chicks

One for the wenches…

WenchOver at The Guardian a lady writes about the phenomenon of ‘LADS’, as she puts it. Her complaints are regarding an online magazine where guys take the piss and call members of the opposite sex various names, like slut, wench, bitch etc. Now apart from the fact she name drops literally all of the magazines’ accounts (publicity cough) she (gently) berates these guys for being so disrespectful and laments that the site / community as she states in her byline:

sends a message to young girls that their role is clearly delineated – you’re worthless.

The irony of talking about feminism (she writes for a femrag called Vagenda) while assuming that guys are responsible for the esteem of these girls is typically insular, but the double standard of women claiming to be ‘independent / just as good as / better than‘ men when it suits them, only to expertly feign innocence, rocking one of their feet on its toe while playing with their hair when they don’t like the consequences of something is ancient man-knowledge, just like it is ancient woman-knowledge that it’ll most probably work on men. And they’re right. Grr. This takes a much darker turn when women lie about rape, but let’s keep this on a lighter note. She continues;

Those little feminist-baiting scamps are well-known for their lax grasp of the term sexual consent, not to mention their constant assertions that all women are “wenches” and “slags”.

Saying they have a lax grasp of the term implies they’re rapists, surely? I’m sure they know what sexual consent is. I would go so far to say, if they actually caught a guy raping a girl, they would probably beat the shit out of him. They’re just lads, not grooming-gang rapists, for that you’ll have to look to our imported Muslims (which funnily enough, feminists don’t seem to touch).

Also, many women are slags. Vacuous, fame worshipping talentless meat sacks. You just have to look at the billions of photos they take of themselves and their SELF imposed objectification, with their cleavage shots, gallons of makeup and bum-in-the-mirror shots. (Not that I’m complaining about that last one). This includes so-called celebrity women who are climbing over each other to act sluttier than the next publicity whore. Who are they pandering to? They’re already rich and famous. Oh right, they’re competing with EACH OTHER. Women responsible for the issues of women? Well I never!

Back to feminism. Women want to be treated equally to men do they not? If they are going to roll in men’s circles and peek into men’s communities they better toughen up and learn to give as good as they get. Not just roll over and cry, because you just encourage them as they smell blood (but not in a nasty vicious way like girls do to each other when bullying in the playground). So just take the jest like a man woman! The writer should listen to how (male) best mates talk to each other, about each other. Shit, she has no idea…

Now I would post an example but a: men already know and b: women don’t need to know. (Plus not telling them winds them up even more).

Any guy with a few notches under his belt knows that a woman is unlikely to be impressed with his ability to draw a giant knob in the sand using a supercar, let alone appreciate being called a “student slut” who he’d “do up the arse” to a chorus of “LAD!” from his mates.

Well if the guy has a supercar she will put up with it because that’s what wenches do, she’ll probably even take it up the arse if he’s rich enough. These guys are just saying what guys can think. Don’t fret, I’ve heard what women say about men and believe me they don’t slouch there!

She goes on to ask if this misogyny is just a phase. First, a definition;

Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.

And now, a question;

Would you create / join / contribute to a website dedicated to talking about / looking at pictures of / having sex with something you hate or dislike? That isn’t logical. But then she is female (feminist), even if she is a bit of a babe. I’d probably do her…

Oh sorry I’m objectifying.

She goes on to attempt to categorise this male behaviour (as if women don’t objectify men), not realising that this is a male thing full stop. It doesn’t belong to ‘middle class males’ or ‘maybe some working class’. Not all men talk about women like that but we do communicate about them in encrypted ways…

… Ever seen some hot wench in your office bending over and you catch a glance and then look around, only to see another guy look and then make eye contact at you? Then you both smile /snigger, do the man-nod and walk on?

Of course you have. If a bunch of guys outside a pub all watch some stunner strut by and afterwards you all just nod quietly to each other and sip your pint?

Indeed.

It’s normal. It’s in our DNA. What she doesn’t realise it that those ‘lads’ on that site are simply fascinated by women. So much so that they created an entire website about it. If any of these women actually tried to code a website they would begin to appreciate how much affection that actually entails. (Not the coding, which is mildly creative but mostly boring, I mean the motivation to do it).

Now, just because they aren’t fitting her and her ilks’ definition of how men should talk is utterly irrelevant. They don’t give a shit what women think, and they should they? They’re speaking with each other, they set the rules. That’s what happens when MGOTW. In a way this website is evidence of my interest in them. I do actually find women interesting, not in a study-breakthrough-in-science type of way, but in a ‘WTF how does that even make sense?’ way.

Of course, the other argument is that if women don’t like such sites, just don’t visit them. But although they won’t admit it, women are also fascinated by men, even feminists. We can’t get enough of each other.

I very much doubt those guys actually speak like that to women. You can just imagine them all cracking jokes about women to each other but as soon as a real woman talks to them they’d be on their best behaviour and she’ll probably have the dude around her little finger before he knows what hit him. But that’s what separates the LAD from the MAN.

As always, the problem with feminists is that they want women to have respect without having to earn it, but in this environment created by feminism, this new age of equaliteeeeee, men have simply put women in the same group that men put other men in and being men, the rules are simple and effective.

Earn my attention. Earn my respect. Earn my loyalty and then, and only then, will we have your back. And as long as you keep it up, we’ll have your back forever.

But seeing as you happen to be a hot chick, a few more pictures of DAT ASS wouldn’t go amiss…

x

phoenix3

A Phoenix of Liberty Rises

I’m back. It’s been a few years. I’ve been here and there, compiled even more research and have much to put on here for you. Conclusions I have reached that I have to share. I will be going to places I maybe shouldn’t be going to, but I’ll keep pushing it until you tell me to stop.

It’s going to be a little while until I hit my stride, I have lots of comments to approve, spam to clear, templates to reset, links to gather, I need to organise.

I’ll give you more personal thoughts in coming posts.

Thanks for reading.

And as far as the system is concerned? THIS IS WAR.

The husband beating wives…

In case you didn’t know, the reality is that domestic violence is committed equally by both sexes. The feminist organisations and government would have you think otherwise, but that is because they have their own agenda (money and power).

The first time I struck my husband was during an argument over money. He’d decided to pay off a loan without telling me and we ‘ d gone overdrawn. I was worried and tried to discuss it with him, at which point he left the room.

I felt we hadn’t talked it through properly and followed him. The next minute, I was hitting him around the head.

I remember losing control and my limbs lashing out.

Afterwards he was upset and I cried – I felt scared and ashamed of what I’d done.

I apologised and thought it was a one-off, but in fact it was a pattern that carried on for the next ten years.

I met my husband through mutual friends at Durham University. I was 19 and he was five years older, more worldly and mature. He was less serious, too, and made me laugh.

We married five years later. He had a job in IT by then and I started work as a divorce lawyer. The early days of our marriage were steady, but as the stress of my job and responsibilities grew, I took it out on him.

After that first time, it happened again about 18 months later. I felt a surge of rage I couldn’t control. My anger would escalate during arguments over household chores or my husband coming to bed late. I remember feeling I was out of my body, watching myself and telling myself to stop, but I couldn’t. I would hit him hard; hitting to hurt.

One time, I picked up a table and crashed it down so hard on the ground that it broke. I left bite marks in his arm a couple of times – it was similar to the way siblings fight, yet he never once struck back. He’d hold up his hands to shield himself, which made me feel even worse.

Yes, this happens a lot more that people realise and it is good that it is getting attention. Women aren’t angels. They’re just people.

Man swindles over £100,000 from lonely women

First, he charmed his way into their hearts. Then he charmed himself into their beds.

But John Keady didn’t seduce women for sex or companionship. He wanted to get into their bank accounts.

For 20 years, the conman wooed a succession of women all over Britain, Europe and America.

As one of the comments states;

Amazing that when women get fleeced by a man they date it makes the news, when it goes the other way it’s called marriage.

Funny that.

The pretty girl from The Wonder Years grew up!

And so did all of us.

As Kevin Arnold’s childhood sweetheart Winnie in The Wonder Years, Danica McKeller was the object of many teenage boys’ crushes.

But 17 years after the show ended, it appears the cute girl-next-door has grown up into a good-looking woman.

Now a 35-year-old and married, McKeller shows she’s all grown up as she poses for a sexy photoshoot with men’s magazine Maxim.

Pretty and clever, what more can a man want in a woman?

She took time out of her acting career to study mathematics at UCLA and found such an affinity with the subject, she went on to write two New York Times best-sellers called Math Doesn’t Suck: How to Survive Middle-School Math without Losing Your Mind or Breaking a Nail and Kiss My Math: Showing Pre-Algebra Who’s Boss.

How hot is that!

Saudi Arabia – 47 year old man’s marriage to 8 year old girl legal

Isn’t Islam wonderful… for paedophiles.

JihadWatch

To do otherwise would be to cast aspersions on Muhammad’s example — a "beautiful pattern of conduct," per Qur’an 33:21 — in marrying Aisha when she was six and consummating the marriage when she was nine. Meanwhile, the girl can petition the court for a divorce… when she reaches puberty!

An update on this story. "Saudi judge upholds man’s marriage to 8-year-old," by Mohammed Jamjoon for CNN, April 12:

(CNN) — A Saudi mother is expected to appeal a judge’s ruling after he once again refused to let her 8-year-old daughter divorce a 47-year-old man, a relative said.

Sheikh Habib Al-Habib made the ruling Saturday in the Saudi city of Onaiza. Late last year, he rejected a petition to annul the marriage.

The case, which has drawn criticism from local and international rights groups, came to light in December when Al-Habib declined to annul the marriage on a legal technicality. His dismissal of the mother’s petition sparked outrage and made headlines around the world.

The judge said the mother, who is separated from the girl’s father, was not the legal guardian and therefore could not represent her daughter, the mother’s lawyer, Abdullah al-Jutaili, said at the time.

The girl’s husband pledged not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili, who added that the girl’s father arranged the marriage to settle his debts with the man, who is considered "a close friend."

In March, an appeals court in the Saudi capital of Riyadh declined to certify the original ruling, in essence rejecting al-Habib’s verdict, and sent the case back to al-Habib for reconsideration.

Under the Saudi legal process, the appeals court ruling meant that the marriage was still in effect, but that a challenge to the marriage was still ongoing.

The relative, who said the girl’s mother will continue to pursue a divorce, told CNN the judge "stuck by his earlier verdict and insisted that the girl could petition the court for a divorce once she reached puberty."

The appeals court in Riyadh will take up the case again and a hearing is scheduled for next month, according to the relative.

Child marriages have made news in Saudi Arabia in the past year.

In a statement issued shortly after the original verdict, the Society of Defending Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia said the judge’s decision went against children’s "basic rights."

Marrying children makes them "lose their sense of security and safety," the group said. "Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."

But Muhammad did it, and therein lies the obstacle to reform.

Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-run group, told CNN that his organization was fighting child marriages.

"Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed," al-Harithi said.

Child marriage is not unusual, said Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabian researcher for the international group Human Rights Watch, after the initial verdict.

There’s no mention from CNN of why child marriage is so persistent.

"We’ve been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke told CNN.

Britain on the Brink

THE FILM THEY DONT WANT YOU TO SEE! Since 1973 British politicians have been giving away control of your life to Brussels in secret…until now. This video exposes the corruption in the EU.

Rise of the female bankrupt

Mail Online

The number of women declared bankrupt has risen nearly fourfold in just six years.

They now make up almost four out of ten cases, with women under the age of 35 most likely to suffer financial collapse

This means that six years ago women made up 30 per cent of bankrupts, but by last year that had risen to 38 per cent.

Moving towards ‘equality’ eh.

Women are now going bankrupt at the rate of 60 a day. The rapid rise of female financial failure is likely to be linked both to overspending when credit was easy and the vulnerability of growing numbers of women who do not have the backing of marriage and family.

By marriage I think they mean husbands. By family I think they mean fathers.

‘More women are racking up unmanageable debts as they now feel more under pressure to maintain lavish lifestyles,’ a spokesman for price comparison website MoneyExpert.com said.

Under pressure from who?

‘They want to spend it like the Beckhams but don’t have the income to sustain their debts.

Quite simply, they are choosing to live beyond their means which funnily enough wouldn’t really be possible in a capitalist society (one dominated by capital, not credit/debt). You cannot spend what you don’t have. This crisis is twofold, not only do they want to live such lifestyles, they also do not want to live within their means because the restrictions they must live under will make them realise how poor they really are, which if we all did, would drive down living costs, improving the quality of life.

‘Increasingly they have to borrow more to get on the property ladder – and if they live alone there’s no one else to share the burden.’

Independent girlies.

He suggested that too many women had used too many credit cards and ‘lived ahead of their income’.

Accountancy firm Wilkins Kennedy said it had dealt with a rise in numbers of female bankrupts and believed bankruptcy among women would match levels among men later this year.

Speculation by Labour ministers that women are especially vulnerable to being laid off in the recession were dismissed last month by the Office for National Statistics.

It said women are losing jobs at half the rate of men, and are protected because more women than men work in the public sector.

