Sean Gabb – Banned by UKIP!!!

This is a draft put together in my lunchbreak. It may change by tonight

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the
Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 170
12th March 2008
postCount(‘flc170’);Comments | postCountTB(‘flc170’); Trackback

Second Thoughts on UKIP
by Sean Gabb

The day before yesterday, I published an article about my attendance at the rally of the United Kingdom Independence Party in Exeter. This was a strongly positive account, and was coupled with an explanation of my refusal to consider standing as a candidate for UKIP. I was called this morning and told that my article has caused such outrage within UKIP that my invitation to speak at the rally to be held in Morcambe on the 29th of this month has been withdrawn.

This outrage, it seems, was caused by my brief statement of what it means to be a libertarian. I said the day before yesterday that I believe in legalising all drugs, in repealing all race relations laws, and in repealing some of the laws against child pornography.

I am surprised that my statement had this effect. I have spent the past three decades arguing very clearly on every occasion for what I believe. My writings are very clear and are all over the Internet. I state my views several dozen times a year on radio and television. I spent most of the 1990s explaining them in meetings of the Conservative Party. Anyone who was not previously aware of what I and the Libertarian Alliance and the libertarian movement in general believe has a very weak claim to be taken seriously as a participant in British politics.

I cannot be bothered to justify my position on drug legalisation. I doubt if what I said about the race relations laws caused any offence within UKIP – not, I fear, because most UKIP members believe in freedom of speech and association, but because some of them rather like the idea of being allowed to behave uncharitably to people of other races. However, though I shall not say anything I have not said many times already, I will briefly clarify my views on child pornography.

I do not believe children can give valid consent to any sexual act. Therefore, sex with children should be illegal. It should be illegal because there is a chance of physical harm, and because there is some chance – though perhaps less than we are told – of emotional harm; and because, regardless of the acts, it seems to be that the sort of people who want to have sex with children should not generally be allowed near children. If anyone in UKIP claims that I am in favour of sex with children, he needs to be stupid or malevolent.

I turn to child pornography. If someone produces or commissions indecent pictures of a child, he is guilty of sexual assault or is an accessory to sexual assault. If someone merely buys such pictures, without having directly commissioned them, it is arguable that he too should be treated as an accessory – in the same way as it is illegal knowingly to buy stolen goods. If someone is under investigation for a sexual assault on children, and a search of his property turns up indecent pictures of children, these should of course be used as evidence.

I do not believe, however, that mere possession of such pictures should be an offence. In general, I believe that people should be free to have anything they like on their own property. The obvious exceptions to this rule would be stolen property and the sort of thing that would allow a tort action under the Rylands v Fletcher rule. For example, if I am an alcoholic chain smoker and I have 500 jerry cans of petrol in my basement, my neighbours should be able to take me to court and have the petrol removed. And it is a matter of practical convenience whether my neighbours should be expected to rely on the civil courts or be able to call on the police. Beyond that, an Englishman’s home should be his castle.

The most practical argument for this rule is that indecent photographs might be part of a chain of evidence against a child molester, and the case will usually stand or fall on all the evidence. Where possession is concerned, conviction can be on the word of a single police officer. There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact of possession. This is an abuse of law. Our own authorities may not be so corrupt and oppressive as their counterparts elsewhere in the world. But it is well known that the police fit people up in this country. They fabricate evidence of crimes sometimes because they believe someone is guilty but cannot find the evidence, or because they simply dislike someone. And we are moving rapidly to a political environment in which dissidence will be punished by accusations of crimes that need no external evidence but produce an indelible taint on one’s reputation.

Because people often have short memories for law, I will add that possession of child pornography only became an offence in 1994. Members of UKIP are forever quoting Hugh Gaitskill about “a thousand years of British history”. Well, I have been publicly snubbed by UKIP because I am not happy with a fourteen year old law rammed through Parliament by Michael Howard.

I turn now to child pornography produced abroad. I thought it was a central part of the UKIP argument to be hostile to extraterritorial jurisdictions. The decisions of foreign legislative assemblies and courts should have no direct application in our own country. An obvious converse of this position is that our own courts should not punish offences committed in foreign countries. By all means, let suspects be extradited to face trial for crimes committed abroad – extradited, of course, with rather more scrutiny than now takes place. But our courts should have no direct jurisdiction over acts committed abroad.

