Streetfighting Labour MP Eric Joyce to Stand Down Over Relationship with 17 Year Old Girl

Headbutting and punching several of your fellow MPs in the venerable Houses of Parliament is one thing, but being friendly with a 17 year old girl in feminist Britain 2012 is simply unforgivable.  Labour MP Eric Joyce, who was arrested recently for an alleged assault on three different people in the House of Commons Bar, has seen any chance of being forgiven disappear after it was revealed that he had a non-sexual ‘relationship’ with a 17 year old girl, who had volunteered to help in his constituency office before the 2010 general election.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/02/labour-mp-eric-joyce-assault-charge-step-down?newsfeed=true

It was under the watch of the labour party that paedohysteria was born and thrived in the UK – codified into law by the 2003 sexual offences act which, amongst other things, made it illegal for adults in a ‘position of trust or authority’ to have sexual relationships with a ‘child’ of 16 or 17 (nominally over the age of consent).

So is Eric Joyce just another sickening paedocrite, of the type that we have to discuss so often on this site?  Perhaps not.  A couple of years ago (in fact, around the time he was having his relationship with the teen totty) he was shocking the middle-class femiservatives of the Daily Mail by mocking their paedohysteria, something almost unheard of for a politician.  In fact, at least with the benefit of hindsight, he appears almost to be admitting that all politicians are peadocrites, and that they have to be, because the people who vote for them are pitchfork wielding paedocrites :

Mr Joyce even condemned attitudes to the danger of paedophiles, pointing out that most sex offenders target young victims within their own families.

He delivered his outburst in an article called Liar, Know Thyself for the website Labour Uncut.

He spoke out after shamed former minister Phil Woolas was ousted by an election court for whipping up racial tensions with false claims about his opponent.

Mr Joyce said: ‘Here’s the truth. It’s hard to lie as a politician because everything we say is subject to enormous scrutiny.

‘But politicians know the lies a lot of people live and they pitch to you accordingly.

‘There’s a lot of lying going on, for sure. But [critics] might want to reflect on who is really doing the lying.’

 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330008/Middle-class-voters-liars-hypocrites-says-Labour-MP-Eric-Joyce.html

Meanwhile, esteemed reader ‘MRA’ has brought to our attention, from the same newspaper, the story of ‘Every Parent’s Worst Nightmare‘ – an 18 year old adult female moving in with her teacher, and the subsequent campaign by the teen’s mother to have him shamed on Facebook and even arrested.

MRA points out the deliciously amusing comments left underneath the Daily Mail piece, all downvoted into oblivion by that newspaper’s middle-aged, middle-class, bitter and jealous femihag readership :

 

Amazing Atheist on the Moral Cowards of ‘Morality in Media’

Follow up video to Porn on a Plane :

A loyal reader has also informed us of the following excellent rebuttal of Morality in Media :

Morality in Media Admits They Lack Facts, So They Lie About Porn

UPDATE – Top comment on the Morality in Media re-direction video (17 upvotes in 26 minutes) :

Do you hate porn because the women in it are hot and very desirable, and you are a horrible, ugly girl, inside and out?

Note also that PornHarms.com appears to have been completely taken off their webhost’s servers.

‘Morality in Media’ Recording Your IP Address and ‘Illegal Access’ to their Site!!

Underneath his video response to a ‘Morality in Media’ woman’s hysterical attack on a man she ‘caught’ watching Asian porn on a plane, the Amazing Atheist left the contact page link for that organisation.  If you visit that page now, you see the following:

porn harms redirect

Underneath those two sentences is a third stating that your IP address has been recorded, together with your IP address (although they showed mine incorrectly).  You are then re-directed to another of their videos, and another of their hags explaining why pornography is evil (a video that has now over 1,400 downvotes and less than 100 upvotes).

This is the arrogance of the psychotic individuals who make up the myriad lobby groups of the sexual trade union.  They want half of the people on this planet to live in a world where any criticism of them, or of their laws on or attitudes to porn, leads you to fear having your door broken in by the FBI at 4 in the morning.  And the reality is that their influence is such that they will probably have that power very soon, unless they are stopped right now or in the very near future.

The clock is ticking, time is running out.  Do something now by e-mailing your thoughts to :

grassroots@pornharms.com (this is the sister site to Morality in Media)

Please be restrained and try to be reasonably civil, even though these people would have you raped and beaten in prison for simply questioning their assertion that porn is inherently evil.

Please E-mail PornHarms.com over ‘Porn on a Plane’ and their Demonisation of Male Sexuality

This is my e-mail to grassroots@pornharms.com over the video  – ‘Man watched violent, child-themed porn on Delta flight – NO ONE CARED‘, which was brilliantly and scathingly torn apart by the Amazing Atheist.  Please e-mail her (Dawn Hawkins) your own thoughts about her video, then paste your e-mail in a comment underneath this article.

Hi,

I watched your YouTube video this morning, entitled ‘Man watched violent, child-themed porn on Delta flight – NO ONE CARED!’

You said that you wanted viewers to contact you with their thoughts…so here I am.

At first I was sickened by your racist, misandristic video, but then I collected myself and realised that, really, I ought to just pity you.  I don’t mean to be cruel – but you’re obviously tormented by your bitterness at being plain and unattractive.  You really need some professional help in order to overcome your transparent sexual jealousy of younger women, and in particular, of Asian females.

You appear to be simply rationalising your own sexual insecurities in order to demonise and criminalise men, and in order to limit the sexual power of females younger and better looking than yourself.  Please stop it – you’re hurting men, and you are restricting the freedoms of thousands of young women and girls around the world.  Seek help, and you might become a better person, able to live with yourself, instead of hating yourself and the world around you.

Perhaps you should take a lesson from your admission that ‘NO ONE CARED’.  That’s right – nobody cares except bitter, unattractive, and aging women, who think they can rig the free sexual market in their own favour by shaming men and introducing law after law that criminilises male sexuality or restricts people’s freedoms. In my opinion, this is the equivalent of rape – on a massive scale. Your only hope of success in this is by your manipulative out of sight lobbying of governments, something that tramples upon democracy, the principle of rational and open debate, and the rights to freedom of expression and sexual self-determination for thousands or millions of people around the world.

Please…you’re degrading yourself and other women like you.  Once again, I urge you to accept your limitations and to seek professional counselling.

Here are some links that you may find helpful :

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm#conclusions (leading independent study concludes that porn is harmless)

http://www.thetherapylounge.com/hypnotherapy/overcome-jealousy  (psychotherapy for women suffering from excessive sexual jealousy)

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/jun2010_Immortal-Stem-Cells-for-Anti-Aging-Therapies_01.htm (in a couple of decades you might be able to look 18 years old again!)

http://timeguide.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/avatar-0-0/ (Leading futurologist claims that, in a couple of decades, people will be having sex through avatars, or wearing lenses that allow them to alter the look of their lover.  Even without stem cell rejuvenation or surgery, you will be able to look like a beautiful 18 year old Asian girl!  The laws that you are trying to introduce now are very short-sighted.  You are a loser in the free sexual market today, but in 20 years time there will be no winners or losers, and you won’t have any reason to be sexually jealous or bitter anymore.  Please seek therapy, and try to take a longer term view of your sex life.)

 Yours sincerely

Arthur Schopenbecq

In the Classrom – Where Paedohysteria and Misandry Meet to Harm Boys

Female Teachers Accused of Giving Boys Lower Marks

A key reason why boys lag behind in the classroom is revealed for the first time today – female teachers.

Ground-breaking research shows that boys lower their sights if they think their work is going to be marked by a woman because they believe their results will be worse.

It also shows their suspicions are correct – female teachers did, on average, award lower marks to boys than unidentified external examiners. Male teachers, by contrast, awarded them higher marks than external examiners….

It also revealed that girls tried harder if they had a male teacher because they believed they would get better marks. Their suspicions were not borne out, though, as the male teachers tended to give them exactly the same marks as the external examiners.

The study showed boys believed their answers would be 3 per cent lower if marked by a woman. The girls thought their results would be 6 per cent higher if marked by a man.

Boys failing in the classroom is one of those situations where paedohysteria and general misandry combine to make a bad situation even worse for boys.  The damage done by the sexism and bias of female teachers is exacerbated by the shortage of male teachers in schools, something that is largely due to paedohysteria (created by feminists). And this is why those ‘MRAs’ on Reddit, who think that men’s rights discussion of paedohysteria should merely be about ensuring that female ‘statutory rapists’ are treated worse than murderers, just like male ‘statutory rapists’, are simple minded idiots.

LOOK AT ME!! But Don’t Take Pictures!

This week’s anti-feminist advice comes courtesy of popular YouTuber ‘DukePowell‘ :

“If you’re walking along the street and you see a young girl doing the splits out in the open, you might do exactly what this guy did – get out your camera, hold it real steady, and see what happens.”

Watch the video and learn how you should respond when the hot girl’s crabby mother inevitably intervenes, quickly assisted by a White Knight mangina!

It’s like if in the Middle Ages they didn’t stop burning witches but they started burning magicians too

Spotted on Reddit – the best reply ever to the misguided Men’s Rights supporters who insist that teenage boys are intrinsically abused or damaged by willing sexual encounters with older women (the context is the American woman jailed last week for 30 years for having sex with a 13 year old boy) :

unfair and equal

Now, I need to make clear again that the double standard in sentencing, that this particular ruling is an exception that proves the rule, is indeed a disgrace, and rightly a highly prominant men’s rights issue.  But let’s never forget that ‘statutory rape’ laws were created by the same self-interested feminists who would stick white feathers into the letterboxes of conscientous objectors and coal miners during the slaughter of WWI, and who cried with indignity at the suggestion that men were doing anything but simply their chivalric duty in allowing women to take the lifeboats, even before children, on board the sinking Titanic.

Equal injustice is no justice.  I have little sympathy with this woman jailed for 30 years – her tears of self-pity will certainly be drowned out by the screams of the many more  numerous male ‘sexual predators’ being raped up their anal passages, or being beaten to a pulp in their cells.  Unlike a man, rape won’t be an acknowledged, if unofficial part of her sentence.  She won’t have to spend every day of the next 30 years in constant fear of being beaten or murdered by other prisoners.  And prison warders will likely give her sympathy rather than spit in her food as they bring it to her cell.

I have little sympathy for this woman, but these ridiculous sentences for statutory ‘rape’- feminist laws ‘supported’ by feminist cod science (and a large dose of American puritanism), are still a crime against humanity whether it is women or men who suffer from them.  Unfortunately, women are unlikely to stop supporting these laws until women are made to suffer from them just as much as men (although I doubt even this will ever be enough – women, especially feminists, seem impervious to the suffering of other women, so long as their own sexual interests are furthered or maintained.  Furthermore, these feminist laws, especially as they increasingly become extended to cover young adult women (see below), will always target men and the male love of youth, beauty, and fertility, than they ever will target the average woman).

Which brings me to some further disturbing thoughts I’ve had on the bill proposing to outlaw paying for sex with 18- 21 year olds in the UK.  This will likely not just cover paying for prostitutes, but also for things like webcam services, adult dating services, and even paying for a membership to a porn site that uses 18-20 year old models (in other words virtually all porn sites – even MILF/Cougar sites often have 20 year old male actors and regularly have scenarios where the MILF seduces a much younger male and/or female).  In fact, it will mean that the minimum age for pornography will be 21 in the UK if the bill is passed.  The proposed bill makes pointed reference to ‘paying for sex and all related services‘.

This will be a further example of how these crazy laws are indeed crimes against humanity in a borderless online world, as they increasingly veer from the respective laws on these matters in America (protected to some extent as it is by a constitution that guarantees free speech and expression), and which is the home of the global entertainment industry – including porn.  As it is, a European or Australian breaks ridiculous child porn laws every time he watches a YouTube video of a sexy girl dancing, or even a jailbait Miley Cyrus MTV video – all quite legal in the US.  Soon, lucky Brits might find they could be at risk of prosecution if they don’t unsubscribe to any American (or indeed European) adult related websites that feature persons under the age of 21.  Can the last man to leave the UK please remember to turn the lights out (and leave the toilet seats up)?

British government perverts defend beach volleyball ticket haul

The government has insisted it is a “coincidence” that it bought a lot more tickets for Olympic beach volleyball than it did for the athletics.

Former Labour sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe asked if it was just an “oddity” that 410 volleyball tickets were bought at a cost of £26,000.

Civil servant Jonathan Stephens said tickets for staff were largely for weekend events and cost up to £90 each.

The event which met those requirements “turns out to be volleyball”, he said

Leave the poor f*****s alone.  It must be hard work passing law after law criminalising male sexuality in order to win the vagina vote necessary to remain in office.  Even political manginas need to have a good honest perv now and again.

Sounds like these government ministers might benefit from the following anti-feminist tip of the week :

How to Take Photos of Sexy Girls on the Beach

how to take pictures of girls on the beach

 

Drug mules (women) to face more lenient sentences, Drug Gangs (men) to face stiffer punishments

The BBC reports that a key government body has advised that drug mules (women) are to be treated more leniently in the courts to drug ‘gangs and criminals’ (men).

People who smuggle drugs will face more lenient sentences if they have been exploited, under new guidelines.

The change in approach on “drug mules” forms part of new comprehensive rules on drugs offences from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

The council said judges should distinguish between those who have been exploited by gangs and criminals heavily involved in the drugs trade.

But it said large-scale drugs producers should expect longer jail terms.

The council’s role is to provide judges and magistrates with a set of broad guidelines so that sentencing is more consistent across England and Wales.

Last year the council carried out research into 12 women convicted of drug mule offences, all of whom received sentences of between 15 months and 15 years.

The majority of the women said they did not know that they had been carrying drugs when they arrived in the UK, although some admitted being suspicious. In most cases they had carried the drugs for someone they trusted or feared what would happen if they did not do so.

This fits in with the infamous advice that another advisory body, the Woman’s Task Force, gave to the government last year – that no woman should go to prison.

Meanwhile, Sir Richard Branson told a parliamentary commission that he thinks that no drug user should go to prison.

Like any libertarian, I agree entirely with Sir Richard, as I’m sure most of you do.  I can honestly say that, for a variety of reasons, I have no interest in drugs myself, and have never taken illegal drugs.  But isn’t it striking that it is perfectly acceptable to express opinions on the unfairness of existing drug laws, and little or no suspicion is cast on your personal likelihood of taking illegal drugs, and yet it is assumed that if a man calls into question laws on, for example, child porn, or the age of consent, then he must have a personal vested interest in doing so – even though such ludicrously defined feminist child porn laws criminalise far more people than do drug laws?

To dear American readers – in Europe and in most countries feminists have legally defined a man as a paedophile and a child porn downloader for merely once clicking on a YouTube video of a 17 year old dancing ‘sexily’ in her room.  It is no excuse even if you did so because you were simply watching a video of Lady Gaga, and you happened to click on the thumbnail of a 17 year old imitating the dance that appeared in the sidebar (related videos), not knowing that she was under 18.  In fact, the thumbnail itself might be enough for you to be thrown in jail.  And the girl doesn’t even have to be 17 – she simply has to look under 18 (to a middle-aged jealous feminist hag judge).  And simply viewing that one video (or thumbnail) will soon be enough to get you a minimum 1 year sentence under recently passed EUSSR legislation.   How can anyone who calls themselves libertarian – wait a moment, scratch that.  How can anyone who isn’t a f****g Nazi, NOT object to the state having that power over its citizens (men) especially a men’s rights activist?