The established media spin more as their influence wanes

sun o bin

Cross refer the news reports and newspaper headlines these days and it is easy to expose the tricks used to spin a quote into drama that suits an established agenda.

This has always been the case of course, but with Jeremy Corbyn as their target it has suddenly become more desperate and more obvious due to the McCarthyite tendency in the mainstream news media.
But some are “not that biased” you say, (perhaps referring to the BBC or Guardian), really?
Yes, they are.
99% of BBC commenting news journalists had the same upper class schooling as Osborne, Clegg and Cameron,  rather than the commoner’s version of learning of Labour MPs, Skinner, Corbyn and Johnson. Nick Robinson was a former leader of the Young conservatives and many more BBC hacks go on to right wing organisations as a career enhancement than go to work at Ruskin college. They have been trained, not only to keep the establishment boat steady, (which is the opposite of good journalism) but to ridicule and mock anyone who presents a serious risk of exposing the clay feet of an establishment that cheats the poor to feed the rich more caviar.

This is Nick Robinson’s school, Cheadle_Hulme_SchoolCheadle Hume, Stockport,

…where Conservatism was plumbed into the water supply.

As for newspaper barons, sitting in their tax free non-dom or private island homes, we really do not need to debate why they will do everything short of blatant imprisonable offences to knock Corbyn, and anyone else with political power, daring to promote democracy and people over profits.

An example –
corbyntodayThis story was widely reported by the BBC and others as “Corbyn denies that Immigration is an issue”..
a subtle difference you might say. But then, when the context is changed to counter this…

…which is phrased yet again in all tabloid Twitter headlines out of context to say “Burnham admits immigration a major problem” – many supposedly news reporting hacks now hail these quotes as supporting the idea of “a disastrous split” in the cabinet.
But when you compare what these two actually said, they were between them admitting that Labour had handled this badly in the past, and that while there can be localised problems, the long term benefits are evidenced and clear.
That’s my spin, perhaps, but it is closer to what they actually said than the BBC and Guardian can manage.

Laura Kuennsberg, across many platforms of the BBC this evening, sounded delighted as she described the “aghast” fellow cabinet members because Corbyn had gone against Labour policy and stated that he would never launch a nuclear strike as PM…(we knew this from day one)
“Labour could be in meltdown”, she said, “Corbyn has upset his ministers by contradicting Labour policy”.
But take in the whole of BBC interviews, including the one SHE conducted with him, and you will know that he had already talked about the need for debate and allowing different views, and that whatever his party voted for as policy he would abide by. He was then asked, if he was PM, would he launch a nuclear strike. It was the same question he had answered to Sarah Montague on the Today show 6 hours earlier- when his answer, “No” was hailed by Paul Waugh on twitter thus…
waugh tweetThe irony of his own comment “#boom” was possibly deliberate but could as easily be read as his own insane desire to blow up the planet… (subconsciously assuming his Westminster womb is spared?).

There followed a “host” of at least one Labour MP saying how they had stood for election on a mandate of retaining the nuclear force. One John Woodcock, said that Corbyn’s position, “made the grotesque horror of a nuclear holocaust more likely”.

This is an MP from the part of Cumbria that has its livelihood staked in the nuclear energy industry; his stance is as a long standing lobbyist for everything nuclear. So perhaps the “holocaust” he was foolishly referring to was the metaphoric one of his constituents lost jobs, and his ticket to ride…

They could have begun to have the serious debate on “why nuclear?” – but the issue is trickier than my much retweeted statement about it being about bigger dick pics – the fact that John Woodcock and nearly all others neglect to mention is the trade off between nuclear power and nuclear weapons – while it is possible to have one without the other there is a reason that Iran has had such a hard time from the international bully police in creating a nuclear energy plant. Weapons grade plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear energy industry – but it is only ever raised as an issue by the campaign for nuclear disarmament…

And all the time the press are focusing on spinning Corbyn’s quotes, and the somewhat tortured attempts of his establishment-trained fellow MPs to bring about party unity by… failing to understand what he is saying altogether.
The people who brought you “screw the poor, kill the disabled, close the libraries, end Human Rights laws, force the NHS to break up and be ruined, while snorting cocaine and wanking in a dead pig’s mouth
– seem to be immune from criticism.

