THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Showing posts with label paedophilia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paedophilia. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 January 2017
Friday, 8 May 2015
"Man convicted of raping one year old baby." Are you thinking what I am thinking?
 |
| Stuart Young will be sentenced at the High Court next month for a series of sexual assaults on children |
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-convicted-of-raping-onedayold-baby-10218422.html
He began raping the baby boy when he was just one day old, and continued his attacks until he was three months old.
Young, from the Sighthill area of Edinburgh, also raped a girl over a period of years, beginning when she was six months old and continuing until she was five.
In July 2013, Young sexually abused a nine-year old girl in the Stenhouse area of Edinburgh.
I bet the mother(s) of the abused children was/were on carnally intimate terms with their abuser.
Disgusting, isn't it? Your slut mother having sex with the man who sexually abused you as a child would fill anyone with loathing and self-loathing. What kind of a mother would allow such a thing to happen to her child?
What kind of evidence was used to convict the man?
Was it a cabal of slut mothers conspiring to maliciously accuse a man they all knew for purposes of revenge while getting their children to accuse him?
Who knows. The reports do not give us any idea of the background of the man or the mothers involved.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-raped-one-day-old-5615085
Friday, 23 January 2015
Feminist cannot deny that feminism causes immigration, paedophilia and dementia
Justice for Men & Boys have their whining feminist of the month award, so how about we award Mike Buchanan the cockwomble of the year award?
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 22, 2015
@Vicky_Coop Mike Buchanan should surrender his party to me publicly because I am the best antifeminist in Britain http://t.co/3jhGzkNzSc
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem By the sounds of it you're no better than he is, maybe worse. A tsunami of sluts & feminazis you say? Beyond ridiculous.
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@ntfem By the sounds of it you're no better than he is, maybe worse. A tsunami of sluts & feminazis you say? Beyond ridiculous.
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop You must admit that "a tsunami of sluts" does pique the imagination as well as being memorably alliterative!
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop Yes, you are right: I am probably "worse" than @MikeBuchanan11, but in a good way as far as antifeminism is concerned!
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem @ntfem I am a feminist, so no, I disagree. You think most women are sluts & you're an anti feminist. No wish to converse further
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop You know you are going to lose the debate, which is why you refuse to engage.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem I will debate with anyone who is rational but from the sound of your blog, you clearly aren't.
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop What have I said that is irrational?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem in your words "feminism causes immigration, paedophilia & dementia". No point debating when you make ridiculous statements like that.
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@ntfem and you think it is all caused by feminism. Irrational, illogical and utter nonsense. I'm done talking with you.
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@ntfem Read your blog. Says everything really.
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop The West is complaining about immigration, is it not?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop Paedophilia is a "white crime", is it not?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop The West is worried about increasing numbers of Westerners suffering dementia, is it not? Res ipsa loquitur.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop Yes, I do. Refute my claims, if you can. You can't, and that is why you are disengaging.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem You don't need to refute nonsense. That is why it is call nonsense. Now run along and bother someone else.
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop How is it nonsense? Do you even know how to refute someone's argument?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem If you don't know why saying feminism causes pedophiles, immigration and dementia is nonsense, I can't help you. What next, Ebola?
— Vicky Frankland (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop I think you have enough to be getting on with, with the list I have just given you.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem Because it is completely without basis. Kindly refrain from using my name in your hate speech.
— Victoria (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop What have I said that is "hate speech"?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop If it is completely without basis, then all you have to do is refute it. If you cannot then find a cleverer feminist to do so.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem You have given no reasons as to why you believe this. Proof is required to back up claims such as these. You have none.
— Victoria (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop Feminism causes women to have fewer babies a b bad mothers, making their offspring unemployable necessitating immigrant labour.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem So you think a feminist either a) Doesn't want children or b) Would somehow be a bad parent. You obviously haven't met many feminists
— Victoria (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop Please do not change the subject. Is it not true that feminism has caused women to have fewer babies?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop Even @HackneyAbbott says feminism turns mothers into bad parents. http://t.co/vU5Dp7i32g
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
@ntfem Actually that is your subtext and the views of the Daily Mail. Hardly accredited sources.
— Victoria (@Vicky_Coop) January 23, 2015
@Vicky_Coop These were the words of @HackneyAbbott herself!
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2015
And then I was blocked.
Sunday, 18 January 2015
How condoning female promiscuity causes paedophilia
@ntfem MSM: "Single mums to get paedophile romance warning under new laws" = you said we have pedo panic b/c of single mums?
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) January 18, 2015
@ntfem Here's the link = http://t.co/fHsxbBLtw4
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme A depraved boyfriend of a British Slut Single Mother put her son in the tumble dryer. http://t.co/Rs5PvNJG4L
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme If paedophiles are mosquitoes, Slut Single Mothers are stagnant ponds of water.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Baby P is the most infamous British story. http://t.co/CXO7Y7Ur3r
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Single mothers to be offered paedophile check on partners http://t.co/5XuiQ7D4SG
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme A Place for Paedophiles by Louis Theroux http://t.co/1B5oPaI2Yx
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme It is called Sarah's law in the UK. http://t.co/09miFO1wVC
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme The Oz version being proposed is much more Draconian.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Such laws are the *direct* result of condoning female promiscuity.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Once you say it is OK for women to be sluts, you will find yourselves saying it is OK for women to be Slut Single Mothers.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Once you condone Slut Singe Mothers you will have to do something to protect their bastards, don't you?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme If most mothers are Slut Single Mothers, then most of the next generation are bastards, who must be protected.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme When people talk about Muslims integrating into Western society, this is what they mean they have to integrate into.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme No Western democratic politician will ever pluck up the courage to denounce these sluts because they will never get voted in.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Perhaps Muslims in the West who want to establish the Caliphate there have also arrived at this conclusion.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Being Muslim is like being vaccinated against accepting this kind of thing as natural, normal or acceptable.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 18, 2015
Wednesday, 16 July 2014
The Great Paedo Witch-hunt has begun!
UK police arrest 660 suspected paedophiles
National Crime Agency detains suspected child abusers, including doctors and teachers, and takes more than 400 children into care
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/16/660-suspected-paedophiles-arrested-uk
Who has been appointed Witchfinder General?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchfinder_General_(film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchfinder_General_(film)
Who is more culpable: the pornographer or the viewer of pornography?
Why do the police pursue the viewers of pornography rather than the pornographers themselves? Is it because the former are easier to catch and convict?
I would prefer it if the police tried to catch the actual pornographers rather than speculatively take people's computers away in the hope of discovering child pornography to boost their conviction rates. In this regard my views are in harmony with Sean Gabb who was banned from attending a UKIP meeting by that moral coward Nigel Farage just for daring to say that possession of pornography should not be a criminal offence. http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/sean-gabb-banned-by-ukip/
Why do so many people claim that child pornography is not pornography? Very odd.
@ntfem If the pictures are of children it's not pornography, they are photos of child abuse
— Melindi Scott (@melindiscott) July 16, 2014
@melindiscott Anything created for the purpose of sexually arousing the viewer is by definition pornography, surely? http://t.co/dKuGsSiftB
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 16, 2014
@melindiscott S&M porn depicts sexual abuse of its participants. Did you know masturbation used 2b called self-abuse? http://t.co/xk0Jx2qFFm
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 16, 2014
@melindiscott Once we said it was OK to have extramarital sex we opened the floodgates to kiddyporn, perhaps. http://t.co/qcGDh1xDcR
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 16, 2014
@melindiscott I think the widespread availability of free "normal" and gay porn just makes people want to seek more and more extreme viewing
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 16, 2014
I would ban all live pornography requiring the participation of porn actors and actresses, by the way.
All scenes of extramarital sex would be depictions of a crime in the process of being committed and the police should of course prosecute all its participants and those who aided and abetted the crime.
004.015
YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
PICKTHAL: As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
SHAKIR: And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.
004.016
YUSUFALI: If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful.
SHAKIR: And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.
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.
As for child pornography, all the above rules would also naturally apply, with harsher punishment for the harder cases eg rape would be punished more harshly than consensual fornication or adultery, the rape of a child would be attract harsher punishment than the rape of an adult etc.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/29/debate-rages-over-severity-child-porn-sentences/
"The fact that child pornography offenders can be given longer sentences than child abusers or violent offenders reflects a lack of care by Congress"
"If you vote against these harsher penalties, the sound bite is that you're protecting child pornographers, and that could be the end of somebody's career"
We already know what cowards and hypocrites our politicians are, don't we?
And we already know how the plebs love to kick someone even lower than they are. They can no longer kick around nob-whites, foreigners and queers so they can only content themselves with kicking anyone they think is a paediatrician or a paedophile. To intervene would end you up getting your hand bitten, like taking a steak off a hungry and vicious dog, so better not, eh?
Tuesday, 13 May 2014
The criminal standard of proof has been lowered for the worst crime you can be accused of
Poor old Rolf Harris. Things aren't looking too good for him. The verisimilitude with which the complainant paints such a sordid and detailed picture of what she claimed he did to her makes us see it all in our mind's eye, as if we were a fly on the wall.
It used to be the case that the accused was given the benefit of the doubt in cases when it is clear that the evidence cannot, logically speaking, be more than one person's word against another's. In such cases, the matter would never reach trial because the Prosecutor would know that uncorroborated evidence can never by itself satisfy the standard of proof required to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubt.
By making admissible the uncorroborated testimony of alleged offences committed decades ago, the court is in fact inviting the jury to decide who is speaking the truth ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES.
Readers are asked to note that if proving a case beyond reasonable doubt is 75+%, then proving a case on the balance of probabilities - the civil standard of proof - is only 50+%.
The powers that be have unilaterally decided to make it easier to convict you if you have been accused of the worst crime there is - paedophilia.
Only the intellectually degenerate do not understand this. That would appear to be all of the legal profession apart from Barbara Hewson.
And only the morally degenerate look the other way and pretend they do not understand this.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cliffords-sentencing-has-little-to-do-with-justice/14981#.U3FZnvldVqU
In a case called DPP v Boardman in 1975, the House of Lords acknowledged that offences could ordinarily only be tried together if the offender’s modus operandi showed a ‘strikingly similar’ method, such as a rapist who always wore a Batman costume. This enabled the defence to keep out evidence that might be prejudicial, such as cases where witnesses have colluded to give false evidence, or cases where one witness has simply been influenced by contact with another witness.
Unfortunately, in 1991 and 1995, the Lords took a different approach, and relaxed this rule. That has led to the current practice of ‘bundling’ of multiple sex allegations in the same trial. It’s called ‘corroboration by volume’, or ‘no smoke without fire’. And it is hugely effective, which is why it has become the prosecution’s favourite tactic.
This development coincided with the practice of police ‘trawling’ for complainants, which unfolded as a result of the ‘paedophile ring’ theory of abuse that police and social workers were following when investigating children’s care homes in the 1990s. The consequences for our justice system have been very serious. Time after time, juries are faced with extremely grave accusations of an historic nature, where there is no supporting independent evidence (such as medical evidence), but which turn simply on one person’s word against another’s.
As the historian Richard Webster pointed out in his Memorandum of Evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, which examined this problem in 2002: ‘When defendants are compelled to face large numbers of allegations of sexual abuse made by different complainants in a single trial, the presumption of innocence is almost inevitably destroyed.’
The emotional impact on a jury of a whole sequence of tearful complainants speaking of sexual violation cannot be underestimated. The obscenity and, sometimes, violence involved makes their stories extremely powerful, even where the vague nature of historic allegations (usually without any specific dates) make them well-nigh impossible to rebut convincingly, unless by chance some contemporaneous document is unearthed, which gives the accused a convincing alibi.
To make matters more complicated, it is now received wisdom among the victim/ survivor movement and the therapy industry that rape and other forms of sexual assault invariably scar victims for life, causing them years of torment. This reflects decades of feminist campaigning.
But the standard use of the ‘trauma model’ is problematic in some ways. It means that such offences are seen as uniquely heinous, because they involve a kind of ‘murder of the soul’. So both lawyers, and the public, feel honour-bound to demand that the accused be dealt with very severely indeed.
The jury will convict Rolf Harris under these conditions and the nasty, stupid and brutish will cheer and jeer, always delighted to spit on and kick at someone lower than they are if they can find him.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts
Monday, 5 May 2014
Why males need protection from sluts
Men should just admit that they are the weaker sex when it come to refusing no-strings sex from sluts.
It is easy to give men sex which is bad for them as it is to give sweets to children.
Asking men to refuse no-strings sex is to ask someone who is permanently hungry to refuse a free meal.
Getting a woman to give you no-strings sex is like getting a woman to cook for you.
These are the differences feminists refuse to acknowledge, let alone consider.
It is true that a woman finds it easier to say no to no-strings sex than men, isn't it?
