Bit late with this re-blog but reader Alan wanted an article on Adam Johnson (an England international footballer jailed for 6 years for kissing and fingering a 15 year old girl), and Steve Moxon’s is better than any I could write.
Adam Johnson has done absolutely NOTHING wrong. He was vigorously pursued by a female who was several years beyond the age of puberty, who knew perfectly well what she was doing, and was well equipped (as evolution has equipped all girls) to deal with it. In most other countries she would have been over any ‘age of consent’. She facilitated and very willingly engaged in not sex but merely a mild sexual fumbling. The girl chalked this up as a sexual feather in her cap that she used to get her a lot of brownie points within her peer group. Enter the police, CPS and judiciary, and suddenly the girl was put in the position of inadvertent anatagonist to a famous footballer. As is so often the case, the queen bee and wannabes of her peer group seem to have decided she needed to be brought down a peg or two, and turned on her to invert her female prestige to ‘slut’ status, and consequently, with the collusion of the police and the CPS, she backtracked to try to make out that a little sexual fumbling with a A* male she found supremely attractive, somehow was ‘damaging’ to her and even non-consensual. It was, in no respect whatsoever, either. She suffered zero damage of any kind from Adam Johnson. Any damage — and clearly there was damage to her — was from the peer group she’d been so keen to impress and, most particularly, by the police, the CPS and the judiciary.
It is a 100% travesty that there was any charge against this man, let alone a trial, never mind a conviction and criminal injuries compensation paid to not the party who was the victim here. The victim was Adam Johnson. Everyone else involved were the perpetrators in this case.
With the average age of female puberty having fallen since Victorian times from 17 to ten, yet the legal ‘age of consent’ has remained at 16, then the law is an abomination and will have to be changed. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that a 15-year-old is a child. Not only have her bodily changes complete, but mental changes ensue actually before physical ones, so the claim of sexual immaturity is completely false. And why is the ‘age of consent’ 16 when the age of criminal responsibility is just ten? The answer: age ten is rationally deemed to be the end of childhood per se, whereas the additional six years beyond age ten represents deep-seated anti-male prejudice and sexual prudery.
We live in not neo-Victorian so much as uber-Victorian lunatic times where all men are considered far game to punish severely simply for having male sexuality. It is an atrocious disgrace, and the extreme hate-mongering ideology behind it is not long for this world
See also :
http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/ (not sure how somebody as intelligent as Steve Moxon can’t work out how to stop ‘imposters’ posting spam on his blog.)
“The BBC documentary ‘The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation’ broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night’s broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of ‘patriarchy’ [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as ‘patriarchy’ [sic] – or ‘matriarchy’ [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed ‘female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the ‘sexual politics’ [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female ‘fertility’ and male ‘sun’ deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity ‘go-between’ figures who sacrificed themselves to the ‘fertility’ goddess.
* ‘Civilisation’ did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no ‘quantum-jump’ of some former ‘non-civilised’ sociality into ‘civilisation’.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly ‘egalitarian’ hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant ‘flattening’ of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the ‘sexual politics’ [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.”
A further nonsense ‘report’ about Jimmy Savile is published just as the process which led to this witch-hunt travesty is being rehearsed all over again with Cliff Richard by the ever useless South Yorkshire Police and the BBC, stung into further wild flailing fantasy by the lambasting they received this week.
When will anyone learn that if you carry out a police-media trawl of any and every celebrity, then inevitably a line of variously motivated complainants comes forward? This is just as would be expected no matter how clearly innocent is the target. And they don’t come much more obviously innocent than Cliff Richard.
It’s not as though this phenomenon is unknown or non-researched. It’s taboo, of course: Professor Keith Soothill’s findings about the amazingly trivial varied motivations of women making false rape allegations is never even mentioned in the media. And that’s before you consider the research on the hopelessness of human memory even for events which have just happened, never mind putative occurrences of 30 or 40 years ago, for which ‘false memories’ are readily constructed. The media spotlight and financial recompense enter the fray with high-profile police-media trawling; as does the issue of the sheer volume of individuals – the entire population – from which there are significant numbers of psychologically disturbed women seeking a peg on which to hang their aberrant life histories, supposed PTSD, etc. When you have literally thousands of sexual encounters in your past, then it’s a fair bet that a lot of now ageing females are going to redefine consensual and, indeed their initiated advances, as now somehow non-consensual.
The report on Savile is merely yet further cataloguing of mere allegation, on the spurious grounds that parallel allegation must be mutually corroborating. It’s profoundly false to rely on the very phenomenon your investigative methods in themselves were bound to produce as justification for your investigation and its mode. It’s a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ almost certain to result in miscarriage of justice.
It’s not that all there is here is invention, of course; it’s not least the exaggeration of behaviour which appears to be nothing out of the ordinary for a very high-profile youth-cult celebrity. At worst, Savile was described as a “sex pest”. No doubt he had a presumptive attitude that a kiss or cuddle from him usually would be welcome. That’s because usually obviously they were. But it is madness to extrapolate the likely high volume of sex he had with young women and older girls in his trailer by the TOTP studio to try to make out that somehow this was with unwilling partners, and that he transferred this behaviour to a hospital setting. Someone at the time in Savile’s position would have had an endless stream of girls throwing themselves at him. It would require saintly behaviour never to have misread signals and never to have unwittingly had sex with an under-age girl (when girls by the thousand lied about their ages to get into the TOTP studio). The normal behaviour of such males at times might now, in our crazy era, pass for misdemeanour as ‘sexual harassment’, but hardly so at the time; and if it would have been thus considered it would be regarded as mild. It’s not ‘rape’ or serious sexual assault. And still less was it ‘paedophilia’, even on the non-scientific current absurdly loose definition of the term – ‘paedophilia is an exclusive sexual interest in pre-pubertal individuals, and Savile had a non-exclusive sexual interest in post-pubertal girls (he had sex with fully mature women).
History, and very recent history included, is littered with appalling witch-hunts of male sexual behaviour. It is not long ago that we had the utterly risible ‘satanic sexual abuse’ hysteria. This was found, eventually, to be 100% bogus. It was a wholly non-existent phenomenon. Now we have a recapitulation of that ridiculous hysteria to try to convict any male ageing celebrity through inviting bogus allegation or to goad anyone who has any sort of social or willing sexual encounter to redefine it as assault. So it is that Rolf Harris – Rolf Harris of all people – is in prison on the basis of nothing substantive. Ditto several others, not to mention the many cases too absurdly flimsy that even in the current climate the sex-fascists at the CPS couldn’t persuade some hapless jury to convict.
I need to add, it should go without saying it (though in our numptie-coddling era it’s necessary), that it may be that Savile indeed was the serious predator he’s being made out to be, but there is in place of evidence only allegation. Therefore, no such conclusion can be made. But more than this, the likelihood is that surely he was ‘a bit of a lad’ but worse than that he was not.
This debacle will be looked back on by future generations as an object lesson in how crazy a society can become..
Well there we have it. In plain record, the CPS is completely undermining its very legal basis of innocence until proven guilt.
It has been very clear for a decade now that the rape law is a total inversion of the founding principle of law; ever since the Sex Offences Act of 2003, in which there is actually set out a list – though not an exhaustive one! – of the steps males supposedly should take to establish consent! [No mention, of course, of needing a degree in female psychology to work out when ‘no’ means ‘yes’ – this ‘no’ meaning ‘yes’ being the usual and often only form of consent females provide in the course of standard courtship behaviour.]
The previous Director of Public Prosecutions, the idiot Kier Starmer, made it clear; and it’s now even clearer with the statements from his replacement, the extreme-feminist, Alison Saunders. She was talking this week about ‘date rape’ but misleadingly elided it with ‘stranger rape’ when she cited the standard response by women in ‘stranger rape’ of ‘freezing’, as if this would be a usual or even a rare response in instances where the parties are so comfortable with each other as to be on a date, and where usually the worst of the matter is the sort of communication cross-wires that are the hallmark of interaction between the sexes. Saunders initially raised the context of drink – but anyway widened it to the extent that pretty well any sexual encounter would be encompassed – as if alcohol would not impair judgement by both parties and not just the woman. A man and woman drinking together are in effect a mutual conspiracy to bring about the prospect of sex by loosening courtship interaction, and this could be considered effectively entrapment of the man by the woman as much as if not more than the other way round. She cannot claim to offload all responsibility on to the male, so that only he can be deemed to be reckless and not her.
Let’s spell out what SHOULD and previously always was the case: that men ‘must’ in NO way establish that a woman consents to sex in order to avoid being found guilty of rape. It is entirely for the CROWN to PROVE, and to prove BEYOND DOUBT that consent was NOT given. That is a high bar, as it should be, in congruence with all other UK law – except that other arena where a woman is (supposedly, but – the research comprehensively reveals – actually in a minority of instances) a putative ‘victim’: domestic violence. Note that Saunders explicitly linked here.
There is no debate on this issue. Either the founding principle of British law applies or it does not.
The CPS has capitulated wholesale to ‘identity politics’ ideological hatred towards males, and it is now open to legal challenge.
This should get interesting.
Even the media is starting to wake up. They have taken their time, but better late than never. The Telegraph led with the front page main headline: ‘Men must prove a woman said yes’. The awakening media here surprisingly includes the dreaded Boob. A BBC Today presenter put to Saunders that she was in breach of the foundation of law. She pretended she was not, of course; but so thinly she didn’t convince even her extreme-feminist woman interviewer.
That Nutsville USA really has become Nutsbridge UK in the sex arena could not be better illustrated just this week, when a Sheffield man was given a four-year prison sentence for … outraging public decency! Four years?! So what was he doing: ejaculating on to seven-year-olds, or worse? Er, no. He was accused … and note, NOT found guilty … but merely accused of having sex. So who was it in front of? Well, actually nobody. Only in privacy?! Yes, indeed. What got the goat, as it were, of the (apparently insane) jury and the utterly witless judge was that the sexual partner – er, the ALLEGED sexual partner – was ….. a horse. The case was one of alleged bestiality. There was no evidence of any kind of harm to any horse: only to the apparent goat that got the jury and judge. The man in the dock was not inappropriately named Andrew Barnfield. [I am NOT making this up: check the news reports and the records of the Sheffield Crown Court.]
Something is happening here, and we don’t know … actually, we do know, very well … what it is. The times they are … well, soon will be … a changin’. Nutsville and Nutsbridge can last only so long.
Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted ….. and then discovering the horse to be a mule. ‘Page three’ is irrelevant against the tsunami of free internet porn vids. Getting rid of ‘page three’ ends an exploitation of men, not of women. Men were charged for a newspaper for which their main interest was a single still of a woman’s boobs. Nowadays there’s an infinite array of actually moving images of a lot more than just boobs and it’s ALL FOR FREE. The complainants today about the Sun’s apparent move are hardly male consumers …. they’re the ‘page three’ models themselves. They deeply resent feminist authoritarians telling them that they can’t freely choose to flaunt their bodies to make a living by exploiting men. What is feminism for, they point out, if not to give women wider choices? How can feminism be about narrowing women’s choices? They may well ask.
Of course, actually the Sun’s move has nothing whatsoever to do with feminists’ lame, frankly comic – frankly risible — campaigning. On the very contrary, the femascists were great publicity for the Sun. Like the suffragettes, their upper-middle/upper-class numptie counterparts a century before them, they were key to keeping going the very thing they were campaigning against! They did everything bar marching working-class blokes into the newsagents to show their solidarity by even more assiduously buying the rag. Self-evidently, Rupert Murdoch has long realised that an image on newsprint paper is very low-quality, and no match for the high-res images on-line – an orgy of boobs and more will continue there in the online edition of The Sun, just as before. ‘Page three’ was a rather embarrassing anachronism in the new internet digital world, rendering the Sun very ‘yesterday’ in context. It wasn’t an embarrassing anachronism as femascists see it.
The femascists can’t even get Germaine Greer on-side on this one (as re many of their airhead campaigns). On C4 News she insisted she’d never called for banning ‘page three’. She was never in any position to, having famously plastered herself in ‘wide-open-beaver’ shot on the front cover of a magazine in the 1970s! Harriet Harpy-twat was hilariously ambushed on the programme between Germaine and a young model.
And so is starkly illuminated the hapless idiocy of contemporary feminism with its split on every issue. In the pithy words of a popular Youtube vid: ‘Feminism .…. Make your fucking mind up’.
Can anyone explain how the appalling Teresa May remains Home Secretary?
Just emerged are several absolutely damning reports from the official thorn in her side, John Vine, the outgoing Chief Inspector of Borders. To the Wicked Witch’s shame, she’s been sitting on them for several months, still further exposing the non-existence of the UK’s immigration system. Vine actually went into the Department and asked point-blank if it was official policy to deliberately fail to administer the whole immigration system. One report concerned the complete failure to deal with the massive problem of illegal overstayers. Of the small minority of overstayers the Home Office had actually identified – some 300,000 – in the great majority of instances they had lost all track of where they were. Most of the files had been left to rot – some at the bottom of a disused lift shaft. Attempts to remove in many cases were simply a text message pointing out overstay! As so many times before, this is just another ginormous backlog the Home Office tried to hide. Another report revealed that granting citizenship has doubled, yet no checks were carried out, not just re character but even criminality, tax avoidance and benefit fraud. Even when applicants volunteered serious adverse information, no action was take – even in cases of clear deception to obtain citizenship.
It’s now a decade since I ‘blew the whistle’ on the complete non-system re immigration for the UK (back in Spring 2004), and ever more clearly, nothing has changed. With May’s Government actually having cut 2,000 immigration posts, it has long been apparent that nothing was ever intended do do anything serious about it.
On top of the gross mismanagement re immigration, the stupid harridan introduced a truly risible and absurd extension of an ‘it’s anything anyone says it is’ law into partner abuse. Domestic violence – sorry, abuse, as it’s long been watered down – now is anything anyone says it is: just like, post-Macpherson, ‘racism’ literally is anything anyone says it is. Completely unworkable law wide open to any extreme of abuse. To make matters even worse, men do not conceive of women’s spousal violence towards them as criminal, whereas women are famously prone to exaggerate restraint of their own domestic violence to twist round the direction of perpetration, and many women readily make up allegations instrumentally in divorce or custody disputes.
The Wicked Witch also presides over – nay, fully encourages – a hideous abuse of the Malicious Communications Act whereby the police are inclined to arrest anyone for tweeting mere bad taste. So it was for the Sunderland teenager who dissed Glasgow and Glaswegians by quipping that a dustcart actually picked up some proper rubbish when it moved down some pedestrians that day. Wasn’t he just lampooning the now customary mass outpouring of overblown grief for others not personally known to the faux grievers? On what possible basis do they claim to be seriously offended? Never mind ‘serious’, how can they claim to take any sort of offence such that it should invoke legal redress? Haven’t they heard of – and do they not care for the notion of – ‘free speech’? Who remotely cares what these idiots may or may not pretend to feel? Are the police intending to try to make out it’s a ‘racial’ ‘hate’ crime? If so, the they should be mauled in court for trying to make out that fellow Caucasians are somehow of a different ‘race’.
Astonishingly, this bossy but ineffectual ugly sister has serious aspirations to lead the Tawdry Party. What does that say about the quality of the Tawdry front bench and those waiting in the wings? What does it say about the contempt the political class has for the ability or ordinary people to think they way out of a paper bag?
The daft authoritarian calls for the hapless Sheffield United footballer, Ched Evans, to express remorse whilst he is going through a legal process of trying to overturn his conviction is a classic catch-22. The extreme-feminist stance now dominant is not going to relent no matter what Ched Evans does, and he is right to challenge his conviction in the light of cctv evidence contradicting the court’s finding that the alleged victim was seriously inebriated – not to mention the inexplicable outcome that others involved were acquitted whereas he wasn’t.
Aside from the questions as to the safety of the conviction, and ignoring any complicity by the supposed victim (who had not been plied with drink by Ched or any of the defendants, and likewise got to the hotel of her own volition), the idea that this was some heinous crime is self-evidently absurd. Evans’ punishment has already been far in excess of any that was warranted. There is no basis to presume (and no evidence to support) that there has been any sort of significant negative impact on the supposed victim. If she was, as the court accepted, inebriated beyond sense, then there could have been no negative impact at the time. We know that there was nothing more than at most some degree of regret afterwards, because any impact was not just tempered but completely overturned by her apparent joy at contemplating the many thousands of pounds she expects to receive in criminal injuries compensation (as revealed in her tweets). So how does this justify a five year jail sentence?! Taking into account the alleged victim’s complicity, then it is hard to see how any imprisonment was justifiable.
The general tenor of the debate over the incident is the stuff of the Dark Ages, predicated on the impact of rape in times past. Pregnancy. This is no longer an issue at all. There is no possibility of any even mild inconvenience from conceiving an unwanted child, give the technology of the ‘morning-after’ pill, and, failing that, infallible non-intrusive early abortion.
There isn’t even mild embarrassment in terms of social standing: going to a hotel for the purpose of having sex with prominent footballers is not something a girl has to live down, if indeed she might not publicise and celebrate. Of course, it may cause problems if she has a boyfriend, but that’s an extraneous matter – which is brought in to create many a bogus ‘acquaintance rape’ scenario, when but for this there would be no retrospective withdrawal of consent
This ridiculous debacle – generically, and Ched Evans’ own case – stems from the ‘show trial’ nature of rape in the contemporary highly politicised climate. Sex in effect has been declared by default illegal for males, who are liable in respect of any instance to be summoned before a court and required to prove they had ensured that consent had been obtained. The legal process has been inverted from what it should be: that it is up to the Crown to prove, and to prove beyond reasonable doubt, criminal wrongdoing. Most rape cases are simply one person’s word against another’s, with the man’s word then presumed, on no basis that is warranted, not to be believable; despite there being often an all too obvious basis for false allegation, and research revealing that this is routinely for the most trivial reasons. Such cases should never get as far as the CPS, let alone court. In Ched Evans’ case there was some evidence that the alleged victim may have been too drunk to consent, but this was not clear-cut, and now appears to be undermined by evidence which should have been put before the court.
This abandonment of any semblance of due legal process succeeds – as was the intent – to make the most fundamental activity in life impossibly fraught for boys and men, whilst providing carte blanch for girls and women to retrospectively withdraw consent in the event of the slightest feeling of embarrassment; this at a time when sex has never been less likely to compromise female social standing.
On the fulcrum of ‘acquaintance rape’, the madness of ‘third wave’ feminism, and the ‘identity politics’ of which it is core, surely is set to implode from the weight of its own absurdity; albeit that things might well get yet more absurd in the meantime. Eventually the collective penny will drop that the femascist twitterati at the very least are sixpence short of a shilling.
The nasty if comical piece of extreme-feminist man-hating obscenity that is Fiona MacTaggart, MP for Slough, last night was defeated in her absurd amendment to the ‘Modern Slavery’ bill in the House of Commons to criminalise men paying for sex but not the women selling it. She was strongly attacked from both sides of the House for going against all of the academic evidence and all of the groups representing prostitutes, that criminalising does nothing whatsoever to reduce the scale of prostitution, and merely pushed it underground. Moreover, it is the surest way to bring criminal elements into prostitution – just as did prohibition of alcohol … and drugs – and thereby to make prostitution less safe for both parties. In any case, the consequent driving underground would make it far more difficult for prostitute and client to pre-assess each other, thus likewise increasing the potential danger for both parties – as the many groups representing prostitutes have unanimously most vociferously repeatedly indicated.
MacTaggart indeed is a wholly evidence-free zone. She has no interest whatsoever in any evidence because her position is about nothing but out-dated mindless ideology. The only evidence she has is that asking men in Sweden if they have recently had sex with a prostitute – which recently has been made illegal in Sweden – reveals … surprise, surprise … that men are more likely to answer ‘no’ than previously. You don’t say! Even rice-pudding-for-brains MacTaggart should be able to spot the glaring confound in the data here!
The overwhelming evidence against is not even the principal reason why her proposal was insane. Prostitution is the exploitation not of women but of men: women extract money from men by exploiting the universal male desire for variety of sexual partner. In no other scenario where money is exchanged for a service is the payer regarded as the one exploited!
Furthermore, to criminalise one party to sex freely engaged in on both sides – never mind to criminalise the exploited rather than the exploiting party – simply on the grounds of their sex, would be the most obvious and unbelievable infringement of any sort of notion of equality. It is flagrant sex discrimination. Total sex discrimination about … having sex … now that would really be something for libertarians to sink their teeth into. It would be a cause celebre of a sort not seen since the 1960s.
The extreme-feminist position is that all sex is exploitative of women – indeed, that all male-female interaction of any kind is oppressive to the female — and that somehow this is particularly the case when the woman is actually paid! This is how the idiotic entirely false presumption is arrived at that no woman can freely choose to engage in prostitution.
The likes of MacTaggart try to back this up through a radical misrepresentation of the typical prostitute. The notion that prostitution is a woman pimped on the street is grotesque: a minuscule proportion of prostitution is of this form. Not only are even most street prostitutes not pimped, but the whole street ‘scene’ has long been superseded by its indoor counterpart. The abundance of such provision is evidenced by the prices in ‘parlours’ (brothels) rivalling those on the street. Given that a ‘parlour’ is under police scrutiny to not employ drug-users and under-age girls – the sort of girls who would pose a threat to personal safety or legal sanction to men, and who are not infrequently found on the street – then it is less than pointless for men to bother with the ‘street’ scene at all; even before considering the risk of criminal sanction as a ‘kerb-crawler’.
In any case, MacTaggart’s focus on the street undermines her case in a profound additional way: the principal victim of violence in this scenario is the client [I actually made this point to her when I confronted her on BBC Newsnight several years ago in the wake of the Ipswich murders. – I had previously lived in a ‘red light’ area for two decades, and with the advent of drug use becoming the hallmark of the street prostitute (because uncontrolled drug use precludes being able to work in a brothel or to have the organisation to become an independent), then this violence was quire visible.] Violence is a much rarer feature of indoor prostitution, for the obvious reason that in a brothel there are other people around, and escorts and their clients are traceable through their phones.
The police, self-evidently, are completely opposed to adding to their burden the impossible task of pursuing one party to consensual sex to arrest and process them for court action; especially now that they haven’t got the resources to tackle even the high priority crime of domestic burglary. It would render them literally a laughing stock.
It is a pity, actually that the risible amendment was not passed, because it would have been immensely to the entertainment of the nation to see the legal actions to overturn it.
Actually, the attempt to retreat to a position of a backstop amendment simply to promise to consider the evidence for future legislation backfired: it too was thrown out. Most MPs well know that there is no balance of evidence worthy of consideration: MacTaggart’s position is unsupported by anything other than a data proof determination to proceed, to go down in history as a prize fatuous femascist freak.
Yet she is sure to try it again.
Bring it on, I say.