Firstly, why the hell are Liebour ‘ministers’ speculating something that doesn’t exist? Secondly, the public sector is f**king teeming with women, like xenomorphs in ‘Aliens’. It is totally disproportionate, but that’s another subject. In relation to this however, in this socialist shithole, as the wealth creating private sector continues to contract, the wealth destroying public sector is continuing to expand, so the divide will continue to grow, and with more money coming out than going in (like the women in this article) you can see where the government is dragging this nation into.

It really is as simple as it looks. As my dad says, ‘don’t spend what you don’t have’. Under capitalism, you literally CAN’T spend what you don’t have so this issue with debt swallowing everybody up (including those who save) is highly improbable, as opposed to the current central banking dominated debt system in which it is not only inevitable, it is designed to collapse.

(2 – 5) + (2 – 5) +… will always result in accumulating debt. Those in debt are slaves to those who issue the credit. What makes it worse is that people choose to go into debt. They choose to become slaves to try and live another life, which ironically, they end up paying for with their life (body + time = life).

The difference here (and in the U.S.) is that the corporatist state is using this as an excuse to loot those with capital, redistributing it to those in debt, which of course goes directly to the creditor, which are usually owned by the same oligarchy that has orchestrated this (imposed the central banks) in the first place.

Wakey wakey people.

"Denial is the most predictable of all human responses, but rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it"  — Architect, Matrix Reloaded

Jacqui Smith, typical feminist

Mail Online

Jacqui Smith astonishingly claimed yesterday that she was the victim of a smear campaign over her expenses because she is a woman with no independent wealth.

The embattled Home Secretary defended her claims for household items, including an 88p bath plug, as ‘fair and reasonable’ in a series of interviews to try to put the expenses controversy behind her.

By designating her sister’s house as her main home, Miss Smith has been free to claim more than £140,000 from the taxpayer-funded Additional Costs Allowance to run her family home.

In what will be interpreted as an attack on wealthy Tory MPs, she said: ‘This is a system put in place so people can be MPs who do not start off with two places to live but need two places to live in order to do the job properly.

‘If we want people to be MPs who do not start off with two places to live there has to be a process. What I claim is what I think are fair and reasonable expenses for the fact that I have to live in two places.’

Pressed on why she did not register as her main home the constituency property where her husband and children live, she said: ‘Effectively we separated my main home from my family home. . . When I became an MP, my husband and I had to make a decision knowing I would spend more time in London.’

But she added: ‘I know people think, "Well, your family live in Redditch so why isn’t that your main home?" I know that people find that  -  particularly for a woman  -  they find that difficult.’

She gets to her position because she is a woman (if definitely isn’t because she’s competent), starts raping the taxpayer like a common purpose/ champagne socialist always does, and when people start demanding she is held to account for her actions, she claims they are only doing that because she is a woman.

In other words, she feels she should be able to do what she wants because she is a woman. That is feminism for you.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls……

Old Holborn

It tolls for thee, yeoman of the land of Magna Carta.

Whilst you slumbered last night, and in the many months before, the sinister shape of Directive 2006/24/EC crept into your lives and stole your freedom and your privacy.

Would it have made any difference if this burglar had worn a striped jumper and carried a bag marked ‘swag’ – probably not, for you slept soundly, happily believing that if you voted for a new government – when someone else got round to organising an election, when someone else handed out leaflets, when someone else hired a loud speaker and toured your streets – if you put your cross on a different name, you could go on with your cosy life, untroubled.

You were quite happy to believe that it really wasn’t your concern.

You ‘tutted’ over that ‘racist mob’ the BNP. You ‘clucked’ at the alarmist stories in the Daily Mail. You ‘grumbled’ when you found your litter bin installed with a tracker device. Then you went on and re-mortgaged your house, marvelled at your good fortune, ran up your credit card, bought a new car, bought those ridiculous shoes that you couldn’t walk in, and settled down to watch reality TV. You may even have turned on the computer and read some of the blogs, ‘clucked’ again at the comments, and departed, never bothering to leave your point of view.

Never standing up to be counted. It wasn’t really your concern.

Someone else would sort it out for you. Someone else would make a fool of themselves, demanding smaller government, demanding to be left alone to organise their own life, supporting the Libertarian Party, being seen as a ‘conspiracist’.

Today it’s too late.

Today 52% of the population is dependent on retaining a Labour government for the very food in their bellies. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

Today the government spend 43% of your wages on supporting, amongst other things, that 52% of the population.

Today the government has hung a debt of £33,000 round the neck of each of your children.

Today, Directive 2006/24/EC means that the government will be monitoring every e-mail you send, every friend you make on the ubiquitous Facebook, every mobile phone call you make, every time you log onto this or any other web page.

You can’t even ‘tut’ and ‘grumble’ amongst yourselves in private any more.

Now who will stand up to be counted?

False rape Conviction

You don’t see that everyday.

Before I quote the article, I want to provide a little background research on sentencing for rape, as to provide some context. The following is taken from www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk, from ‘Rape Advice’, available here as a pdf, unless otherwise indicated.

Firstly, the definition of ‘rapist’ does not seem to apply to women.

Section 142 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 sets the definition of rape as follows;

Rape of women and men

For section 1 of the [1956 c. 69.] Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape of a woman) there shall be substituted the following section—

“1 Rape of woman or man

(1) It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another man.

(2) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and

(b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.

(3) A man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband.

(4) Subsection (2) applies for the purpose of any enactment.”.

In fact, the rape section of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c.69) is entirely male specific, except in the event of incest where the law is equally applied. In the Rape Advice document, there is advice to further entrench male-only rape;

In   its   consultative   report 1,   the   Home   Office   Sex   Offences   Review recommended that the statutory definition of rape should be extended to include any penetration   by   the   penis   of   the   anus,   mouth   or   genitalia.

So according to the Act, as women don’t have a penis (and they are not male) that must mean they cannot rape, right?

The section on Male Rape makes no mention of female criminality either, one would think it was written by feminists. In regards to average sentence lengths;

As can be seen from the sentencing statistics summarized at Annex A to this paper, the  average  sentence for an adult offender  sentenced  to  immediate  custody  for rape in 2000 was 7 years 4 months (7 years 6 months on a not guilty plea and 6 years 10 months on a guilty plea). The majority of sentences (57%) fell within the range 5-10 years,  but  25%  of  offenders  received  sentences  of  under  5  years,  and  17%  were sentenced   to   more   than   10   years   (including   10%   whose   sentence   was   life imprisonment).

The document highlights the circumstances of a life sentence for repeat offenders.

37.       The Panel also agrees with the Court of Appeal’s description, in  Billam, of the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to consider a life sentence. A defendant who has a previous conviction for rape or another ‘serious offence’ will be subject to an automatic sentence of life imprisonment under section 109 of the Powers of Criminal

So in summary, the average length for rape is 7 years 1 month. Repeat offenders get an automatic life sentence. That is what a man is expecting to get if he is found guilty of rape, something that can happen based on no more evidence than hear-say from a woman. (A consequence of abuse industry campaigning to push up the number of convictions for rape, remove the ancient requirement of burden of proof, or necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.) With proof being no longer needed, and a long list of false rape accusers getting no sentence whatsoever, even being protected by law, the feminists are getting what they want. Now to the article.

Estranged wife jailed for falsely accusing husband of sex attack

A man has told of the pain and humiliation he endured when his estranged wife falsely accused him of rape.

Anthony Scoones, 27, spoke out after Gemma Scoones was jailed for a year for perverting the course of justice.

One year, of which she’ll do less than half. I think they have to use the charge of ‘perjury’ because there is no charge of ‘false rape’.

He described how he was arrested at his home  -  he was watching TV in bed when police arrived  -  and spent 16 hours in a cell.

His clothes were taken for forensic examination and he was left naked so that DNA samples could be taken.

Mr Scoones said: ‘I wasn’t just stripped of my clothes, but of my dignity. I was stood there naked, with two police officers at one side of me and a doctor at the other side, having swabs taken from all over my body.

‘It was humiliating and degrading. I don’t blame the officers for investigating, but it is a heinous crime to be accused of and I’m still having nightmares now.’

To add to his ordeal, even some people he thought of as friends doubted his innocence.

The rape accusation was part of an ‘acrimonious separation’ from his 26-year-old wife.

Durham Crown Court heard that she told police Mr Scoones followed her home from a shop, forced his way into the house and raped her in a downstairs toilet.

She claimed she was hurt but had not been able to call police immediately because he threatened to petrol-bomb her house.

It was only after discrepancies emerged in a police interview with her that Mr Scoones was told he was in the clear and his ex-wife was charged with committing an act intended to pervert the course of justice.

Jailing Scoones, who had pleaded guilty, Recorder Neil Davey told her: ‘The course you embarked on was one of sheer wickedness.’

Mr Smith said: ‘She was upset and this built up in her as time went on. She accepts there was a degree of planning and she considered her actions for  several weeks.’

Premeditated. Kudos to the Police for actually investigating it and not just throwing the poor man to the wolves. But this isn’t the first time this has happened. Here are a few more from the Endofmen archives.

Another false rape claim, results in ‘modest’ sentence

A binge-drinking mother has been jailed after falsely accusing an innocent taxi driver of raping her.

Joanne Rye, who kept up the lie for 20 months, was told by a judge her behaviour was despicable and was handed an eight-month prison sentence.

Another man falsely accused of rape – To ‘teach him a lesson’

Women makes false rape claim – Jailed for ONE YEAR

Jailed: The ‘evil’ 21-year-old who seduced soldier and then accused him of rape

Man hangs himself after being falsely accused of raping women and children

Repeat offender, life sentence, remember?

Woman who falsely cried rape FIVE times – Gets SUSPENDED sentence

False rape accuser given 4 months

Another False Allegation of Rape – victim serves almost 7 years.

This is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some articles regarding the rise of false rape/ abuse accusations.

False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought

Half of all Rape Charges May Be False

In the UK today you can be accused of abuse on almost no evidence and without any proper witnesses to support the story

An alarming national trend: False Rape Allegations

Woman guilty of false rape accusation, still protected by law

Mail Online

A businessman has been cleared of raping a university student after jurors were shown footage of the sex session taken on a mobile phone.

Gary Taylor, 41, was accused of attacking the 27-year-old woman after turning up at her flat with cocaine and a bottle of red wine.

The woman, who can’t be identified for legal reasons, told jurors that Mr Taylor forced her to perform a sex act on him and then raped her in her living room.

But during cross-examination she was shown footage Mr Taylor had taken on his mobile phone during the encounter on September 26, 2008.

Mr Taylor’s barrister Karen Holt said the footage showed the woman ‘actively’ performing a sex act on him.

Judge Christopher Moss QC closed the public gallery before a graphic clip filmed by the woman was shown to the jury.

The judge warned: ‘You are going to see a clip which from what I have been told you may find extremely distasteful. To avoid making it a peep show, I have ordered the public gallery to be cleared.’

After the footage was screened, Miss Holt said to the alleged victim: ‘You and Mr Taylor were very familiar with each other and comfortable in each other’s presence.’

The woman said: ‘I don’t think I was happily talking to him.’

She also denied ‘actively’ performing a sex act on Mr Taylor.

The prosecution offered no evidence following advice from the judge.

Mr Taylor, who runs a multimedia company, was cleared of four charges of rape and walked free from court.

The Old Bailey heard police had arrived at the victim’s flat in Wood Green, North London, in the early hours of the morning after reports of a disturbance.

She made a complaint of rape and Mr Taylor was arrested at the scene.

Giving evidence she told the court: ‘He wanted to be intimate. Maybe he thought he could force me into it but he went too far.

‘He thought he could be persuasive and it went too far. He kept trying to kiss me that evening and I was saying no.

‘I was quite drunk. He was on top of me at some point with his hand on my mouth.’

Mr Taylor, from Hornsey, North London, denied four counts of rape, including two of rape by oral penetration.

The woman had not seen the film of her having sex with Mr Taylor before it was shown to the court.

No evidence needed to get the man arrested. The lying words of a deceitful female still results in her being protected as a victim by the state, while the innocent man has his name tarnished with a rape allegation (treated as guilty). If that footage wasn’t taken, he would have been serving a long time in prison for something THAT NEVER HAPPENED. And the female would have not cared one jot.

Disgusting, lying, selfish BITCH.

UK Govt to give lessons in ‘spotting terrorists’

The Mail Online is running an article regarding the training of members of society in ‘terrorist spotting’, presumably so they can inform our omnipotent protectors, the State.

Sixty thousand British civilians are being trained by the Home Office to spot terrorists, Gordon Brown revealed yesterday.

Huge numbers of staff on rail networks, at shops, public buildings and major sports venues have been picked out by MI5 and the police for the special training – teaching them to watch for ‘suspicious behaviour’ and respond swiftly to an atrocity.

Apart from the fact that a ‘nation of informers’ is reminiscent of other deeply unhealthy societies, this seems like typical big government overkill. People need training in this? In regards to terrorism and Islam, just read the Quran, in chronological order if you want the real context of Mohammed (at the beginning with few believers and many enemies, and the end when he had an army and mucho power). Oh and remember to keep in mind the use of Abrogation.

Regarding terrorists as a whole, terror is defined loosely as the use of terror (fear) for political ends. In the event of multiple groups desiring such, it would only be logical to focus on the one which ‘creates the greatest fear’ and enacts the ‘greatest political change’ as they would, by definition, be the greater terrorist and thus the greatest threat.

