Thursday, 30 June 2011
We're all immigrants
Most of us are 'immigrants' of some variety or another. Ask yourself "am I living and working in the same place where I was, by sheer chance, born in?" If not, then you are possibly taking employment, housing and opportunities from a local. Or, seen another way, you are enriching the community by adding your skills and paying local taxes. Either way, get a grip. We all drain society as much as it gains from us, whether you're born in Kettering or Kabul. Swings and roundabouts. If you don't like them coz they look different, smell different and sound different, then just be honest with yourself and everyone else and admit to being a racist.
Conversations with a Swede
Let me share with you a little Facebook conversation with a guy named 'Johansson':
Thinking I may get more sense out of this chap!
Thinking I may get more sense out of this chap!
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Performing at Popcorn - Pride Monday 4th July
Closing the festivities from this year’s London pride we deliver a night of fantastic djs, live music, performance and celebration!
This is Always one of the most hotly anticipated parties of the summer season!
The main floor brings you djs jonesey, the sharp boys and Jamie Hammond for 7 hour progressive house frenzy with live vocals and percussion from tonnic and david h
International choreographer mincemeat serves up another fantastic series of shows with the world famous heaven dancers and a very naughty performance from renowned adult star Johnny Anglais.
With mind blowing light & laser shows.
Britain deserves its immigrants
While in a particularly argumentative mood on my Facebook profile, one of my FB friends posted the following:
Ok Johnny, debatable subject for you! Do you think that the NHS would be more stable had our government not taken in countless (by their own admission) thousands of "immigrants" who, not only have contributed sweet FA to our economy, but "work" the system to the extent that the elderly British citizen, having worked all their lives, therefore are fully paid up members of society, have to wait months for medical treatment because, and, lve witnessed it, "immigrants" complain that they are not treated first because, l quote, "doctor make me wait because l am not English"....plus the fact that in some cases "immigrants" know they will get the full support from the Racial Equality Commisson.
Here was my response:
Right, here goes. Let me start by stating that my view on immigration in this country is perhaps a little warped but perfectly logical. I will get to the NHS later, but first it is important for you to understand my overall view on immigration for you to see how I then relate it to the NHS.
Let me also state that I have no vested interest. As much as I would like to, I have no traceable foreign blood as far as we know. On my Dad's side, for at least 100 years and on Mother's, for well over 500. So, despite realising that we are all immigrants at some point or another, and as much I sometimes wish not to be, I am as 100% British as I suppose anyone who is 100% British can claim to be.
So, that gets that out of the way.
However, I recognise that for hundreds of years, the British state, under several monarchs and successive governments, travelled around the world, conquering strange lands, 'colonising' ancient civilisations and peoples, enslaving them, pillaging their lands, forcing them into enclaves and ghettos, ripping them from their families, killing them with their diseases, their alcohol and with the barrel of a gun.
It is because of this 'colonisation' and exploitation that Britain became a world superpower, in both might and wealth and still today we are living off the riches and the reputation that those 'golden' days brought us.
Unfortunately, the past cannot be separated from the present. As far as I see it, if Britain 'suffers' more than it gains because of waves of immigration, then it is no more that what it deserves. I see it simply as a come-uppance for its centuries of assuming that 'might is right' and 'right is white'.
Of course, I get frustrated by some of the impacts of immigration. I find some immigrants rude, lazy and arrogant. But give me one immigrant like that and I will show you ten 'indigenous' Brits who are like that and frustrate me even more. A young black boy in a gang, who exerts behaviour that can only be described as 'anti-social, of Jamaican decent is still, although it is no excuse for his behaviour, dealing with the ripple-effect of the slave-trade. Whole generations of men ripped from their wives, their masculinity lost and their collective ability to understand how to be a decent father, as opposed to being forced to being a seed-spreader by their slave owner, is still one of the main reasons why many young black boys lack the male role models that can instill the sorts of values that we expect and tolerate in the West. A white boy like that, is just, very often, a lazy shit who, like his parents, think the world owes him something. It doesn't.
So, as for waiting to be served by the NHS, I'm afraid, as much it may frustrate me, because impatience is human nature, my logic and understanding, much like that with the Jamaican gang member above, tells me to grin and bear it. As for your point about immigrants not contributing to this country, I think you will find that they have, first of all, and without serious numbers of immigrants come into the country and having babies, you and I will be out of a pension, coz the natives just aren't popping enough!!!!
Ok Johnny, debatable subject for you! Do you think that the NHS would be more stable had our government not taken in countless (by their own admission) thousands of "immigrants" who, not only have contributed sweet FA to our economy, but "work" the system to the extent that the elderly British citizen, having worked all their lives, therefore are fully paid up members of society, have to wait months for medical treatment because, and, lve witnessed it, "immigrants" complain that they are not treated first because, l quote, "doctor make me wait because l am not English"....plus the fact that in some cases "immigrants" know they will get the full support from the Racial Equality Commisson.
Here was my response:
Right, here goes. Let me start by stating that my view on immigration in this country is perhaps a little warped but perfectly logical. I will get to the NHS later, but first it is important for you to understand my overall view on immigration for you to see how I then relate it to the NHS.
Let me also state that I have no vested interest. As much as I would like to, I have no traceable foreign blood as far as we know. On my Dad's side, for at least 100 years and on Mother's, for well over 500. So, despite realising that we are all immigrants at some point or another, and as much I sometimes wish not to be, I am as 100% British as I suppose anyone who is 100% British can claim to be.
So, that gets that out of the way.
However, I recognise that for hundreds of years, the British state, under several monarchs and successive governments, travelled around the world, conquering strange lands, 'colonising' ancient civilisations and peoples, enslaving them, pillaging their lands, forcing them into enclaves and ghettos, ripping them from their families, killing them with their diseases, their alcohol and with the barrel of a gun.
The Commonwealth: Britain's source of cheap or free labour for hundreds of years. And how to we thank them? We tell them to 'f*** off!*. Nice.
Unfortunately, the past cannot be separated from the present. As far as I see it, if Britain 'suffers' more than it gains because of waves of immigration, then it is no more that what it deserves. I see it simply as a come-uppance for its centuries of assuming that 'might is right' and 'right is white'.
Of course, I get frustrated by some of the impacts of immigration. I find some immigrants rude, lazy and arrogant. But give me one immigrant like that and I will show you ten 'indigenous' Brits who are like that and frustrate me even more. A young black boy in a gang, who exerts behaviour that can only be described as 'anti-social, of Jamaican decent is still, although it is no excuse for his behaviour, dealing with the ripple-effect of the slave-trade. Whole generations of men ripped from their wives, their masculinity lost and their collective ability to understand how to be a decent father, as opposed to being forced to being a seed-spreader by their slave owner, is still one of the main reasons why many young black boys lack the male role models that can instill the sorts of values that we expect and tolerate in the West. A white boy like that, is just, very often, a lazy shit who, like his parents, think the world owes him something. It doesn't.
So, as for waiting to be served by the NHS, I'm afraid, as much it may frustrate me, because impatience is human nature, my logic and understanding, much like that with the Jamaican gang member above, tells me to grin and bear it. As for your point about immigrants not contributing to this country, I think you will find that they have, first of all, and without serious numbers of immigrants come into the country and having babies, you and I will be out of a pension, coz the natives just aren't popping enough!!!!
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Cambridge Porn Debate: Full video now online
Shelley Lubben and I: Both porn 'stars', but both with very different views on porn.
You can now catch the whole of the Cambridge Union Society's debate, ' This House believes pornography does a good public service', online at:http://www.cus.org/connect/debates/2011/this-house-believes-pornography-does-a-good-public-service
Feel free to watch the whole thing, or if you want to fast forward to my speech, you can find it at 55:10.
Do you think porn won the day? Thoughts please.
Monday, 16 May 2011
Johnny Anglais Showreel 2011
Here's a little selection of some of my appearances and performances over the last couple of years. More to come...
Porn and teaching: Is it really incompatible?
I recently read an article in The Independent by Julie Burchill entitled, 'Why is it respectable to watch boxing, but weird to watch pornography?' (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/burchilljulie-burchill-why-is-it-respectable-to-watch-boxing-but-weird-to-watch-pornography-2282512.html).
