Friday, 7 March 2014

Why shouldn't the police have spied on the Lawrences if at the time they thought they were up to no good?

My interest was piqued when I heard the Today Programme just after 6 am headlining this story as "Neville Lawrence expresses doubts on new Lawrence enquiry."

Knowing that he had separated from his ex-wife who is now Lady Lawrence, I had taken this to mean that he was saying that he had enough of his ex-wife making a career out of parading her victimhood.

Indeed, I had fondly thought that the reason why their marriage broke up was because he couldn't stand his wife's incessant parading of her victimhood any more.

I had thought it was his masculine pride that balked at yet calling for yet another Lawrence Enquiry and making even more of a fuss, when he realised almost everyone else in this country who was not a liberal and not black was sick of the sound of his son's name.

It turns out that he was really saying, and I paraphrase: "I don't see the point of yet another enquiry because I don't trust the police after what they did to us."

More parading of victimhood then.

It is not in the National Interest to further tarnish the reputation of the police whom I like to imagine try to do a good job while being tied down with red tape and silly impractical rules that hamper their investigations. The toxic dish that will emerge from this business will nourish no one but lawyers like Imran Khan while bringing into disrepute further the reputations of members of the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary.

In any case, I really don't see why the police shouldn't investigate their accusers.  If someone was accusing you of something terrible, and stood to gain by making their accusations stick, shouldn't you investigate their claims, motives and backgrounds?

On 10 March 2006, the Metropolitan Police Service announced that it would pay Duwayne Brooks £100,000 as compensation for the manner in which police had handled his complaints about their actions toward him after the murder.

the Met paid Doreen and Neville Lawrence £320,000 compensation for bungling their son's murder investigation.

Money was made from the death of Stephen Lawrence by certain complainants against the police, was it not?

Perhaps it should be pointed out that the money paid to these complainants did not come out of police pensions but directly from the taxpayer.

As a result of the police being accused, we now have this concept of "institutional racism" with the result that the police now have to treat non-white criminals with kids' gloves causing an enormous amount of racial resentment on the part of the white working class indigenous British.

I am sure there were plenty of murder enquiries of white victims who were completely bungled by the police.

The BNP could perhaps be looking into this sort of thing, but I already know no one listens to them because they are a bunch of lower class racist sluts and bastards whose membership is so overwhelmingly slut and bastard that their leader Nick Griffin fears to explicitly support marriage for fear of losing the support of his overwhelmingly slut and bastard lower class membership.  He also fears to antagonise the matriarchy by denouncing feminism. The members of the matriarchy he also fears would be  his wife and daughters.

How can you tell if someone is afraid of denouncing feminism?  When he still calls it Cultural Marxism and refuses to call a spade a spade.

I paraphrase Nick Griffin: "Abortion is killing our people.  Our young men have no pride.  Consumerism the opium of the people. Not enough white young men.  One more generation and it will be too late and we will be completely outnumbered by coloured [Muslim] immigrants."  Still Nick Griffin won't say the F word and how feminism causes immigration.  How contemptible is that?

When men no longer respect marriage and cannot bring themselves to explicitly support marriage, they are in fact inviting irrational, capricious, sentimental and venal women to rule over them and trash the civilisation created by their ancestors.

Women think, behave and act differently.  The very fact that their bodies are different and that they are the ones left holding the baby in any extramarital sexual encounter dictates that they will vote in an amoral and tribal way as regards sexual morality ie Venal women will want to lower standards of sexual morality. This is very eloquently demonstrated in the objective fact that 83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs voted for it.  Only 22% of the MPs voting on gay marriage were female.  This means women hold a disproportionate amount of power.  No one will discuss this either.

Most women are feminists. Since men have no power over women but still want to have sex with them, they will say things to please them in order to gain sexual access, and this means adopting their moral values and their low standards of sexual morality. Indiscriminate universal suffrage is clearly a grave and continuing error, but no one will discuss this either.

Are there objective ways of identifying the feminist?

Yes, anyone who refuses to repeal the Equality Act 2010 and refuses to abolish  no-fault divorce is a feminist.

Sadly, this includes the leader of UKIP and probably the leader of the BNP too.

Nationalists who have left the party and who hate Nick Griffin cannot bring themselves to support marriage either.  Ex-BNP organiser Kevin Scott told me that no householder is Newcastle cares about marriage, which does not surprise me at all, knowing that Newcastle is the City of the Fat Slags.  Ex-BNP National Organiser Eddy Butler told me that while he "supported marriage" I was on a hobby horse that would be found irrelevant to most nationalists and voters. I also already know this, for any country whose state ideology is PC Liberalism in fact worships the deity that is Sexual Liberation, which means in practice the condoning of extramarital sex, which is of course the antithesis of marriage. In fact, if you really want to respect marriage, you would logically have to forbid extramarital sex, and homo sex is undeniably a species of extramarital sex, like bestiality, necrophilia and incest. This is the reality of respecting marriage, which PC Liberal British politicians deny, ignore and refuse to discuss. Even Anjem Choudary the Radical Islamist dares not quite say this to the Infidel British to explain their present degradation, but I do at

As Powell would say, it is like watching the nation busily heaping up its own funeral pyre ...


Anonymous said...

What about Godfrey Bloom from UKIP? Isn't he anti-feminist?

What about Simon Sheppard? Isn't he anti-feminist?

What about bloggers like Roosh, Whiskey, Roissy? Aren't they anti-feminist (even if they are American rather than British)?

Excuse me Claire, but as a single man, it ain't that hard to get sex. All a man has to do is go on and put up a good picture of himself, say the right things and there's a good chance that he will find himself a naive, slutty young woman to sleep with. It just takes a bit of intelligence to be able to distinguish between the ones that are likely to be easy to get into bed, and the ones that are not worth bothering with.

Claire Khaw said...

You haven't understood anything I have said at all.

My point is not that there are no anti-feminists in this country.