UK Man Jailed for Sexual Assaults Committed 45 Years Ago…When He Was 12 Years Old!

From the excellent Inquisition21.com comes the following shocking story :

Are you afraid yet?
We predicted developments such as this ten years ago and were not taken seriously. In fact what has happened since, first in the US and quickly followed in the UK, has been even worse than we expected.

The Hull Daily Mail reported this on Saturday, May 28, 2011: “45-year wait for justice is over – – -.”

A local man, who was named, was jailed for three-and-a-half years for ‘five indecent assaults’ allegedly committed 45 years ago. But if you think that is not alarming, wait for it!

The story goes on: “Four victims of child abuse have seen the man responsible jailed more than 40 years after he committed the offences. – – – he indecently assaulted his victims, who were all under the age of 11 at the time.

So are you afraid yet? You should be because the defendent was 12 when the alleged assaults took place.

Here is a posting on the OBU web site about the sentence.

“Truly obscene. This, it seems to me, is the logical conclusion of the campaign by near-psychotic ‘abuse survivors’ to pursue ‘historic abuse claims’ – even if they are levelled against someone who was only a child himself at the time the alleged ‘offences’ were committed. Historic abuse claims, from a psychoanalytic point of view, are fundamentally and irretrievably corrupt, because they involve projecting present day obsessions, no matter how mad and irrational they may be, into a the past where they had no validity or meaning. Victim hood is the triumph of contemporary ideology, the re-writing of history to fit present-day fashions and fads. All of which leads to one important question: were those who allowed themselves to hound this man into imprisonment and personal destruction victims of abuse, or unscrupulous and, frankly, evil gold-diggers? I know which one of these alternatives my money is on.

“Our culture’s perverted fetishization of victim hood means that if you’ve grown into a resentful narcissist, a destructive, envious turd or a crap parent, you can explain away all your fu*k-ups, stupid choices and ill-judged wrong-turns by alleging you had your nether-regions groped when you were young. Hell, you could just make it up, especially if you’ve been ‘trawled’ by the police to give evidence. You’ve got nothing to lose and plenty to gain if the court ends up believing you (which is very likely today). Cases like this represent mortal blows to any notion of justice, at least justice tempered with sanity. Absolutely perverse.

“Pardon the dyspeptic fury. I think I’ve come to despise the loathsome culture of victimology as never before.”

The fury of this response is timely because we need a fight-back against this fascist state that criminalizes the normal explorations of children so that no man or boy, father son or brother, is now safe.

One way, perhaps the only one open to us, is to ‘name and shame’ the legal profession and its judiciary that have brought us here.

Look at the words of the newly appointed judge that ruined this man and pushed our society further down this road of damnation.

When the defendant’s counsel pleaded for leniency, Judge Jeremy Baker QC told (the defendent) that the trauma his victims had suffered since his offending meant only a custodial sentence could be justified.

He said: “These matters came to the attention of the police last year and they arrested and interviewed you in the course of their investigation throughout which you denied it and branded them liars.

“It’s sometimes thought by those who have not been subjected to abuse that child victims are less likely to suffer trauma as a result of what has taken place.

“This is far from reality. I had the benefit of seeing each of them, all now adults, giving evidence.

“It is evident each of them have been profoundly affected throughout their adult lives.

“One can only hope the jury’s verdict can go some way to diminish the trauma each continues to suffer. It is the nature and degree of the emotional harm your offending caused that dictates only a custodial sentence can be justified for this offending.”

The Queen appointed Jeremy Baker QC to be a Circuit Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Kenneth Clarke QC MP. The Right Honourable the Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales assigned him to the North Eastern Circuit, based at Hull Combined Court Centre with effect from Monday 29 November 2010.

All who know him and care for the men and boys in our society and in our own families should let this judge know what they think of this sentence. Because if you are still not afraid, it could be you or one of your men or boys next.

Of course, the girls who stripped and assaulted an 11 year old boy will never have to face jail, not now, and certainly not in 45 years time.

Brazil Officially Recognises the Gay – Feminist Faustian Pact

Brazil last week awarded gay couples the same legal status as married heterosexuals.  The decision by the nation’s Supreme Court was seen as a victory for the newly elected female President Dilma Roussef.  She apparently saw this as an essential plank of her intended social policy reforms, which will turn Brazil into a modern and sexually tolerant civilised society, and which no doubt include plans to send any man who clicks on a youngish looking cartoon character to rot inside a rat infested prison cell.