As the title would suggest, Burchill questions our general acceptance of a brutal sport and at the same time wonders why it is still perceived as a taboo to view people 'making love' on camera:
"I still have more respect for someone who pays money to watch pay-per-view porn or a live sex show than I do for someone who pays to watch one man injure another, on the screen or in the flesh."
Its during moments like this that I once again re-examine the circumstances in which I was sacked as a high school teacher for having been involved in pornography. According to the school, this act brought 'disrepute' onto the institution.
As far as I am aware, the only person or thing who's reputation should have been in question, was my own.
More crucially though, why is pornography perceived as something that is worthy of a sackable offence?
I am perfectly willing to accept that there are those of a religious persuasion who disagree with it on grounds of going against teachings of monogamy.
I am perfectly willing to accept that there are those who believe, in their own opinion, that it is wrong and threatens the fabric of a monogamous, family-centric society.
I am perfectly willing to accept that having sex with numerous people increases your health risks, potentially contracting lethal STIs, and could therefore be interpreted as wrong.
All of this, I can totally accept.
However, where is the consistency of opinion?
What about teachers who participate in boxing, cage-fighting, kick-boxing or a martial art in their spare time?
Are there not those of a religious persuasion who might disagree with these on grounds of violence?
Are there not individuals who might argue that these activities are potentially brutal and violent and therefore wrong?
Are there not increased health risks, particularly related to brain damage and possible death, associated with these activities?
What about those teachers up and down the country who smoke?
Are there not those of a religious persuasion who might disagree with it on moral grounds?
Are there not individuals who might also argue that is a morally questionable activity?
Are there not health risks, potentially lethal, associated with smoking?
What about those teachers who drink and many of whom drink excessively regularly?
What about those teachers who are fat or obese through over-eating?
So, why then, is pornography, a perfectly legal activity, just like the others, seen as a 'special case' within the teaching profession? Is it simply because it can be 'seen' as opposed to a teacher smoking out the back of the school or outside the school gate? Or a teacher entering a boxing or cage-fighting competition and their face being plastered on posters to promote the event? Or a teacher having a few too many drinks in an after-work binge session within the vicinity of the school? Or an obese teacher eating chips and burgers from the school canteen?
Is a teacher who cage-fights or boxes allowed to discipline students who get into fights? Of course they are.
Is a teacher who smokes allowed to teach PSHE, which includes teaching about the effects of smoking? Yes, indeed.
Is a teacher who drinks excessively most weekends allowed to teach PSHE, which includes teaching about the effects of alcohol? Without a doubt.
Is a teacher who is obese allowed to teach home economics and about the value of a healthy diet? For sure.
Is a teacher who perform in pornographic productions allowed to teach PSHE, which includes teaching about sex education? Apparently not.
Where is the consistency here? Surely, if you have an issue with porn and the repercussions that appearing in porn may have on your teachings (if indeed you believe it will be negative even though there is no proof that it will) then you will have an issue with teachers who box, cage-fight, smoke, drink and over-eat.
Surely the only difference is that pornography involves sex. Thats it. Pure and simple. And for some reason, 'we', as a society, seem to have a problem with the public viewing of this activity.
And yet, of the five activities it is the most natural and the one that, for the vast majority of instances, unites people, bringing pleasure and releasing stress, rather than destroying and adding stress to the body.
From a personal perspective, it was because I did porn that I ever got tested for STIs, an experience I was able to share first-hand with the students I taught.
It was because I did porn that I understood the variation in women's bodies, that everyone is different and that no-one should feel strange or ashamed of themselves or their genitals, another valuable lesson.
It was because I did porn that I could talk with ever-increasing confidence about sex and sexuality and address any question, in an appropriate manner, that was thrown at me by any student.
I'm not advocating in any way the mass cull of teachers involved in any of these activities.
But on reflection, Beal High School, is being a teacher and a porn performer really so incompatible? If so, on what basis and according to whose values? Or are you simply pandering to the religious or the societal 'norm' and expectation?
As the title would suggest, Burchill questions our general acceptance of a brutal sport and at the same time wonders why it is still perceived as a taboo to view people 'making love' on camera:
"I still have more respect for someone who pays money to watch pay-per-view porn or a live sex show than I do for someone who pays to watch one man injure another, on the screen or in the flesh."
