Not News: Kikess Anetta Kahane wants to destroy Europe via Immigration

Not News: Kikess Anetta Kahane wants to destroy Europe via Immigration

  • Kikess Anetta Kahane.

  • Commie Kike Max Kahane's daughter.

  • In Kike tradition of Marx, Trotsky , Freud, Luxemburg, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno, etc.

David Reimer, Rest In Peace

David Reimer, Rest In Peace

David Reimer: The boy who lived as a girl

CBC News Online | May 10, 2004

Summer 1965. In a Winnipeg hospital, Janet Reimer's lifelong dream comes true as she gives birth to twin sons, Bruce and Brian.

But within six months, both boys develop difficulty urinating. The doctors suggest they be circumcised.

On April 27, 1966, Janet drops her boys off for the routine procedure and her dream turns into a nightmare.

The doctors had chosen an unconventional method of circumcision, one in which the skin would be burned. The procedure goes horribly wrong and Bruce's penis is burned so badly it can't be repaired surgically.

Over the next few months, the Reimers consult with countless doctors. None can offer any hope. Bruce Reimer would have to live with his non-existent penis.

One night, the Reimers see a television profile of an American doctor and his theories on sex and gender. Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore argues that boys – caught early enough – could be raised to be girls. Nurture and not nature determines a child's gender, the doctor argued.

Janet Reimer thought it was worth exploring. The family went to Baltimore to see Dr. Money, who decided that Bruce Reimer was a perfect candidate.

At the age of 21 months, Bruce's testicles were removed. What remained of his penis was left, not to interfere with his urinary tract. When Bruce was released from hospital, his parents were told to raise him as a girl. The family was told not to divulge anything to anyone. They went home with a girl they called Brenda.

"We relatively quickly came to accept that," Janet Reimer told CBC News in 1997. "He was a beautiful little girl."

Janet Reimer did her best to raise Bruce as a girl. She dressed him in skirts and dresses and showed him how to apply make-up. But the transformation was anything but smooth. Bruce Reimer didn't like playing with the other girls – and he didn't move like one either. He got into schoolyard fistfights. The other kids called him names like "caveman," "freak" and "it."

In an interview with the CBC's The Fifth Estate, Reimer said it got so bad he didn't want to go to school anymore. He felt picked upon and increasingly lonely.

By the time Bruce turned nine, the Reimer family was having serious doubts. Not John Money. He published an article in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour pronouncing the experiment a resounding success. It became widely known in medical circles as the Joan/John case.

Money wrote: "The child's behaviour is so clearly that of an active little girl and so different from the boyish ways of her twin brother."

The twin brother, Brian, remembered it differently: "The only difference between him and I was he had longer hair." "I tried really, really hard to rear her as a gentle lady," Janet Reimer said. "But it didn't happen."

By the time Bruce was reaching puberty, it became increasingly clear the experiment was not working. He started developing thick shoulders and a thick neck.

At the same time, the Reimers were under pressure from Money to take the final step: allow surgeons to create a vagina.

But Bruce rebelled. He protested that he didn't need surgery and threatened to commit suicide if he was forced to make another trip to Baltimore to see Money.

That's when his father broke down and told him everything.

Bruce Reimer said he had one thought at the time: to go to the hospital and track down and shoot the doctor who had botched his circumcision. In the end, he was unable to exact his revenge, but turned his anger on himself.

He attempted suicide three times. The third – an overdose of pills – left him in a coma. He recovered and began the long climb towards living a normal life – as a man.

Bruce Reimer left his Brenda identity behind. He cut his hair and started wearing male clothing again. He changed his name to David.

Earlier, the Reimer family had sued the hospital where the botched circumcision was performed. They settled for about $60,000, which was held in trust for David until his 18th birthday. By then, the settlement was worth about $100,000.

Initially, David Reimer only told his story from the shadows – he refused to talk about it if his identity were revealed. That changed in 2000, when American author John Colapinto wrote As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl.

A whirlwind of media exposure followed, across Canada and the United States.

Around the same time, research was sounding the death knell for the nurture vs. nature theory. Two studies – released by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center – concluded that it's prenatal exposure to male hormones that turns normal male babies into boys. The studies "seriously question the current practice of sex-reassigning some of these infants as females…"

Janet Reimer said it was a difficult thing for her son to go public with his story, but he wanted to help other children facing a similar fate.

David Reimer underwent four rounds of reconstructive surgery to physically make him a man again. The surgery enabled him to enjoy a normal sex life, but he was unable to father children.

"I'm not going to cry a river of tears over that, because I've got three great kids. I've got a wonderful wife. I've got a good home," he told CBC News in the wake of the release of the book.

Recently, David Reimer's life had taken another turn. He lost his job and was separated from his wife. His mother said he was still grieving the death two years ago of his twin brother.

David Reimer committed suicide on May 4, 2004. He was 38.

[Video conclusion: David Reimer: "I'm living proof and if your not gonna take my word as gospel, because I have lived through it who else you gonna listen too? Who else is there ? Is it gonna take somebody winding up killing themself -- shooting themself in the head for people to listen?"]

David Reimer: the boy who was raised as a girl

What does the case of the "boy who was raised as a girl" tell us about innate sex differences?

Except where otherwise noted, all direct quotations in this essay come from John Colapinto's book, As Nature Made Him: the boy who was raised as a girl, published in 2000 by HarperCollins.

On August 22 1965, Janet Reimer, a young housewife living in Winnipeg, Manitoba, gave birth to identical twins. She named her two healthy baby boys Brian and Bruce. When the boys were seven months old, they both developed phimosis: painful urination due to obstruction of the outlet of the penis. The doctor recommended both boys be circumcised.

Bruce was scheduled to go first. The operation went horribly wrong. Somehow -- it's still not clear exactly how such a thing could happen -- somehow, the cautery instrument used to cut away the foreskin was turned up to maximum power, and baby Bruce's penis was literally fried. The dead tissue smoked, turned black, and fell off like an old scab.

World-famous Johns Hopkins psychologist Dr. John Money urged Janet and Ron Reimer to raise Bruce as a girl. Dr. Money assured the parents that Bruce could become a happy and fulfilled woman, while warning them that Bruce would be miserable as a grown man without a penis. The Reimers were impressed by the confidence of the world-famous Johns Hopkins professor. They gave their consent. On July 3 1967, their son Bruce underwent surgical castration (removal of the testicles). Bruce became Brenda.

