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?
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Balkan bollocks a decade on
Well what a difference a decade makes. Not. This time ten years ago -- 2004 -- I was being forced to take part against my will in illegally processing by the tens of thousands obviously bogus immigration applications on behalf of Romanian and Bulgarian individuals sent in by the batch load by fraudulent immigration reps. I was working for the immigration sub-department of the ever not-fit-for-purpose Gnome Orifice, and was being obliged, under protest, to simply rubber-stamp applications just so long as the passport was in date. All checks had been waived. This was ahead of the accession to the EU of the eight states joining on May 1, 2004. But Romania and Bulgaria were not part of the 'A8': they were to join later. Yet under some EU stitch-up 'transition arrangement', anyone from Bulgaria or Romania could just pretend to be self-employed and get round our immigration rules – not that there were any that ever worked anyway. This gave rise to hilarious instances such as the famous one-legged Romanian roof-tiler.
We were letting in a stampede of who knows who, including plenty of career criminals, as our office was repeatedly warned by our consul in Bucharest, James Cameron. His warnings were completely ignored and, like me, Cameron was suspended from his post and then dismissed for 'whistle-blowing'.
Since then, Romania and Bulgaria finally have joined the EU and their citizens have had free movement but with a supposed lock placed on their access to jobs. Leaving aside how useless that was, what about access to benefits? Well, the Government assures us, hardly any have claimed. So what are the figures? Er, we don't have any, the Government pleads. There is very good reason why they don't have any figures: The last time I checked, the DWP does not have a routine mechanism for establishing immigration status when it comes to accessing benefits. Come again? Yes, we're as ever in 'couldn't-make-it-up' territory.
So how has the Boob been reporting the new influx as from yesterday? Oh, the line about the net economic benefit of migration. That bogus one again. Everyone accepts the immediate impact is insignificantly positive; but that's only re OFFICIAL (LEGAL) migration – leaving out the millions of illegals -- does not take into account massive infrastructure costs, and also does not factor in later costs as these migrants have children and age – and when the next downturn puts them on benefits. And by the way, the Boob take note: nobody wants it; nobody has ever been asked if they want it; pretty well everybody expressly objects to it. Only big business (and PC-fascists) wants it, because they can then avoid paying a 'living' wage and can forget about having to train anyone, to leave the taxpayer to pick up the huge tab for the underclass and wider under-employment and poverty this creates.
Mass pointless immigration is a facet of short-termism as well as a manifestation of PC-fascist hatred of the ordinary person living in the UK (see previous posts outlining this) as perpetrated in office by Liebour.
Anyway, 2014 is the year of the Euro elections, and UKIP – which only (sometimes) caves in to PC-fascism rather than perpetrates it – is going to thoroughly wipe the floor with the three PC parties. It'll be a start.
Wednesday, January 08, 2014
JUST IGNORE SPAM POSTINGS. THESE ARE IRRELEVANT AND NOT POSTED BY ME
Please ignore spam postings of irrelevancies, which are not from me but posted through some breach of access.
Steve Moxon
How To Make more than $10 USD every day on linkbucks
How To Make more than $10 USD every day on linkbucks
Click Here To Start
Or Click the image Below
insert your information
You will receive a confirmation email
Activate your account by clicking the link in your email
You will redirect to your account page
This is your screen
Now we come to how to profit money
You can shortcut link to download a game or program on different sites and posting it in the forums, or blog or in any other way .. You are free to creativity
Click on the Create Links
You can shortcut link to download a game or program on different sites and posting it in the forums, or blog or in any other way .. You are free to creativity
Click on the Create Links
this is your shorten link
how to get your earning
Payments Methods
Pay Pal OR Payoneer
Thursday, January 02, 2014
Balkan bollocks a decade on
Well what a difference a decade makes. Not. This time ten years ago -- 2004 -- I was being forced to take part against my will in illegally processing by the tens of thousands obviously bogus immigration applications on behalf of Romanian and Bulgarian individuals sent in by the batch load by fraudulent immigration reps. I was working for the immigration sub-department of the ever not-fit-for-purpose Gnome Orifice, and was being obliged, under protest, to simply rubber-stamp applications just so long as the passport was in date. All checks had been waived. This was ahead of the accession to the EU of the eight states joining on May 1, 2004. But Romania and Bulgaria were not part of the 'A8': they were to join later. Yet under some EU stitch-up 'transition arrangement', anyone from Bulgaria or Romania could just pretend to be self-employed and get round our immigration rules – not that there were any that ever worked anyway. This gave rise to hilarious instances such as the famous one-legged Romanian roof-tiler.
We were letting in a stampede of who knows who, including plenty of career criminals, as our office was repeatedly warned by our consul in Bucharest, James Cameron. His warnings were completely ignored and, like me, Cameron was suspended from his post and then dismissed for 'whistle-blowing'.
Since then, Romania and Bulgaria finally have joined the EU and their citizens have had free movement but with a supposed lock placed on their access to jobs. Leaving aside how useless that was, what about access to benefits? Well, the Government assures us, hardly any have claimed. So what are the figures? Er, we don't have any, the Government pleads. There is very good reason why they don't have any figures: The last time I checked, the DWP does not have a routine mechanism for establishing immigration status when it comes to accessing benefits. Come again? Yes, we're as ever in 'couldn't-make-it-up' territory.
So how has the Boob been reporting the new influx as from yesterday? Oh, the line about the net economic benefit of migration. That bogus one again. Everyone accepts the immediate impact is insignificantly positive; but that's only re OFFICIAL (LEGAL) migration – leaving out the millions of illegals -- does not take into account massive infrastructure costs, and also does not factor in later costs as these migrants have children and age – and when the next downturn puts them on benefits. And by the way, the Boob take note: nobody wants it; nobody has ever been asked if they want it; pretty well everybody expressly objects to it. Only big business (and PC-fascists) wants it, because they can then avoid paying a 'living' wage and can forget about having to train anyone, to leave the taxpayer to pick up the huge tab for the underclass and wider under-employment and poverty this creates.
Mass pointless immigration is a facet of short-termism as well as a manifestation of PC-fascist hatred of the ordinary person living in the UK (see previous posts outlining this) as perpetrated in office by Liebour.
Anyway, 2014 is the year of the Euro elections, and UKIP – which only (sometimes) caves in to PC-fascism rather than perpetrates it – is going to thoroughly wipe the floor with the three PC parties. It'll be a start.
