Who Let the Dogs Out?
Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war,
that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial.
William Shakespeare
I have been pondering this matter for days now, since before Christmas. Small details permeated my conscience, building up a picture that I could not bear to look at.
A news item, celebrating the inexorable rise of IVF births, how ‘wonderful’ it was that so many children should be created in a laboratory, by implication far from contact with nasty, smelly, dangerous, men. TV adverts that show smart, capable women leading imbecilic men by the hand to conclusions that would be obvious to any child. A Guardian article reviewing Steve Biddulph’s new book ‘Raising Girls’, which dealt exclusively with the need for girls to have ‘Aunts’, even pretend Aunties, as a ‘second person’ in their lives in whom they could confide – an article which managed to exclude all mention of men; ironic considering that Biddulph is justly famous for his book ‘Raising boys’ which championed the importance of men in their upbringing. A horrified quote from a former head-teacher that ’30 years ago it was considered ‘normal’ to involve parents in school outings, or for a child to see his head teacher alone in a room with a shut door – quelle horreur! Naturally they wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing today…Another newspaper report detailing how aggressively the rape laws are construed today. A newspaper report today, claiming that ‘One in Twenty women have been raped’ – the demonisation of men is almost complete. Surely the publication of the Yewtree report today, one of seven separate ’investigations’ – though I can scarcely credit an official record of ‘allegations’ as an ‘investigation’ – will complete the process.
Let me return to that report of a recent rape case. I have kept it open on my desktop for days waiting to see if any male blogger raised a query about it – not a word! It is not only the post Leveson media which is cowed these days…
I will paraphrase it for you. Two women, chatting on social media, as you do. One confides in the other that she fears her husband is having an affair – would her friend, whom she has never met in real life, be so kind as to pop round to her house and see if she can persuade her husband to have sex with her and thus prove his infidelity? Well of course, says the on-line friend, happy to oblige. And oblige she does. Obviously in some circles nipping round to a total stranger’s house to have sex with him is considered perfectly normal – indeed, enjoyable. She enjoys it so much that she returns several more times to ‘test his fidelity’. She even filmed the encounter and sent the tape to her on-line friend. Her on-line friend offered her money for this service, something she accepted, though the money failed to materialise. Now before you fall into the trap of assuming that I am saying that prostitutes don’t have the right to be protected by rape laws – I’m not. I’m merely making the point that this was a woman for whom sex held so little intrinsic meaning that she was prepared to repeatedly have sex with a total stranger and treat it as a commodity that could be paid for. For the benefit of the sisterhood, naturally.
However, the on-line friend was becoming greedy, and encouraged her to have ever more adventurous sexual encounters with her husband. Who did she turn to in her hour of need, on becoming alarmed by this turn of events? Why the husband of course, so good and amicable was her relationship with him by this time. He said he would ‘kill his ex-wife’ and in due course reported that he had done so. At which point our victim turns to another of the sisterhood. ‘Oh my’, she cries, ‘I’m responsible for the death of a woman…’. ‘Woe is me!’
Did I just say victim? Indeed I did. For the sisterhood carted her off to the local police station, and in due course they transferred her to the cosily lit and comfortable rape interviewing suite. Rape? Ms Raccoon – did you say rape? Oh, I did. For the husband has just been given seven years in jail for rape and placed on the sex offenders list for life.
You see our victim, who was perfectly content to repeatedly sleep with a total stranger; was perfectly content to provide photographic evidence – presumably so the poor sap could be divorced and denuded of his life and children; perfectly content to take money for this service; and perfectly content to turn to him for protection when she felt threatened, was ‘utterly traumatised’ and ‘bravely came forward’ when she discovered that the husband and the ‘on-line wife’ were one and the same person…aye, he’d lied, tricked her even. Possibly verged on blackmail and coercion, but in these days where nothing less than a signed affidavit absolving the male of all consequences of having had sex is sufficient to prove informed consent – he was charged because he lied about himself and tricked her into bed and thus found guilty of rape.
It is not a demonisation of all men. Gay men apparently have nothing to fear – perhaps the sisterhood has decided that they are not real men and so can be tolerated. They are to be encouraged to marry and raise families. Asian men are merely doing what comes naturally to their culture – and thus with 600 complaints of sexual abuse in the Rochdale area, there is not one single prosecution. Curiously the extensive ‘Yewtree trawl’ has not netted widely publicised allegations against prominent Labour supporters, though I know from experience that the solidly Labour voting heartlands of the Rhondda valley are full of paedophiles – I used to visit their victims on a regular and depressing basis. It would seem, from reading the media, that paedophilia is something that only occurs to men who have achieved fame and good fortune whilst being on the right of politics.
