Ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported.
A public consultation found 35% of parents wanted an automatic bar while 15% wanted some content filtered, and an option to block other material.
But the government says internet providers should encourage parents to switch on parental controls.
Claire Perry, the MP who led the campaign, said she was “disappointed”.
The NSPCC said parents’ voices were not being heard…
…Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, which is opposed to default filtering, said: “This is a positive step that strikes the right balance between child safety and parental responsibility without infringing on civil liberties and freedom of speech.
“The policy recognises it is parents, not government, who are responsible for controlling what their children see online and rightly avoids any kind of state-mandated blocking of legal content.”
A child was sexually attacked every 20 minutes last year and more than 400 offences reported each week.
The scale of sex crimes against children emerged yesterday after a Freedom of Information request by the NSPCC.
The statistics also revealed how only one in 10 accused were convicted, the charity said.
More than a fifth of the 23,097 victims were of primary school age and almost 1,500 were five or under.
The NSPCC published the figures yesterday after sending FOI requests to the 43 police forces of England and Wales.
A total of 14,819 offences were committed against 11 to 17-year-olds and girls were six times more likely to be abused than boys.
Jon Brown, head of the charity’s Sexual Abuse programme, said: “A concentrated effort has to be made if we are to start reducing this distressing level of offences.
“When you have a situation where more than 60 children are being sexually abused every day, something is very wrong.”
The poor conviction rate was particularly worrying, added Mr Brown.
Although every child sexually abused in the UK represents an individual tragedy, it remains prudent whenever dealing with a radical feminist lobby group, especially the NSPCC, to subject their collection tin rattling hysteria to a degree of healthy scepticism.
60 children a day are not being sexually abused according to these statistics – 60 children a day are reported to the police as being sexually abused. Only 10% of these reports are sufficiently serious or credible to result in convictions. Naturally, it is beyond any radical feminist hate group to admit to the possibility that thousands of men are being falsely accused of child sexual abuse, or that the majority of these reports are simply mistaken or the result of overzealous concerns. In fact, a recent NSPCC ‘don’t wait until you’re certain‘ campaign will only increase the numbers of falsely accused men.
As said, every real case of child sexual abuse is an awful tragedy, but the only real statistic to be garnered here is that ‘only’ 6 British children a day are proven (through the courts) to have been sexually abused. Compare this statistic to the fact that around 15 British children each day are killed or seriously injured simply crossing the road.
Furthermore, whilst this site has always condemned unreservedly any illegal activity involving underage children, the majority of those 6 sex abuse cases each day involve teenagers – and a sizeable percentage of those cases likely involve willing participation on the part of the ‘victims’, and in fact, will have only been legally defined as ‘sexual abuse’ as a result of campaigns by feminist groups themselves, including the NSPCC :
More than a fifth of the 23,097 victims were of primary school age and almost 1,500 were five or under.
This is meant to be shocking enough for you to reach for your credit card and make a donation. However, one fifth of the victims being primary school age means that 4/5 weren’t.
The number of under 18’s (children under feminist legal definitions) in the UK is around 12 million.
6 children sexually abused a day = around 1,800 a year. That means the chances of an individual child being sexually abused in a given year (and leading to a conviction) is around 1 in 6500.
Of course, not all of the non-convictions resulting from reports to the police about sexual abuse will be false accusations, and not all real incidents of sexual abuse will even be reported to the police. So for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the NSPCC might even be close to the mark and 60 children a day are being sexually abused in the UK.
That would mean that the odds for an individual child being sexually abused in an individual year are around 1 in 650.
Over 5,000 British children a year are killed or seriously injured crossing the road. That equates to around a 1 in 2400 chance each year. As indicated earlier, just as some cases of rape are worse than others, whatever feminists say, some cases of child abuse are worse than others. A 5 year old being raped is worse than a 15 year old having a 25 year old boyfriend, or a 15 year old and her friends giggling at being flashed at in the park (or online) by an old man with a small willy. Arguably, those latter two cases of sexual abuse are far less serious and damaging than a child losing a leg in a road accident.
