Saturday, 30 January 2016

Students should now shun Oxford or any other university that does not practise free speech

The reason for this?

Because their arts degrees will be absolutely worthless. Students will only be wasting three years of their live and possibly more with being force-fed PC Liberal indoctrination. Male students will have an increased probability of having a false rape allegation made against them.

Jacob Williams: No Offence‘Easily offended students reported me to the police’Watch Jacob Williams, editor of Oxford magazine No Offence, talk to spiked about campus censorship and fighting back for free speech.
Posted by spiked on Thursday, 28 January 2016 PC Libtard hypocrisy/cowardice always retreats when you hit them where it hurts.

By the way, the person responsible for the proposal to remove Rhodes' statue was a woman. Middle class men should take note of the extent to which middle class women hate them and the things they they hold dear.

The college’s governing body, led by its Provost Moira Wallace, also gave up its plan to remove the plaque of Rhodes.

Oriel College's disastrous first female Provost and her rather chequered history

Friday, 29 January 2016

The very talented digital artist Erik Johannson

David Aaronovitch's BNP membership card must be in the post

Sink immigrants' boats - Griffin

Doubtless David Aaranovitch's membership card is in the post

Thursday, 28 January 2016

Which is worse: MGTOW or Islamic State?

MGTOW = men who fuck sluts and will never marry

Sluts have turned Western men into MGTOWs and pre-MGTOWs. 

MGTOWs if they could would rather not have anything to do with women at all and have sex with sexbots instead. MGTOWs who want children would pay a surrogate. Can you imagine what the human society would be like after just two generations of this? Yep, this is the road to perdition that feminism has embarked on.

When that finishes, keep it running to learn the full horror of MGTOW.



"I want to be a part of the game changer which I think will be a combination of sex doll, oculus rift and filmed pornography. So with that being said I'm starting to research into the feasibility of building my own love doll with sensors in it that allows a man to interact with it while wearing an oculus rift headset. And have the actress respond with pre-recorded video footage when you touch the doll while wearing the headset. The sensors built into the doll will connect to the software and be interactive. I believe those three elements working together would be revolutionary. My academic background is in the development of new media technologies. That's what my degree is in and I'm glad that I can finally put that to some use. Isn't it ironic that I want to use ideas taught to me by feminist professors to spread feminism are now going to be used by me to liberate men. I want to call the system "The Liberator Doll." It's not just a doll but an interactive visual, physical and auditory experience. I want to install heaters in the unit to make it feel as warm as human flesh. I want it to have vagina sleeves that are not only easy to wash and maintain but also move and stimulate you better then the real thing. Think of it like taking your car through a car wash. Except in this case it would be a cock wash. The first step to making this happen is getting Oculus rift and making some content for it."


I propose a middle way: making it a requirement for those contemplating marriage to agree a marriage contract to abolish no fault divorce and repealing all totalitarian thoughtcrime feminist legislation viz The Equality Act 2010

The children of Islamic State would mostly not be bastards, but Western nations left only with sluts mating with MGTOWs would have mostly bastards for the next generation, who will be even more bastard and slut with each subsequent generation. 

Of the following, whose long term survival is more assured?

a) a society of mostly of bastards whose parents are SSMs (Slut Single Mothers) who are serially sexually abused by a string of their unfit mother's sexually abusive boyfriends (This social phenomenon together with free online porn and the morally rotten ideology of feminsm is the reason why most people in the West think there is a paedophile under every bush.) 


b) a society whose parents are mostly married and whose children are mostly legitimate growing up with their married parents

MGTOW is the terminal cancer you suffer from. Islamic State are just your natural ideological enemies. You are therefore more likely to be killed by the terminal cancer you already have sooner than you are from the harm your natural enemies intend to do to you.

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

Proposed division of mental health treatment to streamline the provision of mental health services

Rise in serious incidents at English mental health trusts

Who are these people with mental health problems? Is it the result of bad parenting? Let their parents take responsibility for them then. I bet the parents of these people are unfit mothers who apparently couldn't grasp the link between careless copulation, unwanted pregnancy, single parenting, bad parenting and mentally ill offspring who are a burden to themselves and the state.

Once we shame mental illness again, people will start suppressing their symptoms again instead of burdening everyone else with their bad mental health.

I feel it would be constructive to divided bad mental health into the following categories:


Those in the BEING BAD category should just be dealt with by the Criminal Justice system.

Those who are feeling sad should be asked to try believing in God and cultivating a personal relationship with Him.

Those in the third category could be confined to mental asylums, but only if they are curable and apparently harmless.

Those who are not curable can be invited to consider euthanasia or their next of kin invited to do so.

Those who are criminally insane and obviously homicidal would proceed straight to euthanasia, not passing go and not collecting £200.

Was the motive of Alexandra Mezher's killer sexual?