The language used is that of the cold war era – paedophiles ‘infiltrate’, they operate in ‘rings’; those, such as I, who pour cold water on some of the more fanciful allegations, are described as ‘dis-information agents’. It is as though the general public have a great need for a bogey man in their midst. Currently it is white, middle class, Conservative voting, males.
There was one man who wrote extensively on this need for a ‘moral panic’. 30 years ago. He wrote the definitive academic book. “Folk Devils and Moral Panic”. Stanley Cohen. Originally it was about the ‘mods and rockers’ phenomenon, but he had recently updated it for the 30th anniversary reprint – for it is still the standard text book on these matters – to include the moral panics generated around the ‘folk devils’ of today: ecstasy and designer drugs; the death of James Bulger; the ‘name and shame’ campaign against suspected paedophiles; and the vilification of ‘bogus’ asylum seekers. Sadly, when I went to look it up, I discovered that he died last Monday, apparently unmourned by the feministas at the Guardian. If they have printed an obituary, I admit I have failed to find it.
That could be because Stanley strayed from the moral code of social workers, by counselling against the idea of turning all events into a crisis, and creating a nation of dependent victims. Women, who through 30 years of feminism have been taught that they are eternal victims, who can only be protected by the State and more laws, more regulation. Any suggestion that they might have any part to play in the small matter of how they ended up in bed with a nasty man, or giving him a blow job five minutes after they met him, is met with a chorus of ‘victim blaming’.
‘Cry Havoc’ was originally a military rallying call to the victorious troops to collect the spoils of war, to plunder the treasures of the defeated. In a few minutes I expect to start wading through the ‘Yew-tree’ report, which I confidently expect to be a rallying call for the massed armies of lawyers out there to start plundering the tax payers for £13,000 a piece to sooth the ruffled feathers of those whose allegations of how they were ‘groomed’ – in five minutes flat! – to become a victim of a celebrity, 40 years ago.
It really matters not one jot, the ultimate fate of those who have been charged under the ‘Savile investigation ‘others’ tag – they will be forever tarred as associates of ‘the most prolific paedophile’ the media have ever gorged upon. When, hopefully, they are found not guilty, it will receive as little publicity as has the writing of Darren Laverty, or the other ‘non-victim’ who wrote to me the other night to tell me of the numerous attempts she had made to interest the media in the story of how as a child she had known Savile well, and spent many hours alone with him in Leeds – only to be unmolested by him, to this day…no takers. Not one media outlet interested in printing the story. The truth is being sadly suppressed.
Who let the dogs out? The Feminists. They win. If I was the Mother of a white middle class teenage son in Britain today, I would move heaven and earth to see him emigrate – just about anywhere.
January 12, 2013 at 13:46
-
I’m not at all sure that some of the contributors here actually know what
feminism is.
What feminism WAS when it began and what it is now are very
different things. Back in the 80s I had many very heated arguments with my
‘sisters’ because I thought the trend towards demonisation of men, and the
claim I often heard that women were ‘better people’ than men, represented a
perversion of the original ideals of the women who started the movement.
Biological determinism inverted. I found the Greenham Common stuff
excruciating but was regarded as a total maverick.
I am even more sure now
that I was right but am sad to see that because of the nonsense it came to
represent, the very idea of feminism is now rejected by young women in survey
after survey.
Which is a great shame, because all a feminist is in truth is
“an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women”.
- January 13, 2013 at 17:28
-
No, from the beginning feminism was intended as a supremacist movement,
where women could enjoy the same rights and freedoms of men without any of
the responsibilities.
-
January 15, 2013 at 07:27
-
No, because all a feminist is in truth is an advocate or supporter of the
rights of women to enjoy the perceived privileges that some men are
perceived to enjoy, which most men DON’T actually enjoy, while not
relinquishing any privileges that women receive and avoiding all of the
responsibilities that society requires of men. In short, a Female
Supremacist movement.
- January 12, 2013 at 12:37
-
Surely every male practises some degree of trickery or chicanery, or at
least inflated claims of their own prowess, in order to attract females?
