Instead of shooting infidels with Kalashnikovs when they say Mohammed was a paedophhile ....

... Muslims may instead wish to point out the following to Islamophobes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#History_2

"In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#United_Kingdom_.28and_dependencies.29

The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 during the reign of Edward I. The wording was along the lines of "It shall be deemed illegal to ravage a maiden who is not of age" - at the time "of age" being 12. Therefore, there was technically no age of consent for the male participant. The English law became applicable in Wales following the Laws in Wales Acts (1536 and 1543). In medieval Welsh law there was no actual equivalent of the concept of the age of consent as such, but a girl was marriageable at 12–14 (the onset of puberty) and a fine was payable for the taking of a girl's maidenhood by force; the rules varied according to status and may not have been applied rigidly to commoners.

A concern that young girls were being sold into brothels led Parliament to raise the age of consent to 13 in 1875 under the Offences against the Person Act 1875. After W. T. Stead's Maiden Tribute articles, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised the age of consent to 16.

Opportunity for UKIP to take a stand against proposals hostile to men accused of a sexual offence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26917360

Vulnerable witness reforms proposed by Keir Starmer in new 'victims' law'

The Conservatives are understood to be considering their own victims' law.

Excellent opportunity for UKIP to take a stand against this, but will the moral coward Nigel Farage do so? He will probably be too afraid of offending the likes of Star Etheridge, the Disabled Victimhood Czar of UKIP.  http://www.staretheridge.co.uk/

One day he will be old and ugly and look like some dirty old man.  One day some vindictive lying bitch might make some false rape allegation against him, or some attempt will be made to smear him with a false accusation of paedophilia.

Can he really be so sure that it would be safer for him to remain silent on this?

Why should the liberty and rights of men be subverted just because so many irresponsible and promiscuous women invite sex criminals to shack up with them who later go on to sexually attack their fatherless children?

What should these irresponsible and promiscuous women who make bad reproductive choices and who are bad mothers have these privileges over men?

What is this dementia that is slowly taken over the West?
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/identifying-babylon-the-great/

What do people think will happen to a society in which the preferences and convenience of immoral women who make bad reproductive choices and choose depraved men as their sex partners reign supreme over everyone else's?

These women (SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379) whose usually illegitimate children are attacked by their male partners (SPOSSMs - Sex Partners of SSMs) are not the best kind of mothers with the best morals, are they?

Why should the rights of men be subverted for those who are no more than a cancer of society?

It is not unknown for women and children to make false accusations either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse

Of course, lawyers want this rule because it is more work for them. Lawyers know there will be more work for them because they already know the number of false accusations will increase because it will now be easier for women to make them or for women to get children to make them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595891/Law-student-cried-rape-11-times-university-exams-court-hears.html

Rhiannon Brooker made allegations against her boyfriend Paul Fensome of rape and assault because she was doing badly in barrister training.  The flower of British womanhood, is she not? Lots of more like her waiting to bloom and flourish under this proposed change in law by Chief Labour Mangina Keir Starmer.

Be in no doubt about how spoilt, entitled, immoral, capricious, vindictive and unscrupulous most British women are these days and how fearful their men are of them.

Will UKIP ignore this issue and treat it as too controversial and not want to "go there"?

Nigel Farage is a feminist after all.  If you don't want to repeal the Equality Act 2010 and you don't want to abolish no fault divorce and child benefit, you are a feminist.  A feminist believes that it is OK for women to be sluts, and for legislation to protect sluts at the expense of the beta male.

Most Britons are by default feminists because they won't think about any of this until it is too late.

They deserve the laws and government they get.

If paedophiles are mosquitoes, SSMs are stagnant pools of water.  

64:14:

Arberry: O believers, among your wives and children there is an enemy to you; so beware of them. But if you pardon, and overlook, and if you forgive, surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

Contact UKIP  at http://www.ukip.org/contact and tell them you would be more likely to vote UKIP if they take a stand against this proposed victims' law and promise to repeal the Equality Act 2010 and abolish no fault divorce.

Don't forget to copy me in on this so I can chase it up.