Welcome to the transparently untrustworthy establishment 4th estate where news journalism has not only become too heavily laden with comment, it has reversed its supposed role, now comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted. It has become a “sneeritariat” Times, Torygraph, Tabloids, Guardian, BBC and more, all choosing to mock the common man and posing no challenge to conventional money-worshipping conservative thinking.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pig Mouth Questions (PMQs) postponed

The Guardian has kindly suggested some readers’ questions that do not focus entirely on, the corruptly appointed peer, Lord Ashcroft’s lovely biographical allegations of his student exploits as an over-privileged twat undertaking silly rituals. David-Cameron
So in that spirit, perhaps we can imagine his replies…
“Can the prime minister please explain…”

  1. While some people can take drugs and write it off as being “young and reckless”, what would you say to the thousands of other people who will end up with criminal records for doing the same? (Richard, via Facebook)

    “Well Richard, I’m glad you asked me that question, and that you are clearly someone who has moved from being young and reckless to being someone capable of understanding adult matters. The adult position is that all politicians become hypocrites once they attain power – it’s the only way the powers that be (MI5 etc) allow us to keep the job at all, OK?”

  2. Why is inviting a foreign power such as China to build nuclear reactors in the UK not a threat to our security? (Alex, via Twitter)

    “Thank you so much for the smart question Alek, but I must say, you appear to be suffering under some major misapprehension here. “Threats to our security” actually means only one thing, “Threats to rich people’s money” – as such we are very happy to work with torturing regimes that makes us richer, such as Saudi Arabia, and never decline  other moneyed people’s rights to invest in our country – whether it means a few thousand plebs are killed or not”

  3. Did David Cameron know of Lord Ashcroft’s non-dom status – and if so, when did he find out? (Robin)

    “I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that question, next!”

  4. Is this government still keeping up the pretence of being the “greenest government ever” or will it now be honest about being intent on expunging all the “green crap” from public policy? (Tony, via Facebook)

    “Well Tony, you have been doing your research, haven’t you, and I can only say that the “Green crap” comment was a joke, that I never said… really, because no one was listening, and I wasn’t there, I wasn’t even born when that happened.
    We will continue to be the Greenest government ever, as promised, I think you’ll find that the Green deal and other facts, real facts mind you, support this notion because the previous Labour government destroyed much of Iraq, so, you know…greener than them and all the previous ones, Hahahaaaa”

  5. Are Iain Duncan Smith and the Department for Work and Pensions going to be investigated after the recent revelations that a coroner proved that a claimant’s death was directly linked to being assessed as fit to work? (Rachel, via Facebook)

    “I take this seriously… I take this very seriously indeed. Iain was an excellent quiet party leader and has been an excellent torture I mean deprive the plebs, I mean money grabbing back, I mean – secretary, I mean excellent secretary. next question?”

  6. Are you ashamed about listening to Supertramp? (Andrew, via Facebook)

    “Now you really have gone too far. Supertramp are bloody excellent! OK!, they pump me up!
    and any MI5 agent will tell you that this is not any more a matter for ridicule than sticking my todger in that smelly pig’s mouth”

(PMQs drowned by a chorus of oink noises here)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nostalgia for Punk Rock: Sex Pistols did it first I guess

My past is catching up with me on Twitter.Elvis C 1978
Apparently there is an interested audience for my punk & reggae photojournalist work from the 1977- 80 era.

Sadly a large part of my collection, including all the original negatives, suffered from mysterious disappearance syndrome during my divorce, but I had a few print copies remaindered in an old box and last year I dug them out to please a keen French reggae fan who’d heard of my exploits.
Following his enthusiasm I thought I’d add a little more about those experiences.
First, as assistant social secretary to Tony Wilkins at High Wycombe College – where we booked an unknown band to support Screaming Lord Sutch, called the Sex Pistols, my version of the story of which is in Dave Roberts’ excellent Rock Atlas (latest edition)

scan0003…Through to my time in Cardiff Art College where Glenn Carmichael reignited my enthusiasm for punk and we set up the Fanzine, “Twilight Zoner”.

As a freelance photographer (I kept the art student bit quiet) I always got into the Top Rank (Cardiff) and Stowaway (Newport) clubs for free and managed good access to the bands.
Getting to interview Nico however, was a piece of luck/bluff that I felt I deserved for being one of the few true fans in the house that night.
She was supporting Siouxsie & the Banshees who had broken big following their signing to Polydor (much campaigning graffiti of “Sign the Banshees” had preceded this), but the crowd was ignorant of Nico and one idiot threw some chewing gum that stuck in her hair. She cut her set short and went to her dressing room in tears. Cameras at the ready, I found a back way through the Top Rank corridors thanks to a bouncer friend and was greeted at her open door by a guy who started talking right away,
“You must be Pete, I’m sorry but she can’t do the interview right now, she’s too upset, but if you can just wait a bit I think we…”

At this point would you have said, “I’m not Pete…”?
me neither.
Soon, Nico beckoned me in and I sat with her and her manager, immediately apologising for the bad Cardiff crowd and that idiot who threw the gum.
Only after about five minutes of conversation did she smile and say,
“You’re not Pete are you?”
By this time I was feeling secure enough to say, no, I was just a freelance photographer but also massive fan of the Velvets and her…
She cheered up on hearing that and not long after, Cardiff friends including Wendy (left of frame in the pic) turned up and she allowed them in,
8 genuine fans in the crowd of 2000.

This pic of Siouxsie was taken at the scan0004Stowaway the year before that gig with Nico, a gig with far fewer fans, the Banshees not yet such a widely known band. Being in with the Stowaway management I went downstairs to the Speakeasy “sister” club after the gig with the band and the small entourage.
Siouxsie was the coolest customer, as the transvestite and transgender clientèle of what was a members only gay club swanned around. She calmly ordered a G&T and settled deep into her chair whereas some weeks later, a sweaty Jimmy Pursey of Sham69, in the same room, looked like he’d have a panic attack.

Steve Severin went on to use this photo for his own graphic design background for the cover of ZigZag – the transatlantic magazine that had a huge standing with most fans and music journos I knew. Unfortunately my copy of that cover and his correspondence has suffered the same fate as my negs…

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Meat is not murder, but where do you draw the line?

George Monbiot knows – the logic of a meat eater.

Many on Social media have been outraged by his eating of a roadkill squirrel, but it is the hypocrisy of any meat-eaters among that group that is truly shocking.
It seems to me we need to draw out what it is all about, this argument over meat, veganism, and morality:-
Is it all about the morality? (as in “meat is murder”)
Is it mainly the health factor for you?
the sustainability?
or the “I can’t kill anything” position?

I know a couple of individuals who are apparently at the opposite ends of the whole vegetarian/omnivore debate:
First up, a friend, let’s call him John, is an omnivore.
He loves his meat, and fish, is not too bothered where it’s sourced from, or even if it is still alive when it goes in the mouth.
This end of the spectrum I call “all is allowable”.

At the other end of this spectrum comes a former Jain Monk I met at a Hindu retreat in west Wales. His name has probably changed again by now but then he was going by the name Krishna.
He believed that we should all have evolved by now, beyond eating the flesh of living things. He also believed in veganism to the point of rejecting every purchase if it had any trace of animal matter in it whatsoever.
When he was a Jainist he had a mask with fine gauze to prevent him accidentally inhaling any flying insects (and thus killing them) and he trod carefully, and some co-monkeys used a soft brush to clear the path they walked to avoid stepping on any walking bug – though he admitted he only saw this actually happen once.

Morally the latter position appears easier to defend
Logically, it doesn’t feel as though it is sensible however.
There are groups who take it a step further than moderate Jains in believing that vegetables can feel pain and should not be killed. The Fruitarians (Virginia McKenna’s children are devotees I believe) would not eat a carrot as the whole plant is killed in its devouring. Fruit and certain vegetables that grow like fruit are the only permissible edibles – I suspect that this diet would probably lead to premature death if followed permanently – some say this dietary craze was what caused Steve Jobs’ pancreatic cancer. Most vegans I have known rely on B12 injections sooner or later and anyway, can never objectively untangle the web of moral conflict that I outline below.