If we assume that the purpose of the laws against child pornography are to protect children, rather than police the imagination, it follows that indecent pictures made in Thailand are a matter for the Thai authorities.

And for the record, I will say that what I think about child pornography applies to all other pictures and literature. People should be allowed to have bomb making instructions, holocaust revision propaganda, and video clips of killings in Iraq. In some cases, they should be at liberty to publish these. In all cases, they should be left alone to keep them at home.

Perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps there is an argument against my position that I have not considered. But  I am myself outraged that anyone could be so outraged by what I say that an invitation to speak made and accepted months ago should be suddenly withdrawn.

The title of the speech I gave last Saturday was “National Independence is not Enough”. What UKIP has just done is a good illustration of the argument I put, and of the wider background argument that I left unsaid. These people want to leave the European Union – and I agree with them. But what is their vision for an independent country? The answer, I fear in many cases, is that their only objection to the gigantic police state rising up around us is that it is enabled by the Treaty of Rome, and is directed against middle-aged white people rather than racial or sexual minorities. Free of Brussels, they would be delighted to live under a purely domestic tyranny. Others probably have no vision at all, beyond a vague belief that we can all go back to the good old days of the 1950s.

No wonder the Eurosceptic parties have not been able to break through in any domestic election, and are such easy targets for mockery by the ruling class.

There is an obvious difference between prudence and cowardice. I argued the other day that it would not be wise to ask me to stand as a UKIP candidate. Dropping me as one speaker among many is just contemptible. It indicates that I am right in my suspicions given above. At best, it shows a timidity and unsureness of purpose that calls in doubt the willingness of UKIP actually to deliver on the most controversial issue in British politics – which is to face down a wall of ruling class opposition and withdraw from the European Union.

I do not think there is any personal bitterness in my saying that I have reconsidered my opinion of UKIP. I shall continue to vote for it in elections because that is my one electoral chance to bring pressure on the Conservatives. But I realise I was far too enthusiastic in what I wrote about last Saturday.

NB�Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded free from You can help by contributing to publishing and distribution costs

40 responses to “Sean Gabb – Banned by UKIP!!!

  1. UKIP is the last best hope for the independence of the UK, not to say England.

    Perhaps, Sean, the people who have done this are concerned, in the present Climate of Darkness, that they may be sued, in some distant future time or place, because they think you may have said things that they think might get (them) into trouble (very, very much later) … with very, very much nastier people than they (think that they) face today?

  2. Perhaps they are just, well, afraid – like the rest of us? Who is not?

  3. Point taken. But it is the duty of politicians to be brave. That, after all, is why UKIP is supposed to exist.

  4. No, Sean; UKIP exists because every other party is a EU-phile party. Many of those in UKIP are extremely socially conservative; I too thought that it was a libertarian party and, indeed, many of the leaders are. The majority of membership, however, are not.

    This is why I left UKIP and helped set up the Libertarian Party — because I wanted a party that was prepared to be both economically and socially libertarian. And yes, to be brave.

    Even so, and whilst I can see your arguments about child pornography (and had an argument with a UKIPper yesterday on that subject), you cannot possibly have thought that it would not cause some outrage. Surely?


  5. Pingback: Sean Gabb at Exeter - Page 4

  6. Hah – as a libertarian Liberal Democrat I am happy arguing that Britain would be more liberal out of Europe. I may be a rare voice, but I’d rather make the case for being out in an arena that at least might understand that I am talking about liberty and not freedom to have a domestic tyranny. I think your assessment of UKIP is probably quite close to the mark. It makes it all the harder for true voices of liberty to talk about being “better off out”.

  7. Dear Sean:

    Thank you very much for your words concerning UKIP. I held back from saying them here for fear of giving unnecessary offence to good people. UKIP are Right Wing Authoritarians. In any discussion which polarizes positions on authoritarian proposals, UKIP will take the authoritarian position.

    Your analysis of the “Child Sex” and “Kiddie Porn” issues are flawed. They beg the question “What is a child”? when the correct issue under the Separation of Powers is “What constitutes Informed Consent?” This is for the Courts to determine on a factual case-by-case basis.

    The very existence of Intelligence Quotients shows that there can be a difference between chronological age and attained age.

    The term “child” is emotionally loaded. Everyone is someone’s child. For many parents, their children will always be children.

