Translate

Showing posts with label Ched Evans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ched Evans. Show all posts

Sunday, 18 January 2015

Islamophobic libtard predictably refuses to answer my question about which punishment he would prefer if he were Ched Evans

Men: every time you shag a neurotic drunken malicious slut who claims she can't remember why she had sex with you, you may cost the taxpayer £11,000

What Ched Evans could do if the feminazis and their running dogs never let him play football again


at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, 17 January 2015

Mangina running dog of feminazis accuses me of being a Nazi


at No comments:
Labels: ,

British men now held so low that the word of just *one* slag is worth more than that of *two* professional footballers

The Koran at http://quran.com/2/282 suggests that a man's testimony is worth twice as much as a woman's, even when the testimony of both male defendants corroborate each other's.

This is so even when all complainant are in effect financially incentivised to report rape, because if the accused is convicted, she would receive £11,000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7555299.stm

Not only are they already financially incentivised, they are now also encouraged by the CPS to report rape.

In 21st Britain the word of one slag is worth twice that of two professional footballers, and the UK Court of Appeal affirms this.

This is what "rape culture" means for men.

What would you prefer? Islamic State or this sort of shit? Or is there a middle way?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Ched+Evans


Ever wondered why our courts have a Leftist bias?

Leftie bishops, liberal judges, a biased BBC and how the gutless Tories lost control of our national institutions

Sex with consent ‘can still be rape’ says libtard judge Lord Judge

Igor Judge is a LIBTARD, a running dog of the feminazis and a feminazi apologist

SHOCK HORROR: arrested female judge also an SSM!





at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 16 January 2015

Claire Khaw begins her #JeSuisChedEvans campaign




There is no way "Je suis un croyant dans le respect du principe de seulement condamner l'accusé se il est coupable au-delà de tout doute raisonnable" would fit into a tweet, so we will have to go with JeSuisChedEvans, boys and girls.

Girls will say in tones of horror and disgust "Oh, but I would never roast another chick with my mates." http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=roasting

But it is easy to condemn a crime that you have no inclination to commit, isn't it?

What if it because a crime attracting corporal punishment if you are found guilty of having had extramarital sex attracting the punishment of 100 lashes?

You wouldn't be so cavalier about the criminal standard of proof then, would you?

Both girls and boys should reflect on the principle, unique to the English legal system, that no one accused of a crime shall be convicted unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

There are two standards of proof in our courts of law.

If you are charged with a crime, you are not supposed to be convicted until after a fair trial and the evidence is sufficient to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt - 75+%.

The lower standard of proof is for civil cases when the court is to find in favour of the party who has proven a claim on the balance of probabilities - 50+%.

Was the criminal standard of proof satisfied in the case of Ched Evans case? NO.

The most important point to bear in mind about Ched Evans’ conviction is that the criminal standard of proof was not satisfied.

The complainant offered no evidence because she said she could not remember anything, yet she was obviously a slag because she was prepared to have sex with a stranger she met in a kebab shop.

If she was offering no evidence, then she was unable to confirm or refute the evidence of both defendants even as both defendants corroborated each other's testimony.

At no time did the judge direct the jury appropriately as to whether Ched Evans had grounds for reasonable belief that the complainant had consented. His defence was that he had because the complainant said he could have sex with her provided he performed a sexual favour for her, which he did. Having done so – and this was corroborated by the first defendant Clayton McDonald – he proceeded to have sex with her having reasonable belief as to her consent.

Of course, the jury could choose not to believe Ched Evans, but if they chose not to believe him, they could not have reached a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. It could only have been reached on the balance of probabilities because the complainant herself offered no evidence, while the two defendants corroborated each other’s testimony.

For some reason this technicality was not raised by the defence or if raised was not taken by the judge, nor was it raised at appeal.

If ever you were accused of a crime and value your liberty and reputation, you will know how precious this right is.

It is not unknown for women to be accused of crimes, is it?

Ched Evans won't have much of a chance, I know because most of the judiciary are libtard. The ones who are not are punished as Judge Joanna Greenberg has been.

Ever wondered why our courts have a Leftist bias?