That’s Cock Robin, Tail-feather Peacock and roaring Simba, the pride leader.
Human males do it too – what a surprise. Females most likely know it’s
exaggeration and a degree of untruthfulness, but because females like shiny,
brighty, glittery things and fairy tales and fanciful notions, they are
prepared to suspend belief (for a while) and go along with the dream. If women
are victims, it’s because they are often co-complicit in a game of mild
deceptions for the purposes of mating. They’re victims of themselves quite
often, no more evident than in a woman’s choice of violent partner, whose
behaviour could be predicted by anyone …. other than the feckless woman in
question, who at the time chose to deceive herself.
Anyway, I’ve recently found out that a couple of my ex’s actually wore
make-up and even coloured their hair with dyes and potions to make themseleves
seem other than what they were. I’ve been hugely deceived, extorted on the
basis of that deception and now realise I may have been ‘raped’ times over.
Are there any lawyers here?
The above is a joke of course. The country’s gone nuts!
- January 11, 2013 at 22:20
-
Men are becoming fed up with being demonized for the shape of our genitals
while women have free reign to do anything they want. We will no longer be
protectors and providers for any woman. We are avoiding marriage,
cohabitation, and even dating. We regard women as competitors at best and
violent adversaries at worst. In the future, the only men who will want to
have anything to do with women will be after her vote or her money or her
___.
And if women want to avoid this future, you’d better start pushing back
really hard against feminism and misandry. Better yet, let every man in your
life know that you appreciate him despite what society says about him.
-
January 11, 2013 at 21:35
-
XX he was charged because he lied about himself and tricked her into bed
and thus found guilty of rape.XX
Text book case.
Yes. He WAS.
You may not agree with the law, but, as it stands…..
-
January 11, 2013 at 21:54
-
Yessss! I’ll go along with that. Now let me see. What did I do with my
little list of all those rotten, lying swines?
- January 11, 2013 at
22:03
-
O.k. my wife, who is in training to be a solicitor, here, and her
uncle, who IS a solicitor and (retired) judge) think that it is
“Betrug”….. Fraud(?), more than rape.
She HAD concented.
Therefore we are talking of the old joke “When does a prostitute cry
rape?…. When the cheque bounces.”
- January 11, 2013 at 18:37
-
Ok, I’m reading through the report carefully at the moment, and wonder if
anyone can enlighten me as to how there can be 18 ‘crimes’ reported in
counties not known? Have they seriously given credibility to complainants who
are unable to say WHERE it happened?
- January
11, 2013 at 19:09
-
It looks that way. And oh so many of the Great British Public are happy
with this.
-
January 11, 2013 at 19:55
-
Yes Mina, I fear that is exactly what it means.
- January 11, 2013 at 18:10
-
What is now called rape is not what I understood by the term but it seems
the law has changed. As regards the Savile report, as far as I can see he has
been found ‘guilty’ of anything anyone chooses to say with no attempt to even
test the allegations. I did see one child protection man say, as I once did
here, that a crossover from pre pubescent to teenagers was very rare but I
have not seen him on again as yet. One of my friends has a disabled brother
who attended a Jim Will Fix It show, I told her he should claim abuse at once,
why not everyone else is.
- January 11, 2013 at 17:27
-
As a bloke I really don’t understand why some people feel the need to do
whatever it is they allegedly do with young children.
But they do, and I
don’t like it.
What’s happening now though seems to be similar to the
burning of witches, and driven by no more evidence.
As for the obliging
online friend, I’m sure millions of us have been guilty of misrepresentation
to obtain consent at some time in our lives.
Just not as inventive, or
found someone so obliging.
- January 11,
2013 at 17:25
-
“Let me return to that report of a recent rape case. I have kept it open
on my desktop for days waiting to see if any male blogger raised a query about
it – not a word! “
Anna, you don’t link to the report, so I can’t be sure, but was it the same
one as this?
http://timworstall.com/2013/01/08/im-sorry-but-how-is-this-rape/
If so, I think Tim counts as a male blogger, doesn’t he?
- January 11, 2013 at 17:48
-
Apologies to Tim – I missed that one. Thank-you Julia.
- January
11, 2013 at 19:08
-
Jon at 15:08 got there first!
- January 11, 2013 at 17:08
-
He wasn’t found guilty, he pleaded guilty. Very different.
Did the CPS take a leaf out of the US DOJ book and highball the
charges/sentencing (max 15yrs?) to coerce a guilty plea? And where the heck
was his lawyer?
- January 11, 2013 at 16:47
-
Is it April 1st? I wish it was…..Maybe the weather would a bit better. He
should have been banged up for years for internet crime, not rape. Perhaps it
would discourage others from deception and misuse of this wonderful medium.
The victimised laydee could be given community service in a nunnery for being
so immoral as to deceive her fiance, and indulging in sex several times with
such a terrible troll, lack of taste in sex partners too. This is a sample of
one laydee trying to help another laydee, a la sisterhood. He used the
sisterhood in his plot…….. one year off the sentence for ingenuity.
- January 11, 2013 at 16:23
-
‘Savile groomed the nation’ Eh? That’s the headline. They’ve jumped the
paedo shark this time, I think.
Reminiscent of Brass Eye’s Paedogeddon. Did he ever disguise himself as a
school to roam the streets in search of kids?
Good job the NSPCC and the Met have Nonce Sense.
- January
11, 2013 at 17:27
-
I’d like to think they’ve jumped the shark, but there’s so many
people (including so-called ‘investigative journalists’!) who seem to agree
with this that… well.
As I said before, I’m ashamed of my country.
-
January 11, 2013 at 15:29
-
Reading about the “Marina” case isn’t the issue not just what he’s guilty
of, but whether she is also guilty of an offence? Can’t they both be?
- January
11, 2013 at 17:28
-
When was the last time the police swooped on a teenage couple having sex
below the age of consent and charged both the boy AND the girl?
- January 11, 2013 at 15:20
-
I swear if this nonsense continues for much longer, I may die laughing
- January 11, 2013 at 15:39
-
There’s gotta be a jobe about Nonce Sense retrievable from there somehow!
Taxi? Pour moi? I shall obtain my coat.
-
January 11, 2013 at 15:15
-
It looks like the CPS are now going to head down the road of prosecuting
everybody who is accused of a sexual offence, regardless of how marginal the
case is. It’s a “watershed moment”, apparently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20981611
- January 11, 2013 at 16:25
-
And now some idiot (at the NAPAC) is claiming Savile is a murderer! He
murdered the innocence of his (alleged) victims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrncpvPE-vc
-
January 11, 2013 at 19:52
-
Yes Duncan. Worrying isn’t it?
It’s open season and boy, if more than
one person makes an allegation – you are effectively done for.
- January 11, 2013 at 15:08
-
Tim Worstall covered the rape case – http://timworstall.com/2013/01/08/im-sorry-but-how-is-this-rape/
- January
11, 2013 at 17:29
-
Ah! So it WAS the same one. I did wonder. Sorry, but I’m working my way
‘up’ the comments list.
- January 11, 2013 at 15:00
-
Rather sobering Anna. As with most, well, almost everything the question of
‘cui bono?’ is as good a place to start as any and all the meeja types, social
workers, lawyers and the various riff raff of hangers on, parasitical bottom
feeders can book their Carribean cruises on the back of Sir Jim’s largesse –
he’s the gooser who laid the golden egg. Jimmy fixed it for me to pay off my
mortgage and write some absolute shite – huzzah!
-
January 11, 2013 at 14:57
-
I always feel I need to stress this, but I have no doubt Savile was a
filthy old perv and I’m sure if he’d assaulted anyone close to me, I’d have
wanted his bits cut off. I also know that my parents were not so negligent or
star-struck as to encourage me to worship TV personalities to the extent of
even wanting to meet them. Which again doesn’t equate to saying all parents of
his alleged victims were, but some would have been.
But to balance that, whle we are being told he “groomed the nation” and
spent every waking minute planning his nefarious activities, the accusations
against him seem to add to up to about three cases a year if he was at it for
40 years, and of the worst “penetrative” sort roughly one a year. Even one of
these is one too many, but it hardly undermines the fabric of the nation.
-
January 11, 2013 at 15:46
-
I always get suspicious when a graph is presented without a separate and
fuller breakdown of the actual numbers. You can spin something a long way,
depending on how you graph it.
I would also question the split on Figure 4 between the ages, with two
bands straddling the age of consent.
- January 11, 2013 at 17:21
-
Yes, the report seems a very sloppy piece of work to me. About half a
dozen sample cases are briefly mentioned with the nature of the
accusations, one of them involving a then 14-year-old at Duncroft, which
may not even be accurate. Also calling oral sex a “penetrative act” is a
bit of a stretch.
I would have thought at the very least there should be a brief synopsis
of EVERY complaint, with notes about the credibility of the plaintiff if
they were at all relevant. Then there should have been copies of the full
witness statements or sworn affidavits of the most significant or landmark
cases. These could of course have been redacted to protect the
confidentiality of the plaintiffs.
Is this typical of the investigatory reports that are forwarded by
investigators to the prosecutors in the UK to see if there is enough
evidence for an actionable case? I find it hard to believe.
-
January 11, 2013 at 17:55
-
@ Jonathan Mason
“Is this typical of the investigatory reports
that are forwarded by investigators to the prosecutors in the UK to see
if there is enough evidence for an actionable case? I find it hard to
believe.”
No it isn’t, you’re absolutely right. Any officer who tried it would
receive a stern and scathing reply from the CPS.
@ Peter Raite.
Those graphs represent the total labour of of 30
dedicated police officers for three months at great cost to the nation,
and its not nice of you to mock. They had to learn how to use excel and
everything.
-
January 11, 2013 at 14:51
-
Anna, you write: “Possibly verged on blackmail and coercion”; the original
article writes: ““ Marina” later claimed that she was back from Russia and
warned the victim that if she did not consent to various sexual acts with
Ritchie, the original recording would be sent to her family and work
colleagues.”
The original recording referred to is a video of the accuser and accused
having sex – this to my mind IS blackmail, no possibly about it. Agreeing to
have sex with someone once, does not mean they get a free pass forever more,
and I would suspect that the reason the blackmail started was because she
either wanted to stop having sex with him or wouldn’t do whatever particular
things he wanted her to do.
If she’d gone to the police at that stage, then the charge would have been
attempted blackmail, but the reason blackmail works is because the person
doesn’t want the information held on them to be known, the ‘payment’ in the
instance was sex, which is why the charge is rape.
Her background has nothing to do with whether she was raped on the specific
occasions that charges were brought for – by saying that “this was a woman for
whom sex held so little intrinsic meaning that she was prepared to repeatedly
have sex with a total stranger and treat it as a commodity that could be paid
for” – you appear to be implying that being forced to have sex against her
will shouldn’t upset her?
If someone you had previously had consensual sex with held a gun to a loved
one’s head and said they would shoot them unless they could have sex with you,
and you did have sex with them on that occasion, wouldn’t you call that rape?
I would.
- January 11, 2013 at 15:05
-
It may be blackmail to your mind, but since I am not possessed of a job
inside the CPS I would go no further than to say it was ‘possibly
blackmail’. It is for the CPS to decide whether it was or wasn’t
blackmail.
The charge was rape because it was held that she had
never given informed consent for sex on the basis that she had
never been fully informed….it wasn’t related to solely after the alleged
blackmail attempt.
With your regard to ‘someone holding a gun to my head
and whether that constituted rape’ – yes of course it would.
That wasn’t
the issue. The issue was that she had been tricked into having sex with him
in the first place.
- January 11, 2013 at 15:32
-
Can I sue that barstard who sweet talked me into bed in 1972 by telling
me he loved me desperately, madly, and then dumped me after he’d had his
way?
-
January 11, 2013 at 15:38
-
That would depend on very complex moral and legal questions, such as,
“is/was he famous?”
- January 11, 2013 at
15:51
-
No. But he could be. Has he got any money, might be more
relevant.
- January 11, 2013 at 16:38
-
It doesn’t say that in the telegraph article, it merely says he has
been convicted of rape, not to how many instances – if you have a link to
the full court transcript I would be interested to read it and will stand
corrected on the issue.
-
January 11, 2013 at 16:10
-
I’m with Anna on this one. And I don’t even think it’s blackmail.
In practice, all the bloke did was to gain sexual advantage by deception,
a sort of ‘flesh-based fraud’. He’d floated an elaborately cunning ruse (of
which many would have been proud) which succeeded in delivering the deluded
wench to his bed a number of times and for a variety of creative horizontal
exercises. Dishonourable it certainly may have been, but how many of we
chaps can honestly say we’ve always been entirely truthful in our life-long
quest to park the sausage ? Let him who is without sin…….
The fact that the feminists of the Menstrual Militia, aka The Tampon
Tendency, then seek to construe this as ‘rape’ is merely an attempt to
disguise the rampant gullibility of some of their air-headed members in
falling for the more creative tactics used successfully by some of the
blokes. Trouble is, the justice system now seems to be on their side – fair,
it ain’t.
- January
11, 2013 at 17:32
-
“In practice, all the bloke did was to gain sexual advantage by
deception..”
As I pointed out at Tim Worstall’s blog on this, doesn’t that leave the
actions of that cop who had relationships with a bunch of hippies while
keeping tabs on some environut protest open to prosecution? God knows, the
feminist whackjobs would love to see it happen!
-
January 11, 2013 at 20:28
-
Indeed, that under-cover cop could fit the same ‘charge’, although
his defence would surely be that, had he declined all the free humping
on offer from the unwashed tree-huggettes, that would have risked
compromising his covert operation by exposing him as ‘not a normal
bloke’, therefore he only ‘reluctantly’ humped then, rather than
deceptively.
On the basis that he was thus a fundamentally unwilling party to the
said humping, perhaps he should be accusing the Swampettes of rape
instead ? Oh such a tangled web we weave……
-
January 11, 2013 at 14:28
-
Having read the pdf of the Savile report called “Giving Voice toVictims”, I
am amazed as a person who left the UK long ago how low British justice has
sunk.
The whole report from beginning to end is a propaganda exercise with many
diversions to discuss issues quite irrelevant to whether Savile committed the
sexual offenses he is charged with. For example a case is quoted where a woman
reported her neighbor for allegedly striking a baby, because Savile publicity
had made her realize she had a responsibility to report. WTF?
The report may be summed up in Executive Summary style as follows:
“There are so many complaints that they could never all be investigated, so
let’s just assume that every single one of them is true and go from there
without investigating any of them at all, even the most serious.”
We might just as well say that so many entertainers from the past have been
charged with sexual offenses, that we might just as well assume they are all
equally guilty and sentence them as such.
I am not saying that Savile didn’t commit paedophile offenses against boys
and girls as well as rapes, indecent assaults, and gropings. Most likely he
did, however I was once the foreman of a jury, so I know what it takes, and I
have not yet heard any concrete evidence that would make me sure beyond
reasonable doubt that he was guilty of sex crimes.
Yes, there are lots of accusers and generally there is no smoke without
fire. But where are the witnesses with unimpeachable credibility and specific
allegations that would stand up well to cross examination in court? Having
seen how easily Stephen Messham was given access to a national TV audience to
push wild allegations that he had been trying to flog for 20 years, pardon me
for being suspicious and asking for more than just an assurance from the
author of the report that the witnesses were all truthful.
- January 11, 2013 at 15:41
-
The problem is that corroboration cannot be established by volume of
accusations alone. Were all these accusations against Savile to be have been
made independently and without media exposure, then we could safely assume,
beyond reasonable doubt, that a great many of the accusations would be true.
But as we have seen, the great majority of the accusations only came after
the initial allegations came out against him.
The fact that >some< allegations were indeed made against him by
independent witnesses while he was alive does suggest truth to some of the
allegations, but it is not clear to me how many and at what severity.
With regard to Lord McAlpine, I can safely state that had he been dead at
the time of Messham’s allegations, he would be another ‘Savile’. If there is
no threat of libel and you have no lawyers working on your behalf to put
your side of the story to journalists, you will not get fair treatment in
the press.
- January
11, 2013 at 17:21
-
“The fact that >some< allegations were indeed made against him
by independent witnesses while he was alive does suggest truth to some of
the allegations…”
Does it? Clearly, the police and CPS weren’t confident!
-
January 11, 2013 at 14:00
-
Mr c777,
That’s exactly what it is. Ralph Milliband would have known all about this.
And Gramsci.
This paedo business is just one aspect – the effects of
Marxism are everywhere you look.
Poor old Christendom!
- January 11, 2013 at 13:21
-
Cultural Marxism, Frankfurt school style.
The state raises children, the
state creates children.
How to achieve this.
Break the natural male
female relationship by making it almost impossible without the consent of the
state.
- January 11, 2013 at 13:16
-
“Women, who through 30 years of feminism have been taught that they are
eternal victims”.
I have known Germaine Greer for 35 years and long ago she
told me the nutters have co-opted her feminism for a variety of ignorant
reasons.
She told me after one panel show about 20 years ago in Australia
when she attempted to broach this subject, the reaction was so severe, so
threatening from the ‘sister hood’ that she perceived she was in mortal danger
from some nutcase who may permanently silence her in order to create a
martyr.
You may recall she was attacked in her home and tied up by a ‘fan’ who she
said exhibited all the traits she described and from that moment decided to
‘throw the switch to vaudeville’. Her recent history would confirm that.
I think the Savile report IS important but for all the wrong reasons. In
decades or 100 years they will say this moment demonstrated the instant a sort
of Middle Ages national hysteria spread throughout Britain and all common
sense vanished.
Savile will be just be the first of many Witch Hunts for all sorts of
reasons. Tabloid mentality is now solidified as the ‘truth’.
The Guardian of course is just printing pompous inanities.
-
January 11, 2013 at 17:26
-
This comment is not by this “Joe Public”.
-
January 11, 2013 at 20:29
-
apologies Joe Public if you arrived before me : I shall now be
JoePublic2
-
January 11, 2013 at 23:02
-
Thanks
- January 11, 2013 at 23:21
-
Germaine Greer said that men who kiss their daughters goodnight are
committing incest. She also had a lifelong infatuation with young boys. Yes,
“that” kind of young. She is a nutbar, and she belongs with all the other
nutbar feminist leaders.
-
January 11, 2013 at 12:49
-
It’s easy to figure out why men are driving this. “I’m shouting the loudest
in case anyone thinks I done it.” Which probably means that they did in some
shape or form.
- January 11, 2013 at 12:57
-
@Elena ‘Andcart,
Ha ha
-
January 11, 2013 at 11:52
-
It’s madness isn’t. People seem to think everything is just black and white
and more than usually not…
- January 11,
2013 at 11:43
-
“The Met officer in charge of the investigation, Peter Spindler, said today
Savile had ‘groomed the nation’ ..” http://t.co/BtgXaIvl
Oh, the Marion’s been groomed all right. But not by Savile.
I’m ashamed to be British. We used to have the rule of law. Now, we have
trial by innuendo and claim. We truly are a ‘Jeremy Kyle’ nation.
- January 11, 2013 at 12:17
-
@ “The Met officer in charge of the investigation, Peter Spindler, said
today Savile had ‘groomed the nation’ ..” http://t.co/BtgXaIvl @
I noticed that in one of their excel lent graphs, they seem to have a
Savile Assaults at Duncroft in…. 1971, 1972 and 1973.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/11/article-2260589-16E00043000005DC-127_634x396.jpg
But none at all in 1974………….
- January 11, 2013 at 12:41
-
@Moor Larkin,
Well that’s surely faulty information. I thought he didn’t start
visiting Duncroft until 1974…?
- January 11, 2013 at
12:47
-
He didn’t – and I am on the phone to Miss Jones as I write this – she
is furious, the police now hold evidence that he didn’t visit Duncroft
until 1974.
However, if you read the report carefully, it is based on the
statements of victims, it does NOT reflect any investigative work into
whether any or all of them are telling the truth…
- January 11, 2013 at 13:56
-
@ Anna Raccoon
Indeed. Have only skim read it and will look more
closely tonight, but it confirms that the MPS’s role was basically to
keep a record of reports made to ITV; other broadcasting and media
concerns; NCPCC etc, etc, and that police have not interviewed all of
the ‘victims’ (they kindly confirm they have decided to use the word
victim rather than complainant just because they can) making these
reports.
- January 11, 2013 at 15:29
-
There is a rather glaring double-negative at the end of this
paragraph:
“2.4 The volume of the allegations that have been made, most of
them dating back
many years, has made this an unusual and complex
inquiry. On the whole victims
are not known to each-other and taken
together their accounts paint a compelling
picture of widespread
sexual abuse by a predatory sex offender. We are
therefore
referring to them as ‘victims’ rather than ‘complainants’
and are not presenting the
evidence they have provided as unproven
allegations.”
- January 11, 2013 at 12:47
-
slight correction: on looking again I see there is a flash of blue in
1974, but it seems much smaller then the Duncroft blue for 1975. But the
earlier ones certainly seem to challenge my understanding of Jimmy’s
visits to the school. I’m sure others know more than I.
