Outrageous Misleading Article in the London Times

The 'leading' article in today's Times consists of nothing more than a deluge of misinformation and feminist-inspired propaganda designed to stir up hatred towards men by claiming that many thousands of them are getting away with rape every year.

New readers will need to read two of my pieces to see the evidence which demonstrates quite clearly that the research into 'rape' is mostly politically-corrected hocus pocus, and, further, that the likelihood is very high that the vast majority of allegations currently made to the police concerning rape are false.


Rape Baloney - 5 mins

The Home Office Caught Stirring Up Hatred Again - a detailed 20-minute read looking at the bogus research published by the Home Office in the UK.


Let me show you how this appalling article in the Times does nothing but perpetuate lies.

Here are some extracts.

Last year the defendant in a Swansea rape trial was acquitted because the prosecution admitted it could not prove that the alleged victim had withheld her consent for sex. She had been drunk, and the judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.

The implication here is that women should not need to demonstrate that they did not consent to sex. The implication is that the onus should be on the defendant to prove his innocence. And please bear in mind that we have already reached a situation in the UK wherein the vast majority of rape accusations are most probably false.

As such, if men have to prove their innocence in these cases, thousands of innocent men will end up being convicted.

Barely 5 per cent of rape allegations result in convictions. A minority of such allegations may be groundless or weak, but most are not.. ... [This] reflects a shameful failure of the criminal justice system.

This is absolute rubbish. The Times can have no valid and sufficient evidence to make such a claim. When the police and the lawyers and the juries have done all the investigating that they possibly can, the result is that some 95% of cases are judged NOT GUILTY or NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE.

So, please tell me somebody. From where, exactly, does the Times get evidence that suggests the very opposite?

Well. I'll tell you where some of it comes from. It comes from the bogus research conducted by academic feminists - many of who have close links with the media feminists; such as those working for the Times!

[This]... amounts to a social tragedy visited on nearly 100,000 women a year, ...

If you read my second piece, you will see how this type of figure is typically conjured up. For example, the Crime Survey will have included such questions as, "Have you been pressured into having sex when you were not in the mood?"

And given that nearly all of us have probably experienced such a situation wherein we gave in to 'pressure', the 'rape' figures will include those of us who thought, "Hmmm. I've been pressured in the past. So I'll have to answer Yes."

If the crime at issue were murder, British justice would now be in the dock. The crime of rape damages its victims in less final but more complex ways and is necessarily harder to prosecute.

A very sly and cunning paragraph indeed! Look at it carefully. Firstly, it connects 'rape' with 'murder' in the mind of the reader - and then it suggests that the two are not very dissimilar - but, just in case the reader is unsure about this 'similarity', it moves quickly on to - and leaves the reader with - a notion that is definitely true - the fact that rape is harder to prosecute.

It is pure propaganda! The psychological seeds suggesting a similarity between rape and murder are carefully sown, and then quickly passed by - lest the readers dwell too much on this ridiculous notion - and the readers are cunningly left with a statement with which they are very likely to agree.

Furthermore, please always remember that most rapes are not committed by strangers. They are committed by intimates. And the notion that such rape experiences with intimates are likely to be in the same league as murder is nothing more than feminist-inspired hogwash.

Despite decades of investment in specialist sex crimes units, the nation's police forces still fail to refer up to two thirds of reported rapes to the Crown Prosecution Service. In half these cases the alleged victims withdraw from what is inevitably a traumatic process before referral.

... which is hardly surprising - given that most of their allegations are probably false.

In the other half, police decide that their cases will not stand up in court - and half of those that do reach the trial stage end in acquittal.

... which is hardly surprising - given that most of the allegations are probably false.

... it is not too soon to review what is clearly a failing system.

The only system that is seriously failing here is the one that allows the Times to disseminate such utter nonsense and still masquerade as a 'quality' newspaper.

Even the professionals who work in the field do not believe that the vast majority of allegations are true.

And if anyone should know, they should!

Indeed - and as just one example - according to Professor Jennifer Temkin from the University of Sussex, one female barrister said that, "There are lots of women who make complaints of rape who would sleep with the local donkey."

