|
|
||
|
HarrysNews ... Front
Page
Unto
The Breach Activism To
search this site for a specific article, click on any topic in the above menu
and press GO! This will also take you to a Google webpage that
will allow you to search this site specifically, using your own
key words. Taxes
...
The Curse of the NSPCC ...
The
truth behind the domestic violence figures ...
Dishonest Media ... The
Law We
are all doomed! ... The
latest BBC news. News
When women were oppressed ...
The Abuse of Power
|
Condi Reveals the Truth
LOL! Only joking, Boys! Just popping in to say Hello to you all and to say that I will not be able to read all those zillions of emails that are now clogging up my mailboxes. There are far too many of them, and I just cannot face them at the moment. I have not visited my mailboxes for ages and I have spent the past three months or so programming - Ah yes, Angry Harry is a man of many talents - and I am now suffering from acute screen exhaustion. In fact, I think I'm going blind. There is just no way that I would be a professional programmer - or, indeed, a professional anything to do with computer software. I just don't know how these guys do it. The work is intense, frustrating, time-consuming and thoroughly exhausting. No. Thank. You! I don't think people realise just what these guys must really be worth. Yes. Yes. I know that there are some women who masquerade as programmers in organisations hither and thither but, in reality, they are just there to spy on the men and to make the tea. Can anyone really imagine women being good at programming? Ho. Ho. Ho. What a hoot. My missus can barely create a simple shopping list that makes any sense let alone write thousands of lines of complex computer code. You see. Women were not designed for thinking and creating. They were designed for talking and emoting. They are, if you like, talking machines that can emote. Or, if you prefer, emoting machines that can talk. Programmatically speaking; ... IF Talk > 25 Zillion AND Emote > 65 Gazillion THEN OBJECT = WOMAN IF OBJECT = WOMAN THEN It is sooooooo simple. Anyway - because I have been almost completely absent from cyberspace these past three months I have precious little to say. (Yeah, right.) I did manage to watch some of the BBC's rather lamentable series concerning the Medieval Ages. And, needless to say, the BBC managed to demonise the whole of Christendom and all of its men throughout. The Muslims were, apparently, all wonderful throughout the Medieval period and the Christians were all positively evil. Furthermore, in one programme, some considerable humour was derived from the fact that men were often killed by having red-hot pokers shoved into their rectums and/or by being first castrated and then having their eyes gouged out - while still alive - yes, the BBC really did make humour out of these things - and, in another programme, the fact that a knight was, allegedly, 'entitled' to rape a woman - but only if he had first killed her man - was taken as an indication of how oppressed were women! Unnnnnbelievable! And, of course, there was no humour about that! Men being castrated and having their eyes gouged out before being killed - funny. Women being raped - not funny. Indeed, the notion that the actual deaths of men are of less importance than the poor treatment of women seemed to pop up throughout the entire series. One programme, for example, was about the life of a Medieval woman called Christina. Apparently, she lived in an age when women were very badly catered for indeed. And yet; we discovered that this woman lived to be 60 years old and had - if my memory serves me correctly - some three or four children. She ran two or three successful businesses and managed to leave them to her eldest daughter. Meanwhile, both her husband and her brother had died during the nationwide famine of the period. (She later married a younger man.) Tell me someone. How is it that this woman survived if she was so hard done by? - given that her brother and her husband did not. How did she manage to bear and feed her offspring throughout all this, eh? How did her life in any way whatsoever provide evidence to suggest that women were hard done by compared to men? There was no answer at all to these questions throughout the programme. Nothing! Zilch! Just the repeated sentiment that women had it worse. Well, clearly, No they damn well didn't! And, indeed, if women did, in fact, have it worse, then I can assure you that the BBC would have plastered the entire programme with evidence for this. But, Nothing! Zilch! Just the repeated and completely unsubstantiated sentiment that women had it worse. Ah yes - and then there was the usual cover-up of the gender of the victims of violence when they were male. For example, in one programme, we learned that various lords and barons got fairly angry when some labourers who were forcibly bonded to work for them (for their entire lives) decided to escape to another part of the country in order to seek better futures. These "peasants", "serfs" and "fugitives" were, apparently, pursued by the barons and their "men" and, when they were caught, they were killed; i.e. the word "men" only entered into the narrative when men were the perpetrators, but not when they were the victims. Ah yes, the BBC cannot draw the attention of the viewers to the fact that it was men who made up the vast majority of victims during the Medieval period when its main aim is to indoctrinate the public with the view that it was women who had it worse. Indeed, I strongly recommend that MRAs look at pre-feminist TV programmes to see just how differently are men described when they are the victims of something or other. For a start, they are actually described as "men"! "500 men were killed when the coalmine collapsed." "50,000 men lost their lives during the battle." "3,000 men drowned when the ship sank." Not any more! On a more positive note, I was delighted to see Fathers4Justice activists sitting on the roof of Harriet Harman's house a few weeks ago. This woman has got to be one of the most disgusting, dishonourable, deceitful women to have entered British politics; in my view. Just the sight of her on my TV screen nowadays makes me want to throw a brick at it. I kid you not! Even my missus cannot stomach her. And if there are any angry Iraqis out there who would like to have a quiet word with Mz Harman, I suggest that they get in touch with Fathers4Justice, because they have obviously got her address. Ah yes, Mz Harman - who pretends to be soooooo concerned about domestic violence and child abuse - and who voted for this, ... Oh look. A youngster with no arms ...
