Brothel’s booming in London

Horray! Now if London females weren’t stuck up, selfish, self-righteous tramps maybe there wouldn’t be such a booming market for this service. So view this article as an indicator to the quality of women in London, which, like the air quality, is atrocious!

Source: BBC

(Extract)

London’s brothel industry has spread to “every corner” of the city, according to a charity’s report.

Brothels in the city offer sex for as little as £15, and some are charging £10 extra for unprotected intercourse, the Poppy Project in Southwark found.

Free market capitalism at its finest. Big fat LOL. See, all those feminist ball-breaker bitches aren’t very attractive. Easier to just have sex with a whore and be done with all the nagging and girl-power bullshit.

Its report said 85% of brothels in the city operated in residential areas and researchers posing as sex buyers found brothels in all 33 London boroughs.

Westminster had the highest number with 71, compared with eight in Southwark.

The study was compiled by the Poppy Project, which provides education about prostitution and helps victims of sex trafficking.

Westminster, where all the politicians work and next to the City. Who would have thought.

Together the brothels generated between £50m and £130m a year, the researchers estimated.

Now check this out. Obviously, beeing the BBC, they have to start trying to paint women as victims in this. The next paragraph is headed ‘Underage girls’ although there is no proof of it.

The average age of the women was 21. Several places offered “very, very young girls” but did not admit to having underage girls available. Continue reading

Police State Britain – Guilty Till Proven Innocent

Source: Daily Mail

Barred from a school job, the mother wrongly branded a criminal

When Amanda Hodgson applied for a job looking after pupils at her local primary school she thought the childcare checks would be a formality.

Her three children all attended the school and teachers had asked her a couple of times to consider helping out.

But a Home Office agency set up to vet those working with children claimed that Mrs Hodgson was a drug-dealing alcoholic with convictions for assaulting three police officers.

And instead of admitting a case of mistaken identity, the Criminal Records Bureau told Mrs Hodgson, 36, she would have to face a police interview and have her fingerprints taken which will then be checked against every unsolved crime in the country.

Yesterday Mrs Hodgson said she was horrified that she would have to prove her innocence.

She said: ‘The process is not fair. In a court of law the defendant is innocent until proven guilty but I am guilty until proven innocent.

The four-page CRB disclosure said that Amanda Jane Hodgson was convicted of assaulting three police officers in November 1989. In 1998 she appeared before magistrates charged with battery where she was given a conditional discharge.

In November last year, she accepted a police caution after being arrested for common assault.

Mrs Hodgson told the CRB they had sent the criminal record of a woman with the same name and date of birth. She also told them she took the surname of Hodgson only after she married in 1993, four years after the first offences.

However officials said it would be her responsibility to prove her innocence.

What next, being questioned for putting your hand in your pocket?

In totalitarianism, the rights of the state are elevated above the rights of the People. In fact, in a police state you have no rights, only privileges which can be removed if the dictatorship wishes. You can see such technicalities in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

Article 29, (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

And the European Union Charter of Human Rights;

Article 52; (3) Rights recognised by this Charter which are based on the Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

As such databases (DNA, CRB, Biometric) ballon in size, the probability of error increases. Such ‘errors’ can result in the ruination of people’s lives and reputations, something the State is not liable for. Neither will it deem itself liable for the fact that millions of civil servants, working under the swelling belly of the Socialist/ Communist State could have access to such information, or when such data is ‘lost’. The centralisation of vast amounts of personal data (such as the ID Card) does nothing to secure peoples’ personal data. It only presents a gold mine for criminals. The State however, views everything in the country as belonging to them, you, your children, your data, your rights, everything, and they are going to keep grabbing as much as they can until we have outright Fascism or the People exercise their Power against Tyranny and reinstall Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as the Highest Law of the Land.

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

BBC

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

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

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

Airport operator BAA said it was investigating the incident.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News Round Up

Hello all.

First up is a piece about some ‘unmarried’ mother in the BBC. Well, she likes to use them term. A comment left is more enlightening than the article. I didn’t write the title.

Meet the Credit Crunch Crumpet

Gosh. Stephanie Flanders, the economics editor of Newsnight, has just told me that she rather likes being recognised as ‘that bird off the telly who does numbers’. I’m confused. Isn’t Carol Vorderman the bird off the telly who does numbers? Surely there can’t be room on British TV for two women who can count?

Yeah yeah.

Here is the comment, which I feel hits the nail on the head.

“Disastrous for her career”?

I doubt it.

The BBC exists to provide careers for privileged people like Flanders. As you say “there is no shortage of Oxbridge graduates who all know each other.” And we know what that means.

She generously concedes that “we might have concluded that it could have been done differently.”

“Might”, “Could”? Actually Steph, Littlejohn wasn’t “partly” right, he was completely right. Feministas like you do not represent ordinary women -who are beginning to get the message that women like Flanders are using their positions of influence to make life worse for them.

Take for example the way in which feminists like Flanders are undermining marriage and forcing men into a “marriage strike” because of the divorce rip-off industry and the biassed family courts. Most women are against this.

And by the way, if she has a “partner” is she a single mother or not? She seems unwilling to relinquish the favoured status of this victim client group.

– Chris, Wokingham England

Along the lines of marketing skanky immoral crap to kids like this pole dancing toy, comes another barrel scraper. Continue reading

Mills awarded £24.3m settlement

Heather Mills has been awarded £24.3m in her divorce settlement with estranged husband Sir Paul McCartney.Speaking outside London’s High Court, Ms Mills said she was “glad it’s over” and “it was an incredible result to secure mine and my daughter’s future”.

I always wonder how women like her justify that kind of payment. More importantly, how they can refer to their daughter as mine.

The settlement will also see the former Beatle pay their four-year-old daughter Beatrice’s nanny and school fees and will pay Beatrice £35,000 a year.

Why aren’t they both contributing 50/ 50? Or does this hark back to the days of man, the provider? Somewhat different to the ‘equality’ women want today. Or is it only equality when it suits them, ‘traditionally treated’ when it suits them. As long as they can take as much as possible from others.

Speaking of taking, Queen of the Golddiggers was looking for a fair bit more than what she was finally awarded. Continue reading