Leftie bishops, liberal judges, a biased BBC and how the gutless Tories lost control of our national institutions

Sex with consent ‘can still be rape’ says libtard judge Lord Judge

Igor Judge is a LIBTARD, a running dog of the feminazis and a feminazi apologist

SHOCK HORROR: arrested female judge also an SSM!


at No comments:
Labels: ,

From the webpage that named the complainant who was perversely found by the jury to have been raped by Ched Evans

Here is what was said, mutatis mutandis.

"This is some material I've collected on the Ched Evans rape case

This is a case which has achieved considerable notoriety in the UK for a variety of reasons. There was considerable controversy over the conviction in this case, with opinion becoming polarized between supporters of both sides, and different views as to what constituted 'rape', and the rights and wrongs of the law on rape as presently written in the UK.

I'd like to make clear I don't have any axe to grind in this case. I don't know Ched Evans (the accused, and a professional football player of considerable fame and skill, it appears), and I don't know the victim. I have no particular view on the rights and wrongs of the conviction.

Where I DO have an interest is in the cyberlegal situation which followed. The rape victim name was, it seems, not a particularly well-kept secret, and following the acquittal it was tweeted by supporters of Mr. Evans.. and retweeted, and retweeted so often that for a time it was 'trending' on Twitter.

The UK doesn't have a first amendment, and much speech which is protected under the US constitution is a crime if spoken in the UK. In particular, it's a criminal offence for the 'media' - principally newspapers and broadcasters (TV & radio), that's how the law is worded - to disclose the name or other identifying information of the alleged victim in a rape case. There was such a furore from those who.. disagreed with the supporters of Mr. Evans.. that the UK police decided to take the stance that individual tweets (which are to me at least very clearly the electronic equivalent of 'gossip') are to be deemed to be the same as a large-scale publication under editorial control, like a newspaper or TV station, and have arrested (I believe, at the last count) 17 individuals and charged them. These are clearly test cases and if the courts DO decide to uphold the police interpretation of the Sexual Offences Act, literally tens of thousands of prosecutions could take place. The maximum penalty is only a fine, but also there would likely be registration as sex offenders, with all the consequences that follow. As a libertarian with a profound belief in free speech, this is a matter of some concern to me.

Whether or not the law can be stretched to encompass Twitter in the way the police & CPS are attempting is very much an open, and doubtful, question in my opinion. There is a House of Commons Library document describing the interpretation of the law: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04746.pdf from which I quote:

"Anonymity works by making it a criminal offence for the media to reveal the complainant's identity or any information that might lead to the complainant being identified. The prohibition kicks in as soon as the complaint is made and lasts for the whole of the complainant's lifetime. The law does not prevent complainants from being named in court, nor is there any restriction on their being named in discussions other than in the media." (my emphasis). It seems to be a very common misconception, from many of the comments I've read, that rape victims in the UK are entitled to total and unqualified anonymity. That's very far from the case as you can see.

I think it's going to be virtually impossible to make these prosecutions stick. Which is a good thing; given that the victim's name was 'trending' on Twitter there must have been tens of thousands of retweets - and prosecuting only a tiny handful of them whilst making a point of ignoring the rest would be 'justice by making examples' - which is of course no justice at all!

That's the background to why I got involved in the case - reading, and to a limited extent debating, the matter.

One thing that came out in the debate was an accusation that the victim herself had used Twitter, in the run-up to the trial, claiming that she would 'win big' - the inference being that she referred to a possible civil suit, or selling her story to the newspapers. It's been further stated that she had 'tried this before' - made more than one previous accusation of rape against rugby players or other professional sportsmen, allegations which were not sustained.

So I used my hacker skills, and turned detective.

The complainant had restricted her Twitter account, then deleted it, thinking that would hide her earlier tweets. It was far from straightforward, but I eventually unearthed some of them, by very devious manipulation of Google search results; they were gone from all the Twitter servers, and from the Google cache, but I unearthed the only remaining copies, eventually, in the Google *text-mode* cache of the *French* Twitter server(!):

Astonishingly, and perhaps partly responsible for the widespread knowledge of the victims name, Sky News ran a story about how feelings were running high on Twitter, accompanied by a screenshot which.. yes.. *showed the victim's name*! Doh. Journalism FAIL. That IS illegal in the UK, since Sky, unlike Twitter, IS part of the 'broadcast media'. They claim it was shown accidentally; police are investigating that too.

Her new Twitter account.

Once again, for avoidance of doubt; there's no animus towards either party in the case here. I don't especially know or care what the truth of the rape allegations was. And I'm certainly not defending some of the quite vile abuse the victim received online. My interest stems entirely from the cyberlegal / civil liberties / free speech aspects of the case. Here in the USA, none of the offences of which Twitter users have been accused in the UK would be criminal matters.

The big question; what boots it for British law to make it illegal to name a rape victim, or a British judge to impose an injunction granting a gag order to a celebrity or a corporation in a court case, when *everyone else on the internet*, from Bangalore to Baltimore, is free to tweet and blog the names and information with impunity? There's a fascinating collision between the law as written and the facts on the ground in progress at this time. The law is *way* behind the reality of the internet and its bypassing of geographical and political borders, and the unarguable fact is the 'old' legal standards for secrecy and contempt will simply have to give way; they're unsustainable."

Perhaps "Je suis le Namer du laitier qui a faussement accusé de viol Ched Evans" is a bit too long for Twitter. Oh well. Back to the drawing board ...
at 2 comments:
Labels: ,

Why do criminal lawyers *pretend* not to notice that the requirement for the criminal standard of proof to be convicted of rape has been dispensed with?



What the wrongful conviction of Ched Evans means for the criminal standard of proof that protects our liberties
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 11 January 2015

What the wrongful conviction of Ched Evans means for the criminal standard of proof that protects our liberties

The most important point to bear in mind about Ched Evans’ conviction is that the criminal standard of proof was not satisfied.

The complainant offered no evidence except that she would not have done such a thing, yet she was obviously a slag because she was prepared to have sex with a stranger she met in a kebab shop.

If she was offering no evidence, then she was unable to confirm or refute the evidence of both defendants and both defendants corroborated each other.

At no time did the judge direct the jury appropriately as to whether Ched Evans had grounds for reasonable belief that the complainant had consented. His defence was that he had because the complainant said he could have sex with her provided he performed a sexual favour for her, which he did. Having done so – and this was corroborated by the first defendant Clayton McKenzie – he proceeded to have sex with her having reasonable belief as to her consent.

Of course, the jury could choose not to believe Ched Evans, but if they chose not to believe him, they could not have reached a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. It could only have been reached on the balance of probabilities because the complainant herself offered no evidence, while the two defendants corroborated each other’s testimony.

For some reason this was not raised by the defence or if raised was not taken by the judge, nor was it raised at appeal.

This was my comment https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/ched-evans-a-poor-choice-of-battlefield-for-a-gender-politics-culture-war-pitched-battle/comment-page-1/#comment-730
at No comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, 9 January 2015

What Ched Evans could do if the feminazis and their running dogs never let him play football again

I am signing because I believe Ched Evans was wrongly convicted by a system rigged in favour of complainants who are already incentivised by a payout of £11,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for a conviction. It has to be borne in mind that Alison Saunders, the Director of the Public Prosecutions is female and has already declared that she wants more rape convictions. Keir Starmer, who started all this nonsense about victim justice, which meant lowering the criminal burden of proof, now wants to be Labour MP and eventually Labour PM. As for all the other leaders of the other political parties, they are all terrified of alienating the female vote. No Englishman has it himself to stand up for any principle, even if it is for one so long-standing and fundamental to our liberties. What chance does an entirely pussy-whipped nation have against the likes of Islamic State?

https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-united-bring-ched-evans-back-to-bramall-lane-and-eliminate-mob-rule?recruiter=80029325&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-reason_msg&utm_content=rp_petition_fb_share_desc%3Acontrol

If the feminazis and their running dogs refuse to let him play again he could decide on an alternative career of promoting Secular Koranism.

Under Secular Koranism, all three participants including the complainant and Clayton McDonald would be lashed 100 times for participating in extramarital sex, and then allowed to get on with their lives - the slag with her waitressing job in Rhyl, and the two footballers continuing to play for their club.

024.002
YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
PICKTHAL: The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.
SHAKIR: (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

Quite a thought, eh?


at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

Am I racist if I find it ridiculous that a man - let alone a black man - should be "Childcare Minister" of the British?

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/2275791-Live-webchat-with-childcare-minister-Sam-Gyimah-MP-Thursday-8-January-1-2pm?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Tweet&utm_campaign=Webchats

Live webchat with childcare minister Sam Gyimah MP, Thursday 8 January 1-2pm

(1 Post)

KateHMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 07-Jan-15 09:10:39
Hello,

We're pleased to announce a webchat this week with the recently appointed childcare minister Sam Gyimah MP.

Sam attended schools in both Ghana and the UK and went on to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Somerville College, Oxford University. He spent 5 years working for Goldman Sachs and then went on to help build and develop a number of small businesses.

Sam was elected the Conservative Member of Parliament for East Surrey in 2010, and was appointed as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Education in July 2014, with responsibility for childcare provision. He has served as School Governor of an inner London school and on the Board of a housing association. He is married and has a very young son.

Please join us live on Thursday 8 January from 1-2pm. The Minister is keen to discuss the cost and availability of childcare in particular, so if you have any questions, now is the time to ask! If you can't make it on the day, please post your questions in advance here.

Thanks
MNHQ

Will the police come and take me away just for asking this philosophical question?  (The CPS is run by a woman after all.  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/alison-saunders-wants-more-men-to-be.html and http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-is-alison-saunders-of-gender.html)

If I were Sam Gyimah I like to think I would have had enough masculine pride to tell David Cameron where to stick his woman's job. I would fucking hate any husband of mine to be stuck with a shit title like "Childcare Minister".




What about Theresa May?

Is she doing a good job?

Do the police think she is doing a good job after she gave them a right ticking off?

Do victims of crime think she is doing a good job?

Do journalists and academics approve what she proposes to do if the Tories remain in office?
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/academics-label-proposed-counter-terrorism-and-security-bill-censorship/2017351.article

Do you think any MP who will be named in the MPaedophile affair will think she is doing a good job?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westminster-child-abuse-inquiry-theresa-may-under-fire-over-appointment-of-lady-butlersloss-9605847.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-abuse-inquiry-mps-and-peers-named-in-paedophile-dossier-handed-to-scotland-yard-9938374.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-hobbs/theresa-may-police_b_6076520.html

Do you think any of the complainants will think she did a good job after all is said and done about the goings on at the Elm Park Hotel?

I don't think so.

Remember, Theresa May was the one who told the Conservative Party to be nicer to Slut Single Mothers way way back in 2002, and they listened.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/oct/07/conservatives2002.conservatives1

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts

Now most British mothers are Slut Single Mothers.

Why doesn't Theresa May blame unfit mothers who thoughtlessly have sex and thoughtlessly have bastards and who then thoughtlessly abandon them into care homes to become the victims of the next generation of paedophiles?

Because she is a woman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

Feminism has a lot to answer for, doesn't it?

Why do women get away with it?

Because not even men expect them to take responsibility for anything.

Did Helen take responsibility for the fall of Troy?  Nope.

Helen's speech from line 911

Let's face it, any fuckable woman gets away with murder in practice, because men's brains fall out when they find a woman attractive. Even when they have no chance of even being in the same room with her at all in their lives, they start worshipping this woman they wish to fuck: that is how most stupid beta males think and behave.

Women taking over the running of Western civilisation happened the moment men said it was OK for women to be sluts.

The moment men said it was OK for women to be sluts they started to become lower than sluts, and they are now lower than Slut Single Mums, and that's official.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-great-gatsby-is-chick-lit-disguised.html

What can you expect when you abdicate responsibility and leave your children in charge of your home and go away for a year?

If you come home and find it completely trashed, would you get much sympathy from your neighbours, families and friends?

What do you think, O Effeminate, Pussy-whipped, Feminised Western Man?

Do you think Mark Pritchard is asking for what men need forcefully enough? Of course not. He has been gelded. Will he get what men need to protect themselves from the matriarchal government? Of course not. Cameron has already said NO.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7798702/David-Cameron-backtracks-on-rape-anonymity-plan.html

Is that moral coward Nigel Farage going to risk saying anything that might upset the feminazis? Nope.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/ukip-councillor-donna-edmunds-women-gay-people

How can you expect a situation to improve if no one will discuss it or even admit that there is a problem?

The situation for men is already critical in 2015 since the criminal standard of proof for convicting a man of rape has now been done away with. Even appealing against your conviction, as Ched Evans has, has not worked for him so far.  How much worse will it be at the General Election after that? It doesn't bear thinking about, does it?



at 32 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 6 January 2015

Claire Khaw to switch her football allegiance from Millwall to Oldham Athletic if Ched Evans signed up




Claire Khaw - Millwall supporter since 2010 - First match attended was against Exeter City

Why Ched Evans is not guilty








http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=rape+
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 26 November 2014

Igor Judge is a LIBTARD, a running dog of the feminazis and a feminazi apologist

Sex with consent ‘can still be rape’
It was Igor Judge who said that sex that began with the consent of your wife can be converted into a rape charge.

https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf
It was also Lord Chief Justice Judge who dismissed Ched Evans' appeal from his conviction of rape.

White middle class professional men are infamously deferential and malleable when it comes to carrying out the orders of the feminazis.

It all makes sense now. Ched Evans never stood a chance.

Soon men will have no rights at all and will no longer be suffered to exist, apart from a few drones here and there serving their cougar and jaguar mistresses.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

" ... a certain stratum of deferential, malleable, white middle-class men."

"The irony is that the legal and media world inhabited by Steinem and her cronies is filled with bookish white-collar men who are the only ones in the world who actually listen to feminists rhetoric and can be guilt-tripped into trying to obey it."

The life of the Male Honey Bee

The males are immediately discarded – and either gassed or thrown into macerating machines, which kill instantly.

How feminism destroyed real men

Should we consider ISIS fighters refugees fleeing from the feminazis of Britain?

Are they rather like the Ultramontanes fleeing the French Revolution?

Men: every time you shag a neurotic drunken malicious slut who claims she can't remember why she had sex with you, you may cost the taxpayer £11,000

If you cannot answer this question correctly, are you a feminazi, a feminazi apologist, or the jury who convicted Ched Evans?

The point not made or not taken at the trial of Chad Evans and the obviously perverse verdict of the jury

Ched Evans is innocent, so let him play football again
at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Men: every time you shag a neurotic drunken malicious slut who claims she can't remember why she had sex with you, you may cost the taxpayer £11,000




Rape compensation cut overturned

http://www.chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

Under Secular Koranism, they would all be lashed 100 times at very little cost cost to the taxpayer.

How much in legal fees has been expended by the state and by Ched Evans' supporters?

Do you think Ched Evans and the complainant, in view of all the unpleasantness they have experienced, would have in fact preferred the punishment of being lashed 100 times in public?

If this punishment had already been in place by the time Eleanor De Freitas was thinking of making her false rape accusation, would she have made it? I suspect not.  If she had not made that fatal false rape accusation, would she still be alive by now?

Quite a thought, isn't it?

Father of rape claim girl who committed suicide lays blame squarely with the CPS

Who started all this?

Keir Starmer who wants to be Labour MP and eventually Labour PM.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04p54yd Keir Starmer starts at 26:30
Cross-examination of your potential false accuser is going to be very heavily restricted by the judge, he says.

Judges are to be required to give directions to jurors about rape myth.

What is rape myth?

It just means that all the things about false rape accusations being made by neurotic malicious sluts that are statistically true the jury will be specifically told to ignore so you get the kind of result that Ched Evans got.

When he is finally PM will someone neurotic malicious slut accuse him of a historical sexual offence?

That would be poetic justice, would it not?

Self-confessed Labour supporter Keir Starmer - former Director of Public  Prosecutions hopes to be MP, then PM.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/10/keir-starmer-inquiry-rape-domestic-violence
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/31/keir-starmer-labour-mp-bid

Is this man's initiative - to attract the female slut vote - the cause of so much anxiety and distress as well as expense to the taxpayer and profit to the legal profession?

Do you want him to be your MP, let alone your Prime Minister?

http://quran.com/24/2


The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.



at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, 24 November 2014

If you cannot answer this question correctly, are you a feminazi, a feminazi apologist, or the jury who convicted Ched Evans?

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That accurately reflected the way in which the verdict should be interpreted. 

The judges involved were:


  • Lord Chief Justice Judge
  • Justice Mitting 
  • Justice Griffith Williams
  • Judge Merfyn Hughes QC 

http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/7318/%28Thomas%29-Merfyn-HUGHES
Judge Merfyn Hughes was Labour Party candidate Caernarfon 1979. This would be the same party as the former Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer a Labour Party supporter who hopes to become a Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/31/keir-starmer-labour-mp-bid

Keir Starmer was the one who initiated the policy of favouring the accuser - female - at the expense of the defendant - male, and started the ball that is "Victim's Law" rolling.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/britain-criminal-justice-system-victims-law-public-prosecutions

The Labour Party is a party that promotes feminism. Lord Glasman, a Labour Peer, had his career destroyed by the feminazis of the Labour Party when he proposed policies these women found offensive and alarming.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/07/blue-labour-maurice-glasman

Last month Labour Justice spokeswoman Helen Goodman circulated a critique of Blue Labour to all members of the Parliamentary Labour Party in which she claimed, "[Glasman] characterises as female all the aspects of New Labour he dislikes, whereas all the characteristics he applauds he draws as male. It looks more like something suitable for the psychotherapists' couch than a political tract."


What are we to make of their judgment?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

The treachery of feminism


The patriarchy is transparent because whoever is in charge really is in charge.

 1. Feminists turn men into women.

2. Feminists mock men for having been emasculated.

3. Feminists then proceed to reject men of their own race and nation in order to fornicate with and marry men of other races and other nations.

4. Feminism creates all manner of social problems - widespread illegitimacy leading to higher crime and lower educational attainment and even Muslim terrorism - and then take away our liberties and increase our taxes in its incompetent attempts to solve the problems it has created.

5. Feminism has created "rape culture" and the historical sexual offence - concepts designed to find men guilty without a fair trial while lowering the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.

6. Men should fear and hate feminism, but they are kept quiescent because feminism promotes premarital sex and bribes them with sexual liberation.

7. Feminism, by ensuring that men have no place in public to call their own, have all but destroyed male solidarity with the result that most men would happily destroy another man's career and reputation at the behest of a woman with obviously low standards of sexual morality, such as the woman who was roasted in Rhyl by two footballers.

8. Feminism has seen to it that the black defendant was acquitted while the white defendant was convicted, presumably to throw a bone to the complainant who would otherwise have been completely humiliated and ostracised if both had been acquitted and possibly charged with perverting the course of justice, as Eleanor De Freitas was.

9. Feminism has seen to it that the government is run on the totalitarian Political Correctness favoured by white middle class professional women whose orders are followed unthinkingly and unquestioningly by malleable deferential white middle class men.

10. Feminism can be destroyed by repealing the Equality Act 2010 and all anti-discrimination legislation.

11. Feminism can be destroyed by abolishing no fault divorce.

12. But have you noticed that no white man and no leader of a political party will propose this, including UKIP?

13. No leader of any political party will propose anything that would alienate the female vote - that is the nature of this system of government we call democracy.

14. No male politician will discuss this problem with any other male politician because they are so afraid and corrupt they do not trust each other.

15. Feminism prevents grave and continuing errors from being corrected.

16. Feminism is the evil that men bribed with cheap sex are determined to indulge in until their civilisation falls.

17. Why do men not act promptly and decisively in response to all of the above which is obvious and undeniable? Forgive them, for they have turned to women indulging in the feminine vice of DENIAL.

18. Is it because they also fear to be accused of rape or a historic sexual offence?

19. Is it also because the conquered always take on the habits and views of those who have conquered them?

20. The habits and views of the prevailing political orthodoxy are FEMINAZI.

THE ANSWER IS CLEAR: SMASH FEMINISM BEFORE IT DOES EVEN MORE DAMAGE.

How is this to be done? For the moment, just discuss this amongst yourselves and look away from the simmering pot, for a watched pot never boils ...




at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Maronite Christian ⁨@GBkishere⁩ tells us the story of his life

1:00  Sharia is the bitter medicine Westerners must take.  2:00  Maronite Christianity explained.  3:00  Adam and Eve 4:00 Phoenicians and z...