... courtesy of Mz Harman and her socialist friends in government. And, of course, I was especially delighted to see Hillary Clinton's bid for future presidential office finally go down the tubes. It made my day. But, according to the feminist-dominated BBC's Newsnight team, Hillary Clinton's failure to secure the nomination was because America was absolutely riddled with 'misogyny' - the BBC never stops trying to stir up hatred in women towards men. It was truly pathetic. And the relatively empty-headed Emily Maitlis ...
... clearly chosen by the BBC neither for her looks nor for her brains but, presumably, for her commitment to the feminist cause ... kept desperately trying to goad her interviewees into blaming misogyny for Hillary Clinton's demise. I was almost cringing with embarrassment on her behalf while watching her. But, thankfully, my sanity was restored when Brendan O'Neill (who writes in the Guardian, on Spiked, and all over the place) and Rod Liddle (in the Times) poured scorn on this notion and pointed out that misogyny had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's failure. Indeed, the fact that she is a woman probably gained her millions of extra votes judging by the huge amount of college-campus and media feminist activism that was deployed to encourage American women to vote for her. And it all failed - Ha Ha Ha. The political power of the feminists is clearly a-weakening! Yo! And a similar defeat for the politically-corrected feminist-dominated left was delivered in London, where a very leftist London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, was beaten at the ballot box by Boris Johnson - a rightist candidate. And this occurred despite the fact that Ken Livingstone was well-liked, very popular and had not been a particularly bad mayor at all for the past eight years. So, what is going on? Is it just a coincidence that two popular heavily-supported high-profile lefties were tossed out by the voters over the past few months (one in the USA and the other in the UK) or is there something connecting the two? Well, I'll tell you - without charging you a cent. A significant proportion of the public is finally waking up to the fact that our long-time, 'experienced' left-wing politicians are precious little more than self-serving crooks. And the MM is now having some CONSIDERABLE impact when it comes to spreading this point of view. So, MRAs, please keep up all your activism - because it is getting through. Which reminds me. I had a bit of a contretemps a couple of weeks ago with a woman who turned up at my door asking for donations to Amnesty International. "I would rather throw my money into the river," is what I told her. "Why?" she asked, looking shocked. "Because Amnesty International seems determined to hide the fact that men are the majority of victims of violence." And, if you can believe it, her reply went something like this. "Well," she replied defensively, "women between the ages of 15 and 44 across the world are more likely to die from male violence than from war, cancer and traffic accidents combined." I was struck almost speechless. But not quite! "Well, there you go," I retorted. "You've just done it!" "Done what?" she said. "You've just given me an alleged fact about women being victims. How's about a statement from you about the men who have died in the various circumstances that you are talking about. Tell me how many." "I don't know," she replied. "Well, I'll enlighten you then," I said. "There are many times more men dying from 'male violence' than there are women. But you do not know the figures concerning this. The only figure that you seem to know about or care about concerns women." "But it is men who are the cause of violence," she said. I knew that it was pointless talking to her. "Goodbye," I replied. And I closed the door - thinking that if ever this country was invaded by some murderous hostiles then I would probably hope that no man would ever risk his life - or even his little finger - to defend this woman. After all, she would simply later categorise him as a 'violent male' - and his death or debilitation as a result of attempting to protect her would not count in any of her statistics. Besides which, she would most likely end up sleeping with or marrying one of the hostiles if they were victorious. Both, probably. Women are such hussies when you are not looking at them. IF WOMAN.VISIBLE = FALSE THEN HUSSY.REALITY = TRUE Indeed, I remember well when I first noticed Amnesty International disappearing 'men' from their list of victims. It was during the long period of crisis in the Balkans. Thousands of ***UNARMED*** men who were being killed - simply because they were men - were barely being commented upon in the mainstream media, and Amnesty International's focus was always on the 'fleeing refuges' ... "70% of whom are women and children" being a phrase that was constantly used. The dead men and the fleeing male refugees were simply expunged out of the story. They did not exist. And, needless to say, we also kept hearing far more about the alleged incidents of rape during the crisis than we ever got to hear about the thousands of decidedly murdered men. And I decided that, thereafter, despite all its good work, I would badmouth Amnesty International until it made some major effort to point out to the public that the vast majority of victims of violence are men! - not women. Because that's the kind of wicked dude that I am! LOL! But also because IF influential organisations like Amnesty were to goad men into thinking that, "it is outrageous for the likes of me to be killed/executed/tortured/mistreated etc," then the effects that Amnesty allegedly wants to bring about across the planet would more likely take place. It is soooooo obvious! As it is, however, the media, the politicians and Amnesty itself do their very best to hide the fact that men are the vast majority of victims and so, guess what? - the men around the planet think, "Violence? Who cares? It doesn't affect me, Matey. ... ... ... Nope. No men refugees there. ... ... ... Nope. No dead men there. ... Nope. No reason for me to be concerned." In other words, if men were allowed to become conscious of the fact that it is they who make up the vast majority of victims when it comes to violence then men would more likely want to do something about the scale of violence that Amnesty is forever complaining about. And, of course, all this hatred towards men being perpetually fuelled by the likes of Amnesty International simply increases the levels of violence across the world - because 'men' are only portrayed as the perpetrators - not the victims! (And so every man thinks that every other man is an aggressor or 'perpetrator' of some sort - which, of course, then leads to men being aggressive towards other men - for safety's sake, if nothing else. And then the whole thing escalates.) Duh! Now, I am not suggesting that men are not very often 'aggressors' and 'perpetrators', because they surely are. But, firstly, the percentage of men who fall into such categories is not as high as is constantly being portrayed - particularly so when it comes to harming or abusing women and children - which, percentage-wise, they rarely do - and, most importantly, REGARDLESS of how high this percentage is, the perception that men are nearly all 'aggressors' and 'perpetrators' - and rarely victims - is simply going to make matters worse - as per above. In other words, we will never solve the problems of 'male violence' or 'abuse' if men are continually portrayed in the way in which they are currently being portrayed. Unfortunately, however, western governments, feminists and the abuse industry profit greatly by demonising men and, collectively, they have huge power. Not for much longer, however. Anyway. I highly recommend this fairly academic piece by Dr Adam Jones to new readers who want to learn more about the way in which male victims are forever being kept out of the picture; Effacing the Male - a repost from a few months ago. +
In the shelters where she was a resident, women were beaten, robbed, intimidated and sexually exploited. Children were exposed to violence, swearing and abuse by the women and often witnessed their mothers being abused and humiliated by shelter staff. Children are being taught that being “Canadian” and respecting yourself means to hate fathers, lie to your own parents and to call the Children’s Aid Society on your mother if you don’t get your way. The DV industry always seeks to suggest to the public that its refuges are positively overflowing with women fleeing abusive partners. Well, here are some facts that you should know about. 1. Many DV shelters are filled with women immigrants who have nowhere to live. It suits the government and the feminists to sneak these women into DV shelters. The government benefits because it hides the true scale of immigration and the feminists benefit by being able to claim that their DV shelters are full up with 'abused' women. They are not. Without the influx of immigrant women, many would be virtually empty. 2. Of those women who are residing in DV shelters as a result of domestic violence problems, the evidence suggests that most of them are, in fact, the main perpetrators of domestic violence, not the victims of it. 3. Just about all the staff who work in DV shelters are virulently anti-male and/or they are lesbians - many of the latter being highly predatory. Indeed, predatory lesbians make up a significant portion of the anti-male 'abuse' industry; e.g. see my piece Clit Shortage Fuels Envy. Charity or Self-Interest? The point of this piece is simply to demonstrate one example of how it is that socially-destructive organisations such as the NSPCC can become so powerful by providing self-enriching mechanisms for people whose main aim is to feather their own nests. AH The Golden Rule By and large, the aims of those in the men's movement (MM) are consistent with the Golden Rule. But the aims of those in the feminist movement are, mostly, contrary to it. AH
Living Alone Increases Carbon Emissions Efforts to cut emissions and turn Britain green are being undermined by the growing number of people living alone.
Well, you never know, he might have done! "Without being in any way over-dramatic or alarmist, my prediction would be that the effects of family breakdown on the life of the nation, and ordinary people, in this country will, within the next 20 years, be as marked and as destructive as the effects of global warming. Judges are witnessing a "never-ending carnival" of human misery, and almost all of society's social ills can be traced back to the collapse in family stability, he says. Yo! Unfortunately, however, the judge then goes on to say that ... the family justice system - comprising social workers, local authorities, mental health specialists and legal experts - is all that stands between the present dire situation and "social anarchy". He also wants the Government to invest millions in properly researched projects which boost family stability. And the problem with all this, as we know, is that the 'family experts' and the government 'researchers' are themselves the major problem. And so we will not find the solutions with these people at the helm. It would be like putting the fox in charge of protecting the chickens. What we need to do is to get these interfering busybodies out of family life and out of people's relationships. Furthermore, we need to introduce laws that discourage very strongly women from causing so much havoc through their selfishness and their greed. For example, women should not be permitted to fleece men out of their homes, their money or their children simply because they are unhappy with their relationships. They should not be able to bring about any official responses against men simply on the basis of flimsy accusations. And they certainly should be punished severely if they are shown to have manufactured false allegations of serious 'abuse'; such as rape. Well, I am not going to continue describing all the zillions of things that might need to be done in order to reverse the situation as it now stands. I am just going to say this. For years and years I had racked my brains in an attempt to figure out what could be done in order to promote the greatest sense of well-being for both men and women when it comes to their relationships - probably the most important aspect of their lives - an aspect which, quite clearly, spills out to affect hugely the rest of society. I kept going round in circles - up convoluted pathways that either seemed to lead nowhere, or along pathways that were likely to make matters even worse. And I had argued till I was blue in the face with some of the old-time MRAs - and I do mean old! - over what so many of them were constantly advocating - something which I simply could not bring myself to accept - but, some time ago, I became convinced that they were probably right all along, and that all my various alternative schemes were fairly hopeless. (Nothing new there!) Quite simply, all my convoluted notions ended up failing miserably somewhere along the line; whereas their solution was very simple and, if you followed the various pathways that stemmed from it, it seemed mostly to lead to an enormous amount of good. It is this. Fathers are in charge. Full stop. And if the marriage breaks down, the woman leaves. And she leaves everything. The fathers are responsible for any children. They are responsible for their welfare and for their behaviour. And unless the circumstances are dire - nobody has the right to interfere with what they decide. And that's it. Problem solved. It all sounds really draconian and unfair, doesn't it? But if you think deeply about the strengths, the weaknesses, the natures and the predilections of men and women, and of how they tend to relate to each other, to their families and to the world outside, this draconian solution does seem to pan out rather well. And it seems likely to generate the minimum of problems both for individuals and for society as a whole. Well, is it likely that western societies will actually adopt such a solution in the near future? Nope: Not a hope in Hell, would be my guess. But, in my view, MRAs should keep this solution in mind, and continually try to head the world in this direction. The arguments that support such a solution could gradually win the day but they will not win the day right now; because the western world has been indoctrinated with the view that women are entitled to do whatever they want to do. But, bit by bit, my guess is that even most women will begin to see that there are many advantages for them and for society if men are put firmly in charge of their families. And so, in the future, for example, should any woman start complaining about the fact that her husband is 'abusive' in some way then other women might turn round and say, "Then leave him," or "You should have got to know him properly before you got married." Indeed, I already get the sense that many women are already fed up with having to fund through the tax system those thousands of feckless women who seem to bear offspring at the drop of a hat. And they also seem to be fairly angry about the fact that many of the fathers of these children are nowhere to be seen. Putting the fathers in charge and making them responsible would seem to address such problems - as well as many others. But I won't go on. Nevertheless, in my view, MRAs should at least toy around in their minds with this idea and see where it takes them. Finally, it does seem to me as if the judge is not exaggerating when he talks about societal 'meltdown' in the near future, and the feminist 'experiment' - which already costs us many billions of dollars every year (probably in excess of $7,000 per adult per annum in the UK alone) - is surely going to fail much more dramatically some time soon. And, when it does, I think that 'the people' will quite readily see that both feminism and political correctness have got to go. Feminists Destroy The Planet Our children and our planet can go to Hell. AH - link now working Too Many Women Doctors Too many women doctors working fewer hours than men will ultimately result in a major shortage of GPs, a leading specialist warns today. (Also see AH's old piece entitled Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money? - to which the answer is a big, resounding, Yes.) Indeed, it is a huge waste of money, and it also deprives the most vulnerable people in our society - the sick, the poor, the old and the weak - of services which they need. Furthermore, every single one of us will need to use the health services throughout our lives, and so every one us will have to suffer a significantly impoverished service as a result of the policies promoted by political correctness and feminists. But nothing must stand in the way of a few thousand women doing what they want to do, eh? Rape Baloney - Part Two Throughout any given year, a very high percentage of women are very likely to be predisposed towards making false allegations in the appropriate circumstances. AH A Stripper's Point Of View I have to say it's not that bad. The sex industry, including strip clubs, is
merely a means to an end for thousands of girls like me. Strip clubs are a valid means of making a living at certain points in life when another career, for whatever reason, does not appeal or is impossible to
undertake. Ruth Fowler I saw an Aussie bar hostess being interviewed the other day. She was working in Thailand and had been in the business for 15 years. (She was about 40 years old.) She talked candidly about her life and about the other women whom she came across in the sex industry. At one point, the interviewer asked her directly about the number of women whom she had come across who had been "sex-trafficked" - that is, women who had been deceived about what the true nature of their work would be when they crossed the borders to another country. (This woman had also previously worked in Japan.) Her answer was revealing. Throughout her 15 years, she had come across two women whom she felt had been bamboozled into believing that they were going to be doing jobs that were different from the ones that they were actually being offered. Finally, as was pointed out by one of my readers from Sweden, it is very difficult for sex workers in western countries to avoid close, piercing scrutiny by the police - who are forever hoping to find some kind of 'abuse' going on. As a result, it would be stupid, beyond belief, for those in the sex-trade to employ girls who are unwilling to do the jobs, and sheer madness to force girls into the sex trade. Not only would they get into a great deal of trouble by using such girls, these girls would also be very quick to expose what was going on. And what would be the point of risking one's very neck when there are thousands of girls who are quite happy to do the jobs? - especially if it allows them to 'work abroad' and earn fantastic money while doing so. In other words, the notion that the sex industry is largely staffed by unwilling "sex-trafficked" girls is a load of hokum. But feminists are nowadays determined to portray all women who work in the sex industry as 'victims'; because this is yet another mechanism by which they hope to destroy the relationships between men and women. (Not only do they want to destroy the relationships between men and women as they relate to each other in the sex trade, but, far more importantly, they want to poison the 'image' of all men in the eyes of all women. And giving the impression to the public that all prostitutes are 'victims' is one good way of horribly demonising all men.) Western governments are now also going to be offering thousands of dollars in compensation to foreign female sex workers who claim that they have been sex-trafficked - and these women are also going to avoid deportation - and so, of course, this is exactly what many of these girls will now do. They will claim that they have been sex-trafficked. Indeed, if they do not claim to have been sex-trafficked, then they will likely be told that they could go to prison! "You have two choices, My Dear. Claim that you have been sex-trafficked and we will allow you to remain in the country and, possibly, give you a wad of money in compensation. Or, deny that you were sex-trafficked, and you will be deported following a prison sentence." In other words, western governments are going to be manufacturing out of nowhere as many "sex-trafficked" women as possible. Teachers Finally Speak Up About Family Breakdown The decline of marriage is leading to widespread underachievement and indiscipline in schools, teachers warned yesterday. Growing numbers are being brought up in splintered families by mothers with children by different fathers, leading to behaviour and mental health problems including eating disorders and suicidal thoughts, a teachers' conference heard. Members of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers demanded a proper recognition of the impact of family breakdown on education and called on ministers to do more to promote marriage. At last! But Brits should note that the National Union of Teachers - another union - which, if I recall correctly, is actually the biggest official association of teachers in the country - still remains dominated by political correctness and feminism, and, for example, still remains determined to support policies that undermine the education of boys. In my view, male teachers reading this who belong to the NUT should think about joining another union and, hence, stop supporting an organisation that expends so much of its energy undermining you! Purposely Damaging Families They [the left-wing 'liberal' elite] have deliberately and wickedly created over the years a legal and welfare engine of mass fatherlessness and child abandonment, resulting in a degraded and dependent underclass and a lengthening toll of human wreckage. Melanie Phillips ... ... but my underlining - for added effect!