Gay activists in Brazil are delighted.  One claimed that “the degree of civilisation of a country can be measured by the way people in a nation treat their homosexual community”.  It seems that Brazil can continue to have 12 million kids sleeping on the streets, hundreds of whom are killed and mutiliated by death squads each year, but so long as we pretend that gay men have as much innate desire as heterosexual women do to spend their entire lives monogamously with one partner, then Brazil shall be proudly awarded a place amongst the 21st century liberal progressive club of civilised nations. 

Nor does the mark of a civilisation seemingly depend on the way in which ordinary heterosexuals are treated by society.  Men are biologically programmed to find fertility and youth, as well as physical markers of virginity, sexually attractive in females.  Girls increasingly begin puberty well before they are even into their teens, yet through feminist lobbying, conservative puritanism, and media hysteria, we have created a society that defines men who openly show attraction towards 16 and 17 year old females as the worst kind of subhuman sexual devient, and even pursuing an interest in young women aged between 18 and 25 now carries with it the risk of falling foul of ‘anti-paedophile’ legislation or social ostracisation.

And are gays themselves really treated much better by society than before?  The supreme act of denial behind the more ‘tolerant’ treatment of homosexuals is that the worship of youth and beauty has not been central to homosexual culture throughout history.  I don’t wish to denounce or degrade this love – after all, through the ancient Athenian thinkers and the Florentine renaissance artists, it gave us our very civilisation….twice.  But it is in an undeniable fact, and it would be harder to name a homosexual in history who wasn’t attracted to youth than it would be to reel off the great rollcall of homosexual ephebophiles – from Socrates to Morrissey (celibate).

Recently, the out-going British Labour government awarded a state apology to the deceased Alan Turing, the inventor of the computer and arguably a man who did as much to save the world from the Nazis as Winston Churchill himself.  A man who picked up and sodomized a teenage boy (he was 19, but I wonder if he asked him for his ID?) knowing full well the social attitude to such a crime (at the time) and the risks to himself if caught – which he was, and then chemically castrated and imprisoned, causing him to commit suicide soon after release.  We are supposed to believe that if alive in one of our progressive civilised societies today, such a man would never once in his lifetime, likely spent largely at the computer which he invented, succumb to temptation and click on a picture of a boyish looking man in his underwear – a crime soon to be punished by a minimum of 2 years in prison throughout Europe under absurd and evil virtual child porn laws created by feminists.

So why have gay men sold their souls to the feminist devil, and why does society pretend that homosexual men have been liberated, now that they can legally marry (which 99% of gay men probably have not the slightest inclination to do) and yet, just like heterosexual men, face a 5 am boot through the door if they so much as idly click once on a cartoon picture of a sexy manga ‘boy’?

The truth is feminists need to maintain the pretence that they are a civilising, progressive, and ‘sexually tolerant’ force, rather than the brutal anti-enlightenment illiberal fascists that they are, conducting a brutal war upon ordinary and healthy male sexuality.  They do this by promoting the rights of gays and transexuals, a tiny minority of the population, whilst criminilising as perverted monsters the vast majority of heterosexual men.

They have carefully engineered a situation whereby homosexuals have been granted escape from decades of formal and open prosecution, but only on condition that they renounce and disown their own culture and history – that of the love of youth.  A love that twice inspired the dawn of western civilisation.  Thus the feminist controlled United Nations only allowed homosexual lobby groups priviliged access when they agreed to denounce and reject any gay rights groups in their ranks that supported the lowering of the age of consent.  The sexual trade union has expertly ensured that the success of gay rights is almost dependent upon the ever increasing hatred and savegary towards ‘paedophiles’, something only possible through collective amnesia towards the fact that virtually every great homosexual in history was such a ‘paedophile’.

This is a true faustian pact with the devil on the part of homosexuals, but it is a short-sighted one.  Already a gay Austrian man has been jailed for looking at pictures in the privacy of his own home which involved, in the admission of the court, not one person under the age of 21.  The story of Jonathan King reminds us of the absurdity of believing that ever more savage paedohysteria can possibly be consistent with fairness towards gays – here was a 1960’s icon and gay man punished mercilessly by the courts and the media for allegedly having sex with boys in the free love era of the 60’s and 70’s – a time when every heterosexual pop star worth his name was banging every 14 year old groupie they could get hold of (witness how Americans still worship Elvis Presley, despite his predilection for pink pantie clad 13 year old girls being well documented).

Not only will homosexual men increasingly face criminalization as a result of paedohysteria, but feminists will soon drop their gay allies of convenience as the power of Islam grows, and they are forced to choose between the two.  This is already happening at the United Nations, where thanks to Islamic lobbying, reference to sexual persecution was dropped from the definitions of genocide.