Sweeping social change over the past two generations has unquestionably emboldened women in ways that expose them more than ever to danger from potential rapists - whether as much-maligned 'ladettes' or simply enjoying their right to stay out late.

This might be true, but they have also experienced some 30+ years of the most ceaseless and pervasive propaganda imploring them to feel abused and to report their abuse. And the very notion that women are so angelic that they will not make false allegations in significant numbers in order to gain some advantage for themselves is just preposterous and entirely beyond belief.

But the Times makes no mention of this. It does not even mention the possibility that this might be true.

No Sirreee. One must never suggest that women are anything but angels - for every hour of their existence. And so it is that the Times must attempt to portray all women as innocent and all men as guilty when rape allegations are made.

For newcomers, I will summarise the real truth about the 'rape' figures.

Nobody has a clue what they are. Not. A. Clue.

For example, it could be 1 in 5, 1 in 50, 1 in 100 or even 99 in 100 of women who are 'raped' throughout their lives - because the figures for 'rape' depend entirely on the definitions of rape that are employed by the 'researchers' together with the evidence that they, themselves, choose to recognise as indicators of rape.

And because, nowadays, the vast majority of these 'researchers' are precious little more than politically-corrected androids, they will conjure up data and definitions that mix together everything in such a way that it all sounds credible enough to convince the public - and so make their masters happy.

And those researchers who are not, nowadays, politically-corrected enough, will not get funded, published or publicised.


In order to add to my credibility, newcomers ought to know that I have been monitoring the 'rape' situation for some six or seven years now, that I have a PhD in Psychology, and that I used to teach statistics to social science undergraduates. And while I most certainly cannot claim to be an expert on the subject, in my view, the rape statistics and their meaning are almost pure propaganda. This ubiquitous propaganda is disseminated by many VERY POWERFUL groups. Generally speaking, some of these groups use this propaganda to generate funding, some to grow empires - ideological and institutional - and some to pursue the feminist agenda. And many women, of course, collude with this in order to empower themselves within their relationships. I am not suggesting that there are not 'many' rapes. What I do believe, however, is that the vast majority of allegations currently made to the police are false, that they are mostly made for malicious reasons, and that, in fact, the oft-quoted rape statistics are completely and utterly bogus. Indeed, give me some funding, and I can 'discover' just about any figures that you want when it comes to this issue.

And the same is true when it comes to issues such as 'domestic violence'.


Women Ripping Off Men And The Taxpayer

A local authority faces an estimated bill of £50 million after losing a sex discrimination tribunal involving thousands of women.

It was argued as a sex-discrimination case because the caring, cleaning and catering positions tended to be held by women.

Please take especial note that this hugely costly sex-discrimination case can succeed not because the women were underpaid for the jobs that they chose to do, but simply and purely because more women chose to do easier and lower-paying jobs than men.

Yep: That's all it takes.

And so, for example, if, perchance, just as many men, or more men, had chosen to do these easier jobs, then the women could not have made a successful claim! (And if, indeed, more men had chosen these easier jobs then the men could not have made a similar discrimination claim.Their gender alone would have precluded them from claiming any discrimination - no matter how low was their pay.)

Putting it simply: If there are two jobs on offer, one that requires a lot of hard work and effort - perhaps with a great deal of inconvenience also involved - and more men decide to do this job in order to get better pay, whereas more women choose to do a much easier and less demanding job that pays less, then it will be argued, successfully, that there must have been discrimination against women and that they are now entitled to years of back pay.

But if it was men who had chosen the easier jobs, they would not be able to make such a claim.

In other words, if men picked the harder better-paying jobs in the first place, then women who chose the easier jobs in the first place will still end up getting paid the same - without actually having to do the requisite work to justify better pay.

And this will happen solely on the grounds that more women than men chose the easier jobs!

And it is on the basis of throughly perverse notions of 'equality' such as this that men and the taxpayer are forever being cheated by corrupt politically-corrected feminist-dominated politicians who have no concern at all for decency and fair play, but who, instead, perpetually claim falsely that women are paid less than men for the 'same' jobs - something which is decidedly not true, and who - to add insult to injury - then have the nerve to claim that it is men who are discriminating against women in the workplace when, in fact, it is women themselves who are choosing the jobs that they do!

