Translate

Monday, 3 December 2012

Why is an organisation apparently devoted to protecting the criminal classes officially a charity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Crook
Nowhere does it mention in this biography of Frances Crook that she is a mother.

If she ever was married, she would be divorced by now, I would say.

If she had a son, would he be what you might call a mangina?

If she had a daughter, would she now be what you might call an SSM?

If she is a mother, how have her children turned out?

If any children she has have turned out very badly indeed, why should we listen to anything she tells us to do with our criminal classes?

Is it just possible that she regards the criminal classes as her adopted children if she is indeed childless?

If she regards the criminal classes as her adopted children that she must protect and nurture at all costs, how good is this for our criminal justice system and crime prevention?  Not good at all, I suspect.

If this woman thinks the criminal classes are her adopted children then she would want more and more of them so she can become more and more powerful and important to them and through them.    

Is this a form of dangerous neurosis that is dangerous for society to indulge?

Is not her surname perfect for a woman who has for so long vociferously defended the interests of the criminal classes?

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Charity_essentials/Public_benefit/charitable_purposes.aspx

Which heading of charitable purpose does protecting the criminal classes come under?

Surely it is not a charitable purpose to indulge the maternal instincts of a childless woman whose political instincts are well-known to be of  the left?

Surely that is the most toxic combination of all?

http://www.howardleague.org/

HOWARD LEAGUE = THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CRIMINAL CLASSES?

Is the Executive Management Team of the Howard League overwhelmingly female-dominated?

Click http://www.howardleague.org/?id=819 to see what you think!

Is London CPS overwhelming female-dominated?

Click http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-is-alison-saunders-of-gender.html to see what you think!

If headteachers in primary schools (who are mostly female) are mostly incapable of dealing with their unruly pupils without calling the cops, is  it because they are incompetent and promoted beyond their ability?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9774000/9774720.stm


Frances Crook: Arresting children is 'unacceptable'


More than 2,000 primary school children were arrested in England and Wales last year.
Frances Crook, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, told Today presenter John Humphrys that this is "very unacceptable" because being arrested is "very traumatic".

"This has very serious implications to the life of a child," she added.

"Most of [the cases] are naughtiness... this is the kind of stuff that should be dealt with by parents or schools."



Is the female-dominated teaching profession responsible for the parlous state of British education?

If it is the case that this country is now fucked by feminism after so many decades of allowing incompetent and neurotic childless women to fuck things up, is it now time to consider remedial action?

Remember, most women are more unquestioningly Left Liberal than men.   It was also the women who voted in New Labour.

Is it now time to consider ways of disenfranchising immoral and irresponsible voters?

It can be done!   Ian Cowie has proposed an excellent idea at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010127/a-tax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100020160/is-mitt-romney-right-to-question-representation-without-taxation/

Why don’t we restrict votes to people who actually pay something into the system? No, I am not suggesting a return to property-based eligibility; although that system worked quite well when Parliament administered not just Britain but most of the world. Today, income would be a much better test, setting the bar as low as possible; perhaps including everyone who pays at least £100 of income tax each year.

This would disenfranchise most of the SSMs described at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Slut-Single-Mothers-a-burden-on-the-state/220271251432495?fref=ts  (These are the parasitical women who breed the next generation of badly-parented parasitical welfare-dependants criminals shunned by sensible employers so more immigrants have to be admitted thus destabilising society even further.)

It is now time to put Frances Crook and her ilk on the defensive.  They have messed up the nation's affairs quite badly and for long enough.   It is now time for the men to say enough is enough and take charge again.

Whom would you rather become extinct - The Real Man or the now ubiquitous mangina - the most contemptible kind of man?

http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/04/06/are-you-a-mangina/


Sometimes referred to as pro-feminist, sell-out or traitor, this pathetic excuse would rather ruin his fellow man’s lives with falsehoods and misinformation.


Often spawned from feminist mothers and raised alongside ‘empowered’ females, the Mangina will often sell his soul in order to attain one-night stands.


In other cases, the Mangina will suffer from a deep self-loathing, which manifests itself into campaigning for all things that will hinder his ‘oppressive’ gender.


The Mangina is not a friend of the Men’s Movement and must be treated with contempt at all times.

No comments: