Month: March 2017

Arsenal 10, Tottenham Hotspur 0

/ Mike Buchanan / 3 Comments

Wow. How mind-numbingly boring must this game have been? You have to wonder, did Arsenal field some men who self-identify as women? If so, it must have been tense in the showers afterwards…

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Alleged rape victims will no longer face cross-examination in court, with testimony to be filmed instead

/ Mike Buchanan / 6 Comments

Our thanks to Y for this in The Independent. I’ve added the word ‘Alleged’ to the paper’s headline, above, in the interests of accuracy. From the piece:

Rape victims [ALLEGED rape victims] will be spared the ordeal of giving evidence in court under reforms being brought forward by the Government.

Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss said that, from September, their cross-examination will be pre-recorded and then played to the jury during the trial.

A paragraph unwittingly revealing that women are held to the same standards as children by the criminal justice system:

The Ministry of Justice said the move followed a successful pilot pre-recording the evidence of child victims of sex offences which showed they felt less pressure and were better able to recall events.

Ian, our legal advisor, comments (the emphases are his):

It is a fundamental part of British ‘justice’ that witnesses can be cross-examined.

It is not fair just or reasonable for witnesses to give evidence and then not be allowed to be challenged on the evidence.

This is a further erosion of the limited rights to a fair trial.

Article 6 of the ECHR reads as follows.

  1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
  2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
  3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Professor Wendy Savage: “Let mothers abort babies of the ‘wrong’ sex”. Doctors’ ethics boss is blasted by pro-life campaigners for ‘abhorrent’ views after she backs terminations based on gender alone

/ Mike Buchanan / 4 Comments

Our thanks to Peter for this. He writes:

The medical ethics specialist behind Diana Johnson’s 10 minute bill – Professor Wendy Savage – believes that women should be able to abort babies if the gender of the foetus isn’t to their liking.

The appropriately named Professor Savage is a pillar of the British medical establishment, and has personally carried out over 10,000 abortions. I suppose after the first 1,000 you get used to doing as you please with a foetus. Savage is an influential member of the BMA’s ethics committee. She bases her argument on the idea that “It’s her body and her foetus”.

Strange how it’s only the father’s child when there is any responsibility to be shouldered, isn’t it? In Professor Savage’s world, all the choices are the woman’s but the father must still bear responsibility for them.

Incidentally, Professor Savage believes that sex-selective abortion hardly ever happens in the UK. But I wonder what gender of foetus the women of this country will be aborting most frequently if sex-selective abortion becomes legal? Given that radical feminists like Professor Savage have spent decades teaching women that men are destructive and surplus to requirements, and women are kind and nurturing, which gender will be aborted more frequently, do you think?

I suppose in her world we should only be concerned about the negative effects of stereotyping on women and not men.

Our party’s positions on abortion and Foetal Alcohol Sydrome are on pp.5-8 of our last election manifesto.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Australia: The lunatics have take over the asylum

/ Mike Buchanan / 7 Comments

Our thanks to John for this. An excerpt:

Fair Work Australia identified that inflexible organisation structures restrict prospects for workers, as family and/or carer obligations are perceived as a potential workplace disrupter. [In plain English, ‘Organizations should adapt to the wants and needs of their female workers, not vice versa’.]

Women are more likely than men to work part-time (or flexibly), where they encounter an additional pay gap at an hourly rate between full and part-time workers. [So part-time female workers earn, on average, more than part-time male workers, as in the UK. This is a problem for men, clearly, but it’s not one that requires a solution.]

Vodafone Australia offers a range of flexible working options including out of office days, [that must help organizational efficiency] flexible hours, and a maternity leave program that allows 16 weeks fully paid leave, plus 30 hour weeks on full-time pay (for the first six months upon return).

The program also includes up to 10 additional days of paid leave per year for employees experiencing domestic violence. [I think this means ‘claiming to experience domestic violence, to get two weeks extra holiday’. But if they’re telling the truth, they’ll presumably spend more time with their partners, and thereby be exposed to more violence. Brilliant.]

My brain hurts. From near the end of the piece:

Closing the gender pay gap requires businesses to think of their employees first and foremost, [not their customers, then, or their shareholders?] to take direct action, and to challenge the status quo of a desirable work environment. [Desirable for the female workers, anyway, who don’t want to work full-time]

But if the data tells us anything, the result is a fairer, more productive, and ultimately more effective workforce. [The data doesn’t tell us that – if it did, a logical conclusion would be that all employees should work part-time.]

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.