    People should not be deprived of their freedom on a presumption. If people can demonstrate informed consent in an impartial court of law, there can be no “offence.”

    That this procedure can be practicable and just, consider the King County Rules in Washington State. If young people are to be accused of a criminal offence, they are first assessed by the Court on their capacity for criminality in the matter. If they have the capacity for mens rea, the trial proceeds.

    The reciprocal form of this procedure assesses whether the person (who may or may not be “young” — chronological age is not the fundamental issue) has (or had at the time of the event) the actual capacity to give informed consent to what took place. If they didn’t, an assault has occurred, of whatever magnitude; and prosecution proceeds whatever the age of the victim.

    If a person of full capacity is a willing participant in what took place, we would have the absurd situation where the “victim” could be accused of being an accessory to the “crime” of assaulting them, while the “attacker” had not in fact attacked anyone, yet was being punished for it.

    If the objective of the current regime is to protect people, give them GPS radio alarms. This will give far greater protection, when possible attackers face immediate and determined rescuers turning up.



  8. Tony’s comments are very apposite and relevant, but only to a particular issue which got seriously and violently up the noses of the UKIP people.

    When UKIP invited you, Sean, I think three things were in their field-of-view:

    (1) They thought you were, as a conservative (which you are, really) a form of classical liberal British nationalist/statist (like them in fact…)

    (2) Also I don’t think they had really done their homework about what degree of statism you favoured. They thought it was more than it is, and….

    (3) Most of their members (which you have so accurately described – I can imagine being in the hall with you and see exactly who and what kind of good people were there) react violently towards things like “druggies, paedos, scroungers, hooligans, crinimals” and the like – not so far as to go and torch the homes of paediatricians, but close. (I like “crinimals” – I think I’ll TAG it!)

    They do not think that the explosion in the population of these kinds of people is due to the explosion in the practise of socialism in this nation. (I don’t think they distinguish between “paedos” and other kinds of crinimal here – not realising that the existence of this problem is possibly a biological hangover from the days of more extreme sexual dimorphism in specifically-pre-human-hominids than is the case now, and has roots in very very Deep Time. This discussion is for another argument later, which I am thinking about….)

    But they are wrong – although they don’t know it. For if they continue to allow the ruling “Enemy Class” to do its stuff, while they yet ban people like you from speaking at their do’s, then they will find themselves too far down the road to get back.

    But perhaps I am quite wrong, and they just did not want to run the risk of it to be reported by people like Rebekah Wade (who can’t, just can’t be someone I could imagine as their friend) that they entertained a speaker who “advocated legal kiddie-porn”. That’s how the harridan would put it in her headlines, anyway.

  9. and…..

    I wrote all that even before regarding the torment and amazing hoohah of dirty-linen-washing-in-public, right now going on in the democracyforum website…..

    These people are so upse,t that they really really know how best to shoot themselves (and UKIP, and English Independence) in the foot, in public.

  10. Here’s a sensible comment from off the democracymovement guys….


    “Mr Gabb takes his beliefs in individual liberties to absolute lengths. Those who spoke to him on the idea of aplying to the list were unaware of some of his,shall we say more contentious views.
    Though flattered and pleased by th eoffer I overheard his response.
    He thanked the proposer very kindly and pointed out to him that he would be an appalling liability to UKIP. So he would support the party from the outside.
    As the President of the Libertarian alliance he is a useful and influential friend. As a candidate, nay even as a member he would be impossible. A fact that he is self aware enough to not only recognise but also honest enough to warn people off.”

  11. The funny thing is that Sean has *never* advocated the legalisation of child porn production. All he has said is that possession of ANY image, video, document etc should not be outlawed.

    Seems perfectly logical to me. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing between coercive / violent acts and “thought crime”.

  12. Well, this is what has me blowing hot and cold about UKIP. On the one hand, I want out of the EU. But like Sean (and I hope he won’t be offended but I have on occasion referred to myself as a “Gabbite” in the occasional internets forum) I see that as only a first step towards a freer Britain. I.e. we can’t start trying to be libertarian, or at least less authoritarian, until we have control of our own polity again.

    So I’m skeptical about voting for a socially authoritarian secessionist party for the old “frying pan/fire” reasons. I’m sick to the back teeth of old Labour, and old Tories. I want some freedom please, not a choice between Red Ken and Colonel Blimp.

