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

Advertisements

Breaking footage! Women’s Only Vehicle Tunnel Opens…

After the mess the women made of the Women’s Only Car Park, engineers, psychologists and other experts from around the world convened to learn from that event. They isolated themselves in an underground base and worked tirelessly for a solution. A solution that enabled wimmin’s rights groups to have resources allocated purely for them, while denying the same for the men as that would be inequaliteeee.

Eventually, the worlds brightest female minds (takes one to know one right) developed the Women’s Only Traffic Tunnel. Leading from the Mall to their women’s only community (in a straight line because we all know women don’t understand angles), this tunnel would prevent evil men from being responsible for all the failures of women.

They even filmed it!

Enjoy the efficiency of women’s driving.

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.

Male defendants to be granted anonymity in rape cases

Wow, equal treatment for both parties in a rape allegation until a verdict is given.

Defendants in rape cases will now be granted anonymity under new rules set out in today’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition document.

The move will turn the clock back to the 1970s when the Sexual Offences Act introduced anonymity for those accused of rape, something later repealed.

Officials said details of the change were yet to be decided but it is likely the ban will be lifted once a suspect is convicted.

But it stands in the face of a report by Lady Stern that recommended independent research should first be done into the scale and nature of false rape allegations.

Which I think we all know, is a huge issue and getting larger all the time. Bog standard femskank fumes:

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the decision was an ‘insult’ and a backlash against the rising number of rape reports.

She said: ‘More attention needs to be paid to the 94% of reported cases that do not end in conviction rather than the few that are false.

‘If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying.

Can you believe it? Why should someone who has only been accused of a crime be identified? How is that a special right? It is a common occurance that women falsely accuse men of rape (just search on this blog for starters), it is also common that these falsely accused men have their lives ruined, even when acquitted. They get battered, bricks thrown through their windows, they lose their jobs, their friends etc.

Just because some spiteful bitch feels guilty about getting drunk and opening her legs to him? Or maybe trying to cover her own arse because she was actually cheating on her boyfriend at the time.

You know it happens.

‘False rape allegations are extremely rare, but receive disproportionate publicity.

‘Of course, being wrongly accused is a terrible ordeal but the same can be said of being wrongly accused of murder, theft, fraud or any other serious offence.

So?

‘We are against a special case where men accused of rape are singled out for special protection.’

Rape law campaigner Jill Saward said she is ‘horrified’ by the news and accused politicians of turning their backs on victims of sexual violence.

Ms Saward, who has spoken out on tackling rape since being attacked at her Ealing vicarage home in 1986, said she completely opposes anonymity for defendants.

She said the changes may discourage genuine victims from coming forward and ‘send a damaging message’.

Right, to anything to encourage more women to accuse more men of rape. Why, so these bitches can claim there is ‘such a problem’ ‘men are all rapists’ and then go running to the government for more funding?

Go fuck yourselves. I’m not holding my breath, but it would be good if this actually goes through.

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.

Vaccinate at eight weeks

More money for big pharma, more risks for your children. Vaccines make them money, adverse effects make them money.

Mail Online

Babies could be routinely vaccinated against hepatitis B under controversial plans being discussed by Government experts.

Cases of the disease, a blood infection which is often transmitted sexually, are said to be spiralling in Britain.

An influential committee on vaccination is considering adding it to a combination jab given to babies at eight weeks.

This would create a six-in-one vaccine which would also immunise against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib disease – a form of pneumonia.

But campaigners are concerned about the ‘over-vaccination’ of children and fear any complications caused by adding hepatitis B to the jab would be difficult to spot.

By the age of four, a child will have received 32 vaccines, some in multishot jabs including the MMR against measles, mumps and rubella.

The driving force behind the change is concern that infected immigrants are contributing to a rising tide of hepatitis B.

Why don’t they screen immigrants at the border then, or is that against their yuman rites.

The British Medical Association and the charity Hepatitis Foundation UK have previously called for all babies to be immunised against hepatitis B.

The move would also bring the UK in line with World Health Organisation policy.

Nothing like being pulled closer into the United Nations to make you feel safe…

More information on vaccinations.

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

Obama’s Plan To “Geo-Engineer” The Planet Mirrors CFR Policy Documents

Infowars

The Obama administration’s announcement that it is to consider radical planetary “geo-engineering”, such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays”, exactly mirrors recent publications penned by the elite Council On Foreign Relations.

Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration has held discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming.

The AP report states that Obama’s science advisor John Holdren is pushing for radical terra forming programs to be explored such as creating an “artificial volcano”. Despite Holdren’s admission that such measures could have “grave side effects,” he added that, “we might get desperate enough to want to use it.”

Such ideas exactly mirror those put forth by the CFR in previous years.

In briefing notes (PDF) published in May 2008 from the CFR’s Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the elite internationalist group lays out the exact same radical ideas now being touted by the Obama administration.

The following excerpts are taken from the document:

Geoengineering Strategies

Among all geoengineering schemes, those currently considered most feasible involve increasing the planetary albedo, that is, reflecting more sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed. There are a number of different methods that could be used to increase the planet’s reflectivity:

1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere which is located between 15 and 50 kilometers above the Earth’s surface).

2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere)

3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.

4. Change large portions of the planet’s land cover from things that are dark (absorbing) such as trees to things that are light (reflecting) such as open snowcover or grasses.

[…]

Stratospheric Aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g. over the arctic) or to rise above the stratospher (so as not to interfere in stratospheric chemistry).

Adding more of the right kind of fine particles to the stratosphere can increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space.

Applied to geoengineering, various technologies could be used to loft particles into the stratosphere, such as naval guns, rockets, hot air balloons or blimps, or a fleet of highflying aircraft. Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols.

The CFR’s geo-engineering research program is directed by David G. Victor a Professor at Stanford Law School and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Also involved are M. Granger Morgan, head of Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering, Jay Apt, Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, and John Steinbruner, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.

In an article entitled The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort Against Global Warming? published in this month’s Foreign Affairs, the CFR’s monthly magazine, the directors once again lay out their ideas for planetary terraforming, calling for a worldwide 60-80 percent cut in carbon emissions.

Obama’s push toward a so called “cap and trade” carbon taxation program is also a direct descendant of Victor et al’s CFR policy formation.

A CFR geo-engineering meeting summary document from 1999 (PDF pages 12,13,14) also categorically states that the ultimate goal under “A technology strategy for global warming” is the implementation of a global Carbon Tax.

The memo also pedantically explains how the perceived fear of global warming can be used to sell to Americans what is essentially a tax on air:

“While taxing tea pales in comparison to taxing air as a perceived government affront, the clear benefits of a taxation policy to combat global warming might convince even the descendents of our tax-resistant Founding Fathers.”

The tentative announcement by the Obama administration of the existence of geoengineering research programs is a first step toward introducing the idea to the wider public.

However, as we highlighted in our master article yesterday, geo-engineering is undoubtedly already being conducted by government-affiliated universities, government agencies, and on a mass scale through chemtrail spraying.

Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to terraform the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.

Further Research: Here is an extremely valuable file folder containing 8 PDFs, all published by the CFR, and all concerning their Geo-Engineering Program.

To view related links and more articles, go here.

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

Save the British pub, Axe the Beer Tax

The point of the socialist governments attack on public drinking houses is simple; The pub is a location for people to congregate, socialise and communicate. Throughout history they have been critical in enabling people to meet and organise themselves, in regards to local government or the state. They would much prefer independent pubs to close, to be replaced by generic chain ‘bars’ because they are easier to control.

Man tries to buy a pint in Wetherspoons

This is the same thing that is happening with the police, the GP surgeries etc. Centralise it under the State. It also presents an opportunity for the pig bastard state to leech more money off of you, among other things, like conditioning the public to ‘show your papers schnell!!!’.

None of it is necessary, none of it needs to exist. Please visit these sites for more info, I hope you will find them useful.

Axe The Beer Tax

Save the Pub campaign

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.

1,300 girls experience adverse side-effects to cervical cancer vaccine

Daily Mail

More than 1,300 schoolgirls have experienced adverse reactions to the controversial cervical cancer jab.

Doctors have reported that girls aged just 12 and 13 have suffered paralysis, suffered convulsions and sight problems after being given the vaccine.

Dozens were described as having pain ‘in extremity’ while others suffered from nausea, muscle weakness, fever, dizziness and numbness.

The vaccine is being given to girls under a Government programme to prevent women from developing cervical cancer. Ministers say it will ultimately save 700 lives a year.

I am not surprised at this at all. Why? Because I have researched it.

HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

Gardasil vaccine deaths in UK

Cervical cancer vaccine punted to 300,000 more teenage girls

Vaccines Found to Cause Diabetes in Children

Researchers Question Wide Use of HPV Vaccines

Give Gardasil to boys, Big Pharma can double profits!

Gardasil Cancer Vaccine Linked to Pancreatitis, and more.

And more.