In 1972, Dr. Money published the first accounts of the amazing experiment. And it was amazing. Bruce and Brian were, after all, identical twins: they shared precisely the same genes, and they were being raised in the same home by the same parents. Would it be possible to rear one of them successfully as a girl, just by dressing Bruce/Brenda in dresses and giving her dolls to play with? Here are excerpts from Dr. Money's report in his 1972 book, Man & Woman, Boy & Girl:

The effects of emphasizing feminine clothing became clearly noticeable in the girl's attitude towards clothes and hairdo a year later, when she was observed to have a clear preference for dresses over slacks and to take pride in her long hair. . . . By four and a half years of age [she] was much neater than her brother, and in contrast with him, disliked to be dirty. The mother reported that her daughter copies her in trying to help her tidying and cleaning up the kitchen, while the boy could not care less about it. The girl wanted and received for Christmas dolls, a doll house, and a doll carriage. The boy wanted and obtained a garage with cars and gas pumps and tools.

Dr. Money's report was hugely influential, and quite understandably so. If a boy could be transformed into a girl just by having his penis removed, wearing a dress, and letting his hair grow, then sexual identity -- and the differences between the sexes -- must be primarily cultural in origin. This finding was reaffirmed by Dr. Money in his 1977 book, Sexual Signatures:

Although the girl had been the dominant twin in infancy, by the time the children were four years old there was no mistaking which twin was the girl and which the boy. At five, the little girl already preferred dresses to pants, enjoyed wearing her hair ribbons, bracelets and frilly blouses, and loved being her daddy's little sweetheart.

Money concluded that Brian's sex reassignment as a girl was "convincing evidence that the gender identity gate is open at birth for a normal child. . . and that it stays open at least for something over a year after birth."

Dr. Milton Diamond had been interested in the case since Dr. Money had first reported it, in 1972. However, his requests for further information about the "girl's" adolescence had gone unanswered. In 1992, Dr. Diamond succeeded in tracking down one of the doctors involved in the case of Brenda/Bruce: Dr. Keith Sigmundson, a psychiatrist in Winnipeg who had been treating "Brenda." "I was wondering how long it would take for you to find me," were Dr. Sigmundson's first words, when Dr. Diamond identified himself and explained why he was calling. Dr. Sigmundson knew that Dr. Money had been distorting the facts of the case, but Dr. Sigmundson had not had the courage to challenge the famous Johns Hopkins psychologist. Dr. Diamond persuaded Dr. Sigmundson to let the truth be known. Finally, in an article published jointly by Diamond and Sigmundson in March 1997 in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, the facts of the story came to light.

The truth turned out to be very nearly the opposite of what Dr. Money had reported. Far from an effortless transformation from male to female, Brenda/Bruce had fought the assignment to the female gender -- even though "she" had not been informed of the truth of "her" sexual identity. As a small child, "Brenda" tore off the frilly dresses her mother made. She insisted on rolling in the mud with the other boys. She stomped on the dolls that relatives gave as presents.

School had been an unending nightmare. Teachers and students alike somehow knew at a glance that something was not right about "Brenda." Girls avoided her. Boys made fun of her. Teachers anxiously asked the parents for more information about what made "Brenda" so strange, so combative, so un-ladylike. One of "Brenda's" few friends at school later recalled:

As far as I knew, Brenda was a girl -- physically. But from everything that she did and said, she indicated that she didn't want to be a girl. The other girls in our group were competitive against the boys; we wanted to prove we could do whatever they could do. We might get in arguments with the guys, but we wouldn't have gone as far as to fight with them physically. I wouldn't want a bruise on my face, for example. But Brenda fought with the boys. Brenda would take the bruises. I myself was a tomboy, but I never wanted to be a boy. Brenda did.

Injections of female hormones did nothing to change "Brenda's" boyish ways. "When I say there was nothing feminine about Brenda," brother Brian Reimer later recalled, "I mean there was nothing feminine:

She walked like a guy. Sat with her legs apart. She talked about guy things, didn't give a crap about cleaning house, getting married, wearing makeup. We both wanted to play with guys, build forts and have snowball fights and play army. She'd get a skipping rope for a gift, and the only thing we'd use that for was to tie people up, whip people with it. She played with my toys: Tinkertoys, dump trucks. This toy sewing machine she got just sat.

Remember, neither "Brenda," nor her brother, nor any of her classmates knew the true story about her sexual identity. They all thought she was a girl, albeit a girl who behaved pretty strangely. The other kids at school called her "gorilla," or "Cavewoman." One girl who made fun of Brenda must have been surprised when Brenda "grabbed her by the front of her shirt, smashed her against the lockers, and threw her onto the ground. Boys who teased her got similar treatment. "That's what always impressed me about Brenda," said a classmate. "She'd actually fight with the boys who teased her. She'd haul off and punch them. I always wished I could do that."

On March 14, 1980 -- when "Brenda" was 15 years old -- Ron and Janet Reimer finally told their child the truth: "She" had been a normal boy until a terrible act of medical malpractice had destroyed his penis. "Brenda" was relieved. He wasn't crazy, after all; his growing sexual interest in girls suddenly made sense; everything made sense. "Brenda" insisted on immediately reassuming a male identity, and he did so with remarkable ease, despite having neither a penis nor testicles. He chose the name David, because he felt that his life so far had been a David-and-Goliath struggle. "Brenda" is now David Reimer, happily married and the adoptive father of three children. He is proficient at automobile mechanics and enjoys watching televised sports.

Reflecting on the case, Dr. Milton Diamond commented that "if all these combined medical, surgical, and social efforts could not succeed in making that child accept a female gender identity, then maybe we really have to think that there is something important in the individual's biological makeup; that we don't come to this world neutral; that we come to this world with some degree of maleness and femaleness which will transcend whatever the society wants to put into it."

David Reimer committed suicide in May, 2004. He was 38 years old.

David Reimer: Unethical Sex Change that Destroyed a Family
October 13, 2010 by hlinn, Worldplay Research Initiative (WRI)

Ethics in social science research have often been questioned in numerous cases throughout history. However, one of the most significant and remembered cases involved giving a sex change to an unfortunate baby boy who experienced an accidental penis removal during circumcision. David Reimer, a Canadian born in 1965, was brought to a physician’s office at eight months old for this standard and very common procedure. However, instead of using the usual scalpel, physicians decided to use an electrocautery needle, which in turn accidentally burned off David’s penis. Dr. John Money, the psychologist who visited with David’s parents after this horrifying incident, suggested to provide David with a sex change. After deliberation, David’s parents agreed to this idea, while Dr. Money took advantage of this opportunity as a case for research. Without informing the parents, Dr. Money secretly wanted this case to prove his idea that nurturing a child as a male or a female can determine their sexuality, not nature itself.

Dr. Money referred the parents to another doctor in order to surgically construct a vagina on baby David. After the surgery was complete, David’s name was changed to Brenda, and began to receive hormonal supplements for years to come. However, even though Dr. Money labeled this experiment as successful, he chose to ignore and misinform Brenda’s parents of the negative effects, which in turn destroyed the family in the long run. Brenda’s parents never told her about what happened when she was a baby boy, and Brenda remained confused growing up with her desires to act and play like a boy. She was finally told what truly happened to her when she turned fourteen, but her suicidal mother, alcoholic father, and depressed brother led to Brenda remaining in a constant state of pain and confusion. Even after Brenda changed her name back to David, stopped taking hormonal supplements, and went back for another sex change to reconstruct a penis, the pain of life itself never stopped haunting David. At 38 years old, David Reimer committed suicide. Despite all of the complications in this disastrous study, Dr. Money never recorded anything in his research describing the conflicts and downfalls, but remained that the experiment was a complete success. Obviously, in the end, it did not turn out to be successful, but disastrous.

Ethically, who is Dr. Money to decide that the sex of a child should be his choice? He manipulated David’s parents into believing that this would be the best possible decision they could make as a family for their poor baby, and he selfishly used this as an opportunity to put his name in the record books for a possible successful case. His name is definitely in the record books, but not in a favorable way. He is notoriously remembered as the man who destroyed an entire family because of the mere fact that he wanted to create something that would give him intellectual and admirable credit. However, if Dr. Money were still to have suggested this idea to David’s parents, all the while including the possible negative effects that could inflict upon David and their family, it might have given David’s parents the opportunity to find another solution to their son’s problem. Also, if Dr. Money would have recorded the obvious struggles that his case subject David had with his sexuality, it would have at least proven that Dr. Money had at least a little bit of integrity to admit that his experiment was not successful, and should be advised not to perform under these types of circumstances.

If there are any lessons to take away for future researchers, it would be to think about the effects that experiments might have on families if there is any ethical breach that might be present in the study, and to always acknowledge both the positive and negative aspects that occurred or could occur. The research that we are conducting in our Interactive Multimedia Communication class, the Worldplay Research Initiative (WRI), is completely different from this particular case; however, we must remember from this case where we stand as researchers, and to know our ethical limitations when we conduct studies in the gaming industry.




County Down farmer and politician had stern words for the durty Bajan hoor.

Bangor DUP Alderman Alan Graham asked the 23-year-old singing sensation, Rihanna, to stop filming her new song in his grain field after the brazen slattern bared her alien bosoms.

“I did not know on Friday who was coming, but if the name Rihanna had have been mentioned to me the name would have meant nothing to me."

Alderman Graham was out in the field in his tractor when he saw the dusky buxom lass disrobe

“It became apparent to me that the situation was becoming inappropriate and I requested them to stop and they did stop. I had my conversation with Rihanna regarding that and I hope she understands where I’m coming from and we shook hands and we parted company on good enough terms."

Good Man! Ulster says "NO!" to foreign slatterns.

Indonesian Woman

Compensate Victims of Jew-Funded IRA Terror


  • The Libyan government must compensate victims of IRA terrorist atrocities that were committed with the support of Libya and the Jew Gaddafi.

  • The British government must be condemned for not seeking compensation for victims of Libyan-backed IRA terror.

  • Jew David Cameron must be condemned for refusing financial compensation to victims of Libyan-backed IRA terror, from the frozen Libyan/Gaddafi-family funds that were/are held in British financial institutions.

  • The British and Irish governments must seek information from the new Libyan government about any collusion between previous British governments (including government agencies) and the Jew Gaddafi's regime and the IRA.

  • Jew Alan Shatter, who has been installed as Ireland's Minister of Justice, Defence, Equality & Immigration, must be forced to seek information from the new Libyan government about any collusion between previous British governments (including government agencies) and the Jew Gaddafi's regime and the IRA.

Background Information:


Telegraph (UK), 2009.09.07

Gordon Brown is facing increasing pressure over compensation for IRA victims after an about-turn to offer support for the claims against Libya was undermined by Saif Gaddafi, its leader's son.

Mr Brown's changes of political position have left him in an embarrassing position with little room to manoeuvre.

Initially, he isolated himself by angering the families of victims of the IRA, whose loved ones were killed with Semtex supplied by the African nation, by failing to personally intervene on their behalf for payouts from Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

In a letter to a lawyer representing IRA victims, he argued that it was “inappropriate” for him to lobby Col Gaddafi, partly because trade and Libya’s co-operation in the battle against extremism might be affected.

The reaction was so strong that, by Sunday night, the Prime Minister was forced into an about-turn in which he tried to defuse the row by offering "dedicated Foreign Office support” to the victims' families.

However, the Libyan authorities swiftly poured cold water on the chances the compensation bid.

Speaking in a television interview on Monday morning, Saif Gaddafi said the first response to any claim for a payout would be: "No."

He added that any attempt would be forced through a legal process.

"Anyone can knock on our door. You go to the court. They have their lawyers. We have our lawyers," he said.

Mr Brown's mishandling of the issue now risks jeopardising the relations with Libya, the very thing which the Government has tried so hard to improve.


Yesterday it was disclosed that Mr Brown had written to IRA victims’ families and their lawyers, stating that he would not intervene in their compensation cases. He claimed that Libya’s decision to give up terrorism was the main factor in his decision, but he also made repeated references to trade links.

A Foreign Office minister also cited Libya’s key role in “guaranteeing a secure energy future for the UK” in a letter to another bombing victim.


Colin Parry, whose 13-year-old son Tim was killed in Warrington in 1993 by an IRA bomb made with Semtex thought to have been supplied by Libya, said the Government could not ignore the country’s crimes. “It does make Britain look very, very weak and insignificant if, for reasons of worrying about oil deals or other economic considerations, this Government of ours is prepared to disregard all the pain of the thousands of victims of IRA terrorist campaigns,” he said.

Libya agreed three out-of-court compensation deals with American victims of IRA atrocities after lobbying by the former US President George W Bush. But more than 100 British victims pursuing similar claims through the US courts were excluded from the deal.

Mr Brown wrote last October to Jason McCue, a lawyer representing some of the victims, stating: “The UK Government does not consider it appropriate to enter into a bilateral discussion with Libya on this matter.” He insisted that trade was not the “core reason” for his stance but listed it as one of a series of “wide-ranging” factors in building a relationship.

However, a letter from Bill Rammell, then the Middle East minister, to Jonathan Gamesh, who was injured in the 1996 Docklands bombing, confirmed that oil contracts were a factor in the failure to lobby for the compensation.

“Libya is now a vital partner in guaranteeing a secure energy future for the UK and is also a key partner in the fight against terrorism,” he wrote in November last year. “While I recognise that this will be of little comfort to you, it is vital for the UK’s present and future security that this continues.”

Mr Ganesh accused the Government of selling out IRA victims for oil. Referring to Mr Rammell’s letter, he said: “I think that speaks for itself. Children in the UK have been murdered due to Libyan Semtex. And what is the Government going to do about it? Secure an oil deal for BP.”



BBC, 2011.03.02

[Photo: Aftermath of the Enniskillen bomb in 1987. Libyan Semtex was used in the Enniskillen bomb.]

The prime minister has said he does not believe the frozen assets of the Libyan regime should be used to compensate the victims of IRA violence.

David Cameron made his comments on Wednesday.

He said efforts were continuing to secure compensation for the Libyan supply of weapons to the IRA.

Attempts to secure compensation from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi for IRA victims have been suspended.

The idea of using the frozen assets to compensate the victims of IRA violence was put to Mr Cameron by DUP MP Nigel Dodds during prime minister's questions.

Mr Cameron said:"Clearly it's an ingenious idea to use the frozen assets in this way.

"I have to say, having sought advice, those assets really do belong to the Libyan people and I think the whole problem with Libya is that it is a rich country with poor people. We can see that in terms of the extensive assets that have been frozen and those assets belong to the Libyan people, first and foremost."

NI politicians began talks with Tripoli in 2009 to secure compensation for 160 victims of the Provisional IRA. Libya supplied arms to the IRA during its terror campaign.

The DUP's Jeffrey Donaldson said lawyers for the group have had a number of meetings with Libyan authorities and were preparing for a fresh meeting with Gaddafi's son Saif Al-Islam last month.

The arrest of a Libyan human rights campaigner on 15 February sparked off the current rebellion against Gaddafi's 41-year rule.

"Everything is on hold. Our legal team have indicated the discussions with the Gaddafi regime are not continuing and will not resume until there is another government in place," he told the Reuters news agency.

Mr Donaldson also said that lawyers were looking at the possibility of securing Gaddafi assets frozen by the British government last week in case the compensation bid failed.

"That would be another option if discussions with a new government in Tripoli proved difficult," he said. "It would have to be through a civil action against Gaddafi in the British courts - I doubt he would turn up to defend it."

The victims group -- which acted after Libyan authorities paid $1.5bn (£918.7m) to a US compensation fund for victims of the 1988 Lockerbie mid-air plane bombing -- have not put a figure on the amount of compensation they are seeking.

'Essential partner'

The UN Security Council voted to completely lift sanctions against Libya in 2003, but at the time the DUP's Ian Paisley Jr argued against this because of the lack of compensation for IRA victims.

As part of the negotiations to lift sanctions, Libyan officials provided information about millions of pounds and 120 tonnes of weaponry which they had given the IRA.

However, the UK government has never secured a compensation deal from Libya for victims of IRA attacks.

During a meeting with Gaddafi in 2009, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown declined to put any formal pressure on Libya for compensation.

Mr Brown told a victims' lawyer at the time that it was not "appropriate" to discuss the claims.

In a letter to lawyer Jason McCue in September 2008, Mr Brown told him that Libya was now an "essential partner" in the fight against terrorism and it was in the UK's interest for that co-operation to continue.

Mr McCue has been lobbying the UK to raise the matter of compensation at the highest levels of the Libyan government.

An Assembly motion in 2009 which called for compensation from Libya for IRA victims was backed by all parties, except Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams said at the time that he supported the right to seek compensation, but said the motion was "unfair and partisan".



The Belfast Telegraph, 2011.08.24

The fall of Gaddafi's regime could help MPs secure compensation for Libya's past support for the IRA, it has been claimed

A delegation of Troubles victims plans to visit Libya to show solidarity with the insurgents once order is restored.

They also plan to forward a claim for a multi-billion pounds goodwill payment from the new Libyan government to compensate UK victims of IRA terrorism.

The Belfast Telegraph has obtained a signed statement from Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the chairman of the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC), in which he pledges to settle the claim of 147 victims currently suing Libya and to consider an "appropriately resourced humanitarian fund for IRA victims".

The document was signed on April 5 at a meeting in the rebel stronghold with Jason McCue, the London solicitor who represented the Omagh bomb victims.

It is significant because the NTC looks poised to take power in Libya in the coming days or weeks.

The document is entitled 'Statement of Reconciliation to the Victims of Gaddafi sponsored Terrorism'.

In it, Mr Jalil says that the NTC intends to make a "morally just and appropriate settlement" with 147 claimants who are suing the Libyan government for $3.5bn (£2.13bn).

He goes on to say that he hopes to set up an additional "humanitarian fund" for "the wider class of similar UK IRA/Gaddafi victims that are not claimants in the above US action".

He adds that this fund will "recognise the pain and suffering of such victims and the wider society in the UK, and particularly in Northern Ireland."

When Mr McCue discussed such a fund with the Gaddafi regime a figure of $1.2bn was under consideration.

