An episode filmed in the lifelong family tragedy of one child’s ruined childhood, when he was only 4, helped lead to a courtroom comedy more than two years later.
Events including (but not confined to) those caught on camera as shown in the video, led to a court case that ended somewhat comically in 2017. Comically, but, alas, not happily for the child concerned.
First, the incident that, in part, kicked off the court case. The following video was shot in December 2014.
My report dated 4th October 2018 to Police Scotland of its own hate crime, in the form of a poster bearing Police Scotland’s logo that uses hate speech against religious people, is published here: Police Scotland’s hate crime.
Subsequent email correspondence from Police Scotland to myself in response to my hate crime report, consisting principally of what I refer to as standard fob-off emails 1 and 2, and from me in reply to Police Scotland’s two fob-off emails, is published here: Police Scotland’s bid to wriggle out of hate crime bust.
This morning, I received a typed letter from Police Scotland, by Recorded delivery.
This is what today’s letter said:-
I reported Police Scotland’s hate crime a week ago.
This post brings you up-to-date with the correspondence I’ve had with the police since reporting the hate crime.
The hate crime I reported was the display of this poster :-
Following the Reverend David Robertson’s excellent example, along with at least one other person so far, I have reported to Police Scotland a hate crime committed by Police Scotland itself. I used the online form that is here. I encourage you all to do the same, even if you don’t live in Scotland. (Read on to find out why you don’t have to live in Scotland to report the crime.)
The hate crime concerned is the printing and display of the poster depicted. The victims of the hate crime are the people of faith against whom this intimidating, threatening, offensive, stereotyping, alarming and distressing hate-speech poster incites the reader to religious hatred.
I actually reported the poster twice, because the online form’s design compelled this: once in my capacity as a witness of the crime, and a second time in my capacity as a victim of the same crime. (I am both.)
THIS IS WHAT I WROTE … Continue reading
On and off, Gagged Dad and I have blogged on this website about his court case against Cornwall Council, and the facts behind it, for almost four years now. Judgment was at last handed down on 28th April 2017.
The blog posts that tell Gagged Dad’s story-so-far, are all together in one place now. The title of the earliest of those posts in the entire series, which first broke the news story, before it turned into a court case, and which told it simply, and (the High Court has confirmed) truthfully, as near as dammit, was
Two year-old’s contact stopped with ‘homophobic’ dad
CORNWALL SOCIAL SERVICES WANTS A SECRET TRIAL IN GAGGED DAD CASE
Please act now. Hearing is on 23rd October 2015.
Question 1: Should social services separate a child from his mum or dad, when mum or dad openly opposes a government policy that he or she considers to be morally wrong?
Question 2: If social services does this, and that parent sues the council under the Human Rights Act for interference with his family life and discrimination on the grounds of his beliefs, should the trial be held in secret?
Please sign the petition now!
For them to attain marriage equality with the rest of us, people who identify as bisexual, must immediately be allowed to practise “different sex bigamy”. The governments of the world (if indeed they still be plural) must all immediately allow each self-identified “bisexual” person to marry two spouses, one a husband, the other a wife.
Why Tesco should resist pressure to discriminate against Asher’s bakery
The old maxim, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, was intended to restrain the lust of the outraged for vengeance, in order to prevent an escalation of conflict. Continue reading
Pianist finally allowed to tell his story of sexual abuse
In the experience of Gagged Dad and others, those who testify to having engaged in homosexual behaviours during childhood or adolescence, but not in their maturity, are one of the most vehemently hated minorities in society today, not former victims whose testimony of abuse that they have survived other people rejoice to hear.
Vitriolic verbal abuse is typically heaped (even some on this blog) upon those who out themselves as “ex-gay” as Gagged Dad and James Rhodes have done, even when (as for both men) their gay years came to an end before they reached adulthood, and in any case were inflicted upon them by older people of the same sex, who perhaps went on to chose a gay (and perhaps ongoing child-abusive) way of life permanently for themselves.
Survivors of homosexual abuse during childhood and adolescence aren’t even allowed to publish their testimonies of abuse they “got over” on the sides of London buses, on an equal basis with those who remained in homosexuality.
Many people HATE former victims of underage homosexual abuse who speak out, accusing them of “hate speech”, because they out themselves as survivors of underage sodomy, as James Rhodes and Gagged Dad have done.
Any ex-gay survivor who goes public can expect a lot of hate mail, if Gagged Dad’s experience is anything to go by. James Rhodes should expect to be shouted down, by strangers who wish to insist that James should tell his story, using politically correct language of which they approve, in order to document what he endured, and has survived.
Readers who appreciate this post may also appreciate:
Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”
The homophobic manifesto
What’s in a name? There’s LOTS in a name!
B*ggers CAN be choosers!
Why foster carers, but not natural parents?
Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad
Please follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too.
UK Human Rights Blog
Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court
James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another,  UKSC 32
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in an appeal by the celebrated concert pianist, James Rhodes. You can read the judgment here and watch Lord Toulson’s summary here.
The case considered whether Mr Rhodes could be prevented from publishing his memoir on the basis that to do so would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm. Those acting on behalf of Mr Rhodes’ son were particularly concerned about the effect upon him of learning of details of his father’s sexual abuse as a child.
View original post 1,273 more words
Guest post by “Gagged Dad”, whose real name must be kept secret, to protect the privacy of a minor
When the police at last cleared me of the false allegation that I had hit my two year-old son, I expected to be allowed to see him again straight away. I had been a part of his life since birth. I had been seeing him three times a week until almost two months ago, when all contact was abruptly stopped. I miss him, and he must be missing me.
The social worker said that the alleged assault, for which I had documentary proof of an alibi that would have proved my innocence if the police prosecuted me, wasn’t an “insurmountable” problem. But she had developed other “concerns”, about (if I remember the phrase correctly) my “parenting style”, because of my “beliefs”. (She had presumably found out that I used to take my son to church every Sunday. He loved it.)
I asked her to explain. What beliefs?
She responded by asking me a weird question. What if, when my my son was 14, he told me that he was “gay” and that he had a “boyfriend” and I was “violently opposed” to this? She wanted to know what I would do, in this hypothetical situation. How would I react to this announcement? Presumably she anticipated that I would react “violently”, judging by the way she had worded her hypothetical question. I reminded her that my son was only two.
She then asked me how I would react if one of my grown-up daughters one day told me that she had had an abortion.
I later learnt that social services had decided not to “promote contact.” I missed his third birthday. I don’t know whether I will ever see my little boy again. If he can no longer have contact with me, who will take him to visit his three sisters and brother, or his aunts and uncles, or his nephews and nieces who are closer to his own age? Who will take him to church?