Friday, March 07, 2014

 

Pro-imigration lobby's usual heavy distortion in seizing on a point from a report

The 'PC' totalitarian pro-immigration lobby has seized on a point made in a just-published report to claim that mass immigration is not the problem for employment of indigenous workers it has been claimed, but as usual this is a massive distortion. The impact on unemployment by non-EU workers is a highly restricted and rather deceitful focus. It is EU more than non-EU migrants who typically come to the UK for work reasons. Non-EU migrants come here for reasons of 'family reunion' or as a student; and of those who come to work they mostly have to meet 'highly skilled migrant' criteria, as workers with skill-sets the UK has in short supply. The real source of unemployment for UK workers comes from the within-EU migration, which is over a third of all immigration. In any case, the employment impact is not merely displacement in terms of unemployment but of decreased wages, under-employment – those forced to work part-time or on zero-hours contracts for lack of secure full-time – absence of training, and the blocking of internal relocation to London and the south-east. On top of this is the hidden impact of the huge numbers who come here fraudulently or remain as over-stayers. As ever, there is never anything like a full picture. It's hardly surprising that extra unemployment of UK workers for every ten non-EU migrants is roughly one rather than two; and is no basis for revising down concern for the multiple serious problems of mass immigration; not least re employment.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

 

Hattie Hateperson deserves all she's getting and more

There is no more deserving target for a come-uppance campaign than Hattie Hateperson, who is the most disgustingly man-hating PC-fascist in Parliament, and that's saying something.
     She is more than fair game here, being prurient in extremis when it comes to men and sex, having long proposed and continues to propose measures, no matter how absurd and extreme, to attack males (minors as well as adults) and male sexuality. She now wishes to criminalise the male party (but not the female) to consensual sex if a money transaction is involved, and she was prominent in raising the legal age-of-consent from the already absurdly high age 16 to age 18 for some categories of consensual sex. There is nothing the nasty witch wouldn't propose on these lines. Witness her astonishing attempt to trash even the most basic sense of actual equality in her campaign to criminalise the purchase of sex but not its sale!
     She is getting what's long been coming to her, and may this continue until she's rotting beneath her gravestone -- when I'll be there to deface it
     The delicious irony is that her position in some respects back then actually was in line with objective evidence. There is a very strong case to reduce the age-of-consent from being, ludicrously, over half a decade over the average age of puberty. There is also a very strong case to prick the hysteria over child sex abuse when meta-studies have revealed little impact in terms of psychological sequelae, and what there is seems to stem from what may surround the abuse than the abuse per se (most notably censoriousness about sex). Then, of course, there's the daft criminalisation of those who, instead of acting out, sublimate their paedophilia in viewing erotica, irrespective of whether they in any way supported the creation or dissemination through any payment; and whether or not any abuse was indirectly entailed in creating any image they viewed, as in montage or cartoon depiction -- though this last is an issue nowadays rather than in Hattie-Hate's NCCL pre-computer-image-high-tech days.
     Hapless Hattie makes herself still more ridiculous in her marvellously lame riposte to The Daily Mail of censure for printing pictures of 'very young girls in bikinis', when these cannot be less than eighteen years old and don't bare so much as a nipple or buttock!
Is she now attempting to up the age of what constitutes a child to ... what? ... a decade post-puberty? And how does this supposed abuse by The Daily Mail compare with supporting sex with pre-pubertal individuals – 'children' in all senses of the term?!
     As for the newspaper here: albeit that it has long been in bed with the PC-fascist Left on the anti-male / anti-sex bandwagon – not least re the bogus notions of 'paedophilia' (surely set soon to be defined as sex with anyone under 35) as sex with post-pubertal individuals -- The Daily Mail does also take the line that there's a witch-hunt afoot. The paper has long highlighted the epidemic of 'false rape' allegations, when most of the media has been unswerving in its stupid mantra of "we must believe the 'victim'".

Thursday, February 13, 2014

 

A grotesque poliicised witch-hunt against males by Keir Starmer, the CPS and the police.

The grotesque politicised witch-hunt by the CPS, police and Keir Starmer, the complete idiot former Director of Public Prosecutions, is shown to be just that with the verdict today on the non-evidenced accusations against the ex-dj DLT, in the wake of the very similar case and outcome re Bill Roache. The stupid cases against Rolf and Max Clifford will surely go the same way, and hopefully they will all join Jim Davidson in taking legal action against the police and CPS.
     In all of these cases there are mere accusations -- most of which anyway are of the mildest misdemeanours which in former times (the times relevant to the case) would have been dismissed for their triviality -- with no evidence of any kind in support. Self-evidently, if the case amounts to no more than some woman's word against that of a man, then the natural prejudice in favour of women and against men should never have blinded the authorities to the fact that there was not even in principle the prospect of achieving a conviction according to the civil let alone the criminal standard of proof, and that therefore there was no basis on which the case should ever have got to court. The CPS, police and Keir Starmer merely relied upon the natural pro-female and anti-male prejudices of jurors to do their dirty ideological cowardly crowd-pleasing work for them.
     The non-logical -- indeed, bloody fool -- basis of invoking a 'no smoke without fire' principle is the multiplicity of allegation; yet anyone who knows the first thing about these sort of cases realises that parallel allegations are never cross-corroborating. Police cum media trawls for further putative 'victims' invariably produces bogus or highly exaggerated accusations; when, as is well researched, it is well-known that women and girls commonly fabricate sexual assault scenarios as cover for all kinds of mild embarrassment (let alone sex behind the back of a boyfriend). And then there is the phenomenon of 'recovered memory' invention, which is exacerbated by the enormous elapse of time (several decades).
     These considerations lead even leading barristers (see Barbara Hewson, for example) to point out that the same applies to the accusations against Jimmy Saville. They likewise are entirely non-evidenced and multiple through police-media trawling. The point at issue is that anyone, regardless of character, placed in the position as was Jimmy Saville of being employed to be famous and gee up crowds of older girls and younger women, would have been on the receiving end of numerous complaints. That goes for a near-saint, never mind a bit of a lad. Having sex with hundreds or thousands of girls/women inevitably would lead to instances of mis-read signals and -- notably, with so many under-age girls lying about their ages so as to get round the no-under-16s Top-of-the-Pops studio rule -- under-age sex; irrespective of how scrupulously careful a man may be.
     It is the most serious indictment of our PC-buggered authorities that they have behaved in such an appallingly bigoted highly politicised manner, and heads must roll; and that could start with the police numptie who read out the crazy arrogant statement after the verdict outside the court, that 'victims' must be given a voice.
     There is every sign that the witch-hunt will continue, and people will be obliged to fight against the authorities until they begin to see sense.

Monday, February 10, 2014

 

Immigration 'system' rotten to the core: student visas and the immigration minister's cleaner

Surprise surprise: a decade on from when I exposed student visas as a massive scam, even The Boob – one of the few actually journalistic corners of it – is today exposing systematic wholesale abuse of the student visa 'system' (see BBC1 Panorama tonight). I'll let the BBC do the talking here. Suffice to say, as before what is uncovered is highly organised open mass fraud that no corner of officialdom has bothered to subject even to minimal scrutiny. Plus ca change.
     This latest in the never-ending debacle that is UK immigration once again proves the Home Office to be even worse at stemming floods than the Environment Agency; remaining as ever dysfunctional and not fit for purpose, in passing the buck to an education system it knows full well has no interest in being a borders agency itself, and in many ways is actively antagonistic, facilitating mass illegal migration.
     And as for the other buck-passing exercise – to employers – this could not better be revealed to be the sham that it is in the hilarious catching-out of Mark Harper, yet another now ex-immigration minister. He claims in his resignation that he applies higher standards to himself than apply to others. Guffaw! He was the direct employer of a cleaner who was here illegally. As for any other employer he was required to verify that the employee had leave to remain and to work in the UK. Mr Harper could not better confirm that the employer is not the gate-keeper at the UK border: that should be the task of the Gnome Orifice, but as we could not better know, the Home Office has not the slightest interest in fulfilling that function. Of all categories, foreign-born cleaners are known very commonly to be illegals, and Mr Harper is – was – the bloody minister actually ….. well, it hardly needs spelling out. But spell it out the public do all the time to governments of nominally both red and blue (or blue/yellow) and STILL absolutely nobody is listening. Only the PR departments in the Gnome Orifice and Cabinet Office are listening, and all they do, of course, is put up smoke.
     There is only one long continuous story where you could never make it up. Immigration is the well of wilful stupidity that keeps on giving.
     There will be a comeuppance for the government-media-education uber-class when finally the penny drops across the populace what the PC-fascism the uber-class has swallowed and manufactured is all about: hatred for the mass of ordinary decent people.

Friday, January 31, 2014

 

Police 'no-crime' rape for very good reason, and could do it far more even than they do

Yet again all the media and the usual suspects are ranting about police data re 'no-criming' rape complaints, but nowhere is there informed comment about the reality of rape accusation – which, as everyone within the judicial system knows only too well is in large proportion if not fabrication at best misrepresentation.
I analysed Home Office data re rape (see The Woman Racket) to show that even a conservative estimate of the incidence of false reports of rape runs at 35%, but that it is likely far greater given the research into the professional opinions of specialist police rape investigators – in the UK by none other than Sir Ian Blair, who found it ran between 50% and 70%. It's 50% 90% across the world.
     On both sides of the Atlantic (here Professor Keith Soothill) research has been carried out into the motivations of girls and women to make false rape allegations, and it is clear that motivation is varied and often trivial in the extreme – often to cover the mildest embarrassment and to dispel any risk of an image of sexual impropriety (notably to hide consensual extra-pair sex from a boyfriend).
     It is no use getting indignant that whereas the 'no-criming' rate for other offences is just 2% that rape is therefore anomalous at an average across police forces of 12%. That 12% is only as low as it is through years – decades now – of persistent draconian pressure from the Home office to always record that a crime has indeed taken place unless there is full retraction by the complainant and full admission of fabrication. Police specialist rape investigators know full well that this is absurd, and only in a very few forces are the strict directions by the Home Office adhered to. These are those where the 'no-crime' figure for rape comes in at under 10%. The few forces who are more fully honest about the true figure reveal the incidence to be more like a third of all formal complaints – and this will be conservative.
     Advocacy groups supposedly speaking on behalf of rape victims claim that under-reporting is on such a scale that the police only get to hear of 15% of rapes, but if this is so then no wonder rape fabrication rivals actual reporting of rape. False rape reporting is not 15% but 100% of cases, by definition. Consequently, even if instances of 'making it up' are in proportion small in comparison to actual rape, they can easily make up a third or a half of the cases that get as far as the police.
     Recently a University of Nottingham criminological study showed that the understanding of all those within the judicial system that 'false rape' is epidemic was justified in that complainants indeed very often make false reports. The study's author tried to make a distinction between out-and-out fabrication and wildly inaccurate reporting of what nonetheless was a rape; but the distinction breaks down upon examination, given that the issue of whether or not sexual activity is consensual is highly uncertain and subjective.
     As with all things men-women the media is full of utter horseshit, and it's high time that the BBC especially started providing a public service instead of indoctrination with laughable PC-fascist distortion of reality.

Friday, January 17, 2014

 

Who's 'bringing the Party into disrepute' in the Lib Dems?

