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

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.

Women’s Right to Choose in Full Effect

Let’s see how the wimmins revolution is coming along…

TOTAL  – Summary of Registered Abortions Worldwide, through April 2010

1922 – 2010: 863,000,000 reported abortions, estimated 950,000,000 total abortions.

Estimated current global monthly average: 1,237,000 abortions.

Wow, and there I was thinking Marxists killed a lot of people.

mmary of Registered Abortions Worldwide, through April 2010

Genocide Spectrum: Largest mass killings in History

**************** ALL TIME CHAMPION *************
258M 20th century by govt. “Death by Government”
180M Evil deaths caused by govt or religion in 20th century
120M Partial Total Karl Marx inspired killings
**************************************************

Serial false rape accuser, still protected

A woman drove a man to suicide by crying rape and forced a second innocent man to consider taking his life after falsely accusing him of a similar sex attack.

Despite being exposed in court as a serial liar, legal restrictions mean the 21-year-old woman can never be identified.

A jury took only 45 minutes to clear medical student Olumide Fadayomi, 27, of rape.

But several jurors at Sheffield Crown Court broke down in tears when the judge revealed the ‘victim’ had a history of crying rape.

This woman is a criminal. Why is she still protected? What sort of disgusting feminist nonsense is this? It is this kind of feminist nonsense.

  • “Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.” — Catherine MacKinnon
  • “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins
  • “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” (Marilyn French, Author; and advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign)
  • “We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men…” Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “One Woman, One Vote”

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.

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.

Mother beats 21 month old baby to death, jailed for ‘life’

A mother who punched and kicked her 21-month-old son to death was jailed for life today.

Collette Harris, 30, must serve at least 16 years behind bars for the murder of Bobby Louch.

He had more than 80 bruises and injuries on his tiny body and head, as well as a burn to his right hand, when he died four days after Christmas in 2008.

He had fatal damage to his brain and abdomen and his injuries were so severe they would normally be seen in a car crash, the Old Bailey was told.

But Bobby had been treated for a broken leg three weeks earlier and was kept in for a scan when bruises were seen on his forehead.

The toddler’s mother, Collette Harris, complained she was being ‘victimised’ and said the bruises were the result of Bobby banging his head on his cot.

Victim? Of what! Victimised by a baby?

She screamed ‘Oh my God’ and collapsed in tears as the jury found her guilty of murder.

Harris whispered ‘I did not touch my son’.

She had tried to blame her new boyfriend, James Phillips, who denied killing Bobby or causing the injuries.

Drug taker Phillips, 25, of Erith, Kent, was found not guilty of murder and alternate charges of manslaughter and causing or allowing the death.

After ‘boyfriends’ and ‘step-fathers’ the biggest group of child abusers are biological mothers. I wonder how they knew this guy didn’t have anything to do with it?

I left out further details of the injuries the baby sustained, it’s hard enough reading it, if you want to know, read the full article. Another symptom of the breakdown of the nuclear family, one of the foundations of feminism.

Who says women aren’t competitive

I have been following the ever falling standards of female ‘artists’ closely over the years. The way they seem to have gotten more and more slutty, sexualised and pathetic in their attempts to 1. get media coverage for themselves and 2. get media coverage away from their ‘competition’.

That is what this boils down to. Attention. In this case, attention equals money. I mean, Grace Jones was outrageous in her way, but she was never slutty. How many male performers do you see cavorting on stage wearing just a jockstrap and top hat?

Why do women feel the need to sprinkle sex on everything they do? Well, now it’s more like whack dollops of that stuff on, to the point that you can’t even recognise what is supposed to be underneath it.

Instead of ‘would you like a little ketchup with that hot dog’, it is now, ‘would you like a little hotdog with that ketchup?’

Femscum go into a ‘totalitarian paradox’ when women start showing their true colours. It goes like this;

There is a resource, could be money, sperm, protection, homes, whatever.

Woman wants resource. Someone else controls resource. If that someone is a man, the easiest way to acquire it is to use sex (or the hint of it).

This is nature. Every year in England, a bunch of gorgeous brainboxes get together and do a beauty pageant thing. They smile, they’re fit, their smart, they’re having a bit of fun etc. But before you could say ‘can I solve your equation honey bunny.’ the local femscum (and mangina) always kick up a fuss. These women are being exploited apparently. Although their choosing to do it. You know, that ‘choice’ thing feminists keep banging on about.

I guess what feminists really meant all along was ‘women should be free to choose to do what we want them to do’. Which isn’t very free at all. But they can’t directly attack the women, that would show their true totalitarian colours, so they continue to perpetrate the myth of the victim. The person organising it is exploiting them! The hall they booked is exploiting them! The paper that reported it on it are exploiting them!

Even the bloody girls themselves say ‘piss off and leave us alone, we’re just having some fun’.

But no, the INDUSTRY OF VICTIMHOOD commands that for these feminists to continue to feel like they are doing something worthwhile (they’re not) they must continue to try and convince everyone they are needed, by convincing everyone that all women are victims of something. Anything, long as they can point a finger at a man in the end (and demand resources to continue to fund their pathetic hateful lives).

Can you imagine this mentality with black people, women, or Jews?

Feminsts, get a fucking clue. You’re about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit. You care about individual freedom about as much as Stalin and you are actually the enemy of men and women.

Buy a dildo or something, just leave us the fuck alone.

Third of children never see dad after a divorce

More than one in three children never see their father again after their parents split up, research into family breakdown shows. And nearly one in ten is so traumatised by the separation that they have considered suicide.

Children are often used as ‘emotional footballs’ and left feeling ‘used, isolated and alone’, with many turning to drink, drugs and truanting. Sandra Davis, head of family law at Mishcon de Reya, which carried out the survey of more than 4,000 people, said: ‘This research highlights that despite their best intentions, parents are often using their children as emotional footballs.

Notice how this article opens with fathers not seeing children, implying it is their choice (and thus are ‘deadbeat dads’), but when it comes to children being used as emotional weapons, they generalise. I mean, if so many children are kept by the mother, and the father has NO CONTACT, you must assume that the majority of emotional abuse would come from the mother. But you cannot criticise mothers, the all-perfect little things.

‘They can be seen as tangible objects. There has to be change to give our children a voice that’s meaningful. ‘The process now encourages an adversarial approach, but it needs to be about communication between the parents.

How about equal rights to the children, which is actually enforceable?

‘Therapeutic input, not litigation, is the answer and will reduce the emotional and financial cost of separation.’ For 38 per cent of children, separation meant they never saw their father again.

Although 70 per cent of parents said their children’s welfare was the most important factor in a divorce, a quarter of children said they had been forced by one parent to lie to the other.

I wonder which sex did that the most. Still, this will keep being promoted for two reasons. Men are the enemy of tyrants and women are the majority voting base.

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

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.