I have questioned many people as I draw the line very differently to either extreme myself, and this has raised many more questions…

If your “line” is, to avoid all killing of any living animal, (sentient or otherwise) then you can only fail. One of the most obvious ways is in the washing of the face – every time you do this you kill over a million bacteria.
As well as living on your face, bacteria also enjoy a symbiotic relationship with humans by inhabiting the gut – and a dose of antibiotics usually reveals just how essential these are to proper digestive tract health. Dying to avoid defeating a bacteria that kills you is just selecting one type of bacteria’s survival over another.


George Monbiot’s position is pretty much where I sit – nothing wrong with eating meat, wearing leather, eating butter, cheese, yoghurt and more importantly, Lindor and the odd Crème Brulée.
Much more important is our attention to the ethics of how it is produced, the unsustainable nature of a meat-dominated diet in the context of world population survival, and the notion that we should not waste what we accept as an unavoidable by-product of our modern lives. We do not appear to want to curtail travel in a world where vehicles kill more badgers and foxes than insane culls and disgusting hunters have ever managed.

I agreed with a friend who said that the native American idea of “respecting the animal you kill for food” is a good one, one that involves remembering you take on the spirit of that animal. I share a liking for his idea that we could positively use the apparent cowardly aspect of, not being able to kill anything but still wanting to benefit from the deaths, to apply a simple planet assisting rule.
That rule is: After the age of say, 18, you can only eat animals of the type that you have, at least once in your life, killed yourself. (this would mean I could eat beef, chicken, game birds, mice and insects, but not pork or lamb)

Of course, it is unenforceable and impractical in modern Britain, but thinking about it, at least, should be compulsory. It is up to you where you draw your line, just never pretend that there is a definitive one that everyone can or should adopt.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How the deputy PM betrayed the best coalition ever…

This Deputy PM “appeared modest and unassuming; he was ineffective at public relations and lacked charisma.” (Wikipedia) – but led the Labour party longer than anyone else and won two successive elections against a rampant wartime Tory opponent…

So what are the parallels between Atlee and Corbyn?

You can study the history online with ease, but I like to remember that Churchill was almost tearful at the ending of the wartime coalition in which Atlee was his deputy PM – though of course he expected the British public to rally behind him as “the winner of the war” and vote for the Tory party.

Instead they elected Atlee on a landslide, based on Keynesian economics, nationalising the utilities and infrastructure industries, and the creation of the NHS and welfare state…

Maybe they voted Labour because they understood that Keynesian policies worked better than pay cuts and union busting – or maybe they were just “keen on a change”.
Either way, Atlee changed the face of Britain for the better and it remained unchallenged as an economic method until Thatcher came along with her “no such thing as society” shtick…

He did all this long-lasting positive change in the face of massive wartime debt, a darker economic outlook than that of the period 2008 – 2018, he oversaw the shrinking of the commonwealth, an end to imperialist enslavement – but was also a passionate supporter of NATO and battling the cold war.

I wonder if many centre-right commentators, and Labour ones at that, lobbied against the naivety of Atlee and spent ages rubbishing him whilst offering no real alternative to Churchill’s history of controlling the riff raff by shooting strikers?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Poetry of The Donald

Donald J. Trump’s poems: trumpWorks of undoubted genius from Fox News “Pulitzerest poet 2015”
all words unchanged from published quotes, only punctuation has been corrected.

29th July 2015 “Perfect Polling”

Public Policy Polling,
known as PPP,
has just come out with a major poll,
putting me
number one with Hispanics,
leading all Republican candidates.

Told you so

29th. September 2014 “Loving haters”

Every time I speak,
of the haters and losers I do,
with great love and affection.
They cannot help the fact that they were born,

fucked up!
June 2015 “Mexicans”

When Mexico sends its people,
they’re not sending their best.
They’re sending people,
that have lots of problems.
They’re bringing drugs.
They’re bringing crime.

