Saturday, January 31, 2015


UK law on collision course with itself: The CPS openly inverts legal process in demanding the DEFENDENT must PROVE his INNOCENCE

Well there we have it. In plain record, the CPS is completely undermining its very legal basis of innocence until proven guilt.
     It has been very clear for a decade now that the rape law is a total inversion of the founding principle of law; ever since the Sex Offences Act of 2003, in which there is actually set out a list – though not an exhaustive one! – of the steps males supposedly should take to establish consent! [No mention, of course, of needing a degree in female psychology to work out when 'no' means 'yes' – this 'no' meaning 'yes' being the usual and often only form of consent females provide in the course of standard courtship behaviour.]
     The previous Director of Public Prosecutions, the idiot Kier Starmer, made it clear; and it's now even clearer with the statements from his replacement, the extreme-feminist, Alison Saunders. She was talking this week about 'date rape' but misleadingly elided it with 'stranger rape' when she cited the standard response by women in 'stranger rape' of 'freezing', as if this would be a usual or even a rare response in instances where the parties are so comfortable with each other as to be on a date, and where usually the worst of the matter is the sort of communication cross-wires that are the hallmark of interaction between the sexes. Saunders initially raised the context of drink – but anyway widened it to the extent that pretty well any sexual encounter would be encompassed – as if alcohol would not impair judgement by both parties and not just the woman. A man and woman drinking together are in effect a mutual conspiracy to bring about the prospect of sex by loosening courtship interaction, and this could be considered effectively entrapment of the man by the woman as much as if not more than the other way round. She cannot claim to offload all responsibility on to the male, so that only he can be deemed to be reckless and not her.
     Let's spell out what SHOULD and previously always was the case: that men 'must' in NO way establish that a woman consents to sex in order to avoid being found guilty of rape. It is entirely for the CROWN to PROVE, and to prove BEYOND DOUBT that consent was NOT given. That is a high bar, as it should be, in congruence with all other UK law – except that other arena where a woman is (supposedly, but – the research comprehensively reveals – actually in a minority of instances) a putative 'victim': domestic violence. Note that Saunders explicitly linked here.
     There is no debate on this issue. Either the founding principle of British law applies or it does not.
     The CPS has capitulated wholesale to 'identity politics' ideological hatred towards males, and it is now open to legal challenge.
This should get interesting.
     Even the media is starting to wake up. They have taken their time, but better late than never. The Telegraph led with the front page main headline: 'Men must prove a woman said yes'. The awakening media here surprisingly includes the dreaded Boob. A BBC Today presenter put to Saunders that she was in breach of the foundation of law. She pretended she was not, of course; but so thinly she didn't convince even her extreme-feminist woman interviewer.
     That Nutsville USA really has become Nutsbridge UK in the sex arena could not be better illustrated just this week, when a Sheffield man was given a four-year prison sentence for … outraging public decency! Four years?! So what was he doing: ejaculating on to seven-year-olds, or worse? Er, no. He was accused … and note, NOT found guilty … but merely accused of having sex. So who was it in front of? Well, actually nobody. Only in privacy?! Yes, indeed. What got the goat, as it were, of the (apparently insane) jury and the utterly witless judge was that the sexual partner – er, the ALLEGED sexual partner – was ….. a horse. The case was one of alleged bestiality. There was no evidence of any kind of harm to any horse: only to the apparent goat that got the jury and judge. The man in the dock was not inappropriately named Andrew Barnfield. [I am NOT making this up: check the news reports and the records of the Sheffield Crown Court.]
     Something is happening here, and we don't know … actually, we do know, very well … what it is. The times they are … well, soon will be … a changin'. Nutsville and Nutsbridge can last only so long.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015


'Page three' exploited MEN, not women; and the 'campaign' was a risible femascist own-goal

Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted ….. and then discovering the horse to be a mule. 'Page three' is irrelevant against the tsunami of free internet porn vids. Getting rid of 'page three' ends an exploitation of men, not of women. Men were charged for a newspaper for which their main interest was a single still of a woman's boobs. Nowadays there's an infinite array of actually moving images of a lot more than just boobs and it's ALL FOR FREE. The complainants today about the Sun's apparent move are hardly male consumers …. they're the 'page three' models themselves. They deeply resent feminist authoritarians telling them that they can't freely choose to flaunt their bodies to make a living by exploiting men. What is feminism for, they point out, if not to give women wider choices? How can feminism be about narrowing women's choices? They may well ask.
     Of course, actually the Sun's move has nothing whatsoever to do with feminists' lame, frankly comic – frankly risible -- campaigning. On the very contrary, the femascists were great publicity for the Sun. Like the suffragettes, their upper-middle/upper-class numptie counterparts a century before them, they were key to keeping going the very thing they were campaigning against! They did everything bar marching working-class blokes into the newsagents to show their solidarity by even more assiduously buying the rag. Self-evidently, Rupert Murdoch has long realised that an image on newsprint paper is very low-quality, and no match for the high-res images on-line – an orgy of boobs and more will continue there in the online edition of The Sun, just as before. 'Page three' was a rather embarrassing anachronism in the new internet digital world, rendering the Sun very 'yesterday' in context. It wasn't an embarrassing anachronism as femascists see it.
     The femascists can't even get Germaine Greer on-side on this one (as re many of their airhead campaigns). On C4 News she insisted she'd never called for banning 'page three'. She was never in any position to, having famously plastered herself in 'wide-open-beaver' shot on the front cover of a magazine in the 1970s! Harriet Harpy-twat was hilariously ambushed on the programme between Germaine and a young model.
     And so is starkly illuminated the hapless idiocy of contemporary feminism with its split on every issue. In the pithy words of a popular Youtube vid: 'Feminism .…. Make your fucking mind up'.

Sunday, January 11, 2015


'Radical Islam' is a revolutionary Left ideology as much as or more than it is Islamic

'Radical Islam' -- as espoused by the Parisian terrorists this week -- is not, or is only partly an extremism that comes from Islam itself; albeit that the very old sect of Wahhabism certainly is extremist. As the philosopher John Gray outlines in his book, 'Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia', the founder of 'radical Islam', the Egyptian intellectual, Sayyid Qutb, got his ideas from Bolshevism (of Lenin's).
     A notably Western revolutionary basis of 'radical Islam' is ignored – covered up -- by the political-Left elite, now the establishment across the board. It's the same wilful blindness as when they continue as ever unconvincingly to vehemently deny that 'National Socialism' was anything to do with them, despite it being clearly a pragmatic version of Marxism in rejecting internationalism (as Mussolini, the editor of the newspaper of the party of the Italian socialists had done) as a motivation for 'the proletariat' when it is impractical – it does not accord with human nature regarding in-grouping – and counter-productive in time of war.
All revolutionary politics stems from the French Revolution and the notion of 'the terror' as the means of supposed irreversible change. It's the antithesis of conservatism, so it cannot be of the political-Right. Religions are notably conservative; they are not revolutionary in nature.
     The truth is that just as we have the extremist bastardisation of the political-left in 'identity politics' and its enforcement in 'PC' to attack the masses for not being revolutionary; so we have a revolutionary movement from within migrant enclaves that also attacks us.
     Yet even the self-evident fact that we have a 'fifth column' of revolutionary Islamists was denied in the usual closed ranks of the political class and media when Nigel Farage pointed it out (and one of the miscreants was the perennially useless Teresa May). That it's a small minority – as Farage himself explicitly qualified – does not detract from the fact that we indeed do have a 'fifth column' of 'Islamacists'; here in the UK as in France, as in the Netherlands, etc.
     Debate hasn't got any more honest, has it? It is wholly dishonest, and will remain so as long as the major parties and media continue to play at being 'useful idiots' to the hegemonic extreme ideology of 'identity politics' and 'PC' they thereby assist in entrenching, instead of seeing 'identity politics' and 'PC' for the total nonsense, gross deception and actually ant-egalitarian nastiness it is.

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