Gay men have gone along with this Faustian pact in the manner of the granny muggers who spit on the sex offenders in jail.  Simple relief and self-esteem that society has found somebody to hate even more than them.  It ignores the great history of homosexuality, and it ignores fundamental issues of real justness and true sexual tolerance.  They would be wise to understand that, as Orwell observed, the object of the irrational mob’s torchbeam of hatred can be switched by the leaders at any moment.  You cannot build a lasting sexual tolerance upon the most vile and savage sexual intolerance that the world has ever known, a hatred that would make the average medieval flat-Earther blush at its very ignorance and stupidity.

The Sex Offender’s Register and the Feminist Creation of Value

The deepest evil that feminism commits, is not the discrepancies in sentencing that men and women receive in the courts, manifold and heinous though these unquestionably are.  Rather, it is the creation by feminists of the set of values and priorities that define the very essence of our ‘civilisation’ itself.  Equal injustice is no justice for men, and the true rape of the male stems not from double standards and unfairness in the court room, but from the ability of feminism to shape even morality into its own selfish sexual image.

Consider the sex offender’s register, and the primacy we give as a society to sex crimes above all others.  Why is there no violent offender’s register? Such a register would cover violent sex offenders as well as other violent criminals. Why is a sexually incompetant man, caught exposing himself to an old lady in the park, any more reprehensible and in need of branding than a man who mugs and beats that old lady for her wallet?  It is not because non-violent sex offenders are any more recidivist than a burglar or a mugger is (in fact, they are less likely to re-offend).  No, it is because it is in the interests of women for a feminist society to reifie and strictly control something as natural as the male sexual urge, and to give moral primacy to sex rather than violence, just as all primitive societies do.

Feminists may occasionally call for domestic violence offender registers, and all feminists often use the supposed inherent male propensity for violence as a way to demonise men and promote the spiritual superiority of women, but when push comes to shove, feminists do not want to build a society in which violence as such  is treated in the same taboo and hysterical way as sexual crime.  After all, most male violence is performed for women, either to protect their honour or to win their favour.  Only misguided, idealistic manginas, who misjudge what their feminist overlords really want, would really like to put an end to male violence completely.

Our present medieval demonisation of the ‘sex offender’ is a backward symptom of the atavistic, irrationalist, and nihalistic nature of a gynocratic society.  A society that has few moral standards left aside from those that relate, in a decietful and hidden manner, to maintaining the sexual and economic value of the female.  An advanced high-tech society in which the fake mask thinly hiding ultimate evolutionary reproductive explanations behind ‘rational’ proximate ones is held up only by hysteria and political correctness – the secular forms of medieval witchhunts and accusations of blasphemy and heresy.  The focus upon ‘sex offenders’ is the feminists way of controlling male sexuality though a ‘liberal’ version of the Nazi’s pink triangle – a method that still allows feel good liberals to sleep at night..and to feel superior to the mob.

on a leash

The great Jonathan King, whose ‘victims’ were essentially groomed by the tabloids into making allegations against him, speaking on the absurdity of the sex offender’s register :

Good read : The Rape of Mankind

See also from this site : http://theantifeminist.com/human-stupidity-2-ultimate-proximate-explanations/

The Abuse of Language (and real children) Continues

“If you define a child as anybody under the age of 30, the number of adults having sex with children rises to a sickening 80%”

The above quote wasn’t actually made by the Daily Mail or the NSPCC, but you’d hardly be surprised if it had been.  In fact, it was taken from the brilliant satire on paedohysteria brought to us by the genius of Chris Morris.  The point being that such manipulative shock language, when made by ‘experts’ such as the NSPCC, could get celebrities, politicians, and the public, to support just about any measures, no matter how insane, in the war against paedophilia.

We may not quite be at the point where a man having sex with anyone under 30 is a paedophile, but we’re fast approaching it.  The British media are currently in outrage at a scandal involoving Prince Andrew and his friendship with a ‘convicted paedophile‘Jeffrey Epstein’.  You’ve probably noticed that the media love the phrase ‘convicted paedophile’.  I can sort of see why.  It’s a manipulative loaded term that suggests that all men are paedophiles, only not all have been convicted yet.  And under their absurd definition of paedophilia, they’re right.  Jeffrey Epstein has not displayed any sexual preference for pre-pubescent 8 year olds.  In fact, his ‘crime’ consists of paying a beautiful 17 year old girl to give him a massage.  And who wouldn’t enjoy a massage from a beautiful 17 year old girl? Only (real) paedophiles, that’s who.