- January 11, 2013 at
15:05
-
What happened 76 & 77 & 78? Huge shift in the groups,
surely the numbers should have remained similar, but suddenly 77 is
just the beeb.
Actually looking at the left hand scale, the chart is rather
misleading as it has a disproportionately large X scale “numbers”
against the Y scale years.
First glance 77 gives the impression of lots of beeb allegation, to
give the correct term, of maybe 10 or 20… but once you carefully
re-check you realise its only 3 allegations in a twelve month period
and then take into account the allegations about Duncroft prior to 74
should be discounted the picture starts to shift.
-
January 11, 2013 at 13:16
-
The latest is that Saville spent ‘every waking minute’ thinking about
abusing children. Did you get that? Every waking minute. How do they come
up with such ludicrous, unverifiable statements? They make themselves a
laughing stock.
-
January 11, 2013 at 13:59
-
^^^ Dr Cromarty.
Yes, thats a real gem. I also marevel at the example of the little
boy apparently victim of a penetration offence IN THE HOTEL RECEPTION
!!
- January 11, 2013 at 14:47
-
@ Mina Field
As they would say nowadays: “Hey Dude!! Get a room!!” …..
- January 11, 2013 at 15:56
-
@Mina Field,
He would have known that was a crime and reported it long before
now if that had really happened. This is on the same scale of
ludicrousness as the satanic ritual abuse panic…
- January 11, 2013 at
17:25
-
“…… a …. victim of a penetration offence IN THE HOTEL
RECEPTION”
I’ve not seen that euphemism before.
- January 11, 2013 at 21:33
-
XX JuliaM January 11, 2013 at 11:43
I’m ashamed to be British. XX
Don’t talk bollox lass!
YOU are fighting back. It is those that “lay down and accept it” that are
the traitors.
- January 11, 2013 at 11:19
-
I told my teenage son that years ago, so he did. In fact I’d recommend that
any white male leaves. It seems I’m not alone, the NSO has confirmed that the
largest outflow of emigrants, over the past decade or more, is educated white
men. Considering these people are the very people who created the wealth that
Britain previously enjoyed and, presumably, are the very people Britain needs
to ensure the recovery I think it should be very worrying. It is my opinion
that even the feminists don’t want them to leave; on the contrary they should
stay, work extremely hard starting and building profitable companies at
considerable personal risk and, at the appropriate time, be pushed aside so
the feminists can take over (at suitably high salaries and with no attendant
risk of course) and run them into the ground (a la Hewlett Packard) while the
patriarchal pigs are forced to start another one. That’s fairness in
action.
- January 11, 2013 at 11:13
-
@ Who let the dogs out? The Feminists. They win. @
Most of the women who commented on the Savile case early on, talked about
issues of the attempted sexual dominance of women by some men. People like
Janet Street-Porter etc.. The female voice has been largely absent since the
forces of “law ‘n’ order” took over and the matter morphed into “paedophilia”.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong.
The current “paedo panic” seems to all be driven by Men. Yes, I know there
are a few women being hauled along on their coat-tails – as witnesses or
expert lawyers, but all the main protagonists of the Moral Panic are Men. It’s
rather perverse that the result of a philosophy that claims to seek to protect
the female must also make her always a victim.
It has struck me that much of this is driven by that age-old male instinct:
control of female sexuality. That might seem be far too Freudian perhaps, but
the concurrence of fundamentalist Islamic notions about “the female”, with the
presently fashionable Anglo-American notions of women as always being needing
“to be protected” is a curious one. One thing about the 1970′s was that many
of “us men” accepted that women might be different, but they were Equal
nonetheless.
I’m not sure that when Annie and Aretha were singing about “Sisters doing
it for themselves”, they had artifical insemination in mind……
- January 11, 2013 at 12:13
-
@Moor Larkin,
Yeah it’s men that seem to be behind this whole Jimmy Savile/Yewtree
thing, isn’t it…? Weird…
And do some people seem to hold the belief that women don’t like sex and
would only ever do it if they were offered something material in return or
to keep men happy as i’ve sensed that notion amongst some to a degree. E.g
‘he was only using her for sex’, ‘she has no self respect putting out on a
first date’, ‘don’t expect him to buy the cow if your giving out the milk
for free’. I don’t understand these attitudes… Do you nessacerily always
want someone to buy the cow…? :/
{ 73 comments }