Willie Frazer of the victims group FAIR hopes to visit Libya with Mr McCue, politicians and three other victims as soon as the situation stabilises. British Government sources confirmed that he had been asked last month for possible delegates.

As well as Mr Frazer, the name of Michelle Williamson, who lost her parents in the 1993 Shankill Road bombing, was submitted. Two English victims of the 1996 Canary Wharf bombing, Ishan Bashir (whose brother was killed) and Jonathan Ganesh (who was badly injured) were also listed.

Mr Frazer said victims' groups had lobbied the British Government to support the Libyan insurgents even though they had been in talks, through their legal and political representatives, with the Gaddafi regime.


One Hot Chocolate Momma!

41-year-old Dominique Lanoise’s daughters Witelane (24), Fabienne (23), Sheila (21), Tesilia (20), Gelowe (16) and Jeanna (14) have spent the last few years cooking and cleaning for her in Miami. In November, 2009, she somehow took a trip to Haiti, to visit her family, and got stuck there after the earthquake, in which she claimed all her Haitian family died. Then she was stranded in the Dominican Republic for six months, until the Dominican Air Force flew her back to Florida, after her 5-year-old daughter died.


Arbeit Macht Frei

Arbeit Macht Frei



Doctor Who: "The Idiot's Lantern"

BBC Wales & CBC, 2006.05.27

  • Episode 7 of Season 2 of the New Doctor series (The Doctor having been resurrected by the mincing queer Russell R. Davies in 2005), on the Jew-run, massively taxpayer-funded BBC.
  • Setting: London 1953, in "Churchill's England"
  • The Villains: (1) An old-fashioned domineering war-hero, who bosses around his wife and his suggestively queer son. He lives on a street in which every house has a swastika on the roof. He (and others like him -- "the generation that defeated Hitler and liberated the Jews") must be expelled from his family, his home, and his neighborhood, before the people can be free to juke on the streets with grinning Negroes, and "make love" with whoever they like. (2) An alien who sucks off TV-viewers' faces and souls. After the alien is defeated, Queen Elizabeth II is able to bring equality, multiculturalism, democracy and sexual freedom to her United Kongdom.
  • Stars: David Tennant as The Doctor & Billie Piper as Chavess Rose Tyler
  • With: Jamie Foreman plays Eddie Connolly, the evil, arrogant, stupid, abusive patriarch. Rory Jennings plays his son, Tommy Connolly, who stands up to him in true feminist fashion, and gives him a lecture about how the brave Britons defeated Hitler so women could lord it over men and queerboys could be free as the wind. It is suggested that Tommy-boy is queer. He helps The Doctor save the human race. Debra Gillett plays Rita Connolly, the beleaguered wife and mother, who is empowered by Rose and The Doctor to hand her pathetic pig of a husband a suitcase, and kicks him out on the street.
  • Writer: Mark Gatiss, who was making up for his offence the year before, when he had written an episode about an alien race of fake asylum seekers, whom The Doctor had assisted to enter Wales, via the use of the carcasses of dead Britons (The Doctor arguing that otherwise they would just go to waste), only to be shocked when they (the aliens) turned on The Doctor and set about trying to conquer Earth and kill all Earthlings. The Doctor, Rose, Charles Dickens, and a member of the working class who had great fore-site defeated the fake asylum-seeking aliens and diverted disaster. This was interpreted by certain designated culture critics as a "fascist" and "racist" attack on the U.K.'s current immigration policies.
  • Director: Euros Lyn
  • Executive Producers: Russell T Davies & Julie Gardner
  • Viewers: 6,800,000
  • This London is populated entirely by White Britons, until the Queen is crowned, and there is a street festival, in which smiling Negroes celebrate the dawning of the New Age.

Review from Doctor Who Golden Moments

The Idiot's Lantern

Golden Moment: This is yet another story about stealing the things that make people unique. It is also a story about passing the torch, in a patriarchal age, to a woman. Eddie Connolly is the living embodiment of an oppressive patriarchy, and in a manner of speaking, his bullying steals the souls and individuality of his family. He tells them what to do, what to say, when to speak and how to feel. For a while, his way of doing things is simply the status-quo.

But when he finally comes unglued, it is a Golden Moment because it is a metaphorical turning point. As the Doctor stands by and watches him vomit words of bile (of the status-quo) upon his wife and son, we know that Connolly has finally crossed the line, and the Doctor will stop the destruction that he represents. "I've got a position to maintain! People around here respect me!" he screams at his wife and son. "How dare you! You think I fought a war just so a mouthy little scum like you could call me a coward? [Your mother] was filthy, a filthy disgusting thing!"

And indeed, this is when his wife finally shuts the door on him, his son finally defies him, the Doctor discovers Magpie's shop and begins to stop the Wire [the villain of the episode, which stole souls via the TV] from consuming souls, and it is the day when Queen Elizabeth II takes the throne of Great Britain. Down with the Eddie Connollys of the world, God Save the Queen!

Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig Put In His Place
Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: Don’t mind the wife, she rattles on a bit.

The Change-Agent Doctor: Well maybe she should rattle on a bit more. I’m not convinced you’re doing your patriotic duty. Those flags. Why are they not flying?

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: There we are Rita, I told you. Get them up, Queen and country!

Rita the Pitiful Housewife: I’m sorry.

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: Get it done. Do it now.

The Change-Agent Doctor: Hold on a minute.

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: Like the gentleman says.

The Change-Agent Doctor: Hold on a minute. You’ve got hands, Mr Connolly. Two big hands. So why’s that your wifes job?

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: Well it’s housework, isn’t it?

The Change-Agent Doctor: And that’s a womans job?

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: Course it is!

The Change-Agent Doctor: Mr Connolly, what gender is the Queen?

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: She’s a female.

The Change-Agent Doctor: And are you suggesting the Queen does the housework?

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: No! No, not at all.

The Change-Agent Doctor: Then get busy!

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: Right, yes sir. You’ll be proud of us sir. We’ll have Union Jacks left, right, and centre.

Rose the Enlightened Chavess: ‘Scuse me Mr Connolly, hang on a minute. Union Jacks?

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: Yes, that’s right, isn’t it?

Rose the Enightened Chavess: That’s the Union Flag. It’s the Union Jack only when it’s flown at sea.

Eddie the Pompous Patriarchal Patriotic Pig: Oh. Oh, I’m sorry. I … I do apologise.

Rose the Enlightened Chavess: Well, don’t get it wrong again. There’s a good man, now get to it!

The Change-Agent Doctor: Right then! Nice and comfy, at Her Majesty’s Leisure.


  • Putting up little flags in the house, to celebrate a coronation, is not "housework".
  • The wife does the housework because the husband goes off to work outside the home every day.

Review from Atomic Anxiety



Rose is the star of the first half of this episode.


She’s full of cheekiness at first [...]. When she and the Doctor bluff their way into an ordinary household on a street where lots of people have disappeared [...] she’s all full of vinegar towards the father, who’s a control-freaky dick.

The dad, Eddie Connolly is an excellent character in his dickishness, representing the changing times. He’s clearly a member of the patriarchal, old order while his wife and son (who learn to stand up to him) symbolize the hope of a new day. And in case you missed that, there’s a big neighborhood festival after the coronation [...] but he’s not invited because his wife kicked him out.

As the Doctor tries to interview Connolly’s wife and son, Rose is all over Eddie, ordering him about and using his own ignorance against him as a bullying tactic. When Mrs. Connolly starts to break down, though, it’s Rose who comforts her.


The Doctor has to solve the case without Rose, so he employs Connolly’s son Tommy to … um … do something sciencey.


Review from "Millennium Dome: Soft Toy and Liberal Democrat Blogger of the Year 2010"


"[...] this was very much the "small scale" Doctor Who story. Domestic, even. The Doctor emphasises this at the end when he prefers the "real history" of the Florizel Street street party to the "pomp and circumstance" of the coronation itself.

"Maureen Lipman was a really good villain this week. Icily posh and making the vilest threats out of the catchphrases of the era. "Are you sitting comfortably?"


"Incredibly, though, she actually wasn't icily posh enough! Alex showed us a real 1950s BBC continuity announcer. In her tiara and ball gown. Never mind cut glass accent, this lady could cut diamonds.


There was, obviously, a bit of a sub-text. Or text as it became with a slightly heavy handed polemical scene mid way through where young Tommy confronts his father. If you are keen on spotting this week's "gay agenda" look no further than remarks like "bit of a mummy’s boys, that one" and "you want to beat it out of him" and finally "freedom to love who you want". "I fought a war for you!" threatens dad; "You fought a war to stop fascists!" retorts Tommy. And there was me thinking it was a coincidence that all those 1950s TV aerials looked like swastikas!

"There's a slight sense that this was writer Mark Gatiss abandoning his usual light-touch as a response to criticism. Last year he gave us the early hit "The Unquiet Dead" a story of ghosts and Charles Dickens. But he received some small stick, and a somewhat over the top reaction, from Laurence (Mad Larry) Miles who pointed out that "The Unquiet Dead" could be read as a story of bogus asylum seekers.


"Larry may have had a slight point in that we live in a time when all to many reactionaries want us to believe that the Doctor's liberal welcome of a people in need is naïve bordering on culpably stupid. So possibly, possibly, Mr Gatiss took this year's opportunity to punch those little Englanders in the head: we fought against the fascists not to become them. You morons.

Review from Elementary, My Dear Reader: The Musings of a Ravenous Reader in Life, Literature, and Film

The Idiot's Lantern


While in the Connolly house, the Doctor and Rose order the loud-mouthed, emotional bully Mr. Connolly about, using Queen and country as an excuse. It’s a really good, funny commentary on and subversion of the stereotypical gender roles of the 1950s.


Review from jigglymuffin @ Out of the Blue Box

The Idiot’s Lantern

It was 1953 and the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, so everyone was in front of their televisions to witness the occasion.

For the past episodes, we’ve already met a lot of monsters but the Idiot’s Lantern gave us a monster that may be nearest to us—our televisions. The media, especially through television, is part of the family’s everyday living. Headlines for the day, sports, movies, shows, soap operas, and advertisements—everything made easily accessible through the media.


Fortunately, we have the Doctor to save the day. With the help of [queerboy] Tommy, he was able to tap into the transmission thereby diverting the signal of The Wire to be trapped into a Betamax video tape.


Tommy, the boy who helped the Doctor, is an image of bravery and fighting for what you believe is just and true. I guess it’s normal that there will come a point when children will question the rules of their parents and stand up for what they believe in life.



Despite the patriarchal orientation of many societies in the world, this episode highlighted the power of the second gender—the females. It was the coronation of a very famous and powerful woman—Queen Elizabeth. The wife of Edward Connolly, who spent her married life just following what her husband would tell her, finally learned to fight for what was right.


Review from whotopia, the canadian doctor who magazine

The Idiot's Lantern

The Idiot’s Lantern, Mark Gatiss’ second script for this revived series, leaves you desperately wanting more.


When you think about, not much really happened of any consequence during the 1950s. America went to sleep under Eisenhower, while a long decade of prosperity in Australia was briefly punctuated by a failed attempt to ban the Communist Party. Britain’s slow slide from Empire to mere island nation accelerated quickly in the 1950s, punctuated by the failure at Suez. Into this milieu ride the Doctor and Rose, kitted out for a night watching Elvis gyrate those hips on the Ed Sullivan Show, only to discover they have landed in the drabness of 1953 Britain, on the eve of the Coronation of Elizabeth II.


The new series of Doctor Who doesn’t feel dense enough. Watch an average episode of The West Wing, Spooks, New Tricks or The Sopranos and you walk away feeling that the writers have packed in as much incident, drama, humor and action as they could. With the new series, one is sometimes left feeling that there is something missing from an episode, as if the writer/producers aren’t confident with the material they have to fully engage the viewer.


The Idiot’s Lantern certainly comes close to achieving that goal. [...] The depiction of 1950s Britain, with its slide into genteel poverty from imperial greatness, is deftly shown. Despite the ravages of the Second World War, despite the loss of empire, despite the drabness of ordinary life with effects of rationing, the people of Floriel Street look forward with happiness to the crowning of their new monarch.

Of course, something is watching and waiting, peering out at them from the corner of their living rooms.