I have to confess that I’m pretty ignorent of American cultural history.  I don’t know what steps America took to get from Elvis Presely representing everything masculine about America in the 1960’s, when his penchant for adolescent girls was well known, to the 21st century, where even admitting that 17 year old girls are sexy will earn you a tag of paedophile notoriety.  Frankly, I’m not really interested.

I do have more knowlege of how it’s happend in the UK and Europe.  Largely because it has taken place before my eyes.  Only fifteen years ago nobody, and I mean nobody, would associate men having sex with 17 year old girls with paedophilia.  In fact, paedophilia hadn’t really even been ‘invented’ then. It was a term largely known only to professionals – a clinical term used to describe adults with a sexual fixation towards pre-pubescent children.  Fifteen years ago men who had sex with even 13 or 14 year olds were jocularly described as cradle snatchers, not paedophiles, and were rarely prosecuted unless the parents of the girl made a complaint.

Only 10 years ago, and British men were still happily staring at the breasts of 16 year old ‘children’ in tabloid newspapers.  Yet those same newspapers now speak of men simply being touched by 17 year old girls as perverted paedophiles.  What kind of self-deceit is taking place in the primitive brains of the people who write these things, and the morons who read them?

“She was just 17, if you know what I mean, and the way she looked was way beyond compare…so how could I dance with another,  when I saw her standing there?”

Well actually Sir Paul McCartney, we don’t know what the hell you mean you sick (un)convicted paedo you.

Maybe next week the papers will be screaming fury at the Queen and Prince Philip, for once being seen in the same room as four Liverpudlian paedophiles who sang about the unrivalled beauty of 17 year old girls?

Meanwhile, reader Highwayman brings disturbing news that an appeal court in Canada has upheld the nation’s infanticide law– a law which effectively means that women who kill their children are tried for a lesser crime than murder.   These are laws passed by the same wicked feminists who have defined men’s natural sexual desires as the worst form of child abuse.  Such feminists are worse than paedophiles, and not just because they support child murder.  They are worse because they don’t just exploit children, they exploit child abuse itself – for their own evil, selfish, sexual and financial ends.  The only thing they can really be compared to is the worst type of child pornographers, or perhaps those largely non-existent child prostitution traffickers.

Coming This Week : The NSPCC as a Feminist Organisation

Child Protection Slut Shaming

CEOP is one of the leading sexual trade union pressure groups child protection societies in the UK.  Like most such advocacy groups, it is populated mainly by unspeakably ugly middle-aged women, both feminists and femiservatives, together with a sprinkling of Matthew Hopkins/Heinrich Himmler gene spliced Paedo-finder General type wierdos, such as its former chief, Jim Gamble.

The video above, released earlier in the week, purports to be a warning to teenage girls of the dangers of ‘sexting’, of sending their boyfriends sexy self-shot pics taken on their mobile phones.  It seems to me that the message is nothing more than ‘if you show yourself naked you’re a little slut and you deserve everything you get’ type of shaming message.  Of course, teenagers should be taught how to avoid being bullied.  Teenagers can be bullied by their peers for all manner of reasons.  There is nothing in this video that gives the message that the bullies are at fault, as is usual and what you might expect from an anti-bullying campaign.  In fact, it seems only a  more high-tech, ‘progressive’ equivalent of another video I watched recently – that of a teenage couple being stoned to death in Afghanistan for adultery.  Actually, the image of the sexting girl crying whilst being interviewed, with her hoodie top turned up and which then covers her face as she walks out, just before the fat ugly feminist starts speaking, seems almost deliberately intended to evoke the hijab, and to convey an Islamic message.  Attractive girls are only safe if they cover themselves up.   

Many of the reports into the Afghan stoning have claimed that the murdered couple were only 17 years old.  Predictably, there has been little noise from feminists or their obnoxious fake child protection societies.  Perhaps, in  a decade or two, when feminism in Europe has become fully subsumed under Islam, we will see them release videos of teenagers being physically, and not just figuratively, stoned to death, as a warning against sexting, or any other display of sexual power that makes their older rivals so angry.

