From the BBC, a predictable propaganda piece.
We already have a feminist prime minister – David Cameron was the previous one – a feminist Home Secretary (Amber Rudd), and a feminist head of the CPS (Alison Saunders). Now the most senior judge in the land is Baroness Hale, a woman who has spent much of the last eight years wittering on about the ‘need’ for more diversity in the judiciary – in plain English, the ‘need’ for more women, regardless of merit, and the proportions of capable men and women wishing to pursue such careers. As always, the barriers to entry have been lowered to enable this direction of travel, including appointing legal academics (most of whom are female) as judges.
The biographies of the Supreme Court Justices are here. The idea that Lady Hale might objectively be the best candidate (among 11) for the position of president is laughable. A man with the same background wouldn’t have had a hope of becoming a Supreme Court Justice in the first place. From her biography:
A home maker as well as a judge, she thoroughly enjoyed helping the artists and architects create a new home for The Supreme Court.
Well, that’s nice. A feminist part-timer with an interest in interior decoration now heads the highest court in the land. What could possibly go wrong?
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.
Justice for Men & Boys 
“she thoroughly enjoyed helping the artists and architects create a new home for The Supreme Court.” So she was responsible for the irreparable vandalism of the Middlesex Guildhall.
LikeLike
There are many differing kinds of feminism.
Perhaps the most dangerous is political feminism.
The purpose of this is to weaken and undermine institutions, structures, laws etc. in preparation for the next Marxist push into wider society.
Since women are softer targets than men, they are the chosen agents of disinfomation, manipulation and and corruption.
Here we see this in action, and ironically, many of the most powerful actors in this slow motion revolution (and a revolution it is, make no mistake about this) are men.
Viewed with this understanding, it explains a lot.
LikeLike
see also http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=1841
LikeLike
A few years ago there was a less than riveting ‘documentary’ about the then relatively recently created Supreme Court. One of the cases featured was of a man suing his former wife for a share of her assets, he being the poorer partner and she having been significantly wealthier than he when they married. The point of the appeal was that the husband had signed a prenuptial agreement as a condition of the marriage but had subsequently decided that he did not wish to abide by it. Of the twelve SC judges eleven, all men, decided in favour of the former wife on the basis of contract law. The twelfth, a woman, decided in favour of the former husband, giving as her reason that future cases of that sort were overwhelmingly likely to be brought by divorced wives against their former husbands and a judgement in favour of the wife on that occasion would create a precedent detrimental to the interests of divorced wives. The legal rights and wrongs were of no apparent importance, merely the supposed interests of women in future. I cannot remember who that woman judge was but she can only have been Lady Hale, although I may be mistaken.
LikeLike
In my book ‘The Fraud of the Rings’ I related how a sitting of some of the Supreme Court judges (three or five, from memory) accepted for the first time in England and Wales, a prenup. They did so to protect the fortune of a wealthy German woman, Katrin Radmacher, from her much poorer French husband. Money must not flow from women to men.
LikeLike