Woman bites off ex-lover’s ear during pub row

The gentle sex strikes again. Another example of extreme violence from a woman, and the resulting let off she gets from the court.

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

When accountant Louise Croxson met her ex-boyfriend a few weeks after he ditched her, she was understandably feeling rather bitter.

Unfortunately, she took her anger a little further than most  -  and ended up biting his ear off.

The 32-year-old lunged forward and sank her teeth into Andrew Robbins after a pub night out with mutual friends descended into a drunken row between the couple.

Croxson ignored his screams of agony and kept her jaw locked on to his earlobe until it was completely severed. To the horror of onlookers, she then spat the mangled piece of flesh on to the pub floor.

It was saved only because a quick-thinking member of the bar staff picked it up and put it on ice. Mr Robbins, a 35-year- old financial analyst, had emergency surgery to have his ear sewn back on.

Mr Robbins ‘quite suddenly’ broke up with Croxson late last year, after two years together, leaving her ‘anxious and unhappy.’ Soon afterwards, they both turned up at one of the running club’s social events at a Central London pub.

‘At around 9pm Miss Croxson, in all probability accidentally, spilt a pint of beer over Mr Robbins. Remarks were exchanged and an argument broke out.

‘Suddenly the defendant went for the victim. She leaned over and bit his ear. The piece of flesh was then spat out by the defendant on to the floor.

‘Fortunately it was recovered by one of the bar persons, who placed it in an ice bucket and kept it fresh.’

After surgery, the lobe was restored in a fully functional state, but with some minor scarring.

Bitch viciously attacks ex-boyfriend because of the way he dumped her? I guess the entitlement princess could not accept that he didn’t want to worship her anymore. The aftermath of the attack revolves around trying to absolve this selfish nasty woman from responsibility, even trying to pin it on the ex-boyfriend!

Mr Zinner added: ‘The Crown accept this was not premeditated, but a spur-of-the-moment attack, perhaps following the distress of the breakdown of the relationship.’

Croxson admitted wounding Mr Robbins in the attack on December 28 last year.

She bowed her head in apparent shame as Judge John Price told her: ‘It is a sad, sad case. What you did was appalling. If you do meet him again, I hope there will be civility and nothing else.’

In a victim impact statement, Mr Robbins said he bore ‘no ill-will or bad feelings’ towards her, but felt she needed to accept responsibility for her actions.

Well she won’t. Not with the sentence she got.

Croxson was given a two-year community punishment order and ordered to undergo a mental health treatment programme. She was also told to pay £1,000 in compensation plus £250 towards costs.

Every bloody time a woman is caught doing something like this, they always throw the mental health excuse out there, usually accompanied by the ‘I don’t remember doing it’ nonsense.

The pussy pass works again.

I wonder what sentence a man would have received if he had done this to his ex-girlfriend? If he had defended himself and hurt her in the process he would have probably ended up being charged.

http://freebritain.wordpress.com/

EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored

Source: Telegraph

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.

The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.

Mr Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland’s referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU’s 27 member states.

“We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing,” he said.

“It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it’s Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else.”

“Ireland is one per cent of the EU”.

Mr Giscard d’Estaing also admitted that, unlike his original Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon EU Treaty had been carefully crafted to confuse the public.

Please read the rest of the article at FreeBritain

Articles regarding Britain and the EU will be simul-posted into my new blog focussing on the subject, at http://freebritain.wordpress.com/

Harriet (femscum) Harman still wants to discriminate against white men

I touched upon this scheme from this liberal Marxo-feminist in an earlier post, It should not be illegal to discriminate against white men. Today on the BBC website is another article about her continued push for this most disgusting proposal.

There is no such thing as positive discrimination. It is all discrimination. Remember, this is straight out of Communism, the States’ desire to ‘equalise’ the (Collectivist) groups in employment. White men in Britain must be completely undermined in order to be able to complete the State’s takeover of the country. Notice how there is no similar campaign to discriminate against other groups in the case of white men being the minority. By the way, society is not composed of groups, it is composed of individuals. Using groups is the Collectivist method to ‘divide and conquer’.

BBC

Harriet Harman has defended plans to make it legal for firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.

The equalities minister said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they want to.

In favour of female and ethnic minorities means anyone but white men. There are more women of working age in Britain than men. So technically men are the minority, not that it matters. Who does the State see as the threat eh?

The new Equalities Bill will also force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to close the gender pay gap.

The plans, which will be adopted first across England then Wales and Scotland, will also ban all age discrimination.

We all know about the Gender Pay Gap^TM LIE. It does however offer a suitable Dialectic for the State to continue to expand its powers into the lives of private businesses.

Ms Harman said she wanted a more “open and diverse” economy with companies not just choosing from “a pool of friends of friends”.

Tackled on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme about whether the proposals would lead to discrimination against white men, she said companies would not be forced to use positive discrimination.

What the hell has the ‘make up’ of the economy got to do with a politician? In a free society you employ who you bloody like and make your own decisions. It just goes to show how the State is socially engineering a Communist ideal by enforcing whatever it thinks is ‘fair’.

But she added: “They might think we don’t want an all male team.

“We’ve got a new post coming up, we’ve got equally qualified men and women going for it, we are going to pick the woman because we want to have a more balanced top team.

Yeah, until she gets pregnant or something.

“The law at the moment is not clear and we are clarifying and saying if you want to do it, you can, and it makes it much more open.”

Ms Harman will set out the proposals in the Commons later.

Age discrimination in the workplace has been illegal since 2006, but the new legislation will tackle more widespread forms of age-related prejudice.

The Bill aims to close the gender pay gap by forcing firms to “publish their gender pay gap”.

Again, who gets paid what is none of the States’ business.

Female part-time workers still earned 40% less per hour than their full-time male counterparts, Ms Harman told Today.