Two Parents Best For Educational Attainment Children who live with both parents are improving their GCSE performance almost twice as fast as classmates living with just their mothers, it was revealed. Yes indeed. I might also add that the children of single mothers are also often very disruptive of the education of those children who do have two parents - something that will tend to lead to an underestimation of the true educational benefits of having two parents. Perhaps of mild interest to my regular readers is the fact that it was the ugly furore - generated somewhere in the late 80s by the feminist-dominated media - over a headteacher's statement that children were educationally better off if they had two parents that first really alerted me to the fact that the welfare of children was of no significance at all to feminists. It was absolutely obvious to almost everyone that the children of single parents were at a significant educational disadvantage - and, in many other ways too - so much so that teachers would often take special care to help such children - but it soon became clear that people were no longer able to talk openly about this without being accused of denigrating single mothers. The negative effects on children were to be ignored - and denied. The feminists' determination to break up families and encourage single motherhood trumped everything. Calls for this headteacher to be sacked for daring to tell the truth really shocked me at the time. And it woke me up to the nasty world in which we were now living - a world controlled by liars and bullies who were pursuing their own selfish aims regardless of the enormous costs to others - even to the children; which is one of the reasons that the oft-used politically correct mantra 'in the best interests of the child' used to sicken me so often. Nearly every time (and I am not exaggerating) that this mantra was quoted it was used as nothing more than a smokescreen to stifle debate and to hide the real motives of those who employed it. The further implication of the view that a single mother was good enough was the notion that, as far as the children were concerned, fathers were, quite simply, pointless. Needless to say, it was quite acceptable to promote this point of view. Indeed, this message has been permeating the ether in one way or another for some three decades now - accompanied, of course, with the added view that men, themselves, are pointless. 'Parasites', in fact. Well, the good news is that feminism and those disgusting people who promote it are now most definitely under increasing attack - though political progress still remains painfully slow - and I hope that it will not be too long now before they finally get what they deserve. (Also see my piece Steve Jones - A Parasite?)
I see the long-term harm done by absent dads and the lack of appropriate male role-models, and I experience the damage caused by unsocialised boys - both to themselves and to others - and their inability to function as men. Postscript to the piece below concerning the recent court case of the Cambridge University student accused of rape: In the Daily Mail, one of the alleged victim's friends has now written a piece stating that the alleged victim did not want to see the alleged perpetrator of rape prosecuted or punished. This is utter nonsense. The alleged victim is a student at Cambridge University and she knew damn well that the young man would have gone to prison and had his entire future blighted if he had been found guilty and, further, that his name would be publicised to the world regardless of the outcome at court. Her claim that she had no intention of damaging him is just not credible. Furthermore, it is quite clear from the judge's words that his view was that she had fabricated most of the alleged incident. And, of course, if the alleged victim had genuinely not wanted the matter to go to court in the first place, then she could have refused to testify and to give any evidence. She chose to testify against this man. And she chose to support his prosecution. I would also point out that the police and the prosecution services are well aware that the evidence in cases such as this can usually go 'either way' - because the evidence is not clear - but, clearly, they are quite happy to mess up an innocent young man's entire life simply because they might be able to gain a conviction. These people are malicious and corrupt to the core. Think about it. These officials knew that the evidence in this case was ropy and, hence, they knew that a wrongful conviction was quite possible. But they carried on regardless. In other areas of crime, the police and the prosecution services would not dream of sending cases like this one to the courtrooms - because there is no strong evidence that any crime has been committed in the first place. Basically, the police and the CPS are prosecuting as many men as possible - almost regardless of the evidence. And they are hoping that this scatter-gun approach will result in the conviction of as many men as possible, regardless of their innocence - and regardless of how much damage and hurt that this might cause to them even if they are found to be not guilty. Their attitude is this. "We do not care how many innocent men we put through the mill, nor how many of their lives we seriously damage. All we care about is getting our conviction rates up." And, further, they do all this despite the fact that they know that most women who make rape allegations to the police are lying or exaggerating, and that all women who make such allegations have at least some kind of revenge on their minds. Indeed, every one of these women is a hostile, biased witness who is, demonstrably, seeking to inflict some significant harm on to the person that they have accused. (This will be the case regardless of whether or not a rape has actually happened.) As such, only the most malicious and corrupt of officials would seek a prosecution without considerable confirmatory evidence to back up their case that a rape has occurred. In this case, as in so many others, no such evidence existed. (As I have often said, Michael Nifong - the US District Attorney who was recently caught lying in order to get three men incarcerated for a rape that he knew they had not committed - is not an exception by any means. There are loads of malicious, corrupt officials like him working in the feminist-dominated legal departments of western governments. And many of them are jockeying with each other to gain some career advantage for themselves by prosecuting as many men as possible.) Rape Allegation Was "Dangerous Nonsense" A Cambridge graduate accused of a drink-fuelled sexual assault against another student was cleared yesterday following a trial branded a 'dangerous nonsense'. Summing up the case earlier, Judge Hawkesworth said: "This is a story as old as time itself. Boy meets girl. Then the kissing starts. There are two irreconcilable accounts and that is all you have to decide. Yessss! Has AH not always said that UK judges are the finest in the world? Another student revealed he had shared a bed with the slightly-built blonde on two occasions, weeks before the alleged sexual assault. And guess what? ... Yep: She claimed that he, too, had assaulted her. ... She later told a friend the man had sexually assaulted her but she never made a formal complaint ... ... A friend of the woman yesterday insisted she had told the truth, adding: "She didn't want him convicted. What she wanted was for police to give him a scare so he wouldn't do it again." In other words, she was simply seeking revenge. What this woman did should count as an extremely serious act of 'domestic violence', at the very least. And she should be prosecuted. (In fact, however, her case will actually be counted as a real 'rape' in the thoroughly dishonest sex-assault figures published by the habitual liars working at the Home Office.)
... Ours is a world where victims are treated as morally superior, and where cultivating a heightened sense of injury has become the psychological underpinning for winning moral authority. ... The clearest expression of the privileged status awarded to victims today is the widely held view that we have a responsibility to believe what they say. The ‘right to be believed’ is based on the notion that those who are emotionally vulnerable need to have their suffering ‘affirmed’ and ‘validated’. Apparently, any suspicion about their stories is likely to victimise them further, and make them feel even more emotional pain. This believe-all approach is pursued with particular vigour in the area of sex crimes. ... Dear Prof ... Ah yes. Activism! Which reminds me. I never believe anybody who makes claims of 'abuse' via the mainstream media. I am not saying that they are all lying but, most certainly, they are all seeking publicity, they are all seeking to make money, and they are usually seeking to hurt someone. In other words, there is very much to be gained! Such people are completely untrustworthy at the outset, as far as I am concerned. Furthermore, as I said in my email to the prof, people who are genuinely vulnerable do not stick their heads into the limelight. Indeed, people have to be very strong and self-assured to do this. And such personal qualities are not a mark of vulnerability. They are, in fact, a hallmark of the very opposite. Woman Who Made Five False Rape Allegations Walks Free A woman who made a string of false rape claims, leading to the arrest of five different men and wasting massive amounts of police time, has walked free from court. Note that these demonstrably false allegations will be called 'rapes' by the police and the Home Office when they compile and publicise their various bogus statistics. And that these five false allegations will also be multiplied upwards by a factor of somewhere between 5 and 20 when 'working out' how many women allegedly failed to report their 'rapes' to the police. Police Officer Stabs Wife And Commits Suicide A police officer, who flew into a rage over the break-up of his nine-year marriage, stabbed his wife and then hanged himself an inquest has heard. Shortly to be filed under my piece entitled Fathers Who Kill. Basically, this poor man's future was completely messed up by his wife. Not only were the children now removed from him, but he would have been forced into paying for her 'lifestyle' for the next two decades - thus scuppering any other hopes that he might have had for his blighted future - perhaps with another woman. Furthermore, of course, he would have been well aware that his wife could, at any time, decide to relocate with the children - even to another part of the world - and he would have no say in the matter. In other words, she would have him completely under her thumb. I should also point out that senior UK police officers who buttress all the lies and distortions emanating from the feminists about domestic violence etc etc - and who have, therefore, helped to create the outrageous family justice system that currently exists - are very much responsible for these terrible situations that their own colleagues have often to endure. It is about time that they told the public the truth about the way in which the system is so heavily stacked against men and fathers. "What is clear is that the behaviour of Pc Williams was entirely out of character," said Mr Maddox. BBC Piece On False Allegation Of Rape False allegations of rape may make for gripping headlines in the newspapers, but they can also ruin the lives of those men who've been accused despite being innocent. "We are beginning to get a lot of university students phoning us," she says. "One of the scenarios is going to the pub and then suddenly finding the morning after you've had a boozy night out and you've been with somebody, that you get a phone-call from the police because an allegation of rape has been made." The URL to the above piece was sent to me to show that, at last, the BBC was actually making some effort to inform the public that false allegations of rape do occur. Hurrah. But I grew so aggravated by some of the baloney in the piece that I felt impelled to remind my most fabulous readers of the reasons why I know that the Home Office, the police and the media are lying to the public about the rape figures and/or attempting to distort hugely the truth about them. 1. The Home Office claims (or tries to give the impression) that the vast majority of rape allegations are true even though only 5% of them result in convictions. But the Home Office and its feminist-dominated 'researchers' cannot possibly know that the vast majority of allegations are true because there is no valid evidence for this anywhere. Absolutely none. The best that we can say from the evidence is that when the police, the doctors and the juries have done their investigations, 95% of the allegations are dismissed. In other words, what can the Home Office 'researchers' possibly know that the police, the doctors and the juries did not know? And the correct answer is, Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Thus, the Home Office cannot justify its claim that the vast majority of rape allegations are true. Indeed, the circumstantial evidence suggests that the vast majority of rape allegations are actually false. 2, We know that the Home Office bends over backwards to deceive the public over the issue of rape. As just one example of this, it regularly tells the public that the police investigate around 12,000 rapes every year in the UK. This is a blatant and purposeful distortion of the truth - which is that they investigate some 12,000 allegations of rape. And 95% of these will eventually be deemed to be unsubstantiated. In other words, the Home Office is lying to the public. It is purposely and knowingly trying to stir up hatred towards men. Can you imagine the outcry that there would be if, for example, the Home Office said that it was investigating 100,000 violent crimes committed by blacks every year when, in fact, only 5% of this number was substantiated? People would readily see this as a clear attempt by the Home Office to stir up hatred towards blacks by issuing grossly inflated figures. It would be seen as outrageous for the Home Office to claim that there were 100,000 violent crimes committed by blacks every year when they had only enough evidence to demonstrate 5,000. And ordinary people who engaged in similar public dishonesty would probably be prosecuted for attempting to stir up racial hatred. But this is exactly what the Home Office is doing with regard to 'men' when it distorts hugely the 'rape' figures. It is purposely stirring up hatred towards men. What the Home Office and the police should be saying is that they investigate about 600 rapes every year. Indeed, they should also be saying that they also investigate about 11,400 allegations of rape, and that these, on close inspection, are eventually found to be unsubstantiated. Now, the staff at the Home Office know very well indeed what the public will believe when they are fed the lie that they are investigating 12,000 'rapes' every year. The public will believe that there is a huge epidemic of rape