To futher understand what motivates feminist child protection charities, take a look, if you can stomach it, at the following video that is hosted on a commercial website based in America :

http://www.mentalzero.com/Beastly-Girl-Repeatedly-Stomps-On-Helpless-Chick-s-Face-2850.html

There are dozens of videos like this on that website, and many other websites like them, sites that make money from showing videos of children being beaten and bullied.  I have never once heard any child protection group raise any concern over them.  Whilst the middle-aged fuglies and peado-finder generals jet around the world organising lucrative conferences that discuss ever more draconian laws that will send any man who clicks on a single thumbnail of a sexy teen to months of shower rape, there are no demands for these ‘bitch fight’ sites to be outlawed, let alone the sick people who view them to be imprisoned.  Notice, as you watch (quite legally) this 14 year old girl having her face stomped upon repeatedly, that at one point she makes a rude gesture at the person filming it.  While she is lying on the ground, with the boots of the bully coming down upon her head, she sees that she is being filmed, and clearly realises that her humiliation and pain is going to end up on the internet for millions of people to laugh at and replay for years.

But wait, she’s got her clothes on, so that’s o.k.

Meanwhile, in America, being tricked by a 17 year old jailbait in a nightclub can lead to 10 years in jail for the adult.  As I’ve stressed here repeatedly, and I need to keep repeating it because some MRAs still don’t get it, feminists use draconian applications of age of consent laws not in order to protect young girls from sex with older men.  No, the real reason, or at least the main reason, is to deter men from approaching any girl who remotely looks like she could be under the age of consent.  This is why, in the UK and the USA, the harshest sentances are meted out to men who have sex with underage girls close to the age of consent, and no mercy is shown even when it is accepted that the man believed the girl to be over age.  And when the age of consent is 18, as in many states of America, no sane man should ever go near any woman who even looks under 25, for fear that she might turn out to be a ‘child’ of 17 (bear in mind that in today’s world most girls complete puberty and physical growth by the age of 16).  Feminists have made a political priority of forcing law courts to dismiss as a defence the belief on the part of the man that the girl was of legal age.

This blog is in some danger of becoming an Angry Harry tribute site, but I can’t help quoting his comment regarding this story :

I have no doubt in my mind that the bartender above should not be in prison but that those officials and politicians who are responsible for implementing such a disgusting policy should be.

Sentiments that I agree 100% with, as every honest supporter of men’s rights should.

Chris Brand : Paedophilic Pleasantry to Cost Tax Payer 500K

You may not have heard of him, but Chris Brand is one of the greatest of anti-feminist heroes.  Sacked by femi-nazi’s from his position as Professor of Psychology at Edinburgh University in the 90’s (for writing a book claiming that black and white IQ differences are largely genetic, as well as arguing that Nobel Prize winners who have consensual sex with above IQ teenagers should not go to jail to be raped and beaten), Brand can claim to be the owner of one of the oldest, if not the very oldest, regularly updated political blogs on the internet.  Here’s a brief taste of his inimitable writing style, published on his site yesterday :

PAEDOPHILIC PLEASANTRY TO COST TAXPAYER £500K

Showing Britain’s Pakistani youth that paedophilia did not need to involve raping, torture, pimping and (as Labourite Jack Straw put it) ‘treating girls like meat, unmarried affluent graphic design businessman and polo player Giles Cross, then 43, fell for an unnameable-for-legal reasons anorexic fifteen- year-old girl whom he met at stables in Cheshire. Soon the pair were on most affectionate terms (he called her Belle, she called him Beau) and one thing led to another over 15 months in Cross’s ‘Ink’n’Paper’ office.

The pair would talk until 5am on Skype while Cross took thousands of ‘screen shot’ pictures of his beloved in her bedroom. Said the girl [17 by the time of the seven-day 2011 trial in Chester] as Cross was jailed for a savage four years (after her parents discovered the liaison) (Daily Telegraph, 15 i, ‘The predatory paedophile at the polo club’; Daily Mail, 15 i):

“We were kissing, touching and hugging each other. Then he took my jeans off and I was just touching him and kissing. I was OK with that and I didn’t tell him to stop or anything. I trusted him, I thought I loved him. We kept it a secret from everyone.” Defending, lawyer Duncan Bold said that when the alleged victim was being taken to the police station for questioning she was screaming and shouting saying she didn’t want to go. Later on in proceedings the alleged victim’s mother confirmed this.

Another healthy-enough example of age-gapped relations emerged as Italian Duce Silvio Berlusconi, 74, found himself hauled into the limelight of the courts for having a pally and possibly paying relationship with gorgeous flaxen-haired, bee-stung-lipped and –bosomed Moroccan-born belly dancer Miss Karima El Mahroug, 17 – who claimed to have been given jewellery and £6K in cash at one of Silvio’s “‘bunga-bunga” orgies ooops parties.

To prosecute this ‘crime,’ Italian taxpayers would have to cough up at least £1M – and much more if Silvio had to be imprisoned, since his business empire and lawyers would run night-and-day appeals to what was left of Italy’s justice system after years of its being broken by the Mafia.