They’re rapists.

I will build a great wall and,
nobody builds walls better than me,
believe me.
And I’ll build them very inexpensively.
I will build a great, great wall,
on our southern border,
and I will make Mexico pay
for that wall.

Mark my words.
2014 “Obamacare”

You have to get hit,
by a tractor,
literally a tractor,
to use it.
Because the deductibles are so high,
it’s virtually useless.
It is

a disaster
“Beauty is real”

It’s tangible,
it’s solid,
it’s beautiful.
It’s artistic, from my standpoint.
And I just love

real estate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sometimes dogs are just wrong.

I have a mixed relationship with dogs – some are delightful, and so are many owners – but yesterday a dog put my wife in hospital, it may have caused long-term pain and injury, and it ruined a beautiful family time. What other owners assumed when I got angry about it is where my pen is aimed.

dog attack

Normally we divide dog owners into three camps:-
The good (responsible, poo picker, rule obeying, training oriented),
the bad (lazy, rule ignoring, arrogant)
and the ugly  (those who train dogs as weapons, leave them to maul babies etc.)

When you are having a lovely picnic in a tiny sculpted sheltered sunny spot on a common, famously grazed by cattle and horses, you might expect to have to avoid the cowpats, and keep a watchful eye out for cattle deciding they want to poo on your patch.
What you don’t expect is for a dog to come flying over the raised edge like a bullet and knock you unconscious.
But that is exactly what happened to my wife.

One can argue the details of right and wrong, and play on the rule that dogs should always be on a lead where cattle are roaming free. I can explain why I did the WRONG thing (I was angry) and confronted the owner, or that she had no understanding of what her dog had done and, if she had, she would have been more sympathetic.  (Sympathetic wouldn’t have cut it for me – I would have wanted to see her offering £1000 compensation and to have the dog put down at that point).

All that… I could rant on about, or rationalise, but what got my goat immediately after this was the interference of another (unleaded) dog owner. Her interjection was probably out of embarrassment – feeling I had no right to yell angrily at a woman and fellow dog owner – but if she had actually seen what had happened, would she have immediately put her dog on a lead?
– I sincerely doubt it, she was in the union.

The dog owners union is a comfortable and wonderful thing. Walking dogs makes you seem solid, and approachable (at least to other dog lovers) and there is a tree on the adjacent Rodborough common where dogs (owners) hang Christmas cards to each other each year, such is the strength of their “love”. But the fact remains that there is no “dangerous breed”, in the way the insanely stupid Dangerous Dogs Act has tried to create. And further still, just as human beings can go off the rails, even when well trained, so can the best-trained dogs.

This particular dog was a collie cross – and I made eye contact with it two paces before it launched itself past me at 30 mph. straight at my wife’s head. She lay on the ground unconscious for nearly a minute before stirring, the dog ran back to its owner to “play some more”.
Would you have got angry if you were me? – and yes, I know in retrospect I should have called an ambulance, possibly the police too, calmly taken the owners details and contacted a lawyer. The pervading atmosphere, the one the passing dog walker portrayed, is however, “How can you make such a fuss over a playing dog, when we all know that dogs are a man’s best friend and it’s never their fault if anything bad happens?”

If we had in this country, my compulsory dog insurance scheme – this incident could now be resolved, legally and with no lasting bad feelings.
Thatcher did away with the dog licence just when it should have been upped to match the cost of a TV licence, and introduced chipping twinned with compulsory third party insurance (but with massive no claims bonuses), that would then be the prime funding source for a nationwide dog warden/enforcement service.

We are where we are because the unacknowledged dog lobby is like the “let’s not talk about alcohol as a drug” lobby. Politicians run scared from introducing laws they may know to be right but know they do wrong.  Thus we have a free range of fake libertarian, self-satisfied, and small-minded arguments against doing anything that could properly control bad breeders, bad owners, increase responsible behaviour and punish the ugly.
It is a disgrace.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Europe has lifted a revolver and fired the first blank.

The battle to save Greece has some truths still to emerge, but what has already emerged is quite shocking
This is a clip from that linked interview with Yanis Varoufakis…


Other reports reveal that many, particularly on the German side, had decided long before they invited Tsipras to present new proposals, that they just wanted to kill (by default, the Greek people and) their economy no matter what form the torture took.

So where does the reality of the revealed absence of character in our European leaders leave me?

I recently made a strong case for staying in Europe and reaffirmed what I thought it was all about. I saw the need for reform and the overriding need for a Europe at peace. Now I see that eurothe only reform that would be truly acceptable would be the total removal of the soulless money men who are in complete, undemocratic control of the thing, plus some kind of humiliating reminder to Germany that they are the reason we got in this mess in the first place.

Some are saying that the deal is also a climb down by the Germans, who overtly wanted a “Grexit”, partly to set the frighteners on Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal etc… Yet I can remember when the 8 member states were so keen to expand, then the 12… all able to be fooled by clever accountants that these lesser economies were still able to be a net contributor to the strength of the EU rather than not suitable for the Eurogame. If Germany seeks to punish any state for being a fool then it needs a look in the mirror.

You have no one to blame but yourselves EU leaders, but I can see a whole bunch of my friends and fans of Greece saying, “Referendum? sod you Cameron, Merkel and Delors, I want out”. UKIP proved right? how on earth can we have come to this?

And when all the recriminations occur, way down the road – with a disunited Europe of separate member states, economically irrelevant and ruled over by our Chinese, Russian and American overlords, it won’t be, “All this, including the third world war, was Greece’s fault”, it will be correctly blamed on the soulless monetarists with their short term power crazed robot minds.

The thing about playing Russian roulette repeatedly is that you always see something die – in this case it will, odds on, be the EU.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“If it wasn’t a dick it wasn’t rape” – the law is a dick

rape lawI have put this idea out there before – and will continue to refine and draw together further arguments, evidence and support, until either success or my dying day.

The Law Commission exists for modifying bad laws.
It has recently recommended changes to the DOLS aspect of Mental Capacity legislation following a House of Lords ruling that the DOLS law was “not fit for purpose”, and the “Cheshire ruling” which effectively deemed that people not allowed to leave care settings were not as free as they should be.

My initial statement of fact is that the evidence tells us that Rape legislation is therefore extremely unfit for purpose, to the much more detrimental effect of the public’s freedom, and our societal standing based on how we protect the most vulnerable.
How does 60,000 – 95,000 rape victims every year (Ministry of Justice figures), compare to the few cases of restriction of freedom to leave a hospital or care home?

And to add to that, to get the serious (maximum life sentence) crime comparison accurately, just imagine if there were that many murders and yet we only convicted 2% of the perpetrators…

A fact that is not disputed is that rape is possibly the most under-reported serious crime against the person in this and many other countries. What has been disputed is that, despite the reforms that now include the possibility of male victims being deemed the victims of rape, the law is still flawed in its inception.

The problems that now exist, on top of flaws in the law itself, stem from over-emotional knee jerk responses to the word, and conception of, “rape”, by public and politicians alike.

The central flaw in the law itself is that it is still fundamentally based on “Spoiling of a man’s goods by the use of a penis”. Despite the changes that now allow the inclusion of non-consensual sodomy of a man, failure in reporting the crime is as low in that area as it is amongst women, and with good reason.

In seeking to repeal the law of rape, and proposing instead relying on a law that is entirely based on gradations of sexual assault, I am aware that the majority of people will immediately react emotionally as if what I was advocating was a downgrading of the seriousness of the offence.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I ask you to picture yourself as a victim – someone who has been attacked, violated.
Abused and injured by someone who overpowered you, they have not just hit you with hands or weapons but fulfilled all the elements of the traditional definition of rape.

I now ask you to assume you have “done the right thing” and gone to the police, despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests this is likely to lead to further trauma and no likelihood of a conviction for your attacker. Let us further assume that you have done this soon enough for forensic evidence to be strong, so that the police decide they have a strong enough case to confidently pursue a prosecution for the most serious offence of rape, with its potential maximum sentence:
Life imprisonment. (As opposed to the 10 years for sexual assault).

