a very old man, and that my lifetime achievements in four careers - teacher, counsellor, writer and musician - have been modest.
But at least they have been real: I feel no need to invent critical acclaim for a vanity publication like "Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths".
"I think the publication of Granny Barkes affected him a lot. I think it caused him to look back on his life and see what a failure he has been. He compares this with his friend Gene: Gene who has been a great success as a teacher and is now a critically acclaimed writer."
ReplyDeleteA critically acclaimed writer whose vanity publication, Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths is now at number 2,665,072 in the Amazon Best Sellers list.
If that is the result of critical acclaim, then I wonder what result critical condemnation would have?
"However, I have a feature entitled A Delia Divertimento coming up on this blog. It will be presented in serial form, in periodic instalments."
ReplyDeleteI advise you, very strongly, not to publish a single word about my wife and family, Gene.
I'M QUAKING IN MY BOOTS!
DeleteGENE
I advise you, very strongly, not to publish a single word about my wife and family, Gene.
DeleteOoh! Matron!
DeleteI advise you, very strongly, not to publish a word about my wife and children. This is advice it would be very foolish for you to ignore, Gene.
DeleteYour allegation that I condoned the aims of the Paedophile Information Exchange is a level of nastiness to which I will, should you force me to, respond in kind and then some.
Your demented defence of Ratzinger, your equally demented claim to have done so victoriously and your continued delusions about being a critically acclaimed author are understandable outcomes of your narcissistic psychosis, and on those grounds I can see (just about) that you are more to be pitied than condemned.
But accusing me of condoning paedophilia is cold-blooded, vicious, deliberate and consciously deceitful nastiness on your part, and I am very near the point of deciding to pay you out with equally vicious nastiness - shopping you to Catholic Church and Catholic educational circles in Uxbridge and West London.
I repeat, as earnestly as I can: not one word about my wife and family.
"I repeat, as earnestly as I can: not one word about my wife and family."
ReplyDeleteAnd I repeat Ooh! Matron!
'A Delia Divertimento' ... watch this space.
GENE
"Mary Winterbourne: I see from your blog Gene that Detterling is still wittering on about this Kiesle case. Why? He and Dawkins have been beaten out of sight on this issue."
ReplyDeleteNonsense, Gene. You tried to shout me down, and you failed completely to refute or even to qualify the fact that in refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" [never mind the small boys buggered and the little girls raped, eh?], Joseph Ratzinger not only dismissed Stephen Keisle's vile crimes as less important than the greater good of the church, but also enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years.
"" Among other things he keeps using the expression 'unfrocked'. That's not a word in the Catholic lexicon. I think he is talking of laicization. But he does not understand the meaning here."
Completely irrelevant: if you are reduced to quibbles of this petty nature it shows that you are completely out of arguments.
"From the day that man Kiesle was first charged with his offences he was never again given permission to minister as a Catholic priest."
A total red herring, a non-issue: the FACT is that Ratzinger's refusal to unfrock Keisle enabled Keisle to go on abusing children in his role as a volunteer children's minister for three years.
"I thought you played a masterstroke Gene in bringing up the subject of the pinko/liberal Left and the Paedophile Information Exchange. How Detterling squirmed and wriggled."
Nonsense: you failed completely to establish any connection whatsoever between the British left wing and a Californian priest whose hobby was buggering little boys and raping little girls, and so far from squirming and wriggling, Detterling demonstrated this beyond doubt. Your attempt to smear him as a supporter of paedophilia backfired completely.
"However I wish to now go easy on Detters."
Not so: you are trying to find a way of breaking off this argument that doesn't look like what it is - your running away, in typical Gene fashion, from yet another complete humiliation.
"After all he is eighty - a very old man. I think the publication of Granny Barkes affected him a lot. I think it caused him to look back on his life and see what a failure he has been."
I am an old man: and your vanity publication Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths affected me not at all, beyond utter incredulity at how bad it was, and how you were reduced to censoring my honest and considered review of it on Amazon.
"He compares this with his friend Gene."
You are not my friend: I loathe you and everything you stand for; you are a disgusting human being.
"Gene who has been a great success as a teacher and is now a critically acclaimed writer."