    I’m broadly in agreement with Sean’s view on child pornography, from an ideological position. But it’s also an incendiary subject (moreso now than it used to be as kiddie pr0n has been made one of the primary enabling metanarratives of the Enemy Class; indeed part of the reason I ended up politically where I am was following the hysteria as it began in Satanic Ritual Abuse and was then made part of the groupthink- it’s interesting to watch this latest flare-up in Jersey) and on a practical level any mention is bound to cause an apopleptic response. I thus take the view that “selling liberty” will mean compromising on this issue (as on others, such as National Health and the Dole, as Sean pointed out in his recent book) and concocting some kind of libertarian justification for keeping it entirely banned along the lines of “accessory to a crime” or some such. I’ve found it’s quite possible to plant libertarian seeds down the local boozer in conversation; I’ve also no doubt that if I started trying to justify any aspect of kiddie pr0n I’d probably get my head kicked in.

    Other “controversials” like drug legalisation, on the other hand, simply aren’t incendiary except among Old Tories and Young Labour. These are quite discussible. I don’t even belive that if a major party adopted a legalisation policy that it would do them much electoral harm- it may well do them some good- but one can guarantee of course that the media would go batshit.

    I did wonder when I read Sean’s piece whether it was wise coming out about the kiddie pr0n thing in a post about UKIP. As we see, it wasn’t :) But while I may well vote for them just on the Europe issue, I don’t think they’re “my kind of party” for the reasons Sean gave and which are abundantly clear. I remember in a comments section here discussing with David Davis my view that libertarianism != conservatism and it’s sometimes made me wonder a bit when Sean talks of himself as a “conservative”. Conservatives and socialists both want the government to control peoples’ lives, although conservatives tend to be a bit “less so” and they want different things controlled. They’re both social planning philosophies. I increasingly see libertarianism, at its core, as the argument that planning does not work, even if it were desirable. Socialists want a government that plans everybody and everything. Conservatives want one that plans everyone and everything except the specific conservative and what he does. Although conservatives and libertarians have some common cause at the moment due to the socialist cultural hegemony, we do not seek the same goals.

    So I’m sorry Sean had this happen, but I do think his earlier post was a trifle overenthusiastic about UKIP.

    Just my tuppence, in the old money.

  13. The other (slightly) interesting thing reading through the hysteria on democracyforum is how the UKIPpers can’t see the difference between “X should be legal” and “I approve of X”, which is the classic statist mindset.

  14. Harry Haddock

    You can learn everything you need to know about elements of the UKIP membership by some of the statements on the forum thread, for instance;

    ‘It may sound shocking now but no one could have imagined 50 years ago that homosexuality would be legalised or that men would be allowed to kiss and cavort in public.
    Only a Traditional Conservative government can stop this descent into the abyss.’

  15. I have looked at the democracyforum website. It seems that I knew as little about UKIP as it did about me. But I like Ian’s description of our choice between Red Ken and Colonel Blimp!

  16. I don’t think they understand the point of saying things such as Sean has. I mean, it is in some way a normal, and at times beneficial reaction to try to challenge the status quo of opinions, it’s what keeps the witch-hunters at bay. Personally, I don’t agree with people having child porn pictures etc, I I think I can sense they point he was trying to make. As for drugs, I wouldn’t have agreed a few years ago but you have to realise that people will get smashed off their face anyway, despite what is and isn’t legal. I know I do. Nah, I say carry on Sean. If the Archbishop of Canterbury can say what he likes, there’s no reason for you not to. And if they don’t like it, **** them.

  17. Sean:

    I have a question or two for you.

    [1] Plenty of people in Europe share our views on governance (divergent as they are).

    If, as I believe, the basic question is: “What should the rules be?” rather than “Who should rule?”, why should it be any more difficult to change ideas and governance in Europe as distinct from changing it in Britain? Liberalism, socialism, all these socio-political ideas flow effortlessly across national borders.

    These Internetting days, we have instant communications, automated translation and ideas well suited to “assymmetric” or “decentralized” objectives like ours.

    My second question is related, but not often put. If pulling out of Europe is a worthwhile objective, why not pulling out of NATO?

    My questions are related to Karl Popper’s position, that while oppression of all kinds is unacceptable, “National Self-Determination” is not a feasible remedy.