Now jump forward through what will be a very traumatic and long period of time, until you finally find yourself in the witness box, frightened by the overpowering aspect of the courtroom, reliving the violent sexual assault you suffered, maybe a year previously.

Your attacker is acting as his own defence lawyer.

He is allowed to question you, and does so. He manages to ask questions allowed by the court that reduce you to an emotional wreck as you relive that experience as narrated by the very attacker. He questions your memory of events in ways that inevitably highlight inconsistencies and absences in your memory. (Research shows that no witness or victim ever remembers all details of even the most traumatic events accurately, a memory process that gets worse with the passage of time).

After your tears and trauma in the witness box you eventually get to hear the verdict of,
Not guilty.

This verdict is reached because you and your lawyer could not prove, or even be 100% sure that it was a penis and not a dildo with which this assailant, finally, “raped” you.
The law says: If it wasn’t a penis, it wasn’t rape.

Lawyers will know that the law of burglary is defined by two purposes in the mind of the offender. One is theft following significant entry into a property.
The other is for the purpose of rape.

This reflects the ancient property laws of this land: any woman in the house is traditionally seen as “goods”, albeit a very precious type of goods, and that these special goods may be despoiled by unlawful sexual intercourse with someone other than that woman’s husband. The implication is that if an intruder gets into a house just to beat a woman up, that is, not only not rape but also not burglary either.

Assault by penetration is defined, separately from the law of rape. The Sexual Offences Act outlines that, “Assault by penetration is illegal; this means that it is an offence for a male or female to penetrate the vagina or anus of another person without their consent. Penetration can be by a part of the body, e.g. fingers, or anything else that is not a body part, used for the purpose of penetration (with sexual intent)”. As with all sexual assault cases, this is deemed a lesser offence than rape and the maximum sentence is ten years imprisonment, not life.

Back to you, the victim of a rape – case dismissed, attacker now free to walk the streets, (potential conviction for a lesser offence notwithstanding). You are now feeling, like many thousands before you, that the law is ridiculous. Will others you know who have been raped now refuse to come forward after they hear your story? and would you have minded if the word rape did not feature in the charges knowing it was more likely your attacker was sent to prison?

There are many men as well as women who are not prepared to put themselves through this doubling of the stigma, the traumatic “second rape” of a trial, as it has been described by several victims.

In seeking to change the law I am seeking to enable victims to be placed at the centre of the legal process, in keeping with the modern trend away from supposedly dispassionate cases, solely a matter between perpetrators and the state. Due to the nature of victims mostly being the sole witness, rape cases have never been that.
I am not, here, in the business of disputing the accused’s right to defend themselves in court, (though there is an essential debate to be had on the fairness of process when his questioning constitutes potential intimidation of the victim and sole witness).
I am suggesting that the law of rape, based as it is on ancient chauvinistic property laws, was anachronistic when Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne, yet alone in the 21st century.

The net effect of this anachronism, and the emotional attachment that so badly skews politicians’ and lawyers’ decision making, is that many of the most serious and dangerous perpetrators of sexual assault are going unpunished; that an even greater number of victims are suffering long-term mental health problems, (that can often result in suicide); and that justice is being massively denied to all of them due to the failures of legal action that result from this.

By changing the law to, effectively, scale up the maximum sentence for serious sexual assault to life in prison, and repeal the law of rape altogether, we would be making a stand on behalf of the thousands of victims and increase the likelihood of successful prosecution of the perpetrators by a significant amount. We would also be making an important legal redefinition of women as equals, as opposed to chattels.

Nothing will eliminate the word rape from the public vocabulary, but the job of law is to evolve in such a way as to deal with failings caused by anachronistic attitudes and legislation that is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. The law of rape has been adapted and modified several times, every time with no reference to this issue, every time with little or no subsequent success in preventing perpetrators of extreme sexual assault from escaping rightful conviction. The issue of rape within marriage and existing abusive relationships is also massive – everyone needs to remember that “stranger rape” makes up less than 8% of the total, according to all the best calculations.
I believe the sexual assault laws would still apply, even if these cases are even harder to prove, the difficulty proving does not arise if cases are not brought due to the anachronistic sexist laws of the land.

