It is believed that much of the disorder during three nights of violence in London was orchestrated on sites such as Twitter, which was monitored by the police.

BlackBerry Messenger was also used by youths planning riots. The instant text messaging system cannot easily be monitored by police.

Essex Police apparently had no problem the other day, as they reassure residents they are working to keep county safe.

A 20-year-old man from Colchester who allegedly sent messages from a Blackberry encouraging people to join in a water fight has been charged with encouraging or assisting in the commission of an indictable only offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. He has been conditionally bailed to appear at Colchester Magistrates’ Court on September 1.

Essex Police officers,

have vowed to take a robust approach to anyone who uses social networking sites to stimulate fictitious rumours.

It reminds me of the jokes on Twitter that landed people in court. Paul Chambers very obviously just pretended that he was going to blow Robin Hood airport “sky high” and Tory Birmingham councillor Gareth Compton requested that someone stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death after her discussion about human rights on Radio 5 Live. They were arrested.

There had been calls from politicians for a Twitter and Facebook blackout during riots. I suppose this seemed easier for MPs than dealing effectively with the problem, having created it in the first place.

So who or what can we pin the blame on for these riots? Most commentators agree that genuine poverty is not the reason. People who are genuinely poor need food, shelter, clothing and fuel, not huge big tellies, designer trainers and even more bling.

Melanie Phillips blames the liberals,

So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

She writes about the liberal intelligentsia’s attack on the family, welfare dependency, the victim culture and human rights, multiculturalism and the shattering of “any attachment to a shared and over-arching culture”

Ms Phillips has a special mention for the Hideous Harman,

One of these ultra-feminist wreckers was Harriet Harman. The other night, she was on TV preposterously suggesting that cuts in educational allowances or youth workers had something to do with young people torching and looting shops, robbing and leaving people for dead in the streets.

But Harman was one of the principal forces in the Labour government behind the promotion of lone parenthood and the marginalisation of fathers. If anyone should be blamed for bringing about the conditions which have led to these appalling scenes in our cities, it is surely Ms Harman.

Historian David Starkey caused shockwaves by suggesting that whites were becoming black. It was a dangerous thing to say in this day and age, but was he being “racist” as so many were quick to claim? Barrister and former Tory MP, Jerry Hayes, wrote,

So the cool analysis that David Starkey was trying to explain, despite the wailings, squeals of outrage and shocked indignation, is this. Many young people have adopted a way of speech and a way of life that is alien to the tolerance and decency that is Britain. It glorifies the workshy, feckless fatherhood, gun crime and drugs. It worships greed and self gratification no matter whom it hurts. If you want further evidence just look at the subliminal messages and popularity of Gangsta Rap.

He makes it sound like another form of liberal ideology: selfish self-indulgence with no real connection or commitment to the community as a whole.

Another Tory MP, Robert Halfon, wrote on his blog,

…moral relativism, moral equivalence, family breakdown and absent fathers, the weakening of social capital (the glue that binds community together), the failure of our education system over decades (a huge proportion of children leave school illiterate) and the glorIfication of the drugs/gang culture have all contributed to this disaster.

In other words, the liberal agenda of the past few governments and that of the controlled “entertainment” industry.

However, Mohammed Abbas and Kate Holton believe that London rioters point to poverty and prejudice.

“It’s us versus them, the police, the system,” said an unemployed man of Kurdish origin in his early 20s, sitting at the entrance to a Hackney housing estate with four Afro-Caribbean friends who nodded in agreement.

“They call it looting and criminality. It’s not that. There’s a real hatred against the system,” he added, listing what he saw as the police prejudice, discrimination and lack of opportunity that led him and his friends to loot shops, torch bins and hurl missiles at police Monday.

Is this what multiculturalism and political correctness have delivered? Well, I don’t think it ever was about equality, but divide and conquer.

“There’s two worlds in this borough. More and more middle classes are coming and we’re being pushed out. The shops are pricing stuff like it’s the West End, we can’t afford the rents. We’re the outcasts, we’re not wanted any more.

“There’s nothing for us.”

Are these genuine reasons for complaint or unacceptable excuses for those exaggerated tantrums in the streets?

Is this bad feeling between the “poor” and the middle classes yet another front in the divide and conquer war?

One of the knee-jerk reactions has been the serving of eviction notices to rioters who live in council houses. The first was in Wandsworth, but it was the son who was charged with breaking the law, not the tenant. This sounds as unjust to me as the looters ruining a man’s business. But when natural justice has been compromised to such an extent to accommodate the beliefs of others, political and religious, confusion was bound to reign.

What is the answer? If the problems we face as a society stem from the postwar liberal agenda and the socialists’ anti-family agenda and the divisive multicultural and political correct agendas then clearly these things must be rejected forthwith, because they have not brought the promised freedom or peace – that was just an illusion to get as all on board, but the reality is what we see today – a country in crisis – people without direction and little hope; broken families and fragmented communities; desperation dealt with through alcohol misuse and prescrption and illicit drug use.