    Nationalism, authoritarianism and racism are always wrong, and British nationalism, authoritarianism and racism are no exception.



    PS: For our communications needs, people like

    have a great deal to offer. >:-}

  18. “why should it be any more difficult to change ideas and governance in Europe as distinct from changing it in Britain”

    It’s a matter of scale. It’s easier to change a town council than a national government, easier to change a national government than an imperial government. The larger the area and populace governed, the more power and entrenchment of the government, which has more resources with which to support itself. Additionally the larger and more remote that government, the less people feel they have a chance to change it. They feel powerless and see no point in even trying.

    The other thing in the specific case with the EU is that it’s been designed as entirely undemocratic from the outset. There isn’t any practicable method for ordinary people to impose change upon it even if they wanted to. Its method of governance is a complex oligarchical structure, with laws (oops “regulations”) oozing from a kind of governance sponge composed of myriad individuals and groups. It’s impossible for the average person to even know where the ideas come from, or who is responsible for them, let alone how to change them.

  19. It’s dying down.

    I have just done
    R = Ro x e(-lambda.T) on R = referrals per hour from “democracyforum”, and where Ro = original number of referrals yesterday till midnight, and…..

    ….. the half-life (T) of this dispute is about 7 hours. So cheer up guys. Sean is well out if this mess, and he’s better off being a proper Libertarian and honest, than working inside UKIP with sellotape over his mouth. He would not have enjoyed that, him.

  20. See, this is the thing about political parties.
    There’s always disagreement between people who agree on a particular point on other points.
    If you see what I mean.
    I’m a UKIP member and of libertarian bent, so are many others but it is true that there are a significant number of authoriatarians within the party – as there are in any other party. Even, I have to say – the Libertarian Party.

  21. Anyway, we have got work to do, ripping the Chancellor’s pants off him over the budget. Posts, anyone?

  22. Chris Tame (peace be upon the grand old fellow!) always used to joke that “there may be two Libertarians somewhere who agree about everything, but I am NOT one of THEM”.

    (His emphasis, I remember, on an occasion in his flat in about 1984 what he had had quite a lot of wine.)

  23. In answer to Tony, Ian B has answered the question on Europe. I agree with its generality. Regarding NATO, I would pull out. Now, Tony, I thought I’d made that very clear ages ago. It seems the downside of writing as much as I do is that some of it doesn’t get read!

  24. I think one thing this should focus us on is this;

    suppose at some future date libertarianism (perhaps a libertarian party, perhaps a general movement) has started to break out of the ghetto and is challenging for some degree of political success, and as such has come to the serious attention of the media. Suppose some spokesman is in the studio with Paxman (or similar). Rather than discussing issues of liberty, the economy, tax freedom and so on, Paxman as is his wont is determined to bang on about nothing but kiddie pr0n and heroin “as easy to buy as a packet of tea”. How will our libertarian spokesman effectively deal with this, bearing in mind that Paxman will do everything in his power to prevent a fair and rational discussion?

  25. It depends on whether, in their hearts, “people” (in the mass) really think tea-packet-heroin and possession (as opposed to the construction of) kiddie-pron are issues to rend the earth about, or whether they are conditioned by the Enemy Class to direct their visceral hatred (of somebody, anybody) towards these people designated for them to hate, rather than towards the Enemy Class.

    This I think ultimately is what the Enemy Class fears most, and is its prime weak point, at which it can be assailed.

    The Enemy Class has got to keep at least one unpopular minority in the cauldron-of-boiling-oil at all times, or it is dead itself. For example, although “most people” , er, hate “queers” (go to a pub and listen, don’t talk) the Enemy Class has too many friends in the “homo” “sexual” community to be able to have left this group out in the conservative cold, so to speak, so it had to let them into the “big tent”.

    This situation about pointing to “out groups” appertains in the absence of some external war or other. The mistake Blair made, in substituting the Iraq War for the countrywide mob-rant against child-killers going on in 2001-2002 (and there were indeed some nasty guys like Ian Huntley, I do agree) was to put in its place a just war, which then got discredited by the same Enemy Class, probably only because it was just and right, and not because it took people’s eye of the ball of mauling each other so that the Enemy Class could consolidate. I am on record as saying that Iraq, Afghanistan and support for the US on 9/11 were the only right and good acts of Blair in his whole life, and I know Sean disagrees with me on aspects of this, but there you are, here I stand, I can do no other.