and, further, that thousands of men are getting away with rape. Indeed, you only have to look at any of the media to see that feminists and politicians are forever claiming that thousands of men are getting away with rape. For example, on the basis of the Home Office lies, UK feminists regularly claim in the media that, "19 out of 20 women in Britain see their attackers go free". The idea behind this persistent claim is to give the impression that the 'patriarchal' justice system is biased against women and somehow colluding with rapists - when, in fact, the very opposite is true - to stir up hatred towards 'men' - as a whole - to pressure, with much success, the government into corrupting the justice system even further in order to gain more convictions - regardless of the consequences to innocent men - and to encourage even more women to make formal accusations of rape. And, quite clearly, this is precisely what the Home Office intends to happen. Clearly, and without a shadow of doubt, the staff at the Home Office want to deceive the public over the number of rapes. They want to give the impression that there is an epidemic of rape. They want the public to believe that thousands of men are getting away with rape every year. They want to get more convictions. They want to see more innocent men prosecuted and they want more and more women to make accusations. These are government officials purposely deceiving their own people, and purposely stirring up hatred towards their own people. How much lower can these officials sink? 3. The Home Office nowadays claims that there are around 50,000 rapes in the UK every year. (This figure has actually more than halved over the past few years - in part, I believe, because of the aggravation that people like me have been causing them.) But this 50,000 is based on the assumption that the vast majority of women who make allegations are telling the truth. If, however, the number of women telling the truth is, in fact, only about 10% - which is what the evidence really suggests; e.g. see my piece Rape Baloney - then the number of rapes is about 5,000 - not 50,000. Furthermore, if the current Home Office figures were credible then it would follow that an average man is around 20 times more likely to rape a woman than is an average woman likely to make a false allegation. And this would supposedly be true despite the fact that women are offered many significant incentives to make false allegations of rape, that they are encouraged daily through various avenues to make allegations of some kind of 'abuse', and that some significant percentage of women will allege rape for the most trivial of reasons, out of sheer spite, and/or because they have significant attitudinal defects arising from personality, hormones, alcohol and/or drugs - which is around 1 million women in the UK - at least. (And, in my view, it is these latter, abnormal, dysfunctional women who account for the vast majority of rape allegations made to the police.) 4. Home Office staff have been caught lying through their teeth over and over again over so many matters recently (immigration, prisoner releases etc) that the whole department was actually deemed to be 'unfit for purpose' by a recent Home Office cabinet minister - John Read - who was so incensed by the perpetual torrent of lies coming out of them. This is clearly a department whose staff you cannot trust on any issue. Finally, I cannot refrain from pointing out that senior UK police officers are also involved in the dissemination of these lies and distortions about rape and that they are, therefore, discrediting their profession and their colleagues by engaging in such dishonesty. Indeed, when it comes to their male colleagues, they are discrediting them both as police officers and as men. A double whammy for them. Smacking Laws Could Be Unworkable Senior judges want parents who are taken to court for smacking their children to be treated leniently. How jolly decent of them. Of course, the very idea that parents should be prosecuted at all for giving a naughty child a smack is almost sickening. How dare these interfering governmental busybodies persecute and prosecute decent parents who are simply trying to bring up their children properly. Led by heavily publicly-subsidised campaign groups like the NSPCC and the National Children's Bureau, the lobby is pressing for tougher laws. These pressure groups are forever trying to demonise people through one avenue or another, and the reason that they do this is simply to give themselves jobs and to grow their empires. And, as far as the NSPCC is concerned, this organisation has, in my view, caused more misery to our children and to our society than is even imaginable. It is a real curse upon just about everybody. Anyway. Here are three of my pieces concerning the issue of smacking. On Juvenile Delinquency The single most important reason why our children are out of control is the widespread collapse of the parenting role at home and the "in loco parentis" role once played by teachers, police officers and the courts. Melanie Phillips Why Should Paul McCartney Have To Pay Heather Mills? Can anyone explain to me why Paul McCartney isn’t in the divorce courts asking for money from his estranged wife Heather Mills? Rod Liddle - pointing out that Heather Mills has already benefited hugely - and financially - by her marriage to Paul McCartney. Why should he be forced to pay her even more? All I can see on display is the new British tradition that insists women should be able to trouser vast sacks of moolah from former husbands, apparently regardless of what their contribution to the marriage might have been. Wrongly Accused Pilot Awaits Huge Compensation An Algerian airline pilot wrongly accused of training the September 11 hijackers is preparing to claim millions of pounds in compensation from British taxpayers following an Appeal Court victory. Yesterday three Appeal Court judges ... [declared] that Mr Raissi is entitled to claim for the devastating effect his arrest had on his career after he was blacklisted by all airlines. But how much compensation is given to those men who are falsely accused of, for example, rape - and who might spend months on remand in prison while the police investigate the matter? None - is the answer. Boys Cause Post-Natal Depression Women who give birth to boys are more likely to suffer post-natal depression than those having daughters, a study has found. Hardly surprising, eh? - given that women have been heavily indoctrinated with the view that boys are bad - something which, of course, they are actually becoming as a result of the way in which they are forever being treated and portrayed. The Death Of Feminism? Quietly, without much fanfare, women's studies has disappeared from British universities. Tories Target Inadequate Men A "Jeremy Kyle generation" of irresponsible, alienated and socially inadequate young men will be identified by the Conservatives today. Grayling will pledge that the Conservatives will promote positive role models, including more male teachers in primary schools, create more work-based apprenticeships, issue practical measures to tackle family breakdown and worklessness, and encourage "social entrepreneurs" to re-engage young