Being tough on crime is important, but so is grabbing these failed, highly destructive ideologies by the scruff of the neck and throwing them into the depths of the ocean.

Leg-iron has written about the Bill currently going through Parliament which states that being a woman is a protected characteristic.

Insinuating that a woman is not as strong as a man will be “unlawful sex discrimination”, under the terms of the forthcoming Equality Bill.

An example the Telegraph gives is that,

it is likely to be unlawful sex discrimination for a gym to test every woman’s strength but not every man’s before allowing them access to weightlifting facilities.

In other words, if you run a gym, don’t be concerned about your clients’ wellbeing: by order of the Government. Of course, if they hurt themselves, it will be the gym’s fault and they will be able to sue. The gym owners may have to cover themselves by asking the same questions of a big hunky man and a 16 year-old stick-insect model.

It reminds me of supermarkets demanding ID from anyone who looks under 25 before selling them alcohol. I read that Tesco’s is considering putting the age up to 30.

The ‘Nanny State’ has been extended so that everyone who serves the public in any capacity whatsoever is also obliged to be a nanny.

— Prove to Nanny you are seven years older than you legally need to be to buy a few cans of beer or be humiliated in front of other customers.

— Show Nanny you treat everyone ‘equally’ by pretending you cannot discern for yourself that some people are not fit for purpose, whether in the gym or in your employment.

— Demonstrate to Nanny that you approve of her smoking ban by being an unpaid grass.

Then there is this, frankly, scary piece of ‘advice’ in the ‘equality’ Bill,

It does not matter what the service provider’s intentions are or whether the service provider’s less favourable treatment of the person is conscious or unconscious.

The service provider may even think that they are doing the person a favour, or simply be unaware that they are treating the person differently because of a protected characteristic.

I have to question the real motive for this. Well, you have to with everything the Government does these days, don’t you? You might be breaking the law by trying to do someone a favour? Come again? Some people already risk being prosecuted if they help their neighbours by clearing snow from the pavement outside their homes and someone slips on it. This is bad enough, but simply giving advice to a woman that you wouldn’t give to a man could be deemed ‘discrimination’ just because the government says that being a woman is a protected characteristic.

A woman is different from a man. Not in a bad way, in a good way. It is about time Harman accepted this. I actually think that womanhood is a precious thing, unlike Harman and the government. If they want to protect women, why are they turning them into gender-neutral creatures for equality’s sake?

It is because what is normal must be destroyed and replaced with the seeds of destruction of our freedom. I expect they rejoice in the gangs of female lager louts stoating around our towns and cities because it proves their re-engineering is taking hold.

Even chivalry will be illegal if this Bill makes it through. As if manners aren’t thin enough on the ground already, the government wants us men to pretend women aren’t women and not be concerned about them. It is normal for men to be protective towards women.

But every type of healthy, normal human impulse and interaction is under attack. Heterosexual relationships with men as the providers and protectors and women as the gentler sex – the carers and home-makers, are being redefined as just another lifestyle option. And childhood, where ‘equality’ means that this must end at the age of five when children, many of whom cannot yet tie their shoelaces, are to be told that sodomy and abortion are their rights, that all religions are equal and that climate change is killing all the cuddly polar bears (it’s not) and it is all their parents’ fault.

So be careful what you say at all times. In fact, it is better to say nothing at all in case you are less favourable towards someone with a protected characteristic, whether it is conscious or unconscious. Just stay in your home and tune in to the BBC for further instructions.

One simple thing we can all do (but won’t). There is an election due any time now. Don’t vote for these criminally insane sociopaths.

For example, the bastardisation of the word equality seems to be limitless. Now, it is vegans who are the latest folk to be in need of some sort of protection. From what, I don’t know. Perhaps leather seats in public places will be banned. I have never been a vegan, but I tried being a veggie for a few months. It opened up a new world of culinary delights. I’m not being sarcastic, by the way! I made a cracking vegetarian lasagne with aubergine, courgettes, mushrooms and of course onions. I concocted homemade burgers using veggie mince and cooked white rice in roughly equal quantities. Add a chopped onion, bind with egg and add soy sauce to colour the rice and the cooked burger was “meaty” enough to put on a roll and cover with ketchup like the real thing.

The egg makes this recipe useless for vegans, so I guess I must be guilty of discrimination by writing about it without considering the hurt I may cause to them. I can’t say I found myself discriminated against as a vegetarian, however I have always been in a particular culinary minority – well since the age of five or six – which is subject to an incredible amount of discrimination and ignorance.

I am a person who does not take butter or margarine on sandwiches and I do feel hard done by because practically everywhere I go where sandwiches are served, they are buttered.

When Cranmer learned that vegans are to enjoy the same protection against discrimination as religious groups, he suggested,

And if they, why not vegetarians, non-dairy consumers, wheat-eschewers and teetotallers.