Aren't the four Lib Dem women by pulling the 'harassment' card on Chris Rennard themselves bringing the Lib Dems into 'disrepute'? Who are they to claim that their subjective distress -- which was not apparent at the time or for years after allegedly being experienced -- merits an apology from Rennard for his actions, irrespective of whether or not he ever intended any 'harassment' at all, rather than at most innocuous mild horseplay?! Individuals are entitled to feel as distressed as they wish, but they are not entitled to dump their subjective experience on to others such that others must be held responsible for it.
     Rennard's alleged misdemeanours even at their most purportedly serious are tame by any standards, and unsurprisingly the Lib Dems' own investigation echoes that by the police in the conclusion that there is no case to answer -- and this is not according to a criminal but a mere civil standard of justice. The evidence, such as it is, notwithstanding being 'credible', doesn't amount even to a 51% probability of being accurate, we are told.
     So where is any case for Chris Rennard to answer? On the contrary, there is a case to answer by the women, who see a legitimate political game in presenting their narcissistic fragility. How many people outside the Lib Dem Party see this as the workings of a party potentially of government deserving of their vote? Not too many, we might well surmise. So the 'disrepute' at issue may well be the actions of the women complainants rather than the purported male perpetrator here.
     What we see here is a battle between a genuinely liberal attitude and the fake liberality of the PC-fascist; which orientation has conquered all three of the political parties in the UK with significant Commons representation. It was my realisation that this affliction had irredeemably buggered the Lib Dems which led me to stop being a Lib Dem activist, and to stop even voting for them. Perhaps this interlude will begin some focus of thought on the appalling totalitarian politics at large and the real need for an actually liberal political party. This seems to be UKIP, but even they are not averse to kow-towing to the PC-fascist line!

Thursday, January 16, 2014

 

The 'harassment' card pulled on Chris Rennard

At the same time as what are very likely to turn out to be largely or wholly trumped-up cases against three entertainers -- Rolf Harris, Bill Roache and Dave Lee Travis (and we've yet to see what is likely to be similar if not even more obviously nonsense against Max Clifford) -- the 'harassment' card is still being pulled on Lord (Chris) Rennard, the Lib Dem peer, despite an investigation finding no convincing evidence (and on the balance of probabilities, not just beyond reasonable doubt).
     Claims of 'distress' by a few women are neither here not there: the worst that Rennard is accused of is placing his hand on a woman's knee or back, and sitting so close as to be touching. He was "reluctant to take 'no' for an answer", we were told; but the 'no' apparently was never an explicit one. He made "unwanted approaches". Big Deal. Most approaches by men to women are unwanted. Men are evolutionarily 'designed' to play long odds in the sexual game.
     Chris Rennard appears to have behaved in no way beyond the usual forwardness required of males to enable females to initially reply coyly to test if the male is persistent, so that then she may well not – but sometimes just may – decide to accept his advances. The current utterly daft notion of what constitutes 'harassment' potentially makes normal sexual interaction impossible though obviating any beginning of courtship.
     We've had the ridiculous spectacle of Lib-Dem spouse Vicky Price cowering behind the truly antique notion of 'coverture' to excuse her own illegal behaviour, and now we have these Lib-Dem women so socially incompetent that they can't deal with the most innocuous mild sexual overtures. Most even half-worldly women would make light and deliver a humorous put-down so that both parties save face. Having not taken it lightly, it's just not good enough to hide behind the notion that they could not complain because of Chris Rennard's 'power' in the political hierarchy. Well were they just using their femininity to enable themselves to climb the Party's hierarchy, and didn't want to give this up?! If they genuinely felt their complaints had substance, then why would they allow themselves to be 'fobbed off'?
     The whole affair is pretty funny in that the Lib Dems are – albeit quite a way after Labour -- a locus of 'political correctness' fascism, so any woman within the organisation can expect a very good hearing indeed if she makes any, however flimsy charge of sexual misdemeanour, and knows full well that she would be able to push beyond any rebuff.
     I note the reporting on this Channel4 story is headed up by Cathy Newman: someone who personally told me that what matters to her in assessing a news story is what she "believes", not journalistic standards. She's a rabid feminist activist, not a journalist.
     As a very ex-Lib Dem activist owing to my profound disagreement with several major LD policies and orientations, I've no reason to be kind to Chris Rennard, albeit I know him personally. Long ago I worked as his admin assistant. Even during the back-end of those 'Young Liberal' days of promiscuity I never saw nor heard of Chris making any sexual move, no matter how subtle or how crude, on anyone. Indeed, I might be wrong but from my understanding at the time he has no natural interest in females at all!
     So what if some, even many Lib Dem women leave the Party? The Lib Dems might be well rid of such fragile narcissistic creatures. Politics generally would be well rid of them. How about some actually relevant, representative, grown-up politics instead of the ever-ridiculous playing-the-victim game?
 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?