Thursday, June 20, 2013


And Jeremy Forrest did what wrong, precisely?

Jeremy Forrest eloped with his pupil after she threatened suicide; though the way the Boob is reporting separately that the mother was distressed that her daughter might be dead, is an implication by the Boob that she feared her daughter would be killed; the very reverse of his actions.
     It all began with HER infatuation towards HIM, remember.
     The point is that there is everything that is natural about the whole business. A girl who is several years post-puberty – and therefore no more a child than Forrest is a paedophile [sic] -- falls in love with a considerably older young man who reciprocates. This is the most archetypal story of humanity. Nothing that any state can do will ever stop this very sort of thing regularly happening.
     Nobody was damaged in any significant way as a result. Jeremy Forrest's wife was merely embarrassed – the marriage had for some time been completely on the rocks in any case – the girl's family have their daughter rather than a suicide victim, and both he and the girl have shown their honest love for each other.
     Of course, Jeremy Forrest was 'in loco parentis', in 'a position of trust' – trusted to do what is right and not in any way abuse anyone in his charge. In the strict sense, fair enough, he abused this trust; and clearly he recognised and accepted this in eschewing his right to give evidence himself in his own defence. But he wasn't exploiting his pupil for sexual favours; he was instead genuinely in love with her. He was just a man, and quite a nice one. A normal human being behaving normally -- albeit in exceptional circumstances -- and behaving not badly.
     Unfortunately for Jeremy Forrest, we live in a rather stupid, crazy society which does not accept that men can be human beings, given a totalitarian political system which has pretty well declared illegal male sexual behaviour – even here when it is loving and very like the sexual behaviour of the one sex whose sexual behaviour IS considered admissible


WHO gets it wrong on domestic violence

      Contrary to the claims by the World Health Organisation (and the basis of the biased coverage of the Lawson-Saatchi neck-holding incident), it is not women but men who are predominantly the victims not only of within-sex (obviously) but also of between-sex violence.*
           Peer-reviewed major research shows that women perpetrate 70% of unilateral (non-reciprocal) intimate-partner (domestic) violence [IPV(DV)], twice the frequency of assaults in mutual (reciprocal) IPV (DV), and between three and six times as much IPV(DV) when it is at serious levels. Furthermore, peer-reviewed research also shows that women choose physical violence as the preferred form of aggression in intimate partnerships, whereas men avoid choosing physical violence in any scenario where a female would be the target.
           That women (and girls) perpetrate at least as much IPV (DV), and likely more or much more than do men, is revealed by Prof Fiebert's annotated bibliography of ALL studies and reviews of IPV(DV) where perpetration and victimisation are examined re both sexes; and this is the prevailing view within the academic research community (as opposed to mere advocacy research).
           Despite the disparities between men and women in both upper-body strength and body-frame weakness meaning that there should be a 20:1 sex-differential in injury rates through IPV(DV) if violence was symmetrical (of comparable levels) -- research by Linda Dixon of the University of Birmingham -- then given that the sex-differential is either non-existent or barely significant (not even 2:1), reveals the reality of IPV (DV) to be totally at odds with how bodies such as the UN and WHO persistently portray it.
      * certainly in the Western world, and most likely also in the under-developed world because of the proximity of extended family and much closer integration of the household in the wider community leading to very common third-party violence towards men acting as proxy for females.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013