Once men admit that they are the weaker sex where that is concerned, then they and their society will finally get the protection needed.
My punishment? 100 lashes each and no support for the baby if the mother ain't married to the father. It is the only language stupid sluts understand, I am afraid.
Monday, 3 March 2014
Mary Kenny on the Marc Coleman Show discussing PIE, Paedophilia and Harriet Harman
http://www.newstalk.ie/player/shows/The_Marc_Coleman_Show/12/8112/02nd_March_2014_-_The_Marc_Coleman_Show_Part_1 Mary Kenny from 35th minute
Incredibly complacent interview. "Crisis? What crisis?" - Mary Kenny.
Everything is fine because her daughter in law seems terribly keen on starting a family.
What happens when she tires of your son and decides to divorce him and deprive him of his offspring? Won't you then be deprived of your grandchildren?
Dear Marc Coleman
I understand that Mary Kenny was on your show last night.
If I had known earlier, I would have sent you this list of questions for you to ask her.
- http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html Does she know that 83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did?
- What does this say about the difference between how men and women think and vote?
- Does she have any explanation for this?
- Does she support gay marriage?
- Is she still a feminist?
- Does feminism undermine marriage?
- If feminism undermines marriage, is feminism evil?
- Does feminism cause widespread illegitimacy?
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517 When David Starkey said the whites have become black, did he mean that illegitimacy amongst whites was slowly matching the levels of black illegitimacy?
- If crime is linked to illegitimacy, and feminism causes illegitimacy, is feminism evil?
- Does she know that the percentage of mothers with illegitimate offspring in Jamaica is 85%? https://old.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070204/focus/focus2.html
- If feminists and liberals say sex between consenting adults is OK, it was inevitable that they would soon go down the slippery slope of saying sex between consenting parties is also OK, even if they are not adults. Does she think this adequately explains the truth of the liberal position on sex, which is that sex between consenting adults would soon be elided into sex between consenting parties?
- The Bonobo monkey is matriarchal. Does this mean that it must also be liberal and feminist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX7eX5mtiV0 Would she agree that this sort of behaviour explains why the Bonobo are still fucking around in trees while humans have evolved?
- Would she like to consider the possibility that humans might regress into barbarism if they made sexual liberation the be all and end all to their pathetic effeminate and atheistic lives?
- Would she agree that the British did rather better for themselves when they sublimated their sexual urges?
- Would she agree that all advanced civilisations are patriarchal?
- Would she agree that all primitive or declining civilisations are matriarchal?
- Would she agree that all patriarchies respect marriage in order to remain patriarchal?
- Would she agree that social conservatism means being prepared to respect marriage?
- Would she agree that respecting marriage must necessarily mean forbidding extramarital sex?
- Would she agree that legalising "gay marriage" amounts to desecrating the institution of marriage?
- Would she agree that feminism causes immigration?
- http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/louis-theroux-place-for-paedophiles.html Would she agree that feminism causes paedophilia?
- Is the emasculation of men a good thing
- Does feminism cause men to be bad women and women to be bad men?
Regards
Claire Khaw
'We can't prove sex with children does them harm' says Labour-linked NCCL
'We can't prove sex with children does them harm' says Labour-linked NCCL
Labour MP Dromey’s opposition to PIE has been questioned by its former chairman, convicted paedophile Tom O’Carroll, who claims he felt “welcome” at NCCL meetings where he sat on the gay rights sub-committee.
Mr O’Carroll said: “While they did not like PIE and did nothing to support our objectives, they were afraid of appearing insufficiently ‘right on’.
“Consequently they were nothing like as strenuous and public in their efforts to distance themselves from PIE as they are now claiming.
“Dromey is quoted as saying ‘I was at the forefront of repeated public condemnations of PIE and their despicable views’. That’s news to me. Maybe by ‘public’ he meant imprecations muttered to cronies at his local pub.”
As you can see below, a libertarian father who clearly detests paedophiles and who would savagely murder them if he could get away with it could not articulate the harm of allowing adults to have sex with children.
Liberals say sex between consenting adults is OK. I suppose from this position it is easy to get on the slippery slope of saying sex between consenting parties whether adult or not is also OK.
Incest, bestiality and necrophilia would be OK with them too, presumably.
When we finally decide to respect marriage we could just keep it simple and stick to the following rules:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Mark Parker entertains doubts
26:00 Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