Ann Parkinson was wise indeed not to have divorced Cecil Parkinson

In his memoirs, Lord McAlpine, the former Tory party treasurer, recalls how, at the conference, he witnessed "the most extraordinary human drama" as Parkinson and his wife discussed the matter on the eve of his resignation.

He wrote: "Cecil and Ann prepared for bed, both insisting that we stay. As they busied themselves, changing into their nightclothes, they kept up a dialogue - he expressing his love for her and fear that she might leave. 'I love you. I could never manage without you,' he kept repeating."

Why would he want to see that retarded bastard that his ex-mistress tricked him into having?

The only purpose that misbegotten creature served was to be used as a weapon by her mother to blackmail her ex-lover who chose not to divorce his wife and marry her.

Having a baby with Sara Keays wasn't part of the deal when he fucked her, and she should have known that because she was aware of his marital status.

Sluts who think every man - especially one already married to someone else - who fucks them wants to have a baby with them should be spayed.

I think all the above should be put on notices in all the public toilets of the land next to the condom machines in both the ladies and gents. When I am dictatrix of Britain I shall decree that this be done.

I know Ann Parkinson must have had a completely cowed husband for the rest of her marriage and he must have worshipped the ground she walked on till the day he died grateful that she chose not to divorce him for his adultery. Good move, Ann Parkinson!

Saturday, 23 January 2016

MGTOW explained in tweets

Institutions cannot be banned, only regulated

"Don't you think the Koran seems to be saying that prostitution and slavery are institutions like marriage? 24:33"

Julie Bindel and Belinda Brooks-Gordon discuss decriminalising prostitution and my Koranic solutionl

Thursday, 21 January 2016

Julie Bindel and Belinda Brooks-Gordon discuss decriminalising prostitution and my Koranic solution

If the listeners of Woman's Hour were criminalised, would the crime rate go down and evil and sin diminish significantly in the West? I rather think it would.

The confusing discussion between decriminalising prostitution,whether for both men and women or only women begins at the 33rd minute.

Julie Bindel wants the supply of sex to be controlled by fornicating sluts who pretend it is for free but load the service they provide with all kinds of expensive hidden charges for men eg CSA. Belinda Brooks-Gordon believes in protecting honest prostitutes (ie women who sell sex by giving an up-front price before the service is provided) by decriminalising prostitution for both men and women in designated areas believing that doing so would result in fewer prostitutes being murdered by their punters. Bindel basically doesn't care if more prostitutes are murdered by their punters as long as fornicating sluts control the supply of sex.

On a scale of 1 to 100, how likely are you to get justice in the matriarchal UK Family Courts if you are a father/husband?

Yet when the matter of custody arises, she shocks herself by invoking that which she most disparages, "the primitivism of the mother, her innate superiority, that voodoo in the face of which the mechanism of equal rights breaks down". She says: "They're my children. They belong to me."

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

BRITISH JUSTICE: Family Court Judge declares man guilty of a crime WITHOUT A CRIMINAL TRIAL

Justice Jackson - not a criminal judge sitting in criminal court - off his own bat decided that Worthington is guilty, and that the Worthingtons' five surviving children should *not* return to them. 

I invite you to consider the injustice of this assuming just for a moment that Paul Worthington is entirely innocent.

What punishment does Justice Jackson deserve for forgetting fundamental legal principles and obviously having it in for Paul Worthington?

Why do we even need social workers anyway? If parents want to kill their children then they don't deserve any children, do they? Problem solved. These useless women cannot prevent children from being killed by their parent(s) and when they try they always end up committing a gross injustice such as the "satanic panic" children in the 1990s. 

In 1990, families on a council estate in north Manchester woke up to every parent's worst nightmare. With no warning, police and social workers had come to take their children.
Sixteen youngsters from the Langley estate near Rochdale were taken in to care - for what was to be a total of 34 years and four months. It was alleged they had been forced into devil worship and sexually abused.
At the time, there was a steady stream of newspaper stories based on rumours of secret satanic abuse taking place in Britain. But, after a year long investigation, the Rochdale parents were proved to be completely innocent.

Allegations ranged from the sacrifice of human babies and robed devil worship to locking the children in cages and caves. None of the claims were ever proved.
It was Britain's Salem Witch Hunt.
This programme reveals the real story of how, at the end of the 20th Century, hysteria swept through our social services.
This was a total failure of "due process" and common sense with horrific results.
Sixteen children were kept in care without any contact with their parents for months and it took 10 years before the last child was released from care back to his family.

Was Justice Jackson gallantly trying to protect these women by sacrificing the family life of the Worthingtons - who have five surviving children - for the sake of Social Services, better known as the SS?

    141. This is a more than usually troubling case. I have given anxious consideration to the question of whether the court's inquiry has been so degraded by the deficiencies in the initial investigation as to make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions. In the end, I have concluded that this is not the case in relation to the anal injuries. Unlike the position in relation to the broken leg, there is still a mass of contemporaneous information about the events of the night on which P died, even though procedures fell far short of good practice.

    142. Shorn to its essentials, the situation is one in which a healthy child with no medical condition or illness was put to bed by her mother one evening and brought downstairs eight hours later by her father in a lifeless state and with troubling injuries, most obviously significant bleeding from the anus. Careful assessment of the meticulous pathological and paediatric evidence has clearly established that the injuries were the result of trauma from outside the body.

    143. While, as already stated, the father is not called upon to prove anything, I cannot accept his evidence about the events surrounding P's collapse. I was not impressed by his account. His description of being woken by a cry and then removing P from her cot in a most unusual condition (clenched teeth, rigid body) before loosening her nappy and leaving her on the bed was puzzling. It is hard to understand why he should have loosened her nappy or why, having gone downstairs to get another nappy, he should have begun to go back to sleep without changing P while leaving her on the bed. There is also no explanation as to why he would then have reached out to touch P, when his whole object would on his account have been to keep her asleep as long as possible. Moreover, in the overall circumstances, the fact that this was the only occasion (according to the father) when he and P were in the bed together raises concern when taken together with the fact that P suffered injury on that very occasion. Overall, the sequence of events that the father describes is unconvincing as an account of a parent comforting a distressed child in normal circumstances.

    144. I have observed the father, not only in the witness box but in the courtroom. In contrast to the mother, who became emotional at understandable points during the hearing, the father's presentation was unusual. He spent large parts of each day in tears and took every opportunity to make eye contact with me from the back of the court as a way of emphasising his predicament. I do not attach much significance to this behaviour during an undoubtedly emotional hearing, but it was nonetheless unusual in my experience.

    145. It is not possible to reconstruct the exact sequence of events that led to P's collapse without a truthful account from the father. All that can be said is that at some point after 2 am he removed P from her cot and took off her pyjama bottoms and her nappy. He then inserted his penis or another object into her anus, causing her injury. He probably replaced the nappy, which P filled with faeces at some point before or at the time that she collapsed. The father then realised what he had done and sought help.

    146. While it is true that what has happened in this case is extremely unlikely, the position is not to be compared with cases of sudden infant death that occur without any clear signs of abuse. As has been said elsewhere, there is no logical or necessary connection between seriousness and probability. The improbability of the father assaulting P in this way must give way to the evidence that establishes that she was in fact assaulted. As to the argument that this was a crowded house, the fact remains that the father had the clear opportunity to carry out the assault, however risky it might have been. On his own account, the presence of two very young sleeping children in his own bedroom did not stop him from watching pornography.

    147. Nor am I influenced by the mother's description of hearing the father going to P. In the circumstances, this is the only normal interpretation that would be likely to occur to her. The most that I gather from the mother's evidence is that the father was moving about. Further to this, I think it likely that the father did experience P going rigid and gritting her teeth, but sadly this will have been in the context of an assault upon her.

    148. The father's arguments about the absence of evidence deserve serious consideration. In fairness to him, I approach matters on the broad working assumption that any inquiry that should have been carried out, but was not, would have produced a negative result. For example, that nothing concerning would have been found on his laptop, that his DNA would not have been found in the last nappy, and that other items were properly preserved and tested with negative results. In the circumstances, he is entitled to these assumptions. Likewise, there is a credible innocent explanation for the presence of DNA on the shaft of his penis.

    149. Nevertheless, even though Mr Scarborough would have expected further positive results following an act of anal rape, the forensic evidence does not exonerate the father in the manner claimed. Rather, it affects the probabilities and has to be set against all the other evidence.

    150. With regard to the absence of P's DNA from the tip of the father's penis, this does not negate penetration by the penis as any DNA may have been lost by washing or ordinary movement; nor of course does it negate penetration by other means. The non-production of sperm that may have followed the father's vasectomy could reduce the likelihood of seminal fluid being detected, particularly as five days had passed before the swabs were taken in a suboptimal way. The absence of any report of P's blood in the bedroom or living room would seem at first sight to be highly significant, but has to be taken along with the evidence that clearly establishes that she was bleeding in the ambulance moments later.

    151. These matters weigh heavily in the father's favour, but I find that, when placed in the balance, they are ultimately outweighed by the fact that P suffered injuries causing substantial bleeding from the anus and that she collapsed for no plausible reason. The only explanation for those stubborn facts is that she suffered anal penetration and the only person who could realistically have done this to her was her father.

    152. I find that the father perpetrated a penetrative anal assault on P, either using his penis or some other unidentified object.
Is Justice Jackson some sort of legal authority on the correct way of changing nappies?

Is this what passes for "the rule of law" in Britain?

Is "the British rule of law" changing the rules while the game is still being played?

What is the most important rule of law that you can think of?

Surely it must be the right to be treated as innocent till found guilty after a fair trial?

Shall we allow members of the judiciary who seem to know more than they should about changing nappies than is thought proper for a High Court judge who forgets which court he is sitting in to ignore long-standing English legal traditions such as a trial by jury and the criminal standard of proof to convict a man of a crime?