Even granting the NSPCC’s spurious statistic, and even equivalating all ‘child sexual abuse’ with the seriousness of being killed or maimed, the fact remains that a child is slightly less than 4 times more likely to be sexually abused than she or he is to be killed or seriously injured crossing the road. I cannot recall the NSPCC ever launching a campaign on road safety for children, or even mentioning the importance of improving road safety for children. Saving the lives of the thousands of children killed or maimed in road accidents simply doesn’t fall within its radical feminist sexual trade union lobbying agenda.
In a perfect world, no child would be killed or injured crossing the road, and no child would be sexually abused. We seem able to accept the sad truth that beyond a few sensible laws relating to drink driving, the introduction of measures such as speed bumps to roads etc, and a certain level of education for children regarding road safety, we can never hope to completely ensure that no child will die in a road accident. Yet we seem completely unable to accept that, unfortunately, some children will always be sexually abused, no matter how much fear and hysteria we instill in their young minds, and no matter how many men we lock up, criminalize, or falsely accuse.
Accepting that the world is imperfect, and that the possibility of evil and harm will always be present within it, is the price we pay for having a functioning society. Just as roads and traffic are essential to the infrastructure of a healthy society, so too are features of human existence such as the family, schools, and interaction between the young and the old. Allowing feminists to exaggerate the scale of child sexual abuse, to inflate the definitions of child sexual abuse, and to pretend that (if only you give the NSPCC a little more money) that the sexual abuse of children can ever hope to be stopped completely, is undermining the very fabric of society, and doing more damage to children themselves than all the paedophiles in the world could ever do.
Other statistics concerning the dangers that children face :
Nearly 1 in 2 children in the UK is bullied, with 10% saying they had been bullied in the last 6 months according to a 1999 study (it is acknowledged by the handful of genuine child protection charities in existance that the problem of bullying has increased since then).
1500 children in the UK are diagnosed with cancer each year. That’s over half the number of children involved in a sexual abuse crime resulting in a conviction.
According to statistics quoted by the NSPCC themselves, 7% of children suffer physical abuse. A child therefore has a 1 in 14 chance of being physically abused by one or both of their parents, compared to a 1 in 650 chance of being sexually abused by anyone in a given year according to the NSPCC (and a 1 in 6500 chance of being sexually abused later proven by a conviction). The NSPCC itself admits that mothers are equally or more likely than fathers to physically abuse their chilren. Despite this, on the minority of occasions when the NSPCC decides to campaign against physical abuse (rather than more lucrative sexual abuse anti-paedo campaigns), the father is invariably depicted as the abuser.
To put the last statistic another way. According to the NSPCC themselves, a child is anywhere between 20 and 200 times more likely to be violently physically abused by their own mother than to be sexually abused by anyone inside or outside of the family in a given year. This is even more striking given the fact that the majority of laws and definitions relating to child sexual abuse have been set by radical feminists (such as the policy makers of the NSPCC) themselves.
Leafing through the Spectator Magazine whilst waiting to board my plane at Gatwick Airport last week, I was a little bit stunned, but tremendously heartened, to see the following full page advert from Fathers 4 Justice :
Organisations like the Labor party, the Fawcett Society, and the NSPCC have become dominated by a militant form of feminism which will condemn Matthew to a lifetime of discrimination…
The following scathing attack on the feminist fake child protection charity the NSPCC, is reproduced in its entirity from an excellent book I re-discovered when clearing out an old cupboard the other day. The book deals with the ever growing politicisation of charity in the UK and is entitled ‘Who Cares’, written by Nick Seddon and published by the independent think tank ‘Civitas’. It is available to buy or download from Amazon uk : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Cares-Funding-Political-Activism/dp/190338656X/
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) is one of the most powerful brands in the social care field, and is generally regarded by the public as being beyond reproach. In 2005/2006 the NSPCC raised 85% of its funds – around £98 million – from donations, gifts, and legacies from individuals, companies, and trusts, so there’s no cause for concern about the charity’s independence. But the way the charity spends money has proven more contentious, provoking fierce antipathy in some quaters. In 2000 it was reported that 46% of the NSPCC’s expenditure went on fundraising, publicity, policy development and public education, while it spent only 37% on children’s services. In 2003, similar figures were reported, and a leader in the Daily Telegraph argued that ‘the charity spends too much on advertising campaigns and not enough on dealing with abused children’.