“Do we think she is 40% less intelligent, less committed, less hard-working, less qualified? It’s not the case. It’s entrenched discrimination. It’s allowed to persist because it’s all swept under the carpet.”

Oh fuck off. If a business ever chose to employ a man over a woman, I’m sure there are very good reasons for doing so, as Sir Alan Sugar explains to us. A business is supposed to employ whomever they think will be best for the job and for the business. The State is essentially saying your business should serve the interests of ‘equality’ and not capitalism.

The Bill will also seek to stop pensioners being denied NHS treatment because of their age.

Ms Harman said doctors will still be able to refuse treatment if they believe there are sound clinical reason for doing so.

But she added: “Everybody should be treated as individuals and not just discriminated against across the board because of their age.”

I wonder if the men will still be denied treatment?

Age discrimination will also be outlawed in the provision of goods and services, such as holidays and insurance.

It is likely organisations and companies will be given time to review and, if necessary, change their practices before the new law would be enforced.

Other age distinctions, such as free bus passes and holidays for the over-50s or 18-to-30s, will be exempt.

A sickening power grab by the Police State over fundamental freedoms, as always, under the guise of protecting one ‘group’ from another ‘group’. The real enemy of the State are two ‘groups’. White men and the middle class. Why the middle class? Well generally they tend to run the means of production, like farmers and tend to know their rights and have the financial ability to fight for them. Release a few weaponised diseases and pile on the EU regulations and disenfranchise them. The government can centralise production using taxpayer money in response (preferably with corporate partnership, as is the case with Corporate Fascism.) It is plainly obvious what is going on.

“Feminism is just Communism with tits” – FM Watkins

Harriet Harman should be thrown off a cliff.

Happy Father’s Day

To all the Dad’s out there, wanna wish you all a good Father’s Day. Contrary to the scumbag feminists and communist liberal government minions, Dad’s are much needed and much loved, more now than ever.

Tyrants throughout the ages have always understood and appreciated the power of men in society, especially men with families. They knew that fathers really don’t take kindly to having their family attacked by anyone, people in the street to government.

Marx knew that the key to destroying civilisation was to take men away from their families. Governments know that separating a man from his children removes that natural protective barrier that Dad puts up. It is almost impossible to brainwash the next generation with Dad’s still in the picture. That is why the State seeks to remove men from their families. Fatherless families are responsible for almost all of societies ills.

I don’t care what anybody says, or how ‘un-pc’ it is, but as a general rule, single mothers don’t cut the mustard the way the compliment pandering media and feminists would have you believe.

Families in meltdown, judge says

The effects of fatherless families is well documented, on the page Discrimination Against Men, the following is stated;

Mother headed households tend to produce the majority of our criminals, and of our drug users. This is one of the principle reasons for the surge in crime rate both here and in the US. The rising crime rate has tracked the increase in the number of fatherless families. Many studies have found that that the presence of the biological father is a powerful protector against delinquency.

The study ‘Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family” documents the effects carefully, it is definitely worth a read.

In the event of separation, we all know the reality of child custody. The idea that the children suddenly start not wanting to see their father tends to be down more to the mother manipulating the children against their dad. This is called ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’. I personally know of many many example where women will use the children as an emotional battering ram to hurt their ex-boyfriend/ husband, disobey court visitation orders (with no repercussions) and generally do their best to keep the children’s father way from them, regardless of the detrimental effects this will have on the children. It goes to show how little these ‘mothers’ think, by attacking the children’s father they are attacking part of the children. But they don’t care, as long as they get what they want right?

Extracts from Justice 4 my father, says daughter of rooftop protester;

But then as Lisa points out, brushes with the law are nothing new to her 49-year-old father. During the decade he spent fighting for full access to his three daughters after his wife walked out and took them with her, the driving instructor faced 133 court appearances before 33 different judges, two stints in jail and went on a hunger strike.

The irony is that Mark’s case is now resolved: Lisa, his eldest, now lives with him. So does his 17-year-old daughter. Another daughter, aged 15, lives nearby with her mother, but visits at least twice a week. He now has everything he fought for.

I think this is more common than people realise. Once the kids meet their dad again and notice he isn’t the fire breathing psychopath their manipulative mum made him out to be, they end up wanting to get away from her. After his wife just upped and left, this happened;

‘She told me that she deeply regretted what she had done and asked if I would take her back,’ said Mark. ‘I refused. I was too hurt and angry. The following day, she changed her telephone number and from then on she refused even to answer the door to me, let alone let the children see me.’

Life soon became a round of court appearances. At first, Mark was granted unrestricted access. But at the same time his wife applied to have his visits reduced, saying it was ‘ confusing’ for the girls to see him.

The Family Court agreed and cut his access from three times a week to once a week and finally to once a fortnight.

A year after they separated, the couple divorced. And that year, 1996, Mark returned to court in a bid to see more of his daughters. This time, he asked if they could come and live with him. His wife retaliated by saying that seeing him was unsettling the girls. The judge’s response was astonishing by any standards: he severed all Mark’s rights of access.

‘I was devastated,’ he said. ‘But I couldn’t let that stop me being a father to them.’ To show he cared, he stood on the street and waved to them when their mother drove them to school each morning. His ex-wife took out an injunction to stop him.

The secret Family Courts seem all too happy to limit access to fathers, maybe it is part of their feminist ‘retraining’. His daughter was manipulated by her mother, but this story has a happier ending then most in this situation;

In the end, it was Lisa, not the courts, who resolved the situation-Over the years, she admits, she had given up on her father.

‘We thought he didn’t love us any more,’ she says.

When her father was jailed, it served only to reinforce what she says were her mother’s words: ‘I told you he was a bad man.’

Mum’s hate for dad seemed to run so deep, to keep her happy and get the social workers off my back, I told them all I never wanted to see him again. Turning love to hate seemed easier.’

Over the years, she occasionally saw her father on TV. ‘One day, I caught him being interviewed along with some other dads who were also banned from seeing their children,’ she says.

‘As I listened to them all talk about how all they wanted was to be allowed to be fathers to their own kids, I felt a pang for my own dad and what we’d lost.’

On March 21, 2001, she telephoned her father out of the blue, saying that she and her youngest sister were at a bus stop with their bags packed and wanted to come and live with him.

‘Seeing Lisa again for the first time in six years was incredible,’ recalled Mark, who has written a book, Family Court Hell, about his experiences.

It took that man an epic amount of work to see his own children, such is the enthusiasm of our disgusting anti-nuclear family socialist Social Services and Marxo-feminist scum in denigrating the positive effects of fathers. I went through similar situations with my dad and my ex-mum (bitch), but I’m not going to go into it, this blog isn’t about me or about how the CPS refuse to prosecute my ex-stepmum (feminist idiot) for abuse even though there are 5 written statements confirming it occured over a period of about 15 years with two generations of kids. ‘Not enough evidence’ apparently. I wonder how much evidence it would take to get a man in court for ‘abuse?’

Anyway, enough about that, this post is to show Dad’s we care, even if we don’t say it all the time, or if you make mistakes (or we do), it doesn’t matter. I’m so glad I wasn’t brought up by a woman… Fuck me that’s a scary thought lol.

A Father’s Day Moment: Only a Dad, But the Best of Men

---

In other news, I’ll be away for a week, finally getting a break away from the UK. I’ll return back to business, and with a new project I’ve been mulling over, hot on the heel’s of Irelands’ No vote and the ensuring shitstorm it is kicking up with that eternal enemy of the Totalitarian State, the People.

IRELAND SAYS NO TO LISBON TREATY!!

EUObserver

Across Ireland, voters have strongly voted No to the Lisbon Treaty, which looks all but certainly set for defeat.

Nationwide, based on unofficial tallies of seven out of 43 constituencies declared, the No is leading the Yes side 57.6 percent to 42.4 percent.

Dermot Ahern, the Irish justice minister, speaking on RTE television, said: “We’re in uncharted waters here.”

“The results are quite clear,” he added, “I don’t see how they can be overturned [from where they are at this point].”

Declan Ganley, the millionaire businessman and founder of Libertas, the centre-right anti-Treaty group campaigning around tax harmonisation issues and against European ‘red tape’, said: “It’s a great day for the Irish people and a great day for Irish democracy.”

“The Irish people have shown enormous courage and wisdom. They have given a resounding meassage that comes atop the votes against the constitution in France and the Netherlands.

“We are bringing democracy into the heart of the European Union,” he added, speaking to reporters in the courtyard of Dublin Castle, where the central vote count is being held. “This is democracy in action, and the third time Irish citizens have said ‘No’ to this formula.”

This is precisely why the corrupt governments of the other 26 members of the EU refused to give their respective People a referendum on the EUCCP Lisbon Treaty and the majority have already ratified it (in Britain the ratification is an Act of Treason). For an overview of the Treaty’s clauses and ramifications, please visit my earlier post Why Ireland Should Vote No To the Lisbon Treaty.

Barring vote tampering, it looks like end result will be definitely be NO. The Daily Mail reports the following;

Irish voters appeared to have rejected the Lisbon Treaty this afternoon, throwing the European Union into crisis.

To shock across the continent,  the country’s Justice Minister Dermot Ahern conceded today that the vote appeared to have been won by opponents of the controversial treaty.

‘It looks like this will be a “no” vote,’ Mr Ahern said on live television.

“At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken.”

The result, if correct, would deal a devastating blow to the controversial treaty and have major ramifications for the rest of Europe.

Ireland is the only EU country to have held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, though 18 of the 27 members states have already ratified it.

We should use this intelligent and wise result from the Irish People to spread the truth about the Lisbon Treaty to those who do not know the facts. Time to step up the dissemination of information about the waste, the corruption, the Communist ideal’s and the dictatorship that is the real Face of the European Dream.

No doubt the EU will try its hardest to accelerate its progress and its plans for abolishing the sovereignty of member nations. The BBC mentions;

The BBC’s Oana Lungescu in Brussels says EU leaders are bracing for defeat but are expected to press on with the treaty, which is meant to streamline decision-making in the now expanded EU.

People have to realise that their respective governments do not act in their best interests or in the interests of their Laws. This has been decades in the planning and implementing and we are now in the final stages of their endgame for the European Superstate;

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who personally saw secret documents in 1992 which outlined a conspiracy to turn the European Union into a Socialist dictatorship;

The Soviet files outlined a plan from the mid-1980’s onwards to hijack the European Union and turn it into what Bukovksy calls the EUSSR, a totalitarian federal superstate with no accountability or direct representation.

There would have been no more Treaties after Lisbon, none would have been necessary as it would have finalised the transfer of all sovereign powers of all nations to Brussels.

That is why Brussels commanded our heads of State to ratify it without a public vote.

That is why Brussels refused to let member States publish the Lisbon Treaty until it is ratified.

That is why Brussels redesigned the Treaty with the specific intention of covering up the original Constitution while keeping all of its changes.

And that is why we, the People must STOP IT. Our governments are firmly in the grip of the EU which is obvious by their actions and inactions. We need to get active and pressure our governments like never before.

They have abused their power too much, for too long.

Today however, the score definitely reads;

Ireland 1 – 0 Tyranny.

(Continued) Rise of the Gold-digger

An article in the Daily Mail appears today, written by a woman (you will see why that is important later) talking about the ‘Rise of the gold-digger’.

Like it’s something new! She tries her best to view this kind of woman in the tiny minority, but men with experience know better. Extracts from the article below;

When did it become acceptable to be a gold-digger?

Erm, when feminism campaigned to free women from the ‘oppressive regime’ of socially acceptable behaviour.

After all, isn’t a woman who sleeps with a man for money – or at least for extensive use of his credit card – called something else?

But then, ‘prostitute’ doesn’t have quite the same glamorous, diamond-encrusted platinum ring to it, does it?

No it does not, and that is precisely why we must do our best to call these women exactly that. Well to be fair, prostitutes are better than these women. At least with them you know what is going on upfront.

How depressing and how insulting to the millions of women who don’t live their lives according to these mercenary rules.

While we are the majority, the sad fact is, we are all judged as a result of movies like this.

It makes us all look cheap. Priceless cannot be blamed alone.

The message it delivers is one that has been subtly gaining currency in recent times and not just on film.

Well it is the fact that it has become so widespread that it made it into film in the first place, and although it may be insulting to the women who do not behave in that way, it does not stop it existing. Just because it offends a few women, does not mean it should not be publicised.

There is also, of course, the whole WAG phenomenon, predicated almost entirely on a cynical pact between rich, bored, badly behaved men (Ashley Cole comes to mind) and the women who want to live off them.

The gaggle of wannabe WAGs hovering outside any nightclub frequented by Premier League footballers is proof that there is an increasing number of women who believe that far from having their own life and their own job, the notion of being a human leech is to some degree a preferable career.

Well get used to it, it has been happening for decades.

As evidence that bleeding a man dry is on the up, there is now a fashion label called Golddigga and even websites such as www.golddiggers.uk.com, devoted to ways of hooking a rich guy.

Click on www.sugardaddyforme.com and the deal being struck is clear.

A glamorous-looking young woman appears on the screen. ‘Attractive, ambitious, insatiable,’ it reads.

In other words, she’s offering sex on tap. When the picture of the tastefully greying man floats into view, it says: ‘Affluent, caring, generous.’

Yet, we’re not supposed to call these women prostitutes. That would be rude.

Like I said, these predatory females are below prostitutes. I shall explain their psychological make-up at the end of this article.

Of course, it is still only a tiny percentage of women that would dream of behaving like this; it’s just that percentage – which is rising – think what they do is so acceptable. Listen to Sophie Sharp, a dancer from Bromley in Kent, who says: ‘I’ve always been into expensive clothes and accessories and think nothing of paying £400 for a dress.

But on my earnings it was hard to afford everything I wanted.’ Well, um, yes it would be. Still, Sophie’s solution was not to visit Primark but to get herself a sugar daddy instead. ‘My friends told me to go to Chinawhite (the fashionable club in London),’ she reveals.

It may be a small percentage that are so openly gold-diggers, but what of the women who think in a similar way but keep it quiet? Of women who are not so extreme, but are still motivated to date the man with more money rather than less (notice I haven’t mentioned any other factors) and watch the number of women included rise dramatically.

Would 75% be a tiny minority? Moving on;

So she put on her best low-cut black frock and, hey presto, she’d hooked herself a Dubai businessman. ‘I didn’t find him attractive,’ she admits.

Even so, she accepted his offer to take her shopping.

A total of £2,500 later, she says, he flew back to Dubai with nothing more than a chaste peck on the cheek in return, to which it’s tempting to say, is a likely story.

Yeah yeah nothing new to those in the know.

In Sophie’s world, being a golddigger is par for the course. All Sophie’s friends are doing the same.

Another light into the ‘minds’ of these females here.

Rachel MacLynn is head of global membership for millionaires-only networking service Seventy Thirty.

‘There are gold-diggers everywhere in London and other British cities. I’m constantly approached by young women,’ she says.

‘They are desperate for me to match them with our millionaire members.

They are like lice, and as the complient media (in its quest to undermine society) glamourises the lifestyles of these lying manipulative whores, it just sells this behaviour to other females, who sit there watching, secreting wishing to be able to shop all day and be in magazines (so much for fighting the New World Order eh, ladies?)

Or what about Natalie Parker, 24, who’s studying French and Spanish at university in Southampton? Her parents – a property developer and a housewife – live in a four-bedroom, four-bathroom house with a gym and a pool in Spain.

‘I’ve always dated wealthy men, even though I’ve not really been attracted to them,’ Natalie muses.

So, has she ever had to offer sex with a sugar daddy to secure a lavish gift?

‘Some of these men do want more at the end of the night,’ she concedes, without actually answering the question.

Now for the inevitable attack on the men. Of course they must be blamed for this in some way, men are always at fault;

It is worth saying that the men are not blameless in this unpleasant sex for designer clothes/ jewellery/breast implants transaction. A man who buys a woman is no better than the woman who agrees to sell herself. It all reduces human interaction to the level of a business deal.

Successful men will attract these bitches. That’s life. Don’t blame men for being successful. Blame the women for choosing to pursue the money man. What of the men who do not find such behaviour acceptable? Simple for women, they just pretend they love him and keep up the pretense long enough to fleece the fella.

Still, it is the women’s attitudes that are so shocking. It’s as if feminism never happened. Did it ever occur to Sophie or Heather or all the other young women who now aspire to be golddiggers, that they could work to provide a life for themselves rather than just expect a guy to buy it for them?

No, they are behaving like this precisely because feminism happened. Feminism wanted license for women to behave as they wish, free from the restrictions of acceptable behaviour and free from responsibilities (men can pick up the tab).

Looking further ahead, do these girls know the sort of deal they are doing? They are not only throwing away any moral sense, but also their independence, control of their own lives and self-respect.

They never had any of these things to begin with. Such concepts are imbued in people by society and peer groups. Once upon a time women (like men) had such imprinting, but that resulted in strong relationships, strong families, low crime and high productivity. You can’t have Order from Chaos without Chaos. Hence Marxo-Feminism. The author seems to have some sort of sense though, which explains why she find gold-digger behaviour so strange;

I didn’t take the gold-digger route because I think it is wrong. It is insulting to men and it cheapens women. Every woman who does it polishes an image of womankind that the rest of us then have to try to argue against.

It makes us all look as if we are for sale for the price of a pair of Gucci shoes. I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had with men where they have said that basically all a woman is interested in is how much money they have and the size of their car.

Maybe not Gucci shoes, but restaurant dinners, rent and paid for holidays? I would say, from my experience and the combined experience of all the guys I know, and the ones I’ve met on my travels, that the majority of women behave, in differing levels, as gold-diggers. But with women perceiving themselves as princesses, what else would they expect but to be treated as such?

When I explain that I have never dated a man for his money, nor have any of my girlfriends, that we have jobs and homes of our own and we wouldn’t dream of expecting a boyfriend to provide either, they look at me with disbelief.

The image of womanhood that the gold-digger propagates is one of a greedily acquisitive airhead. She never reads a book or a newspaper, but knows the ticket price for the latest designer handbag.

She is a parasite, useless to anyone but themselves. Don’t count on her campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty.

Consumption replaces affection.

Not quite. Consumption replacing humanity would be more accurate.

Her diamante sandals may be lovely and sparkly, but she tarnishes all of us.

Right, what motivates a woman to not only behave in such a superficial way, but also promote it proudly? What will society think? Her friends and family?

The truth is, she doesn’t care.

Marx said ‘all truth is relative’. Funny, it seems he figured out how women view the world. To these women, there is no right or wrong, there are only wants and needs. The process of evaluating and committing actions operates backwards with these women.

What they desire is right and the methods to achieve it are acceptable because the end result is them acquiring what they desire. It really is that simple. Whereas men generally view the world (with all its rules) as external concepts which he navigates, these women seem to view the world as an extension of them. (exceptions would be psychopaths like Tony Blair).

In other words, reality (with all its rules) changes in relation to their desires. These gold-diggers do not view their actions as wrong because ‘truth is relative’ to them. They want it therefore it is right and it is right because they want it.

No wonder feminism was so successful. It essentially told women that the only thing that is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ is not getting what you want.

The Problem With Women Today

Why Ireland should vote No to the Lisbon Treaty

I am going to keep this simple.

Firstly, as I am sure people following the progress of the Lisbon Treaty will know, Ireland is the only country in the European Union who’s Constitution requires the ratification of the Treaty to be put to a public vote. Good. The re-wording of the original European Constitution to a Treaty in reality changes nothing of its content as the orignal Constitution is for all intents and purposes, intact in the Lisbon Treaty, albeit hidden. Disagree?

How about from the mouths of those whom one would expect to know, starting with the architect of the original Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who states, in the Telegraph, 27 June 2007;

“This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.”

He also appears in the Telegraph again where it is stated;

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the abandoned European Constitution, has admitted that the document has been rewritten by EU leaders in a different order just to avoid the need for referendums.

He made clear that the purpose of the rewritten Treaty (now called the Lisbon Treaty) was to make people think the new version did not merit being put to the people in referendums.

“Above all, it is to avoid having referendums thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed,” he added.

Here some more quotes, from an earlier article of mine;

Germany
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, Telegraph, 29 June 2007)

Spain
“We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
(Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, speech, 27 June 2007)

Ireland
“90 per cent of it is still there… these changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”
(Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007)

The European Commission
“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”
(Margot Wallstrom, EU Commissioner, Svenska Dagbladet, 26 June 2007)

And so on… So yes, it is all still there, just a different lick of paint and buried in other documents you have probably never read either.

But what is there exactly? What does the Lisbon Treaty mean for Brussels, and for its member states (who apart from Ireland, were all refused a say on the Treaty because the People were overwhelmingly against it).

In a nutshell;

An analysis by Prof. Anthony Coughlan

Today the European Union leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does:

1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State.
2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens.
3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union.
4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union.
5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union’s new citizens.
6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union.
7. It creates a new Union political President.
8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union’s citizens.
9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union.
10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.

The complete article (which should definitely be read) is revealingly named ‘These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You‘ and is located here.

So, what to do? Your government is telling you to vote Yes (although they would much rather just refused you a vote altogether), many unions and groups are campaigning against the Treaty, not sure what you are going to do? Firstly, I strongly suggest you use your vote. This Treaty will give the EU superior powers over all of your Laws (including your Constitution). This is a FACT. The European Union is just dying to expand the EU into North Africa and accelerate its expansion. Also a FACT. The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner is currently threatening Ireland at the prospect of you guys and gals kicking the elitists in Brussels where it hurts. Apparently;

Mr Kouchner said that a “No” vote would be met by “gigantic incomprehension” in the rest of Europe.

That is a lie. It is also a blanket statement made by one politician who claims to speak for Europe which is strange considering the Lisbon Treaty was crafted specifically to stop the People having a say on it. He is just trying to use the spectre of Europe as a battering ram to frighten you into capitulating to the demands of Brussels. In truth however;

75% of people in the EU want a referendum on any new treaty which gives more powers to the EU. In the UK, 83% would want a vote to be held. A majority in all 27 countries would want a referendum.

Which brings me to my final points. The first is, what is so democratic and freedom-loving about threatening countries who may disagree with the EU? The little dictator-in-training continued;

“It would be very, very, very troubling…that we could not count on the Irish, who themselves have counted a lot on Europe’s money,”

So the EU was just pretending to be helpful, when in reality it was trying to set Ireland up to leverage power from them in the future. Sounds like the antics of a loan shark doesn’t it? This brings me to my final point.

Whether you currently think Yes or No, there is a 99.9% change that you do not really know what is in the Treaty. I don’t mean you couldn’t understand it, I just mean that you haven’t read it. This is not surprising considering the EU is refusing to allow member governments to publish readable versions of the Treaty until it is completely ratified!

So when you go to vote, just imagine you are in a bank to sign a contract on a home you already own. The suit across the table is trying to convince you to sign it. The document you have is literally unreadable. You are not sure what is in it, but you do know that at the very least it will result in massive changes in the way you can govern your own home. You don’t know how though. You don’t know how much it will cost in the future or what direction it will take either. But you do know that signing this contract means the rules you used to live by will now become secondary to the rules of that Bank. But you don’t know what the Bank’s rules are. You do know that the Banks accounts have not been signed off for at least the past 14 years because of rampant corruption and misuse of funds. You do know that a very large number of people are against the EU’s legal framework and the Lisbon Treaty. You do know that the contract contains a self amendment clause (Article 48) which will enable them to;

give the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an intergovernmental conference or a new Treaty. It is also unclear whether this ‘simplified revision procedure’ would be subject to a referendum.

These are some other things you do know, from the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre via Wise Up Journal (each point in explained in detail in the source article);

1. Lisbon makes the EU Constitution superior to the Irish Constitution in all areas of EU law.
2. Lisbon gives the EU the constitutional form of a supranational European Federal State and turns Ireland and the other Member States into regions or provinces of this Federation.
3. Lisbon shifts influence over law-making and decision-taking in the EU towards the Big States and away from the smaller ones like Ireland.
4. Lisbon removes Ireland’s right to a permanent EU Commissioner.
5. Lisbon deprives the Irish Government of its right to decide who Ireland’s Commissioner would be when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission.
6. Lisbon gives the European Union the power to make laws in 32 new areas that are removed from the Dail and other National Parliaments.
7. Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty which would open the way to harmonising Ireland’s company taxes.
8. Lisbon gives the EU the power to decide our human and civil rights.
9. Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission’s proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it.
10. Lisbon militarizes the EU further.

Finally, if you think you can just opt out of it afterwards, think again;

David Cameron yesterday said it would be “almost impossible” to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it was already law in the UK and the rest of the EU.

So, would you still sign that contract or refuse to do so until you can appreciate the number of changes it may make and what the effects of those changes could be on your life and that of your community?

Go Ireland!

* * UPDATES * *

Sideline Christianity and promote Islam! says Hazel Blears, Communities Secretary (Labour)

This is unbelievable. I was reading this very good article regarding the real and present threats to Western Civilisation from Islam and Marxist Liberal Insects called The Execution of Britain from Brussels Journal when I came upon this article in the Telegraph. And what the hell is a Communities Secretary anyway?

It is “common sense” for Christianity to be sidelined at the expense of Islam, a Government minister claimed on Sunday.

Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, defended Labour’s policy on religion after a report backed by the Church of England claimed that Muslims receive a disproportionate amount of attention.

She said it was right that more money and effort was spent on Islam than Christianity because of the threat from extremism and home-grown terrorism.

She really believes promoting Islam and marginalising Christianity will be good for Britain? It has to be said, that Islam and Sharia Law are incompatible with British Law and Christianity. Yes yes I know, Britain is secular now. That isn’t the point, the point is Christianity was like a godfather to Britain, helping it grow and resist subversion from foreign cultures and beliefs, something to be respected even in the eyes of a ‘non-believer’ like me) as opposed to the socialist (Labour party) and communism as described below:

Gary Allan in his multimillion best seller None Dare Call It Conspiracy, states the following about Marx’s Communist Manifesto:

“If you study Marx Communist Manifesto you will find that in essence Marx said the proletarian revolution would establish the Socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. To achieve the Socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, three things would have to be accomplished. 1. The elimination of all right to private property. 2. The dissolution of the family unit: and 3. Destruction of what Marx referred to as the ‘opiate of the people,’ ‘Religion.

Back to the socialists in power today.

She added: “We live in a secular democracy. That’s a precious thing. We don’t live in a theocracy, but we’ve always accepted that hundreds of thousands of people are motivated by faith. We live in a secular democracy but we want to recognise the role of faith.”

I see this as slightly strange. One minute stating government secularism and in the same breath advocating for the active promotion of a foreign religion, using taxpayers money that invariably will come from Christians in the country as well as many others who may not particularly want Islam promoted in their community. I guess that makes them ‘racist’ right?

The liberal Leftist Communists deem it appropriate to try and reduce the influence of Christianity, with taxpayers money, and without taxpayer’s permission. Religious communism? Two diametrically opposed religions placed at even keel with each other in the same country. No… that won’t create any problems… Our Marxist theory book says so! And if there are any problems, we can just strengthen the police state and strip you ALL of more rights in response. Religious Collectivism then;

As The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday, the landmark report commissioned by the Church and written by academics at the Von Hugel Institute accuses ministers of paying only “lip service” to Christianity and marginalising the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, while focusing “intently” on Islam.

Well, if the BBC was anything to go by, this should have been seen coming years ago with that memo in 2006…

The admissions of bias were made at a recent “impartiality” summit the BBC held. Most executives admitted the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, YnetNews.com said. The British news agency, the report said, leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside.

This is not new mind you, it is just that the government is getting so confident in its power over the people that members of it will begin saying openly what they have actually done for years. But even that should come as much of a surprise to those who have studied the Barcelona Declaration, the Euro-Mediterranean Project and the conclusion of Eurabia.

The article continues;

However Malaysia’s Prime Minister warned yesterday that Muslim extremism in Britain will grow unless the Government and society learn to understand Islam.

Abdullah Badawi claimed that the legacy of Britain’s imperial past has hampered its ability to appreciate its Islamic population.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the prime minister urged Gordon Brown to allow the country’s Muslims to live under Islamic law, but also said that they must prove their worth to society.

My emphasis. What else could allowing a foreign people to live under a foreign law system in a sovereign land mean? Somebody please tell me I’m not over-reacting here! The Muslims Against Sharia site correctly states;

Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy.

It would need to change to match the host country. That is how it usually works. Changing or attempting to change the host county’s culture, heritage or laws can be construed an act of aggression. The government knowingly facilitating such actions must be held to account for Treason. As it should have been done many times already.

P.S. I notice that the methodoloy utilised by the Lefties in power (Muslim = Victims, Britain = Oppressor) is exactly the same as the one used by Feminists (Women = Victim, Men = Oppressor), Socialists/ Communists (Working class – Victim, Middle Class = Oppressor),  Environmentalists (Earth = Victim, Civilisation (minus elite) = Oppressor), and generally any other special interest (usually minority) group that wants to exert power over a majority, and Labour is always there to lend a helping hand.

80% of UK ‘Laws’ actually from the European Union

Daily Mail

Amid the silly soap opera that now passes for British politics, in which we are supposed to care more about hairstyles and mannerisms than about the country, there was one moment last week when a decent man said something important. The brief flash of truth shone out like a gold coin on a dunghill.

The man was Peter Lilley, older and wiser than when he used to sing daft songs to Tory conferences. Mr Lilley looks to me as if, like several others, he is trapped in the Unconservative Party and would blossom like an irrigated desert if only he could escape from it.

Because what he said was important, there have been far too few reports of it. Hansard for Tuesday, June 3, at 3.35pm, will give you the details, if you want them.

But his clear, hard message was that 80 per cent of our laws are now made in Brussels, and Parliament has no power to reject or amend them.

If you wonder why our Post Offices are all closing, it’s thanks to an EU directive. So is the increasingly hated Data Protection Act. So are Home Improvement Packs and fortnightly bin collections.

In 15 years’ time our Parliament will have only two functions left – to raise taxes and declare war – admittedly things that our current politicians are rather keen on.

Mr Lilley’s mischievous suggestion is that MPs’ pay should be cut each time they hand over authority to others. Incredibly, many MPs don’t know what is going on. If they ended up on the wages paid to district councillors – which is all they really are now – they might care more.

His own stark words cannot be improved upon: ‘Few voters, or even members of this house, fully realise how many powers have been, or are about to be, transferred elsewhere. There are three reasons for this. The first is that governments of all persuasions deny that any significant powers are being transferred.

The second is that, once powers have been transferred, Ministers engage in a charade of pretence that they still retain those powers. Even when introducing measures that they are obliged to bring in as a result of an EU directive they behave as though the initiative were their own.

‘Indeed, Ministers often end up nobly accepting responsibility for laws that they actually opposed when they were being negotiated in Brussels.’

So now you know. Not since Dunkirk, 68 years ago, has our national independence been so imperilled. But back then, we could see the danger. Now most of us pretend it isn’t there.

Indeed. People like me and others have been saying this for ages. It is nothing less than the removal of sovereignty to a foreign power. Something that, quite simply, is absolutely forbidden under our Code of Laws. It’s that simple. It. Is. Completely. Illegal.

Yesterday I was by the Houses of Parliament with my girlfriend, we walked past Mr Haw and his peaceful demonstration. I explained to my girlfriend what he is doing and why. I also explained to her that Westminster banned any protest without permission from the Police, more details can be found here.

So much for Freedom of Assembly and Right to Protest. She was shocked that the government could pass such laws. I told her it’s illegal for them to do so, and these are the symptoms of a police state.

Then it starts to sink in.

This made me realise that you can say facts and figures to most people until they are blue in the face, but only rarely will they naturally appreciate the gravity of what you are trying to communicate. A combination of incapability and being distracted by a universe of entertainment and stressing about paying their next tax/ bill.

Things need to actually occur to people before they realise it. A typical example is that of men being falsely accused of rape. Most men will dismiss it out of hand unless to make them read a host of news articles about how it has actually happened. Still, they will not seem to care much for the stories, hopefully it won’t happen to them right?

Well this IS happening to you. To me, to everyone in Britain. Just because the grass is still green and the sky is still blue (sometimes) it does not mean that all is right with the world. Things could be unimaginably better if only the People would take some time away from the Television to just Think once in a while. Read the Bill of Rights 1689, The Magna Carta etc. Communicate what you learn to others. Make them listen!

The US and UK government loves to say: ‘The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms’ and they are right.

They are the terrorists, and they hate our Constitutions and Rights because they guarantee our freedom. That is why they are undermining them. It is like being in a huge house that you are free to roam about in to your hearts content. The landlord then begins locking certain doors, banning you from certain areas, restricting the amount of daylight through the windows etc. Before you know it you are confined to one room with no light and no food. You have to beg the landlord for every little thing and they only let you out so you can serve them.

As you read this, Right Now we are in a Surveillance/ Police State. Right Now our Sovereignty is being transferred to a Foreign Power. Right Now our society is in freefall, destabilised by the Marxist/ Communist combination of State Schooling and Feminism ( the majority of kids these days cannot even spell Marx). Our existence is just another moment in history and you only need to look back into history to see what the conclusions of such attacks on our Rights are.

We are being slowly suffocated by the Dark Cloak of Collectivist Communism. We need to continue to spread information and the passion for Freedom!

Josef Fritzl, (the man who locked his daughter in the cellar for 24 years), innundated with love letters

Cellar monster Josef Fritzl has been sent hundreds of love letters from lonely women offering him romance.

Some of the women have said that Fritzl, who locked his daughter Elisabeth in a cellar for 24 years and fathered her children, is ‘good at heart’ and misunderstood.

Fritzl has so far received a mountain of 200 love letters.

Those writing to the 73-year-old former electrician believe that he wanted to keep his daughter out of trouble and so kept her prisoner for most of her life.

Fritzl fathered seven children through his daughter and he is now in Austria’s Sankt Poelten prison where he has also received a mountain of hate mail.

So far he has received a total of 5,000 letters.

Elisabeth, 42, is recovering in a psychiatric clinic. Three of her children were kept prisoner in the dungeon with her.

He is due in court again on Friday – when he will almost certainly be sent back to jail to await trial.