    This is a pile of “stream-of-consciousness-stuff”, which i will try to re-edit into something more cogent when I get in later.

  26. “…er…I have things to do”… as Bilbo said in The Great Film of Our Time, as he disappeared from his party! (Back later.)

    Anybody else think this about Peter Jackson’s great trilogy? I suspect Tony does. Discussion, anybody?

    It’s more cheering to talk about The Lord of The Rings than to talk about UKIP anyway, so stuff them.

  27. “I’m a UKIP member and of libertarian bent, so are many others but it is true that there are a significant number of authoriatarians within the party – as there are in any other party. Even, I have to say – the Libertarian Party.”

    My dear Lurch, how would you know about the members of the Libertarian Party? As far as I know, only two people currently have access to our membership list.

    Or are you referring to the US Libertarian Party?


  28. [I]As far as I know, only two people currently have access to our membership list.[/I]

    The same two people on that list? :P

    On a more serious note, I’m torn between voting for UKIP and the LP. UKIP might stand a reasonable chance of getting us out of the EU but then what? As recent events have shown they certainly don’t embrace libertarian views.

  29. UKIP might stand a reasonable chance of getting us out of the EU but then what?

    Drop them and support a party that actually is libertarian. Until then they are worth voting for, I think.

  30. The question about how to deal with Paxman: you look him firmly in the eye and tell him what you think. If what you think is different from me, tell him that. After a lifetime of sniffing about politicians, journalists have trouble when they encounter sincerity.

  31. Sean, it wouldn’t surprise me if there will be widespread mutterings about your recent mutterings and your house is raided, your P.C confiscated and ‘analysed’, and The Sun does a “Broken Britain” piece on the “Libertarian Sex Beast” before the ‘analysis’ results are even in.

    Such are things in this country on this issue.
    I admire your bravery in speaking your mind.

  32. Dave:

    I’ll happily discuss LOTR in a thread of its own.


    C’mon! A million+ words are a big territory to explore. Care to provide a URL on NATO?



  33. Paxman vs. Coulter

    Well worth watching! They’re both on good form.


  34. DK mate, how is your party’s position on gun control?
    Moderated due to some member’s authoritarian position at all?
    Not everyone is as libertarian as Sean, not even me.

  35. Interesting question.

    What about drugs control?

  36. Well, they’re not going to be much of a Libertarian Party if they’re not in favour of legalising guns and drugs, are they? :)

  37. I would be unwilling to suggest policy-strategies here for the UK Libertarian Party, for I suspect they already have well-formed policy positions, and are just waiting for the right time to release eahc one. I hope so anyway.

    It is certain that these will be logical and necessary, for everyone knows what the contents of the cesspool are that we have been projected down into by Brair/Blownism, and to some extent by “Majorism” – Major being the first Blairite PM. We (that is to say, they) imbibe it every day, on the Wireless Tele Vision News, if we are so poor-of-spirit as to watch it.

    (I have not seen a Wireless Tele Vision news broadcast, since 2002, not even on CNN let alone the BBC or ITV. I found the last one, about two lost little girls in Soham, not very useful and rather hysterical, although I was sorry for them and read later that some man had been caught. )

    I cannot bear the thought of one of these broadcasts about “news”, so I uess I don’t know what’s “going on”. Perhaps Kenneth Kendal still does them as a “news caster”, I hope so, but I do not know, and I suspect he would not like what he is now being made to say.

    But as regards the Libertarian Party, I would say that they ought to say that as the “war on drugs” is a “enemy class” construct, then it ought to be closed, along with the enemy class itself.

    As regards guns, we all ought to have some. But dream on, for the State can afford many many times more guns, and more interesting ones, than individual humans could ever get their hands on…

  38. Bit late here, sorry.

    “The obvious exceptions to this rule would be stolen property […]”

    Is it not a reasonable argument that the material in question, indecent pictures of children, is stolen in the sense that they not able to consent to the pictures being taken?

  39. Pingback: Here is Sean’s UKIP Speech from Exeter 8th March 2008 « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  40. Pingback: Touch of the Paedophile! You are Already (Brain-)Dead (or “How to Make Your Little Boy Feel Special: Complete with Instructions.”) « MRDA's Inferno