The United Kingdom currently has 60 million residents (more like 80 million unofficially). What group has the greatest access to mass media, to the statute making process, the economy, the schools, the borders, the local authority, the courts, the security services etc?

Who is continually telling you to fear? To accept changes in your life which restrict your freedom? To impose more rules and regulations on you and to tell you how to think?

Which one is more likely to kick down your door for no real reason, to steal your children from you and tell them how to think?

Which one is closer to total power over you and your family?

Which one is the greatest threat to your life and liberty?

Considering this, I think it they are pretty easy to spot once you see the signs. You could look here for a start.

Divide and rule, the NuLabour way…

Came across this post from the Devil’s Kitchen, thought I’d share it.

Devil’s Kitchen

It’s one of the oldest strategies in the book: divide and rule. And few governments in living memory have been so adept at it as NuLabour: it has been at the heart of many of their policies. They have divided the peoples of the Union; they have divided, through QUANGOs and censuses emphasising differences, black, brown and white peoples of the Union. Through jealousy they have divided rich and poor.

"Fear not," says the government, "for the state—and only the state—can save you!" And then they proceed to divide some more. Devolved governments (but with little power), harsher sentences for "racist" crimes, and the stealing of more money from "the rich" to hand out as gifts to the poor.

The brilliant bit about this tactic, as applied by NuLabour, is that it encourages people to think of each other group not as fellow human beings, but as people below or different from them. "They aren’t a person like I am, they are just a toff/darkie/Muslim/Scot/Sassenach/Taff/idiot, etc."

And so people get angry and demand solutions, they demand concessions for their own particular group and guess what?—the state can help you, friend, for the state is the friend of everyone. The state is the righter of all wrongs, the great arbiter, the generous donor of largesse. And as each group is appeased so the jealousy and resentment of the others are inflamed and they demand special treatment for themselves and more shoddy treatment for "those others".

And so it is that the government have been able to put through some disgusting laws, by aiming them at groups that the other groups dislike. 42 days detention without trial?—well, it’ll only apply to terrorists, and they’re all Muslims or at the very least darkies, eh?

The scrapping of double jeopardy, habeas corpus and trial by jury?—well, that’ll only apply to the eeevil criminals (no matter that they have yet to be proven such). Oh, and the darkies, of course. And the poor.

The confiscation of your assets before you are even found guilty, or reversing the burden of proof for the confiscation of assets? Well, that’ll only apply to drugdealers and the like.

And none of these people are really human, are they? Not like me.
And that’s how they get us; that’s how they pass those laws. And, they say that they won’t use them except in the most exceptional circumstances, and only against those people who aren’t really human.

Read the full article here.

A woman who deceives men into having children

Daily Mail

As a 31-year-old woman, she might be expected to have developed a more mature attitude to pregnancy and childbearing. The reality is anything but. Because Angelica, who claims to be ‘addicted to having babies’, readily admits to tricking three hapless men in succession into fathering half her brood of illegitimate daughters.

For all those women out there who have struggled to conceive children, Angelica’s story makes for bitter reading. But Angelica is proud of her achievements. She plans to tell her children the truth about their conceptions, seemingly with little understanding of the effects such knowledge could have on them.

This is because it isn’t about the kids, it’s about her.

Defiantly, she says: ‘I’ll tell them I wanted a baby, but that I didn’t tell their fathers I was trying to get pregnant. When they realise that I was prepared to lie to conceive them, they’ll know they were really wanted and much-loved babies.’

Or how manipulative and selfish their mother is.

It’s a very odd version of what love and parenting is all about. And the more Angelica talks, the clearer it becomes that she is creating baby after baby to fulfil her own deep-seated and alarming need for love and attention.

Which is about as narcissistic as you can get. Similar to when a woman deliberately indoctrinates the children against the father to hurt him (with no concern whatsoever with the damage she does to them by attacking their father constantly).

Further along…

Then, surprise, surprise, Angelica decided to use her partner as an unwitting sperm donor. She says: ‘I thought he was nice-looking and would make a good dad, so I stopped taking the Pill. I just thought: “It’s my body and I want a baby, so I’ll have one.”

Why don’t they say this when it comes to child support payments.

‘I didn’t feel bad. I knew if I asked him whether he wanted a baby, he’d probably panic and say no, because he was too young. So I decided to go ahead and make the decision myself.

‘I thought Oliver would eventually be delighted he was going to be a father. It took me a couple of months to conceive and I proudly presented him with the positive pregnancy test.

‘He looked stunned and said: “How did that happen?” I shrugged and said: “The Pill can fail, you know.” I didn’t dare tell him I had deliberately become pregnant.

You would be surprised how often this happens. It would seem in this situation, the biggest mistake a man can make is trusting the woman.

The full article is here.

Feminist says one thing – reality says another

From everybodys favourite Marxist scumbag.

Another Fabian trying to turn men and women against each other

Another Fabian trying to turn men and women against each other

Daily Mail

Harriet Harman was caught up in a row today over whether women will suffer most in the recession.

The Equality Minister claimed in the Commons yesterday that women were worrying more than men about the economic crisis.

As usual from a feminist, she makes a claim about women’s ‘feelings’ and states it like an actual fact. The ONS begs to differ however;

But her views were undermined today by figures from the Office for National Statistics and a Cambridge University study.

The ONS claimed the economic downturn ‘impacted less’ on working women than on men. It stressed that estimates showed fewer women than men had lost their job.

The redundancy rate for women was 6.6 in 1,000 employees in the three months to December, compared with 13.6 for men.

Who needs ‘feelings’ when you have facts.

Ms Harman vowed in the debate in Parliament that women would not be allowed to become the ‘victims of the recession’.

We are all affected by a recession (unless you work in the public sector). This sexist totalitarian pig needs to stop trying to destroy the nations’ males (a vital part of destroying any country) and do the honourable thing.

Throw herself off of a bloody cliff.

Children receive 32 immunisations before they reach four – UK

And people think that is good for children’s developing immune systems…

My emphasis.

Daily Mail

Children are being given the wrong vaccinations and repeat doses of jabs they have already had due to mix-ups at GPs’ surgeries.

Nearly 1,000 safety incidents involving child immunisations were reported in a single year.

Of those studied in detail, more than a third involved babies and children given a different vaccine to the one they were supposed to have.

Other blunders included delays to children having important vaccinations, infants given drugs that were out of date and allergic reactions.

Well no big deal, they aren’t their kids are they…

It is said all of the incidents could have been avoided if doctors or nurses had checked medical records or drug details thoroughly.

Last night campaigners said these mistakes were the ‘tip of the iceberg’ and expressed fears of a ‘vaccine overload’ from Britain’s growing childhood immunisation schedule.

A report by the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA), the watchdog which monitors NHS errors, looked at 949 incidents involving jabs reported in 2007. A detailed study was made of 138 of these cases, picked at random. Eight caused children ‘moderate harm’.

In 36 per cent of cases a child was given the wrong vaccination. If the sample is representative, it means that hundreds are given the wrong immunisation every year. And, as the reporting of incidents by medical professionals is voluntary, the true number could be much higher.

In 23 per cent of incidents there were errors in documenting the vaccine, while there were delays in 17 per cent of cases. Other problems included incorrect storage of the jabs or out-of-date vaccines having to be thrown away.

GP Dr Richard Halvorsen, of the Babyjabs clinic in Central London, said: ‘These cases are probably the tip of the iceberg. It’s worrying when children are getting the wrong vaccines at the wrong times but it’s an inevitable consequence of the vaccination schedule, which is one of the most complex in the world.

‘Of course things are going to go wrong – it’s a recipe for mistakes.’

Children receive 32 immunisations before they reach four. And the Government is now discussing whether also to give chickenpox and flu jabs. The most controversial vaccine is combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR).

Jackie Fletcher, of campaign group Justice, Action, Basic Support (JABS), said: ‘Children are sometimes given MMR when they go to get their pre-school booster for diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough, even if parents have explicitly said they do not want them to have it. To think mistakes occur time and time again is horrendous.

Previously healthy Jodie Marchant, who is now 17, was left severely brain-damaged and with a gut disorder after being given seven vaccines in a single jab at 14 months. Her parents, Bill and Pat, from Southampton, had requested that she was given only MMR.

A claim for damages failed because there was not enough research into the vaccines. The Marchants are now suing their GP practice. Mr Marchant, 68, said: ‘To think so many other children suffer vaccine mix-ups is appalling.’

Not enough research to sue, but enough to inject into millions of children? That is fucking insane, and people wonder why parents are more and more reluctant to get their children shot up with this shit.

The NPSA said new packaging guidelines for jabs would ‘eradicate’ errors.

The Department of Health said: ‘Staff are trained to administer vaccines safely, follow the childhood immunisation schedule and to record it all.’

Horseshit. There is more to the vaccination program than they tell the serfs…