Prosecutor Gerhard Sedlacek has said that Fritzl did not have an accomplice.

From the start, investigators have said there was no sign that Fritzl had help – even though many have been baffled how he managed to keep his daughter and their children hidden for so long.

I’m confused, maybe this case appeals to these women’s sense of ‘being cared for’ or something. Somehow I couldn’t image if this was a woman (doing this to her son), that there would be hundreds of men writing her love letters… Utter madness.

‘Security’ at airport stop man from boarding – because of T-Shirt

BBC

A man wearing a T-shirt depicting a cartoon character holding a gun was stopped from boarding a flight by the security at Heathrow’s Terminal 5.

Brad Jayakody, from Bayswater, central London, said he was “stumped” at the objection to his Transformers T-shirt.

Mr Jayakody said he had to change before boarding as security officers objected to the gun, held by the cartoon character.

Airport operator BAA said it was investigating the incident.

Mr Jayakody said the incident happened a few weeks ago, when he was challenged by an official during a pre-flight security check.

And to think there are people who believe this sort of stuff is still for their ‘security’ and scoff at those speaking of a Police State.

“He says, ‘we won’t be able to let you through because your T-shirt has got a gun on it’,” Mr Jayakody said.

“I was like, ‘What are you talking about?’.

“[The official's] supervisor comes over and goes ‘sorry we can’t let you through and you’ve a gun on your T-shirt’,” he said.

Mr Jayakody said he had to strip and change his T-shirt there before he was allowed to board his flight.

“I was just looking for someone with a bit of common sense,” he said.

“It’s a cartoon robot – what threat is it to security or offensive to anyone at all?”

A BAA spokesman said there was no record of the incident and no “formal complaint” had been made.

“If a T-shirt had a rude word or a bomb on it, for example, a passenger may be asked to remove it,” he said.

“We are investigating what happened to see if it came under this category.

“If it’s offensive, we don’t want other passengers upset.”

A Transformers T-shirt. They would not let him on the plane because it may offend someone? That is rubbish. This is a perfect example of the application of Collectivist methodology in order to remove our freedoms.

By claiming it would offend an arbitrarily set group, one individual can control the behaviour of/ restrict the actions of many. This is also only applied top-down. That is, if I find the governments policies offensive or the behaviour of stupid security guards at airports offensive, that can be ignored. The same way the government can focus on a knife stabbing in Britain to force through laws making buying swords illegal, or try to ban firearms for 300 million people because a kid shot up a school (Imagine how far he would have gotten if the students were armed also). On top of this, I’m sure more people will find the actions of the guard offensive than would find the T-shirt offensive. It’s Transformers – Terrorists in Disguise I guess.

So, what if someone is killed with a spoon? What if someone is drowned? Ban spoons and lakes? The government can mix and match events to further their agenda which always involves more controls over your freedom and behaviour under the guise of ‘protecting you’. Which obviously means they think you cannot protect yourself. You silly child!

If I wore a Legend of the Over-fiend T-shirt would that make me a demi-god demon-rapist? It is totally pathetic. Can you imagine a society where the State engages huge amounts of taxpayers money and time engineering peoples behaviour around the possibility it may offend ‘someone else?’

Hopefully these reports will force more sheep to think for themselves about what is going on. For more background on this ridiculous behaviour (and to see it in context of the police state), read the article on Infowars.net by Steve Watson.

Photo-fit image of the potential terrorist seen in the wild.

Glasgow tower blocks crumble in 10 seconds

Just about the same time as the Towers and Building 7 took to collapse into their own footprint on 9/11 with and using TWO aircraft no less. That rate of speed of collapse is indicative of reduced resistance to gravity. (Remember, below the impact zones the rest of the industrial strength support structure was completely intact).

View the Glasgow Tower blocks at the BBC, here.

The collapse of the Towers.

Info about explosions on 9/11

On the BBC mini-site ‘America’s Day of TERROR’ there is barely a mention of Building 7, somewhat odd considering their own reporter, on their own channel reported its collapse, 20 minutes before it actually did no less.

A quick analysis of the BBC mini-site record of (Solomon) Building 7 is in order. Visit the links for the page.

Trade Center Disaster section.

Vague mention on last page

A number of other buildings in the same block were also severely damaged.

No mention of how. Let’s see what Larry Silverstein has to say on the subject;

And what a demolition expert (who didn’t know about Building 7) has to say on the subject;

Back to the BBC. The In Pictures section, which is supposed to be a photographic record of that day, has no mention whatsoever of Building 7.

Twin Towers Tenants has no mention of Building 7 either, although it presents a good graphical representation of the number of perfectly intact floors beneath the impact zone (floors that would present a cumulative resistance to mass).

Timeline has a brief mention.

I didn’t look at Eyewitnesses. It’s all text you see, looking at pictures is easier and faster. (Probably why the BBC omitted Building 7 from its picture gallery).

In regards to those who have a low opinion of people who dare to question the governments official conspiracy theory by labelling 9/11 Truth a ‘fringe movement’;

Only 16% Think Government Telling the Truth about 9/11

That would put the majority in a position where they believe the government is either hiding or outright lying about it. The logical extension of this is that they find the official story untenable.

This, technically, makes the followers of the Official Conspiracy Theory the real ‘fringe movement’.

9/11 Truth is the Mainstream Opinion.

Still, they must attempt to silence dissent;

“The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against the efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic and insane, and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.” -
The Soviet Art of Brainwashing (Psychopolitics)

Remember, never be afraid to ask questions and investigate anything you wish. Your heart and mind belong to you and you alone. Only those who are afraid of you knowing the truth will try to manipulate you into not seeking it for yourself.

Keep asking questions!

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

The 9/11 Truth Movement

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Journal of 9/11 Studies

Complete 911 Timeline

These are the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Search online yourself for more information.