Its during moments like this that I once again re-examine the circumstances in which I was sacked as a high school teacher for having been involved in pornography. According to the school, this act brought 'disrepute' onto the institution.
As far as I am aware, the only person or thing who's reputation should have been in question, was my own.
More crucially though, why is pornography perceived as something that is worthy of a sackable offence?
I am perfectly willing to accept that there are those of a religious persuasion who disagree with it on grounds of going against teachings of monogamy.
I am perfectly willing to accept that there are those who believe, in their own opinion, that it is wrong and threatens the fabric of a monogamous, family-centric society.
I am perfectly willing to accept that having sex with numerous people increases your health risks, potentially contracting lethal STIs, and could therefore be interpreted as wrong.
All of this, I can totally accept.
However, where is the consistency of opinion?
What about teachers who participate in boxing, cage-fighting, kick-boxing or a martial art in their spare time?
Are there not those of a religious persuasion who might disagree with these on grounds of violence?
Are there not individuals who might argue that these activities are potentially brutal and violent and therefore wrong?
Are there not increased health risks, particularly related to brain damage and possible death, associated with these activities?
What about those teachers up and down the country who smoke?
Are there not those of a religious persuasion who might disagree with it on moral grounds?
Are there not individuals who might also argue that is a morally questionable activity?
Are there not health risks, potentially lethal, associated with smoking?
What about those teachers who drink and many of whom drink excessively regularly?
Are there not those of a religious persuasion who might disagree with the consumption and abuse of alcohol on moral grounds?
Are there not individuals who might also argue that it is a morally questionable activity?
Are there not health risks, potentially lethal, associated with alcohol and particularly binge drinking?What about those teachers who are fat or obese through over-eating?
Are there not those of a religious persuasion who might disagree with the over-consumption and abuse of food on moral grounds?
Are there not individuals who might also argue that it is a morally questionable activity to allow oneself to become obese?
Are there not health risks, potentially lethal, associated with over-eating and being obese?
So, why then, is pornography, a perfectly legal activity, just like the others, seen as a 'special case' within the teaching profession? Is it simply because it can be 'seen' as opposed to a teacher smoking out the back of the school or outside the school gate? Or a teacher entering a boxing or cage-fighting competition and their face being plastered on posters to promote the event? Or a teacher having a few too many drinks in an after-work binge session within the vicinity of the school? Or an obese teacher eating chips and burgers from the school canteen?
Is a teacher who cage-fights or boxes allowed to discipline students who get into fights? Of course they are.
Is a teacher who smokes allowed to teach PSHE, which includes teaching about the effects of smoking? Yes, indeed.
Is a teacher who drinks excessively most weekends allowed to teach PSHE, which includes teaching about the effects of alcohol? Without a doubt.
Is a teacher who is obese allowed to teach home economics and about the value of a healthy diet? For sure.
Is a teacher who perform in pornographic productions allowed to teach PSHE, which includes teaching about sex education? Apparently not.
Where is the consistency here? Surely, if you have an issue with porn and the repercussions that appearing in porn may have on your teachings (if indeed you believe it will be negative even though there is no proof that it will) then you will have an issue with teachers who box, cage-fight, smoke, drink and over-eat.
Surely the only difference is that pornography involves sex. Thats it. Pure and simple. And for some reason, 'we', as a society, seem to have a problem with the public viewing of this activity.
And yet, of the five activities it is the most natural and the one that, for the vast majority of instances, unites people, bringing pleasure and releasing stress, rather than destroying and adding stress to the body.
From a personal perspective, it was because I did porn that I ever got tested for STIs, an experience I was able to share first-hand with the students I taught.
It was because I did porn that I understood the variation in women's bodies, that everyone is different and that no-one should feel strange or ashamed of themselves or their genitals, another valuable lesson.
It was because I did porn that I could talk with ever-increasing confidence about sex and sexuality and address any question, in an appropriate manner, that was thrown at me by any student.
I'm not advocating in any way the mass cull of teachers involved in any of these activities.
But on reflection, Beal High School, is being a teacher and a porn performer really so incompatible? If so, on what basis and according to whose values? Or are you simply pandering to the religious or the societal 'norm' and expectation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)