And whose "reviews" by "A N Wilson" and "Arianna Huffington" he had to write himself, given that his vanity publication is now 2, 750, 000th in the Amazon sales list.
In the meantime, I repeat, for the last time: I advise you, very strongly, not to publish a word about my wife and children. This is advice it would be very foolish for you to ignore, Gene: ignore it and you will wish you had never been born.
Ooh! Matron!
ReplyDeleteFor 'A Delia Divertimento' watch this space.
"But accusing me of condoning paedophilia is cold-blooded, vicious, deliberate and consciously deceitful nastiness on your part, and I am very near the point of deciding to pay you out with equally vicious nastiness - shopping you to Catholic Church and Catholic educational circles in Uxbridge and West London."
ReplyDeleteListen Detterling, Gene is absolutely correct. The atheistic, pinko/liberal extreme Left did condone and in some cases support the existence of the P.I.E. This vile organisation was affiliated to the NCCL (the epitome of the Left) for almost ten years. Neither you nor Dawkins ever made a protest about its existence.
Now you are threatening Gene with taking away his freedom of speech. How typical of the Left. Free speech - but only when it suits us.
Sugarboy Nando
"Sugarboy Nando"? really? Do you think you are being whimsical, Gene? If you are, give it up. You are to whimsy as Russell Brand is to philosophy.
ReplyDelete"The atheistic, pinko/liberal extreme Left did condone and in some cases support the existence of the P.I.E. This vile organisation was affiliated to the NCCL (the epitome of the Left) for almost ten years. Neither you nor Dawkins ever made a protest about its existence."
No, Gene, this is nonsense, as I have demonstrated now about ten times. Simply repeating it will not make it any less nonsensical. Nor will it elide your true purpose in posting it - your total and utter failure to defend the criminal incompetence of Joseph Ratzinger over Father Stephen Keisle.
"The atheistic, pinko/liberal extreme Left" does not exist as a choate body of political and social opinion. It follows that a non-existent body can neither condone nor support anyone. It is true that, fifty years ago, a number of left wing politicians were simultaneously members of the Labour Party and the NCCL To infer from this that they supported the Paedophile Information Exchange is preposterous. Individual left wingers - Peter Tatchell for example - supported the PIE. In this Mr Tatchell spoke for himself, not for the Labour Party. Your assertion is nonsense: FAIL.
"...the NCCL (the epitome of the Left)...": I have challenged you several times to produce evidence of the political make up of the membership of NCCL and you have not done so - because you can't. Your implied assertion - that the NCCL is a left wing organisation, that it speaks for the left wing and that because the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL and that therefore the left wing supports paedophilia is preposterous. FAIL.
"Neither you nor Dawkins ever made a protest about its existence."
And you have never made a protest about drunk drivers, people shitting on the pavements, shoplifters or squatters. Are we to infer from this that you are favour of getting pissed and driving your car into a bus queue? that, after meeting your imaginary friends at Harris and Hoole, you drop your trousers and take a dump in Uxbridge High Street? that you approve of people stripping the shelves in your local Waitrose without paying? that you will be happy when a group of hippies pitch a tent on your lawn? Stop talking balls, Gene, there's a good lad. FAIL.
"Now you are threatening Gene with taking away his freedom of speech. How typical of the Left. Free speech - but only when it suits us." FAIL
Utter bollocks. Show me where I have said that you do not have the freedom of speech to write about my wife and family on this blog?
You can't, because I haven't.
What I have said, and what I will repeat, is that if you publish a single word about my wife and family on this blog, then I will shop you to Catholic Church and Catholic educational circles in Uxbridge and West London.
This is not preventing you from doing so: it is to point out the truism that your exercise of free speech carries responsibilities as well as rights, and that if you exercise those rights whilst cowering behind a pseudonym so as to avoid those responsibilities, then you will be punished for it.
You believe in free speech only when it licenses you anonymously and pseudonymously to write libellous filth about people who have annoyed you - such as your scurrilous accusation that I support paedophiles and paedophilia - without suffering any consequences - "power without responsibility, the prerogative of the whore through the ages".
That is not "free speech": it is vicious, malicious, cruel bullying and I will have no more of it.
And, lest we forget:
ReplyDeleteFACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" Ratzinger enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.