Also see, ...

Are Women Not Responsible Even For Their Work Choices?

Some BBC Propaganda Tricks


If Only The World Was Run By Monks

Now come along, Angry Harry.

It's 4.30, and it's time to get up.

Time to get up and recite your six hours of prayers before ploughing those enormous fields with a fork and spoon.

Then it's prayer time - yet again - before you get your hands on a tiny bowl of that huge mountain of cold gruel that you ground up yesterday with your bare feet while singing hymns.

And for goodness sake, please cheer up! You've got a whole morning off work to look forward to; albeit some time next year.

And then there's the sun in the morning and the moon at night to both wonder at and behold while you build those stone walls.

What more d'ya want?

And if your heart remains pure and your thoughts remain wholesome throughout the whole of this precious lifetime of yours, then there might even be more pleasures a-coming your way; especially when you are dead - when thar'll be a reckonin'.

So, please get up, get up. And rejoice in the new day.

And also thank the good lord and the new wonders of medicine for giving you a life expectancy of some 500 more years in which to dwell in this most excellent and holy of monasteries.

Rejoice. Rejoice. Let us now fall to our knees and pray solidly for at least a few days, lest we succumb to the devil's temptation by stealing an hour or two of wicked sleep.

Because remember: Sleep is nothing but theft. Pleasure is nothing but sin. And the mere thought of either will lead to your very soul being damned for eternity.

Plus a day!


Do Only Self-Serving Liars Get To The Top?

The title to this post is a question, Do Only Self-Serving Liars Get To The Top?

And the short answer is, Yes - at least, this is the case when it comes to politics in the UK. It is almost unbelievable how dishonest are the UK politicians who sit at top of the tree.

Lie after lie after lie.

And they keep getting away with it! - because those who can see what is going on do not have the power to get these politicians removed.

Furthermore, who, exactly, could we replace them with? In practice, we could only replace them with other liars!

And the reason for this is quite simple to understand - if you concentrate.

When groups of people (e.g. those in political parties) vie for our attention and for our votes, the winners will ****ALWAYS**** be those who put out the best spin, who look the smoothest, who promise the most, who undermine the opposition the best, who cheat here and there when they can get away with it, who can smarmy up to the media proprietors, and so on and so on.

The honest contenders who play fair and tell the truth haven't got a hope.

And this is why, for example, honest politicians with integrity tend to remain way down in the political food chain. They simply cannot compete with those self-serving vultures who are prepared to use any tactic that they can get away with in order to feather their own nests.

Furthermore, governments are so powerful these days that they attract the most greedy and the most ambitious people of all. And the stakes are very high; with huge pots of money, status and power on offer.

What hope, therefore, have honest people with real integrity when competing against so many others who will do anything to undermine them and push them aside in their own self-serving quest for promotion up the ladder?

And, I repeat, millions upon millions of dollars are often at stake.

So, Yes, only the most greedy, the most ambitious, the most wily and the most self-serving get to the top of the political tree these days.

And so we ***MUST*** do something about the people who run the system that governs us - or, perhaps, we need to change the system itself.

What we simply cannot do is to allow some of the most ambitious, self-serving, oily and dishonourable of people to continue to have such huge power in their hands.

As such, and in general, there are two main strategies that need to be adopted in order to curb the self-serving abuses of power in which state officials frequently engage.

1. Reduce the power that government and state officials actually possess.

2. Reduce the ability of government and state officials to hide information about their activities and ensure that they are continually subjected to the utmost scrutiny - with significant penalties imposed on any officials who hide information or who deceive people.

Also see The Governing Elite.

And, mostly of interest to Brits ...

+ What are the police for? This may sound like a daft question to which the answer is obvious; but it is especially pertinent at a time of great structural upheaval for the police forces of England and Wales.

+ Tyranny is sidling in. It is entering with face averted, under cover of a host of laws whose ostensible purpose is the reverse of their actual effect.

+ The “loans for peerages” scandal raises two democratic issues. “Loans” raise the whole issue of funding for political parties; “peerages” raise that of the composition of the House of Lords.