Kent Police ACCURATELY record rape: the problem is the Home Office and the media

Contrary to media reports, Kent Police ACCURATELY recorded 30% of rape complaints as false.
They provided a full breakdown after a Freedom of Information request.
Total rape complaints: 425
Of these, 134 were 'no crimed'.
Of the 'no crimed', 46 were admitted false allegation, 74 were 'sufficient evidence to disprove allegation', and 3 were a 'genuine mistake' by the complainant.
A remaining 10 included 6 which were rapes that took place outside Kent and therefore not dealt with.
Subtracting the miscellaneous 10 from the 134 'no crime' total, you get 124, which divided by the rape complaints total of 425 gives you 29%: the accurate proportion of 'false rape' which is proven or provable as such.
With this being only the 'false rape' which is known about, then to this must be added an estimate of the proportion of cases recorded under 'no further action' that would also be 'false rape', but which the police missed as such.
Even conservatively, then, 40% of formal rape complaints to police are bogus, but it is likely much higher -- more in line with (Sir) Ian Blair's own study of the estimates by rape investigators in England and Wales: 50% to 70%. And even this may be an under-estimate, of course (research showing that even the most seasoned rape investigators are regularly taken in by women making wholly false allegations).
Of course, the Home Office has long insisted that ONLY complaints where the complainant herself admits fabrication can be 'no crimed'; so Kent Police have put up a brave two fingers (er, one finger if you're in the USA) to the Gnome Office, by also including those cases in which they are sure they have enough evidence against the complainant to disprove her claim.
Self-evidently, Kent Police are accurately recording 'false rape', whereas the Home Office is fervently trying to disguise the scale of it.
-- As the researcher Belinda Brookes-Gordon commented: the commissioning and interpretation of research at the Home Office is by "a separatist-feminist cabal".

Tuesday, June 18, 2013


BBC Woman's Hour reprimanded but also unfairly let off, re my complaint of serious misrepresentation

BBC Woman's HourWoman Sour as its affectionately known in some circles – deliberately misrepresented me, the BBC Trust today concedes. Instead of describing me accurately as an independent (non-affiliated) researcher/writer (into the biological roots of human sociality), Woman's Hour presenter Jane Garvey on air stated that I was a 'self-described academic', when of course I have never thus described myself.
     More seriously, she also deliberately and maliciously misrepresented my written submission and oral presentation to a House of Commons select committee in their inquiry into 'women in the workplace', as an explanation, she claimed, of why no women get 'to the top'; when of course it is an explanation of why it is a low proportion of those 'at the top' are women. But the Trust made the amazing unfounded claim that listeners somehow would have understood that she meant not why no woman would ever thus achieve, but merely that most would not!
     Do BBC Trust members not read internet discussion board comments – even of their own programmes?! Are they wilfully oblivious to current totalitarian politics and the stupid opinions this drives?!
     It seems that the BBC is afraid of any criticism of it not honouring its public service remit. No criticism of the BBC's 'identity politics' mantra is permissible, despite this stance being scientifically, culturally and historically illiterate, and clearly inimical to a public service ethos.
     OFFCOM is of course suffused with the same dread lurgi, but I will progress my complaint there in any case.
     The Trust mischievously also chose to rule on something not part of my complaint per se. I'd pointed out in support of my complaint that Woman's Hour is demonstrably scientifically illiterate with respect to anything re how the sexes inter-relate; and the programme had replied illustrating my point by citing nothing it its defence – merely alluding to women cancer topics and such, which apply to just one sex. Notwithstanding that evidence on BBC scientific illiteracy was not material to my complaint -- which was purely about Woman's Hour's misrepresentation of me -- and no such evidence was requested; the Trust nevertheless included in its decision that Woman's Hour was not scientifically illiterate! A raw nerve touched, evidently; and one which I will be properly torturing in due course.

More widely, the answer to the BBC's wholesale capitulation to PC-fascism is for everyone to refuse to pay the TV licence fee until the BBC stops perpetrating hatred of ordinary people en mass, and ditches it's totalitarian political contempt for them.
     I have not paid for 20 years, and I've written to them several times stating ten reasons why: high up the list being the EU directive that member governments must not interfere with the receipt of free broadcast media -- which the BBC necessarily does re C4, ITC, etc, in demanding the licence fee without providing any option of eschewing its own broadcasting. Given the support for the EU by the BBC then it's strange it refuses to abide by this.
     My principal objection, though, is that if the BBC wishes to persistently and systematically broadcast PC-fascist propaganda in direct contravention of its public service remit, then it should pay US for the offensive intrusion, and not demand a regressive inflated poll tax to fund out own oppression.

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