The 2006 accounts are presented in a very unhelpful manner, making it difficult to calculate the allocation of funds. Indeed, the NSPCC’s website is outstandingly difficult to navigate for anybody who wants to know anything substantive about the charity. Eventually, one finds that 83 pence in every pound apparently goes on services to children, but there is no breakdown to support this assertion. According to the 2006 annual review and report, fundraising accounted for just under a fifth of total expenditure, and no one is likely to dispute that activities like research, campaigning and fundraising are legitimate. But again the impression of opaqueness is regrettable : while it appears that 51% of the charity’s expenditure goes on child protection and preventative services and projects, closer inspection reveals that a proportion of this is spent on campaigning, which presumably includes television publicity and adverts for its multi-million pound Full Stop campaign, among other ventures. Suspiciously enough, despite repeated attempts to elicit the exact figures from the finance department and the public enquiries desk, no one was prepared to comment. This is more than merely frustrating; it is disturbing that the NSPCC refused to tell a member of the public how it would spend their money.
Ever since the charity’s foundation in 1884 it has engaged in campaigning, though not to the extent that it has in recent years. The involvement in campaigning can raise awareness – thereby hopefully changing attitudes and behaviour – but this is not the same as actually intervening to stop abuse. It would seem that the service aspect has decreased as a proportion of the charity’s overall work. In the past it did more frontline investigative and preventative child protection work, and much of the donating public still percieve this to be the case.
The NSPCC has come in for particular criticism over the years for its methods of fundraising and campaigning. For example, 450 guests were flown out to a charity ball in St. Petersburg, where the party tickets cost $5,000 each – a party that the Independent said ‘even the Tsars might have found a little over-indulgent’ – to raise money for the charity. One former employee, criticising the rise of managerialism and the decline in frontline services, has complained about how the charity has ‘lost its way’ since the early 90’s because it ‘has become more interested in its own percieved status than the service it was set up to provide’. Another said that ‘although the legal powers invested in the NSPCC to protect children have, in theory, never been revoked, the infrastructure necessary to make these of any use in protecting children no longer exists’.
The Charity Commission states that ‘charities should ensure that [research] is properly conducted using robost and objective research methods’, but in 2003 the charity was accused of running a campaign under false pretences. The campaign in question was a £1 million pound effort to criminilize smacking. ‘The NSPCC declared – adducing as evidence a poll that it had conducted – that the majority of parents supported legal reform against smacking. But it turned out that the pollsters had asked what people had thought about “hitting” children, which has entirely different implications.’ The NSPCC has also been arraigned for using rickety research, presented as incontrevertible evidence, in making its case for a ban on smacking. On 4 July BBC 1’s Politics Show broadcast the following statement :
On our programme three weeks ago, we carried an item on the possiblity of a ban on smacking, and in that film we stated that in Sweden where they have a ban on smacking, only 4 children have died from child abuse in 25 years, whereas in the UK the equivalent figure is one a week.
Now, we got those figures from the NSPCC and they are, indeed, startling, but alas they are also misleading. In fact, according to the Swedish Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF, the rate of child mortality at the hands of parents or carers in Sweden is at a comparable level with the UK, and we are happy to correct that impression’.
The NSPCC’s approach to raising pubic awareness is perhaps epitomised by its most controversial effort, the Full Stop campaign, launched in March 1999 at the same time as 88 members of staff were made redundant. The campaign for which the appeal total in 2006 stood at £187 million, calls for an end to cruelty to children – which presumably translates to a call for a universal change in human nature. A number of commentators find this unconvincing, if not manipulative, because, they say, of its almost panglossian scope. According to one columnist in the Guardian : ‘The effacy of these efforts is questionable. The NSPCC has been around since 1884, but the level of child abuse has remained constant. Yet posters in bus shelters, rather than hands-on help, is the charity’s preferred way of tackling child abuse’. Some years ago, a leader in the Community Care magazine said :
when the aim..is arguably unrealistic, questions must be asked when millions are poured into activies whose outcomes for children are far less obvious than for those of the organization’s children’s services. Is the NSPCC carried away with its own importance? It’s not hard to see that the aim of protecting children can be furthered more successfully if the NSPCC is strong and well funded. But that should not make the growth and high profile of the NSPCC ends in themselves.
The author of the Guardian piece concluded with the extraordinarilly strident reccomendation that ‘this avaricious organization inflated by its own sense of self-importance, doesn’t need to be restructured : it needs to be dismantled.’ Whether or not one agrees with these sentiments, the fact that the NSPCC has provoked such indignation indicates that the charity should reconsider both its campaigning practices and the balance of campaigning and service delivery in its allocation of resources.
The NSPCC is the leading child protection organization in the UK. It has a royal charter, and is the only child protection charity whose officers have some legal powers to intervene in specific instances of child abuse. But its real importance lies in the areas of lobbying and campaigning. It frequently runs major ‘awareness’ campaigns which figure prominently in both offline and online British media, usually involving either men being characterised as physically abusing both their wives and children, or else being demonised in straightforward anti-paedophile campaigns – the type that inform every parent in the country that their daughters are almost certain to be raped by a male predator the moment they go online behind their backs, and that the only way it can be prevented is by making a donation right now. The Royal Charter also mandates the NSPCC to campaign against bullying (more children in the UK commit suicide because of bullying than for any other reason), but that rarely seems to get a look in. Teens driving other teens to suicide just isn’t sexy, I guess.
Many supporters of the men’s movement believe that some of the topics I discuss on this website are not men’s rights issues. I feel that they are because they affect chiefly men, and they do so because they derive from the lobbying of organisations that hate men – organisations such as the NSPCC. If you are unsure that such organisations hate men, then please read to the end of this article. Once you have done that, please ask yourself whether the laws that these evil feminists create really only become men’s rights issues if they are applied in the courts differently to men and women.
This article kind of takes up where Angry Harry left off, in one of his essays last year. In that piece, he described how a woman who had just taken up a senior role at the NSPCC, a woman by the name of Marriane Hester, was a committed feminist who had already published some ridiculous research that claimed that WOMEN were three times more likely than men to be arrested in cases of domestic violence!
Marriane Hester – Professor of Child Sexual Exploitation, NSPCC
Marriane Hester was last year appointed the ludicrous role of NSPCC ‘professor of child sexual exploitation’. She was already professor of ‘gender, violence, and international policy’ at the University of Bristol. She appears to have earned her salary at that seat of learning by conducting numerous and essential comparitive studies into domestic violence, such as that between China and the UK. According to the blurb on her Bristol academic homepage, she has also been involved for a long time with the UK Rape Crisis Movement. But her most infamous contribution to human learning was the above mentioned study which claimed to show (in the words of the Guardian) :
While the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men, women are arrested in three of every 10 incidents and men in only one of 10.
Lorraine Radford (NSPCC Head of Research)
The first two of her chief research interests listed are ‘the impact of domestic violence upon children and on parenting, safe child contact arrangements’. Lorraine was well placed to judge whether Marriane Hester was qualified to earn the salary that a prestigious role such as ‘professor of child sexual exploitation’ no doubt brings. The two co-authored a book entitled ‘Mothering through Domestic Violence’, published in 2006.
Susana Corral – NSPCC Senior Research Officer
Susana is the first of three senior research officers. Her speciality appears to be in ‘intimate and dating violence’. Prior to working for the NSPCC, she had apparently conducted research into the maltreatment of women. Her bio also tells us that she completed her PHD in violence in dating relationships.
Are you beginning to detect a pattern?
Alison Jobe – NSPCC Senior Research Officer
The first paragaph of Alison’s NSPCC blurb reads :
Alison’s research interests are in the areas of gender based violence; violence prevention; trafficking; immigration and asylum policy; social exclusion; and children and young people’s rights.
Wouldn’t you expect, on the profile page of a leading staff member of Britain’s official child protection charity, that ‘children and young people’s rights’ would be listed first, not AFTER ‘gender based violence’ and all the other crap?
Alison has apparently had 7 pieces of research published, 6 of which relate to trafficking, and only 1 of which focuses on the rights of young people.
Sarah Gorin – NSPCC Senior Research Officer
Sarah Gorin has published a work looking at the impact of domestic violence upon children. but there doesn’t seem to be any obvious evidence of an overt feminist background or clear misandristic bias in her case.