men. Sounds good to me! However, I doubt that any of these initiatives will work while the government continues to expend such huge efforts in the direction of demonising, disadvantaging and discriminating against men. Indeed, no society will ever get its men 'on board' while it continues both to alienate and to antagonise them. And with the government having spent the past four decades undermining our young men, it is surely no surprise that they nowadays care very little about the society in which they live. And why should they care about their society? After all, it does not care about them. Women Not Wired to Win In a controversial new book, psychologist Susan Pinker uncovers the workings of the hormone oxytocin, which she claims explains why females are biologically driven to nurture their young rather than climb the corporate ladder. Susan Pinker - 5 min Mothers Becoming Unemployable Maternity laws in the UK have gone too far and may prevent women from being hired, according to [top guru] businessman Sir Alan Sugar - look at the comments. In my view, giving women special privileges in the workplace results in the following ... 1. Resentment against women throughout society increases. 2. Men are denied jobs that they need in order to support their stay-at-home wives and children. 3. Mothers who wish to stay at home to be full-time mothers will be increasingly pressured to go out to work by their partners and children, and they will be more regarded by them - and by everyone else - as parasites and second-class citizens if they do not. (Furthermore, working mothers must constitute one of the most over-stretched groups of all.) 4. Government gets to invade even more areas of our lives. Indeed, the special privileges that governments force on to businesses in respect of working mothers is yet another form of hidden tax (i.e. a tax that does not actually count as 'tax') because the costs associated with these privileges have to be paid by the businesses themselves (and, hence, the consumers) rather than by the taxpayers. In other words, we all end up paying for them whether we like it or not - but the government manages to exclude the huge costs of such things from its official tax take. Clever, eh? The Stalking Scam - Writing Letters = "Intimate Violence" Vulnerable women are considered to be at the mercy of obsessed men who follow their every move to the point where they are harassed or even frightened by their behaviour. Does the perception that we live in a nation of stalkers and stalking victims have any basis in reality? Tessa Mayes - providing yet another example of the blatant attempts by the Home Office to deceive the public about domestic violence- probably only of interest to Brits. The British Crime Survey’s summary in its chapter on intimate violence flags up the fact that ‘stalking’ was the most common form of intimate violence experienced in the past year. This may seem like a cause for alarm. Yet dig deeper into the report and it confirms that most stalking convictions were for letter-writing or telephone calls (67 per cent) ... Stripped, Numbered, Checked Over Two British girls were sent to an orphanage for 30 hours and strip searched after their mother became ill during a holiday in the US. Gemma Bray, 15, and her 13-year-old sister Katie also had their clothes taken off them and were asked if they had been abused or were suicidal. ... an example of 'social services' staff in the USA trying to conjure up some more 'abuse business' for themselves. Another Police Officer Blows The Whistle On Rape In October of 1992, I embarked upon what was to be one of the most profound experiences of my life – a career in law enforcement. That career would span the next ten years, and in that time I would serve in a cornucopia of positions in the system. ... In that decade, I found that myths and lies about “Violence Against Women,” with respect to both rape and domestic violence, were both de rigeur, and vehemently defended by many who knew good and well they were defending myths and lies, and would privately admit as much. ... I can say with certainty that the number of rape complaints to which I have responded that were “good ones” [i.e. real rapes was] ... One. One "good" rape, in ten years? Well, I am happy to say that this officer's viewpoint is very much consistent with my own; which is that the false allegation rate is far closer to 90% than to the 50-60% figure often quoted by MRAs. And, basically, the reason that I do not accept a 50-60% false allegation rate is because it implies that men must be somewhere between four and ten times more likely to rape than are women likely to report falsely - (e.g. see my old piece entitled Rape Baloney). And this notion is ridiculous. The false allegation rate has just got to be closer to 90% than it is to 50%. To put it bluntly: The evidence suggests strongly that the vast majority of women who make official complaints of rape are lying. Indeed, only an astonishingly small fraction of them are likely to be telling the truth. Men To Be Screened For Aneurysms Millions of men are to be screened for the first time by the NHS in an attempt to wipe out one of England's biggest killer conditions under plans to be announced by Gordon Brown next week. The screening is the first men-only test offered by the NHS, ... At last; we exist! Women And Gays Are Worst Drivers Women and gay men are likely to be the worst drivers. Correct! Judge's Fantasies About Torture And Murder A former Tennessee judge is fighting to suppress a tape recording in which police say he describes graphic fantasies of torture and possibly murder. The judge stayed on the bench for the next two years, hearing mostly family court cases such as divorces and child custody. No surprises there! -------------------------------------------------------- Ecstasy Safer Than Aspirin A police chief came under fresh criticism last night after suggesting that the drug ecstasy is less dangerous than aspirin. Richard Brunstrom, the chief constable of North Wales, made the claim as he repeated his call for drugs to be decriminalised. "The prohibition regime does not work. It transfers billions of pounds of our money into the hands of organised criminals," he said. Appalling Treatment Of Elderly The appalling treatment of elderly people - MOSTLY WOMEN - in care homes has been laid bare in a report which found some are dragged around by their hair, strapped into wheelchairs, locked in their rooms and sedated. Yes indeed. Good luck, Girls. Still want to support the ideology of hatred? - forever being generated throughout society by the feminists, the abuse industry and the Labour government? Life-Saving Prostate Treatment Denied Funding A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing body.
Blair Makes Millions Tony Blair is making up to £1m a month from public speaking. Hmm. I wonder how well the thousands of folk like these are doing? ...
... Not very well, I imagine. I feel sick. The Woes Of Working Mothers Women suffer more than men from Britain's long office hours because many have to look after children and cook or clean once they get home, a report claims. Ah yes. Just one of the benefits of feminism. .
| |
Family
Breakdown As Bad As Global Warming Says Top Judge 