A darker storytelling tone would be appreciated. You can tell where Gatiss would love to take this story by the pre-credits
scene. It’s all darkness and shadows, gloomy weather and flashes of light.


There are several plus points for this episode.


Billie Piper is allowed to shin, her performance not hamstrung as in earlier episodes by the sulkier, jealous, tiresome thing she had become. Here she is more at ease, taking on the patriarchal bully in the Connolly household one moment, before venturing off blithely into danger a la the Doctor.


Earlier in this review I commented that underneath the surface of the average episode this season, there was more surface. Cruel, but aptly presented here. While an entertaining episode, it’s all surface charm and glibness. Better writing and characterization would handsomely fill out the forty five minutes, eliminating the feeling of slightness that predominates. Instead, the Connolly family is painted in broad strokes – timorous wife, buffoonish husband, suppressed teenage son, dotty grandmother.


The rest of the cast do their best with superficial roles. Jamie Foreman as Eddie Connolly plays the character too broadly for my taste. Special praise should go to Rory Jennings, as the idealistic son prepared to stand up to his bullying father.


Reviewed by Rob Mammone [PDF]

Reviews from Pagefillers

"Are you sitting comfortably. Then we'll begin..."

By Joe Ford


The Idiot's Latern fails to capture the toastiness of the era because it is far interested in some obscure and (frankly) boring alien threat. Why can't we have a pure historical story? One which allows us to soak in the richness of history. [...] I wanted to see more of the jazziness of the era, more of the domesticity... but instead we end up on a transmitter with a monster screaming out "HUNGRRRRRRRYY!" Yaaaaaaawn.


Euros Lyn's direction of this story was extremely jarring. The first scene out of the TARDIS is pure Grease, with jazzy music and sickly costumes and sharp cuts. Then there is the soap opera scenes inside the Connelly household, filmed at the most bizarre angles, so distracting I kept trying to angle my head so I could see the shots straight. Then we are into horror territory with the old woman silhouetted by the window and the Doctor trapped admist the shadowy domain of faceless beings. Finally it's action set pieces, with rapid scenes cutting between Magpie and the Doctor on the tower as the story reaches its hectic conclusion. [...] I was never quite sure which genre I was watching. [...] Lyn interprets the schizophrenic script with as much flair as we have come to expect but I felt as if I was being pulled in a ten different directions at once.


Mr Connelly was a bit OTT for my liking; okay so this is a guy who holds his household together with strong discipline but his constant cries of "I AM TALKING!" were more hilarious than they were dramatic. He keeps upping the eye-boggling shouting throughout, although despite this I did feel for him when he was kicked out of his own home.


By far the most impressive thing about this entire episode was the performance from Rory Jennings as Tommy [...]. I loved it when he turned on his father and reminded him why he fought the war and frankly the only reason I was so wrapped up in the finale was because he was still involved. I would have loved to have seen him leap into the TARDIS at the end [...]. It would have been a smart (and interesting) move to see Tommy join the crew. Alas it was not to be [...].

In fact it was the domestic scenes that I enjoyed most about this episode, a story that Mark Gatiss clearly relished writing but did not put enough into. He's all for atmospheric settings and crafted characters (both present here) but the alien threat is really poor here and the explanation and exploration behind it is handled in a insultingly cack-handed manner.

The Idiot's Lantern [...] is something of a misfire for the series, some tasty ingredients but overall leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.

We Are Not Amused

By Thomas Cookson

Throughout the New Series so far, I'd perhaps come to accept that the Doctor isn't the man he used to be anymore. The Doctor was once a character for connoisseurs, a character who lived and breathed large and literate words and the finest in art and literature. Now he is pretty much down with the kids, using slang jargon and substituting scientific terms for words like 'thingy' and 'jiggery-pokery', and he's down with modern tastes: whether they be Muppets, Reality TV, Buddy Holly or Ian Dury [...].

They want the Doctor to be 'cool' and to pander to the simple folk, and try to win over those who would rubbish the old Doctor for his old-fashioned and 'dated' mannerisms.


I've been able to put the blinders on this process of chavving up the Doctor, but something about tonight's episode broke the suspension of disbelief completely. To see the Doctor gelling his hair in that 50's quiff, donning sunglasses and doing that 'you goin' my way doll?' impersonations and then putting the final foot in the boot when he towed out that moped, things just got too silly; and more than that, things stopped being alien completely.


The old series [stuck] fairly close to the rules of the Doctor's image and attire and by doing so they made him seem alien and distinctive without even trying. Even Eccleston's leather jacket seemed like a nice extension of the character being hardened by cosmic war. This episode seems to uproot that element quite violently and the Doctor's character was left there to dribble and soak in too much ADD and popcorn.

The whole tone of the episode is far too cartoonish, and it's loud and bloated for a story that should be quiet, mysterious and eerie. What's more, beneath the style it is ultimately empty in a way that the nineties telemovie was, except much more so. The typical 1950's family at the centre of this house are far too caricaturish, and the comedy that comes out of that scene is pretty bad actually, with even Billie Piper gurning it up idiotically. It also doesn't quite ring true to me that the Doctor would come in and lay down the law of how the patriarchal husband is out of order bossing around his wife and child, let alone be so snide about it (but again this is the 'cool' Doctor and he couldn't be cool if he didn't get involved in the gender war now would he?). I'm not saying the Doctor would be happy to see domestic ugliness or patriarchal tyranny and women being kept in their place but then again he doesn't do domestics and in any case, if it was the 1950's he was in, he'd be wise to the fact that he can't really go around women's libbing in people's homes because there's a time and a place for that and he's 20 years too early; Britain isn't yet ready for it. (It also seems a tad hypocritical for a man who himself treated his female companions as coffee-makers and harboured nothing but respect for the Draconians despite their cultural misogyny. Though even hypocritical can be plausible, and if they keep up the cool-Doctor thing they could quite likely make him hypocritical again by next week making him an Eminem fan.)


[This episode has] flat characters, cartoonish events, bad comedy without any gravity, some of the worst moments of female emancipation ever televised (even managing to top Adam's fainting), a vaguely-described alien menace whose origins might be followed up properly at a later date, a message about the power of the media, a wash-out rush-through of an episode that's doing too much at once and ends without any impact at all, the Doctor and Rose acting at their most trendy, arrogant and obnoxious, the Doctor particularly behaving like a common thug and Rose being a bunny boiler. The most depressing aspect of this is that instead of making the Doctor and companion the light in a selfish and uncooperative world, it actually makes them the centre of that selfishness and standoffishness with their belligerence that guarantees that they get no help from anyone.


I'm going to gobble you up pretty boy! by Steve Cassidy 16/9/06

[The] story is almost smothered in a social commentary with all the subtley of a television van falling on you. I thoroughly enjoy a little social pastiche in Who. [...] I found myself grinding my teeth at the caricatures there on the screen. I felt a modern PC mindset was projecting its own ideas into the past. It felt like an episode of the 1900 house where modern people try to be like those in at the turn of the century. I felt it was trying too hard to make a point.


Rose, in particular, seems to be on a downward spiral [...]. One of the reasons was when she was showing up Mr Connelly about the Union Flag. It doesn't matter if he did or didn't deserve it. It's not about the person being embarassed. It's about the person taking enjoyment in embarassing someone. It's nasty, and I don't like it. [...]

[The Doctor's] shouting down of Mr Connelly "AND I'M NOT LISTENING!!" didn't work.


And can we let up on the contemporary references? Previous Doctors quoted Shakespeare or 'The Ballard of Flannen Isle'. This Doctor seems to spend his time watching crap earth TV.

Yes, yes - I know, that's the producer. I can spot an RTD edit a mile off. I also think he was responsible for the Connelly family dramas. Gattiss has let slip that RTD has sent his work back for previous rewrites and one wonders if this was the part he wanted expanded. There is nothing wrong with having an "emotional edge" in Who but this one had the subtley of a TV mast crashing down. I enjoy a bit of drama but I don't want my arm twisted into agreeing with what the writers want us to think. I just think the whole thing was too heavy-handed.


Eddie Connelly['s] weakness is his pride; this is shown in the first scene (the medals, the way he holds his head when he walks etc). What is telling is his reaction at the end of the episode, he meekly accepts when his wife throws him out and is also silent after Tommy's fascist accusation speech. He doesn't stop Tommy going with the Doctor and when his wife subsequently slams the door in his face, he doesn't try to get back into the house. Deep down he knows he is in the wrong, but is too proud to admit it. It seemed to me that he tried to take contol of things in the manner that he knew best; that of a soldier. He tried to take command of the family unit. I think in panic and ignorance he made a hash of it. I think Eddie genuinely believed that he outranked everyone else in the house. I also found that he represented the last throes of colonialisim in that he had became the ruler in another person's house/country and was eventually made to pack up move out of there as the family/country finally found the strength to find their independence.

A Review

By Ron Mallett

A very silly story.


Does anyone get the feeling that somebody out there really hated the last war generation? I think someone involved has some serious father/son issues. This story presented a very generalised, unsympathetic view of post-war patriarchal society and the mainstream conservatism that ensued.


A Review

By Finn Clark

There's nothing wrong with The Idiot's Lantern. It's not a bad story. It has some nice jokes and the dramatic climax actually feels like a dramatic climax instead of just button-pressing.

My only real objection is what the story doesn't do. As in The Unquiet Dead, I can't hear Mark Gatiss's voice. There are most certainly bits where the story's trying to say things about the 1950s, but, as with everything else, Gatiss has inserted those bits because he thinks he should and because he's dutifully assembling all the approved parts. They don't feel organic. It's hollow. Thus the Gay Pride speech comes across as the scriptwriter putting words in his characters' mouths instead of letting them speak for themselves.


Personally I don't even think it's even as good as The Unquiet Dead. That story [set in Cardiff, with Simon Callow as Charles Dickens] respected its characters. It revered Dickens and even gave Gwyneth [a maid that Rose talked down to] that wonderful "you think I'm stupid" line. However The Idiot's Lantern patronises its 1950s setting [...]. It's the same problem I have with many Doctor Who novels in Victorian England: that sense of smugness. "Look, weren't they stupid and aren't I morally superior?" [...] These people aren't real. They're a species of freak called "Fifties People", with all that flag-waving parochialism and awe at the simplest things.


I like the fact that [Gatiss] chose to write about the Connolly family in the first place, but the execution is leaden. Shouty Dad is just Shouty Dad. Tommy's big speech is unconvincing (even if a better actor could have probably made it work), although in fairness I like its mirror image at the end. "Tolerance even for the intolerant." That's a worthwhile message.


A Review

By Terrence Keenan


I wasn't very impressed. The TARDIS duo seemed bullying and obnoxious, and the Wire wasn't much of a villain.

So, does it improve on a second viewing?

No, and the fault is shoehorned mix of the main plot (the bits with the Wire) and the agenda plot (the whole Connolly plot). It's obvious that the agenda plot was rewritten extensively to give it more emphasis. It's as subtle as a kick in the head with an iron boot, and throws the whole story out of whack.


If Eddie Connolly was less of an ass, then the agenda storyline might have blended in better with the main plot and might have elevated the whole episode.


Hungry For More Than What We Were Given

By Scott Williams

I find it incredibly hard to pin-point why The Idiot's Lantern was such a massive disappointment and letdown for me, especially after the writer's previous triumph, The Unquiet Dead (one of my personal favourite Doctor Who episodes of all time and surely the best pre-credits sequence of the revived series).


I think the main problem for me was the family at the centre of the story, the Connelly family. All four of them failed to grab my imagination. [...] Despite the conviction in his performance, Eddie Connelly was purely a stereotypical, overly patriotic, misguided, dominant alpha male figure from the period. Likewise, the mother was simply a typical wife-under-the-thumb sort who was scared and submissive to her overbearing spouse. Not that that is necessarily a bad setup if done correctly, but sadly this was not the case here. I, for one, had no sympathy or empathy with either of them. There was just not enough characterisation there for me to care.



"Shall such a one live?"

"He that gives upon usury, and that takes an increase: shall such a one live? He shall not live. Seeing he has done all these detestable things, he shall surely die, his blood shall be upon him."

(Ezekiel 18:13)






Search form
Latest Journals
Latest comments
Monthly archive
Friend Request Form

Want to be friends with this user.