Silvia Bovarnick – NSPCC Senior Research Officer
Silvia’s research interests are listed as…I hardly need to tell you, do I? Gendered violence, trafficking..blah, blah, blah
Patricia Hynes – NSPCC Senior Research Officer
Patricia earns her salary protecting British kiddies by studying : “forced migration; trafficking; refugee and asylum policy; social exclusion and inclusion; human rights; and the ethics of conducting research with migrant populations.” I’m sure Sun readers will be pleased to know that their donations are going to such a worthy cause.
Patricia has worked with the women’s refugee movement and completed her PHD from crappy Middlesex university by writing a billion words on the social exclusion of asylum seekers in the UK.
These are all the ‘senior researchers’, the rest seem to be ‘senior fellows’. I won’t list them all, at least not now, but suffice to say they follow the same pattern. I should mention one of them however, as he is only one of two men listed as a member of the NSPCC research team (out of 16).
Simon Lapierre – NSPCC Visiting Academic (McGill University, Canada)
Simon’s research interests are in the field of violence against women and children, mothering and child protection.
Simon has conducted research on women’s experience of mothering in the context of domestic violence.
He has published a work entitled : “La persistance du blâme envers les mères chez les femmes victimes de violence conjugale“, which according to my ropey french, reads something like ‘the persistance of blaming mothers for the violence they suffer in domestic relationships’. White knight Simon has also enriched human understanding by publishing work on problems of gender and identity in a multi-cultural framework.
So there you have it. There is no doubt that the NSPCC exists primarily as a feminist organisation and lobbying group. Five of their seven senior research staff are hardcore feminists whose main interests lie in domestic violence against women and/or trafficking. These are the senior staff members of an organisation which recieves its Royal Charter on the basis that it will protect British children from abuse and neglect. One of the two token male members of staff is a Canadian feminist whose main area of interest lies in domestic violence against women. It appears that the NSPCC is a British ‘child protection’ organisation which awards research positions on the basis of strength of support for feminist political world views, and in fact, picks from candidates whose resumes demonstrate a primary research focus upon violence against women, and, to a sightly lesser extent, trafficking and asylum issues. None of the seven senior research members of the NSPCC listed amongst their interests the problem of teenage bullying, something which by any objective measure, including their own (see below), is the biggest single problem tormenting the lives of British school children today.
The NSPCC is one of the most powerful social forces in Europe, let alone the UK. It largely defines our understanding of the health and moral state of the British family, in particular the status of the father, and in more general terms, all of us as men. Furthermore, the legislation that results from its questionable research and incessant lobbying, from Westminster to Brussels, reaches into the homes and lives of men and families across the continent.
And it is indisputably a hardcore feminist organisation that hates men.
I’ll be writing further pieces on the NSPCC and other supposed child protection charities over the next few months. I may also update this article with further information regarding the feminist backgrounds of the rest of its research staff. In the meantime, you may want to look at Angry Harry’s ‘The Curse of the NSPCC’ collection of essays.
NOTES 1 : The NSPCC have their own telephone hotline for children who feel that they are being abused, called ‘Childline’. According the the NSPCC’s own statistics being bullied by other children is the number 1 reason both boys and girls ring Childline, followed by physical abuse and general family problems. Logically, you would expect the NSPCC to therefore devote a great part of its campaigning to addressing the issue of bullying, followed by the other two concerns. Instead, it appears to focus the great majority of its campaigning and lobbying towards ending child sexual abuse, primarily that involving teenage girls, which, despite what you read in the media, is not even in the top 3 concerns of British children. Likewise, you would also expect the NSPCC to give the greatest weight, when selecting research staff, to those candidates who have some experience in the understanding and prevention of bullying. In fact, not a single one of their senior research team lists the prevention of bullying as a research interest or goal. On the other hand, as we have seen, if you have a PHD in migrant studies or domestic violence, you certainly appear to have a head start on the rest of the ‘child protection’ candidates.
NOTES 2 : The NSPCC’s website also gives the following interesting statistic – ‘while 37% of girls say their mother is the source of the physical abuse, 25% say their father is’. Something which completely contradicts their frequent misandristic emotional televison appeals featuring bruised and battered tiny daughters cowering in fear from their physically abusive fathers.
