As the banks cry poverty and say it will cost them a fortune to borrow money from their own shadowy lenders and we are all facing the looming threat of negative interest rates … what’s happened to all the dosh we’ve saved while we’ve been languishing in lock-down austerity?
Well, this is what the Bank of England had to say … In the UK, the Bank of England says bank deposits soared by £13.1bn in March, a record monthly rise.
And lock-down hasn’t been going on for just a month!
How much do the banks actually have of OUR money while they hold a gun to OUR heads?
This is what Patrick Collinson wrote in The Guardian:
Katie Hopkins definitely has a nose for trouble but in this interview she says she doesn’t mind being called a sexist, racist, Islamophobic, a fascist or a big mouth!
Good on you Katie – at least your big mouth keeps you in the supposedly left-wing press you purport to hate so much.
Katie, who rose to prominence on the reality-TV show, The Apprentice, is known to be pro-Trump, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration and anti most things you can think of.
However, she’s just lost her LBC show – in fact she says, she’s been sacked from every job she’s ever had and has lost everything’ including her house to litigation.
And now she is being banned by elements of social media too!
But she says she is a good mum – which I am sure she is – and that what she does is speak her rather middle-class mind out?
So, watch this vid and tell us if you agree with her – and how many of you are appalled?
Watch this interview with Rodney Hearth and tell us what you think…
As the Preservation Society, D.A.D.s and NAAP prepare for a major investigation into suicide caused by family courts, we look at a recent report about bullying over access to children.
The report by legal experts revealed that more dads are becoming victims of bullying as their partners threaten to restrict access to children.
The shock report says men are being bullied over money, access to their children and are even being forced to stay in broken abusive relationships out of fear.
The trend has been reported by lawyers who said they are seeing cases of male clients who have become caught up in “unhealthy” coercive control relationships.
Coercive control is described as a pattern of behaviour which strips a victim of their sense of self.
It is normally associated with female victims being cowed by loutish exes.
However, lawyers say there are a rising numbers of cases involving men.
According to research more than a third of men in the UK have actually admitted to being a victim of coercive control.
And more than half of respondent said they had experienced bullying or controlling behaviour – exactly same percentage as female respondents.
The research was carried out for IBB Solicitors, based in Buckinghamshire, by Atomik Research who spoke to 1,000 men and 1,000 women aged 18-65.
Kate Ryan, a family law partner at IBB Solicitors, said that in the last 15 years she has seen an increase in cases of both male and female victims from different walks of life including professionals.
She said: “I think there are more men coming forward now it is more acceptable and there is better support out there in terms of mental health and psychological support.
“There are also a lot of charities helping and generally society has less stigma around the subject so men are feeling there is less of an issue coming forward and speaking to police and lawyers telling them that they’re experiencing this kind of relationship.
“For some of them it has been going on for years and years. Even women don’t feel comfortable coming forward and as that’s becoming less of an issue for them, so it is for men. I think we’ll see a lot more of this as things go on.”
Ms Ryan said that regarding the trend of women “using” the child as leverage to threaten their partner into staying in the relationship is “100 per cent quite common”.
“Family courts, particularly where children are involved, are quite renowned with supporting women, and I think women know that and use it and know that their children are a hard-hitting point – yet that’s manipulation”.
She said that financial control, manipulation and checking up on where partners are also common features in coercive control relationships.
“The male element is coming out and undoubtedly there are other males like this who have experienced this and they will start to come out, easy with new definition of coercive behaviour.”
The research also found that amongst those who said they had experienced bullying or abusive behaviour, nearly half of men (48 per cent) said they did nothing about it – significantly higher than the figure for women (33 per cent).
It became illegal to subject someone to coercive control in December 2015 following landmark legislation which paved the way for new charges to be brought.
If you have experienced bullying – or know of someone who has taken their own life, please write to us in the box below.
Peter Davies, from NAAP, has written this in-depth article on the domestic abuse Bill – it’s relevance to Parental Alienation. And how we can all be misled…
Peter Davis
In view of the horrible way countless vulnerable people were unscrupulously misled, it is essential that this article is shared as widely as possible.
First the bad news. On the face of it Philip Davies’ proposed amendments do not appear to have made it into the final cut. However, the devil lies in the detail. Therefore, we have done our research and homework to assess exactly what is happening with the Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 in relation to PA in particular. There are some pleasant surprises.
In this article we will outline what our research has disclosed. We have relied upon trustworthy primary sources throughout and we link to these trustworthy sites to empower readers and remove their dependence upon hoaxers, charlatans and purveyors of snake oil. Besides checking what we say you can use these sources in the future to check out any other parliamentary information, disseminated on-line, which looks dodgy, suspicious or just too good to be true.
OUR MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS
We regard the internet as a great privilege. Never before have we been blessed with access to such a wonderful platform to share information and never before has it been easier to check information. This is fine for those with critical faculties but since children’s critical faculties are a work in progress we monitor and regulate their internet access and even use protection software to ensure their online safety. One of the reasons parents and children become alienated is that they either have not developed critical faculties or they do not use them. For this reason, we are forever encouraging our members to ask lots of questions, to employ a healthy degree of scepticism and to evaluate all information critically. At a time when reliable information is so freely and easily available there are literally no excuses for being wrong footed by a scammer: particularly after you may have already been burned and should have learned from the first bitter experience.
Freedom of expression is NOT an absolute right. It comes with caveats and obligations. We all share a mutual obligation to ensure that what we say is correct and accurate. Everyone on social media now has an equal opportunity to be heard but that platform is not a license to spread rubbish across the land. It has never been easier to check facts therefore we owe it to ourselves and to others to treat each other with respect and to refrain from polluting the personal space of others with faecal matter. Integrity, honesty and self-respect are all equally as important. One person’s freedom and autonomy can often come at the expense of another person’s freedom and autonomy. Being protected from being force fed c**p is protecting my right to a peaceful and quiet life. In our view those that fail to respect the rights of others deserve to forfeit their own. This is especially true in relation to the thousands of vulnerable parents we help. We owe them a duty of care which involves doing the very best we can. Failing to check BEFORE posting falls a long way short of acceptable standards of professionalism and basic rigour. It is simply a lapse of integrity which is never acceptable.
Having said this, we are human and fallible. When we get it wrong we should accept responsibility, ’fess up’, admit our mistake and learn from it. Every alienated parent will have sad memories of someone they once loved who was never prepared to shoulder responsibility for their own behaviour. It is a repugnant trait which makes us wonder how these perpetrators manage to find someone to reproduce with in the first place. Sadly, the mask does not usually slip until you are on the hook and it’s too late.
RELIABLE SOURCES The parliamentary library is always a great source of information for any current parliamentary business. This is where the MP’s go! The available briefing tells us that: ‘The Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 has completed its Committee stage and is due to have its Report stage and Third Reading on Monday 6 July 2020.’ Importantly it also gives valuable background: ‘The Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 was introduced to the House on 3 March 2020. Second Reading took place on 28 April 2020.
The Bill was considered by a Public Bill Committee over 12 sittings between 4 – 17 June 2020. The Committee took evidence from expert witnesses for the first two sittings. A range of external stakeholders submitted written evidence to the Committee. The only significant amendment made during Committee Stage was the Government’s New Clause 16 (now clause 66 of the Bill) on homelessness. New Clause 16 was agreed without a vote. A number of minor and technical Government amendments were also agreed without a vote (these are not discussed in this paper). There was only one division: on an Opposition amendment relating to the definition of “personally connected” in clause 2 of the Bill.’ ‘
Here is a link to the Parliamentary Library and a commentary about the Bill:
THE GOOD NEWS Secondly, here is the good news. S.76 of The Serious Crimes Act 2015 brought in the concept of needing to first be ‘personally connected’ in order for the offences of coercive control behaviour to be proven. Here is a link:
This Act has often been criticised for having an ambit which is far too narrow. This effectively barred any prospect of prosecutions succeeding once couples were living apart and separated. The new 2020 Act is intended to broaden the definitions of ‘personally connected’ and now also includes those who ‘have been’ in the various categories of relationship previously stated. The ambit of the new bill has been expanded to include those who ‘have been’ living together but no longer do so.
The new bill reads as follows. (see pages 7 and 8). It is essential to read the ‘Domestic Abuse Bill 2020: overarching documents’ in conjunction with the new bill in order to gain insight into the trajectory which is being set with regard to PA behaviours.
Here is a link to the current draft of the 2020 Act:
The parts of the draft act which are likely to be of most interest to us are:
Part 1: Section 1 (3) (c) & (e) and Section 1 (5) Part 1: Section 2 (1) to 2 (3).
These are quoted below. Sections in italics have been italicised by us.
Domestic Abuse Act 2020
Part 1 Definition of “domestic abuse”
Section 1: Definition of “domestic abuse”
(1) This section defines “domestic abuse” for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Behaviour of a person (“A”) towards another person (“B”) is “domestic abuse” if— (a) A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and (b) the behaviour is abusive.
(3) Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of any of the following— (a) physical or sexual abuse; (b) violent or threatening behaviour; (c) controlling or coercive behaviour; (d) economic abuse (see subsection (4)); (e) psychological, emotional or other abuse;
and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct.
(4) “Economic abuse” means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on B’s ability to— (a) acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or (b) obtain goods or services.
(5) For the purposes of this Act A’s behaviour may be behaviour “towards” B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child).
6) References in this Act to being abusive towards another person are to be read in accordance with this section.
(7) For the meaning of “personally connected”, see section 2.
Section 2: Definition of “personally connected”
Two people are “personally connected” to each other if any of the following applies— (a) they are, or have been, married to each other; (b) they are, or have been, civil partners of each other; (c) they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not the agreement has been terminated); (d) they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (whether or not the agreement has been terminated); (e) they are, or have been, in an intimate personal relationship with each other; (f) they each have, or there has been a time when they each have had, a parental relationship in relation to the same child (see subsection (2)); (g) they are relatives.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(f) a person has a parental relationship in relation to a child if— (a) the person is a parent of the child, or (b) the person has parental responsibility for the child.
(3) In this section— “child” means a person under the age of 18 years; “civil partnership agreement” has the meaning given by section 73 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004; “parental responsibility” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989; “relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.
THE OVERARCHING DOCUMENTS So far so good: these amendments are now making coercive control more relevant to PA cases because they are now enveloping former relationships as well as current relationships.
However, there is potentially even more in store. If we now turn to the explanatory notes for coercive and controlling behaviour on page 13 paras 44 to 49. This is where the real excitement begins.
Controlling or coercive behaviour
44. Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 introduced the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship to recognise that victims can experience extreme psychological and emotional abuse that can have severe impacts, whether or not accompanied by physical abuse. The offence is constituted by behaviour between current intimate partners, or between former intimate partners and family members who live together.
45.What constitutes controlling or coercive behaviour is outlined in guidance issued by the Government under section 77 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Controlling or coercive forms part of the Government’s non-statutory definition of domestic violence and abuse and is described as: • Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour; and Coercive behaviour is: an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.
46.Controlling or coercive behaviour also forms part of the definition of domestic abuse in section 1(3)(c) of the 2020 Act.
47.The statutory guidance framework issued under section 77 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 for the controlling or coercive behaviour offence can be found here.
48.Examples of controlling or coercive behaviour include: • Controlling or monitoring the victim’s daily activities, including making them account for their time, dictating what they can wear, when they can eat; • Isolating the victim from family and friends, intercepting messages or phone calls or refusing to interpret; • Intentional undermining of the victim’s role as a partner, spouse or parent; • Preventing the victim from taking medication or over-medicating them, or preventing the victim from accessing health or social care (especially relevant for victims with disabilities or long-term health conditions); • Using substances to control a partner through dependency; • Using children to control their partner, e.g. threatening to take the children away or manipulating professionals to increase the risk of children being removed into care; Parental alienation, including preventing children from spending time with one parent or grandparents, from visiting friends’ houses and from participating in extracurricular activities; • Threats to expose sensitive information (e.g. sexual activity) or make false allegations to family members, religious or local community including via photos or the internet; • Preventing the victim from learning a language or making friends outside of their ethnic/ or cultural background; • Threatening precarious immigration status against the victim, withholding documents, and giving false information to a victim about their visa or visa application; • Threats of institutionalisation (particularly for disabled or elderly victims); and Economic abuse (see paragraph 51).
49.As shown by the power and control wheel above, coercive or controlling behaviour is common in domestic abuse and can act as a driver for many of the other behaviours, as illustrated in the case study below.
Emotional or psychological abuse 50.Domestic abuse often involves emotional or psychological abuse. This can include:
• Manipulating a person’s anxieties or beliefs; • Withholding affection; • Turning children and friends against the victim (with a subsequent impact on children); • Being stopped from seeing friends, relatives, or care workers; • Being insulted, including in front of others. This includes insulting someone about their race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, faith, ability to parent and ability to work; • Repeatedly being belittled; • Keeping a victim awake/preventing them from sleeping; • Using social media sites to intimidate the victim; and Persuading a victim to doubt their own sanity or mind (including “gaslighting”).
In short, under the bill, behaviours which could collectively be termed as parental alienation are now individually classed as emotionally abusive behaviour, controlling behaviour and coercive behaviour. Individual behaviours which would be considered as component behaviours to form an alienation diagnosis are individually classed as abusive and could warrant application of the punitive measures detailed in Part 3 of the new Act or a change of residence in their own right. Furthermore, Section 1 (3) assures parents, families courts and professionals that Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of any of the following—
(a) physical or sexual abuse; (b) violent or threatening behaviour; (c) controlling or coercive behaviour; (d) economic abuse (see subsection (4)); (e) Psychological, emotional or other abuse.
CONCLUSION This will all take a little time to digest and we will need to study it thoroughly but in view of the absolute debacle of shoddily researched misinformation we have all been fed in the last few days we felt that it would be helpful to give readers the primary information in order to formulate their own opinions instead of relying upon untrustworthy and unreliable copy and pasters.
The bills and overarching documents square with and codify elements of the evolving caselaw. They appear to embody principles of landmark cases such as Re: L (A child) EWHC 867 (Fam) , which fell, ‘…short of attracting the labels “intractable hostility” or “parental alienation”.’ (para 1). In Re L the residence of a 9-year old boy was changed because he had suffered emotional harm. It was also recognised that the mother and grandmother’s lack of capacity to change risked worsening the harm already caused unless the boy’s residence was changed. It is notable that the court found the behaviour to be harmful below the threshold for psychological abuse set by the DSM. It also squares with the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA Civ 568 which focuses upon alienating behaviours as opposed to cumbersome and confusing umbrella labels.
It is important that we maintain a true and focussed aim on why we all work so hard to campaign for change. We are not interested in promoting a brand, promoting ourselves or obsessing about a concept for personal gain. We are interested in helping other parents and families recover their lost children back into their lives. We have managed that without this bill and the help it brings but it would have made our personal battles a lot easier if we had the support of the laws which this bill promotes.
By getting behind the bill and supporting it in its passage through Parliament during the months ahead we have the capacity and opportunity to make a huge and positive difference for our children and families. Having measures enshrined in laws, designed to protect children from non-accidental psychological injury and protect parents from coercive control and emotional abuse is something every human being should support without any reservations.
This article can also read on Linkedin. Emphasis we have added can be seen on this version.
It’s a big thing for family entertainment, opinions and music…AirTV International is taking a gigantic step for mankind by joining one of the world’s biggest streaming services, Roku. Now all of AirTV’s 10 channels are available at a press of a button. Join Rodney and Leigh on AirTV’s premier Opinion show.
‘Scum controllers’ who just don’t care about you or their children
When allegations are made it doesn’t stop there in cases of parental alienation, says guest writer Andrew John Teague…
That’s just the start. Then comes the triangulation and manipulation Whoever makes any allegation needs others to believe it. It’s vital they roll-out the upper hand and control others . The problem when allegations are made within the arena of post separation most of the victims of the allegations are desperate to see their children – and this allows the controlling of others to spread. And the victim sits tight in desperation It’s not uncommon in everyday life.
Sadly, it’s far easier for the one making allegations in any group or work place because they are already aligned with others in control. Any allegations made that are untrue are set out to damage and manipulate and are malicious. What comes next is disturbing and complete controlling. It may be friend, colleague’s or family – there are no boundaries. Sometimes this is all done to bolster their stance on being the better person. The controllers are dastardly cowards, the scum who feed and leech on others You wont find remorse or empathy – they simply do not a care Many of you will have examples of this around you even if you don’t actually see it.
No-one ever seems to talk about Black Diamond Bay, and I often wonder why – never more so than one morning recently, when I was listening to the song for the umpteenth time on my way to work, and came to a realisation about the lyric that has been staring me in the face for all the decades I have been listening to it.
There is just one idea that holds the whole narrative of the song together: it is a series of negations and rejections.
The characters in the song reject or negate each other in every single interaction it describes.
They even negate themselves.
A “voice from the gambling room” calls to the woman in the Panama hat, and “She smiles, walks the other way.” The Greek “asks for a rope and a pen that will write”, and the desk clerk, carefully removing his fez, questions whether he has heard the Greek correctly.
The woman in the Panama hat “starts to speak” to the Greek on the staircase “but he walks away”.
The soldier buys a ring from the “tiny man” who will later bite the soldier’s ear, and the ring, which “cost a grand” “ain’t enough” for the recipient of the marriage proposal.
The “loser in the gambling room” wants to play another hand, but the dealer tells him to listen to the ominous sound of the rain. The island itself is deserted by the cranes and the moon.
The woman ignores the “do not disturb” sign on the Greek’s door, knocks “on it anyway”, and shouts “I’ve got to talk to someone quick”, but the Greek just keeps on hanging himself from the chandelier. The desk clerk isn’t interested in the subject of forbidden love because “it happens every day”.
The loser breaks the bank in the gambling room, but it’s “too late now” because the island is exploding. The stranger proposes to the woman, but she ignores him and begins to pray, because when a volcano is erupting, who wouldn’t?
And then, there is the total genius of the beginning and the end of the song. The narrator hears of the fate of this new Krakatoa being Cronkited on the news, and concludes that it “Didn’t seem like much was happening”, that this was just “another hard-luck story/ And there’s really nothing anyone can say”, and he wasn’t planning to go to Black Diamond Bay anyway.
All that is left is the hanged Greek’s shoes, and the Panama hat of a woman whose passport photograph bore no resemblance to her real self. Everybody is nobody, and everybody turns away from everybody else, only to find that they don’t recognise their own selves.
It’s one of the best and funniest satires on modern disconnection, but nobody ever seems to talk about ‘Black Diamond Bay’.
Here’s the latest in my wretched dealings with those people – and things – who are supposed to help make our lives a bit easier in a crisis. This time time it’s the Post Office and their home insurance package.
This is what happened – our gardener, a young and amorous kick-boxing champion with ambitions to be a cage fighting star, was cutting the weeds he’d cultivated in what was once our kitchen herb garden.
Suddenly the glass in one of the patio doors shattered into grand gleaming spider]s webs while emitting eerie brittle groans.
Our gardener, who despite his youth is built like a brick outhouse, let out a girly scream and looked at me in shock. I smiled back at him wanly.
Andrea who was hanging out the washing in the noon-day sun turned and was shocked to see two men looking at each other with trembling knees and frozen half smiles.
Then she saw the patio door and sighed like a deflating balloon. It hadn’t been a brilliant day in so many ways, but mainly because of the ongoing row with the builder over who owns all the rubbish in the barn they are about to take down.
They say its mine because I once owned the barn and I say its theirs because they bought the barn off me two years ago! Strangely they were refusing to take it down until its emptied. This is no skin off my noose, I’d rather have the barn than the building site they are going to replace it with.
Andrea sighed: “Never rains but it pours does it.”
Our manly gardener quivered and said: “It wasn’t me, I was trimming the plants with my back to it!”
All I could think of saying was: “Ooh eck!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoqMxGnQY8I
So it was off into the house to phone the Post Office to see if we were insured for a self-destructing patio door.
I got a machine. It asked for my policy number which was 14 digits long … “111100124678-01” …
The machine asked me if I meant “101112456776”. I said no so it asked me to repeat the number … it was man against machine for four minutes while me and a female robot argued over my number.
Next. it wanted my name “Leigh Banks – that’s LEIGH” … the machine asked: “Did you say Leigh BanksLegurhh?” I said “No, Leigh Banks.”
“Did you say Leonard Benchley?”
“Did you say Leg Bonks?”
That went on for a further six minutes until the robot woman got fed up and hung up on me. A couple of minutes later what I took to be a real human being answered the phone: “Hello Post Office insurance, how may I help you?”
“Can you tell me if I’m covered for kamikaze patio doors? I don’t want to make a claim necessarily just see if I can if I decide to.”
He asked for my policy number, name and address, age, date of birth, last claim, mother’s maiden name, how long I had lived at the address, was it my permanent residence? On and on and on we went.
Then he thanked me, paused, seemed to be checking something and came back.
He said: “I’m afraid I can’t tell you that sir.”
For a fleeting moment I thought he was going to quote the Data Protection Act at me but he hadn’t thought it through that far.
What in fact he said was this: “You have to read your policy I’m afraid.”
“But can’t you look it up for me, I’ve just spent half half the day talking rubbish with a builder and playing who-said-wot with your robot woman, that is until she got bored with me and hung up.”
“I’m sorry sir, but I can’t give you that information.”
“Well, how do I find out if I can make a claim if I’ve lost my policy documents?”
And this is what he said: “What you have to do sir is make a claim and in a few days you find out if it is going to pay out – then you’ll know if you’re insured or not.”
“But I don’t know if I want to make a claim yet. I want to know if I;’ll lose my no claims and how much excess I might have and if I can make a claim.”
“I’m sorry sir, I can;’t tell you that. You need to make a claim. Can I help you in any other way?”
I was wrong when I said I thought he was human.
I said: “If I make a claim to find out if I’m insured or not and it turns out that I’m not insured for a smashed patio door which means I’ve made a claim which has been refused – will that remain on my records as a claim and will I lose my no claims anyway.”
His brain clicked but didn’t bother to whirr. He seemed to click for an age … then he said: “I’m sorry sir, I can’t tell you that. Would you like me to put you through to customer services. They’ll be able to help.”
Well, I was shocked – I liked Ken Dodd and met him once at the Civic Hall in Ellesmere Port.
And on the day of his funeral in 2017, as I arrived back at Lime Street station, there he was. Standing there in front of me!
Yes, the great Liverpool laughter-maker, our lord of one-liners, was grinning at me. And he was looking very bronzed, if I may say.
Funny really, I’d made a detour after a meeting with an old journalist mate of mine to join literally thousands of fans to wave off Doddy as he was taken to his final resting place.
His wife, Anne, said outside their Knotty Ash house: “The world has lost the most life-enhancing, brilliant and creative comedian with an operatically trained voice, who just wanted to make people happy.”
Her words passed like ticker-tape across the screen of my mind I looked at the statue, and I thought: “Well, I suppose it is a bit of a joke.”
The supposedly iconic statue of Sir Ken, who had died aged 90 had been removed for safe-keeping and restoration as major station upgrades began.
Martin Frobisher, Network Rail’s London North Western route managing director, said: “Sir Ken Dodd has stood inside the entrance to our station since 2009. It’s right he returns today as we remember the laughs he gave us over the years.”
So, they brought him back for his final curtain … and as I stood there looking at him I remember thinking “it looks more like Bob Monkhouse waving a kebab on stick than it does good old Ken!”
I winced at my own private insensitivity on such a day but it did cross my mind that if my mind-joke was disrespectful then surely so was this statue by renowned artist Tom Murphy.
And I’m not alone.
Eddy Rheadm a member of the Modernist Society said recently “I would argue that the statues are downright ugly and poorly executed, clumsily plonked on the station concourse. I’m more than a little creeped out by them.”
Anyway, this is my memory of the day I met Ken Dodd. And he gave me some advice that, 30 years later, I finally took.
But he also revealed himself as a good and caring funny man with a broken heart:
“When I was a ‘rooky’ reporter on the local Chester ‘rag’, The Chronicle, in the late 1970s I was dispatched to a village hall on the outskirts of Ellesmere Port to cover an afternoon comedy performance by Ken Dodd.
It’s that long ago now I can’t really remember how the show went – but it was definitely a lorra lorra laughs. I remember the predominantly blue-rinse brigade and retired bank manager-type audience roaring with mirth hour after hour.
Back then Ken was a bizarre sight to behold, wild spiky hair and goofy teeth, ill-fitting suit, dusty loafers and tickling sticks.
The Diddy Men added a surprisingly lysergic atmosphere to the wood and shingles hall at the end of a narrow country lane. Ken’s Rolls Royce – I seem to remember it as chocolate brown – waited like a patient old dog on the gravelled drive.
But it was his unbroken stream-of-consciousness jokes which marked him, not as an out-of-date has-been despite the mature middle class-ness of his audience that evening, but as a surreal comedian with an almost psychedelic madness.
Back then he had found a form of cult status on the tail end of hippydom and yet still had staunch followers among the semi-detached ‘squares’ in his audience.
When the show ended I waited by his Rolls for what seemed more hours – Ken was still entertaining the crowd, shaking hands, telling jokes, poking fun and laughing fit to bust.
Finally he was there shaking my hand and grinning like a dray horse, you could tell he was preparing for another round of jokes and mayhem, but this time just for me.
Then I lit a Benson and Hedges and as I exhaled the blue-ish smoke everything changed.
The horse-face of humour crumbled and I saw the real tragedy behind the comedy.
Everybody seemed to smoke back then but Ken Dodd was having none of it.
He berated me for smoking and asked me why I did it?
I told him it was simply that I enjoyed it – really, it was because I was addicted to doing what everybody else did. We didn’t think about cancer back then.
But Ken Dodd did.
And there were tears in the eyes of Britain’s best-loved comedian as he told me: “Don’t smoke, it can kill you … and I’ve just lost somebody very close to me and she was too young to die.”
And so he told me about his long-term lover Anita Boutin, who had just died from a brain tumour.
They had been together for 24 years.
He told me she was just 45 when she died … they had been engaged for two decades and he wept as he told me he wished with all his heart that he had got round to marrying her. Anita had told a reporter previously who asked if they were getting married: “It’s up to Ken.”
Anita was buried at their local church in Knotty Ash, the same one where Ken’s mother was laid to rest eight years earlier. Ken put flowers on both their graves every Christmas.
His relationship with former Bluebell Girl Anne Jones – whom he married just a few days before he died – began in 1980. They had known each for many years. They were in Dick Whittington at the Alexandra Theatre in Birmingham when they fell in love.
It was only a brief moment in my life – I was 20 years old at the time – but it is a memory that’s never gone away.
Ken Dodd had shown me the real tragedy behind his mask of comedy and had handed me my first revealing celebrity interview.
But more than anything I had met a man who genuinely cared about people and their lives.
In my life, I have met many narcissists and, to a man and woman, they were all talented, charming, attractive, witty, intelligent and ambitious.
Narcissists even walked beside me in what should have been the fairytale of my formative years.
They gently held my hand and purported to teach me how I should act on the manufactured stage of sand and badly painted backdrops they set before me…
… All the world’s a stage, I began to believe.
Bur I became convinced that the only truth in the script of life is a mesmerising swirl of lies.
***
In my late 30s, I was devastated to discover the new narcissist in my life was, in fact, a serial love cheat. She later spent a decade abusing me on the phone over why our great affair had ended so badly.
I didn’t change my number because I felt there might be a glimmer of truth in her gaslight.
Then I had a lasting relationship with another who made me believe she was vulnerable and broken. The tough fact was she only wanted to get married and have children so she could divorce me and steal my 19th century country cottage.
In my 50s, I went in to business with another narcissist – I thought he was my best friend.
But a narcissist can never be your best friend. He can only be his own.
***
I have to say I have always known about narcissism – at least I knew of its origin in Greek mythology … a young Narcissus fell passionately in love with his own image in a pool of water.
For him there could be no other.
What I didn’t know though, is that it narcassism means grandiose self-importance in a fantasy world of delusions. It means a desperate need for praise and admiration. It means a sense of entitlement and exploitation without guilt or shame.
It also means intimidation, bullying and the belittling of others.
In business it manifests itself in people who genuinely believe that the whole world owes them.
After watching this short video I began to see narcissism in this way … it is like a twisted marriage which never gets beyond ‘what’s yours is mine…’