I love cheese, but I hate butter. Surely this makes me an extra special case in need of much wider understanding. Schoolchildren should be taught to respect me for what I am. They should be told that some people don’t like butter, or even margarine and other low-fat spreads, and that it is also their right not to have butter.

The “non-dairy consumers” would not want a cheese sandwich, or any sandwich with butter, but I would take a cheese sandwich without butter. I think this proves that information ‘packs’ urgently need to be sent to all businesses that supply food and also to the likes of community halls and churches, where sandwiches may be offered around after an event.

Even churches have their sandwiches smeared with butter. The Lord’s prayer says, “Give us this day our daily bread.”

There is no mention of butter.

Cranmer continues,

We could have a bit of fun with this.

The Equality Bill makes it a legal requirement for all public bodies to consider the impact of all their policies on minority groups.

If churches can successfully be sued for not hiring homosexuals as youth workers, then surely I should be able to take them to the cleaners for not providing me with a butterless sandwich, especially after having had the decency to sit through a sermon without once yawning out loud.

I am seriously considering writing to Harriet Harman about this because I have suffered a lifetime of abuse. Every time a sandwich is produced, I feel picked on; left out; humiliated. And of course, hungry.

I think I stand a fair chance of success. Because butter contains so much fat, the government may see this as the excuse they need to impose a ban on the supply and consumption of buttered sandwiches in public spaces.

Sometimes I catch a whiff of butter when the sandwiches are being passed around. I’m sure the government could find some barmy ‘experts’ who could prove that second-hand butter-whiffing causes obesity.

All in all, then, I think I have proven that I am in need of protection from those who ‘use’ butter as a means of keeping the contents of their sandwiches from falling out. Secondary butter fumes make me nauseous and I leave the venue still hungry while others are full and satisfied.

There can be no equality while my butterless brothers are still being persecuted. I demand justice!

Ministers were astonished on Monday when the Pope said that the Bill violated “natural justice” and urged bishops to fight it. But that attack, along with the strength of opposition in the Lords and the limited time left to get Bills passed before the election, has sapped the Government’s enthusiasm to continue the fight.

Who knows, maybe with the election just around the corner, some bright spark in the government has realised that there are many more Catholics than homosexuals. I’m sure that ‘natural justice’ didn’t figure at all in the decision.

In her blind allegiance to ‘equality’, Harriet Harman, Hater of Harmony, obviously couldn’t see that a homosexual preaching about the importance of sexual morality would be rather irrational. But her government thrives on the irrational, especially when it comes to ‘equality’.

Why should people who choose to behave in a certain way receive so much attention anyway? We don’t get adulterers demanding to get a job in a church. Should I, who disagrees with New Labour’s philosophy, insist on getting a job with one of their MPs? Would I be accepted for a job with Stonewall? Not after they had Googled my name, that’s for sure.

I would be discriminated against for my beliefs in many places and rightly so because I don’t conform to their ethos.

I cannot see that churches are singled out for ’special’ treatment other than the fact that they are churches and this government has proven how much it hates Christianity.

Because the Pope has expressed an opinion, and he’s not supposed to because he is the head of a church and is expected to keep schtum, the National Secular Society is upset and is planning demonstrations during his visit to the UK in the Autumn.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some £20 million for the visit of the Pope. A visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination.”

Their version of events is that he will attack equal rights. But he is trying to preserve his church’s freedom to employ people who share its beliefs. What business is this of the NSS, other than an excuse to attack religion, which seems to be their raison d’être?

The truth is that ‘equality’ which suits secularists is an impossibility because it forces people to accept things that they vehemently oppose. The government knows this and is using the resulting chaos to create tensions in society so they can ruin all our lives while we fight among ourselves.

Vanessa Delaney, 38, Claire Edwards, 25, and Sally Pawson, 24, had mistaken Mr Tailby for someone who had wolf-whistled at them and so they chased him to a car park.

Edwards grabbed the innocent victim in a headlock as the trio knocked him to the ground in a hail of punches and kicks, Grimsby Magistrates Court heard yesterday.

During the attack the three women screamed: ‘All men are stupid!’

Looking at the pictures of the women on the Mail’s website, I can understand why he would have wanted to run away. But why have these women morphed into vicious, drunken, feral-looking, gender-neutral creatures?

Where did they learn that “All men are stupid”? Harriet Harman? Or the constant attacks on manhood and fatherhood in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’?

If they learned anything at school, was it that Christian goodness can now be dispensed with, that living in sin with anyone and everyone is just as valid a ‘lifestyle’ as getting married and that they have a right to live off benefits? (Young Claire has a job.)

Grimsby magistrate Mike Corry said: ‘This was a totally unnecessary attack. You were like a pack of animals chasing its prey.

But foxy ladies, they ain’t. Sad story.