Apologies once more for lack of updates here, but I’ve been on the road again – this time in Spain. Getting away from the UK is always welcome, especially when it’s blanketed beneath an arctic weather front. Spain, in particular, represents two things that my own nation sadly lacks – sun and civilisation. Unfortunately, while Spain might always have a sunnier climate, the millions of Brits who increasingly flock there seem intent on taking their uncivilised British Sun values with them. Already, for example, there are fears that the rampant knife culture amongst British ferral youths is being exported to the Spanish coastal towns.
Every time I visit Spain, I see less of the civilised world I used to love, and more of the broken Britain that those thick ex-pat Brits are fleeing from, unaware in their dumbed down stupour, that they are carrying with them precisely what they are escaping from – like the unsuspecting hosts of a virulent and devastating plague.
Only a few years ago, in one of the main squares of Madrid, I saw a delightful old man, who must have been in his seventies at least, roller skating around full of youthful abandon and genuine love of life. And whenever a young senorita in a pretty dress caught his eye he would immediately skate up to her, gently take the palm of her hand into his, kiss it adoringly, and tell her how beautiful she was. The girl, often as young as 13 or 14, usually accompanied by teenage boys, would always smile and be genuinely flattered. The boys would laugh and gently tease their friend, but obviously found it as endearing as I did.
White Knight elements aside, it was still a sight beautiful to behold, but also tragic and heartbreaking that it could exist at all. For it was something that would obviously have the wailing of police sirens and social workers descending upon the square within seconds if it took place in London. Probably armed SWAT teams tasering the old pedo if in an American city – all filmed for the entertainment of burger munching inbred redneck viewers of Dateline USA, as they shout paedophile at each other’s cocks.
And it was something that I obviously knew couldn’t continue for much longer even in this last outpost of civilised European values.
Earlier this year, I was in San Sebastian, and witnessed something very similar involving a little teenage puta with her g-string showing. Only this time, the girl did not smile but shouted an obscenity at him. As the old man crawled away in shame and disgust, the girl told her friends with malicious self-satisfied pride that he was probably a child molestor. I genuinely feared the boys would give chase and lynch him.
Until very recently, Spain did not even have a child protection charity. Now of course, it’s a booming multi-million dollar feminist industry there, just like in every other corner of the globe. However, it seemed to get by quite adequately without one in all those years before. The last statistics I checked it had a child murder rate 1/4 the rate of the UK. Teenage suicide and bullying were also very rare compared to here. Now Spain learns that your child might soon be knifed to death in the street at any moment, just like in the UK, but at least feminists you can be sure that old men won’t dare glance at your 15 year old daughter, let alone tell her that she is beautiful. Just like in the UK.
Although Spain now has its own thriving child abuse industry, the British NSPCC still takes the lead, together with the German ECPAT organization. Most Spanish ‘child protection’ laws, which come thick and fast these days, are based on continent wide EU directives that are the result of lobbying by the two above mentioned feminist/femiservative sexual trade union pressure groups.
Michele Elliot – No Friend of Men
Easily one of the most surreal moments in my men’s rights path was seeing the legendary MRA Angry Harry juxtaposed with the leading feminist ‘child protection’ agitator Michele Elliot in a video by the (excellent) ManWomanMyth.
The point of the video was that men are being victimised because the ‘sexual abuse’ of boys is not taken as seriously as that of girls. In a sense, this is obviously true, and the discrepency is valid to highlight as a men’s rights issue. But such highlighting needs to involve a wider context in which the feminist definition of sexual abuse is permitted to be questioned, and why the focus on ‘sexual’ abuse, rather than physical or emotional abuse, is given such primacy by middle-aged feminists.
The same philosophical error, and it is the most fundamental and dangerous error currently found in the men’s rights movement, was committed by the excellent YouTuber ‘Factory‘ in a comment he left beneath an interesting avoiceformen article on abortion :
I personally believe the ONLY ‘official’ MRM position on Abortion is this:
Men’s rights in this regard should directly mirror those of women, whatever those rights happen to be.
No, good sir, you are very, very, wrong, and your position, if accepted as a general principle, would be extremely dangerous for men’s rights. Whatever the rights or wrongs of abortion, men’s rights is never solely about blindly reflecting, or achieving ‘equality’ with, a morality and value agenda created by feminists and based upon the interests of women.
I don’t want to appear to be picking on Factory here. In fact, I only feel justified in naming him at all because he is obviously an otherwise superb MRA, and one who I supported back in the day when he was crazily stuck on about 20 YouTube subscribers. As said, this lazy and naieve belief permeates the entire men’s rights blogosphere. I’m picking him out because he expressed it sublimely in this instance.
I once jested on this site that, if we weren’t careful, men’s rights activists would soon be demanding the right to an abortion. Presumably, since men are biologically incapable of becoming pregnant, Factory must either mean that men should have a physical right to abort their babies in the mother’s womb – not very practical – or he is speaking in the rather figurative sense that men should have the same right to absolve themselves of the legal, moral, and financial consequences of having a baby, as women do when they physically abort their babies.
As a men’s rights supporter, I agree with this latter sentiment. But it’s not a literal ‘mirroring’ of the feminist position, and even if it was, is that the be all and end all for men’s rights? Aren’t there independent ethical considerations regarding the moral status of the unborn child? Perhaps Factory would argue that whether or not there are, they are not a question for men’s rights. But who gets to decide that the unborn child has effectively no moral status independent of the mother (or Father)? Why, feminists of course. Do men have a ‘right’ to abort their babies in some moral or legal sense only if women decide that they need the right to physically exterminate their babies?
Furthermore, who get’s to decide that killing a 26 week old unborn child is a matter of no ethical concern if the mother doesn’t want to cancel that expensive winter ski-ing vacation? Why, the same feminists who decide that men should be locked away to be beaten and raped in prison if they click so much as once on a picture of a fictional 25 year old Japanese cartoon character dressed in a school uniform. That’s who. This isn’t men’s rights. This is men having the skin ignomiously scraped from their bodies as they are dragged around, clinging to the coattails of a feminist value system whilst blindly proclaiming that they have won ‘equality’.
But back to Michele Elliot. Even if you want to pretend that you wouldn’t have killed to have had sex with a hot teacher when you were 15, even if you want a society in which children fear that every woman is a child molestor just as they fear every man is, just a few minutes Googling her name will tell you what kind of men’s rights supporter this American woman really is.
Dr Michele Elliott, the chief executive of children’s charity Kidscape, slammed the court’s decision.
She said: “I’m almost speechless about this. The original 10 month sentence was derisory and now he has been set free which sends the message that ‘it’s not really so serious.’
“Well, maybe the reason the court doesn’t think it’s so serious is because he is famous.”
She fumed: “He could have got a bigger sentence if he had got caught driving without insurance and a licence. It is absolutely absurd. It’s a real blow for those people who are trying to protect children.” (compare with : http://www.angryharry.com/es_chris_langham.htm)
Last night Michele Elliott, of the child protection charity Kidscape, said: ‘Record executives have targeted the young market and the old market, now they seem to be aiming for the dirty old man market.
‘This latest band really does defy description – it is totally pathetic. Child pornography is not funny and should never be laughed at, it is disgusting. I am very sad this song is going to be No.1.’
A barman who admitted having sex with a 12-year-old girl walked free from court after convincing a judge she had tricked him into believing she was an adult.
Michael Graham, 25, met the girl through a social networking website on which she had posted pictures of herself and described herself as a 19-year-old student and single mother who enjoyed drinking and having sex.
The girl was inundated with offers from men, but only replied to Graham because he was the best looking, Leeds Crown Court was told.
…After hearing the background, Judge Jennifer Kershaw, QC, took a sympathetic view towards Graham and gave him a 12-month conditional discharge.
She said there was a ‘striking’ contrast-between how the girl looked in school uniform while giving video evidence to police and the image she used of herself on her website.
Explaining the sentence to the court, she said: ‘I accept the defendant did not know how old this girl was. I accept he did not know she was under the age of 16, still less did he know she was in fact 12.
It seems to me that this defendant was deceived. He was deceived in a number of material respects, both beforehand and during their encounter.’
…A psychiatrist’s report on Graham concluded he had no sexual interest in children and was not a paedophile.
..After the case Michele Elliott, of the charity Kidscape, said she was surprised at the sentence.
‘I find it hard to believe you would be fooled by a 12-year-old girl into thinking she is 19, especially if you talked to her,’ she added.
She said she had ‘some sympathy’ with Graham if he was tricked, however that was ‘tempered by the fact that all he wanted to do was jump on her, get her drunk and have sex with her’.
In other words stay the hell away from anyone who even remotely looks under 21, otherwise you deserve to find yourself in jail as a paedophile nonce.
A comment I received from a feminist on yesterday’s post, concerning the silence of feminist sexual pressure groups child protection charities over American ‘bitch fight’ websites. These are sites that openly make money from videos of young high school girls being bullied, maimed, and beaten, even it appears sometimes into comas.
What on earth is wrong with two girls fighting? Will their wombs drop? Do you think that only boys should fight? You don’t have any real arguments! Absolutely ridiculous. Besides, you can moderate any comments out- so you may have had hundreds of rational, well argued, legitimate comments, but you won’t have published any of them.
I’m not devoting an entire post to this feminist’s comments because they contain any semblance of logic or reason. Rather, it is because they sickeningly highlight how little feminists care about the indisputably real and graphic abuse of children when it doesn’t limit their own adult sexual interests in a free sexual market.
A young girl, obviously being bullied, being beaten into what appears to be a coma whilst her schoolmates gather round cheering and recording it on their mobile phones, is a clear and transparent case of abuse. At least to normal, healthy, non-feminists. The fact that those children then upload the video to an American website that openly makes money from its millions of morality lite viewers clicking on advertisements from American companies (often including Google Adsense) is indescribably sick. The fact that child protection societies such as Barnardos, the NSPCC, and ECAP do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to stop it, speaks volumes for what they are. Middle-aged feminist sexual pressure groups that do not care in the least about stopping real child abuse, but which are only interested in 1/ limiting competition to themselves from teenage girls in a free sexual market 2/ making themselves lots of money and 3/ weakening the family unit and demonizing men.
One thing I do want to make clear though is that I’m in no way suggesting that videos of young girls being beaten half to death for video entertainment are in any way worse than those featuring boys. In fact, if anything good comes out of these videos it is in revealing how infinitely much more evil and vicious girls are than boys and how the greatest threat to the welfare of young girls is not boys, nor even ‘online predators’, but other teenage girls.
In fact, on these morally depraved sites, boy fights are much rarer, and most often much less violent. Boys seem to know when to stop. Boys don’t seem to actually want to kill each other over who said what about who on MySpace. Boys don’t seem to gang up and bully and beat into comas smaller, weaker boys. However, the very worst are just as indescribably evil :
I also don’t wish to ignore the fact that most of the viewers of these sites are probably male. Men are programmed to enjoy watching violence, just as those who aren’t homosexual, or attracted to small children, naturally enjoy looking at fertile teenage girls. The relevant question is why do female dominated child protection charities focus only on criminilizing men world-wide for merely looking at a picture of a sexy 17 year old girl in a thong, and yet completely ignore websites that make money from showing graphic physical abuse of children (in which the corrolation between ‘the demand feeds the supply’ is far more obvious)?
If I have to spell out the answer one more time, I may as well give up.
Here is a suggestion to the Men’s rights community. Let’s make a concerted campaign of stopping these schoolchild fight video sites. Let’s show that we, unlike feminists and their fake child protection charities, actually care about putting an end to the indisputable and obvious abuse and exploitation of children. If they are unwilling to stop the genuine abuse of girls, then we sure as hell will stop the abuse and exploitation of boys.
Hey, wait a moment. I forgot myself there. 95% of MRAs are too busy trying to prove that as many women break feminist sex laws as do men. And to criminilize pre-marital sex. And to tell boys (and girls – we believe in equality) that they’ll go to hell for masturbating.
Forget it. Let’s crack open the beer and watch two teenage Russian girls go at it – go at it in the sense of beating the other into a coma… obviously. This is the American way. This is the British way. This is the feminist way. This is the Men’s Rights way.