The obsession with the weapon has to be done away with.

Put yourself back into the position of that trembling and traumatised rape victim – wondering…
“If it was a broken bottle would that have meant the swine was convicted and sent to prison?” Answer: No.

Under my proposed reformed laws – YES –
Life imprisonment would be at the discretion of the judge, based on the aggravated nature of the sexual assault, ensuring that rapists are not only liable to the same maximum penalty as under the current law, but more of them are likely to be prosecuted, and convicted, and more victims are enabled to feel empowered and not stigmatised by the mess of bad law and emotional trauma that is conjured up by that one word, Rape.

(remember Rape crisis centres are available nationwide should you need support following being a victim of any degree of serious sexual assault) 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Hatred & bigotry make you blind, not wanking.

rainbow monuments

Rainbow nation celebrates sanity at last

New theory?
which is: – that something in the brain ensures that the more bigoted and hateful your ideas become, the more your corresponding blindness and inability to understand evidence, history and law, head towards complete.

Youtube conspiracy evidence creators love to link to each other’s compilations, academically laden with music of a foreboding nature, presumably thinking that the overall number of stupid people agreeing on something stupid, makes it somehow more true. (Chemtrail nuts are my favourite – almost like pistachios)

The confirmation bias phenomenon is well known and we miss our own (yes, I know we all have it) as a matter of sadly common course, but the cement with which bigotry and hate build infantile (and, one would assume, easily destroyed by evidence) delusions, is a wonder to behold. The reinforcing of those delusions that includes shouting them on public media, however, suggests we have a whole new level of cognitive failure.

In the USA we have recently seen elected officials, Religious spokesmen, political commentators and many more, viciosly attacking the Supreme court for a ruling that says, “Love is for all under the law, everybody, rejoice”, with a series of statements that defy the notion that these people are allowed out after infant school, never mind exercising power over adult people.

ChristianCouple“If SCOTUS decides on gay marriage being legal we will divorce”, say “Christian couple”.
and here they are –
looking like normal human beings as far as we can tell… who would have known that they were really ignorance promoting robots from the planet Feckmibakwards

Other people are disgusted at their own country because people they don’t know can now get married there, like in most other civilised countries,
so they are going to emigrate to…

Canadayes, one of the countries where it has been legal for the past decade.

Then we have the arguments they make: “By allowing gay marriage the state is denigrating marriage”, comments have included the notion that those wanting gay marriage “hate marriage” ? (aside – this same “argument” was used about “inter-racial” marriage), and these views are held because they are “Christians”.
Constantly they refer to the nature of marriage as being “ordained by God” (still the wording of the Anglican marriage ceremony today in the UK) and described in the Christian Bible…

…except it isn’t.
The early Catholic church (the only church for one heck of a while) placed its heaviest emphasis on virginity and celibacy, decrying marriage as somehow sordid, while they waited for the second coming of the most holy celibate bachelor of them all.
Marriage was argued over, discussed by many, sure, and eventually 1200 years after the first pope, it was reluctantly included as a sacrament – but the weddings were not actually allowed in the church buildings for another 4 centuries since it smacked too much of celebrating sex (YUK!).

Christian Pastors can still be found pretending that their Church invented marriage (among other groups, an honourable Jewish tradition) and that the Bible decrees that it is between a man and a woman. The Jewish Bible may hint at this… Jesus on the other hand only spoke about marriage once – and that was to order the water to turn to wine so he and his guests could get drunk.

The same “fundamental” bigotry appears to have achieved this blindness to reality with regard to guns – the USA should be the safest place in the world if guns make you safer, since they have more than all of Europe…but blindness to reality is a vicious cycle of ignorance that puts up barriers to learning.

Is it a disease? – is it possible that the bigotry and hate will just die out like an over-enthusiastic virus?
Either way, it has been extremely funny to see the bigots running in convoluted directions.
Have some sex for Christ’s sake…


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment