Somewhat belatedly, we bring you the video of the 15.11.17 session of the Women and Equalities Committee on ‘Women in the House of Commons’ – here (86 minutes). It was a predictably turgid affair, with the four witnesses virtue-signalling shamelessly. It was, of course, a given that there should be more female MPs. From left to right:

Ian Blackford – Leader, SNP Westminster Group
Vince Cable – Leader, Liberal Democrats
Dawn Butler – Shadow Minister for Wimmin & Equalities
Amanda Sater – Deputy Chairman, Conservative Party

The Labour pary has, of course, employed all-women shortlists for many years, giving us geniuses such as Jess Phillips, who was her customary self in this session – a gurning schoolgirl, shamelessly interrupting the witnesses, and probably taking up more time that all the other members of the committee combined. Maria Miller even asked her to start the questions, as if she needed encouragement to speak, when she needs encouragement to shut her trap.

Blackford and Cable both spoke with pride of their party’s adoption of all-women shortlists – in the case of the Lib Dems, only for winnable seats. Presumably in unwinnable seats all-men shortlists will be the norm.

Philip Davies made some useful contributions, as we’d expect from the winner of a Churchill award. Over 10:57:30 – 10:59:00 he challenged Vince Cable over why, in Twickenham last year, the Lib Dem rule requiring an all-women shortlist had not been implemented. Over 11:42:35 – 11:43:55 Philip quizzed Dawn Butler over why John McDonnell’s endorsement of a call for a Conservative MP to be lynched (he was referring to his partner Esther McVey, last week appointed the new Minister for Work and Pensions) had not led to McDonnell’s expulsion from the party, before he was appointed Shadow Chancellor.

Our thanks to John for this (video, 5:53).

We’re planning to step up our anti-MGM campaigning in Speakers’ Corner this year, and I invite you to join us.

Next Sunday we’ll again be campaigning with some of the estimable members of The London Group at Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park. Rod will certainly be there, along with a number of others from the group. They mainly go in for speaking on their step ladders, and do a fine job of it. I generally spend my time at Speakers’ Corner campaigning on MGM, engaging primarily with the people whose religions and cultures condone MGM. As always, I’ll be bringing placards and leaflets, as well as bodycams to record anything of interest.

At the last Speakers’ Corner meeting I engaged with a number of people and later posted this (video, 37:15) on our YouTube channel. It’s attracted 960 views so far, along with 45 upvotes and no downvotes.

If you can come along and support us, you’ll be made very welcome. The weather may be poor and there’s little cover from the weather, so dress accordingly.

We tend to arrive around 10:40, stopping for lunch at around 13:30, then return and press on until maybe 16:30 or 17:00. Afterwards we usually go somewhere nearby for a beer or two. I’ll be driving down so it will be soda and lime for me.

If you’re known to us, and want to join us beforehand at a nearby cafe (09:30 – 10:30), please email us (mail@j4mb.org.uk) to ask where the place is. A warming tea or coffee might be a good way to start the day!

Our thanks to Jim, a Jersey resident, for this. The end of the piece:

Following the verdict, Mr Lyons released a statement criticising Jersey’s legal system as there had been: “…huge failings in the administration of this case by the States of Jersey Police and the Jersey Crown Prosecution. Failings that should be addressed by the Attorney General in a reassessment of the administration of all cases of this nature. But I suspect they won’t. The Jersey legal system is self-serving from top to bottom and will treat it as normal business for a system that has, or is fast losing its way in the administration of justice.

“I am financially out of pocket and I lost a job due to the failings of a system that we are supposed to trust and rely on,” he added. “It’s not so much ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ My experience in this case has definitely been ‘guilty until proven innocent.”

Our thanks to Paul for alerting us to a discussion to be aired tomorrow night on BBC Radio 4 at 20:00. Laura Perrins of The Conservative Woman will be contributing, and needless to say there’s the expected gender balance on the programme (Anne, Laura, Gabrielle, Joan). The programme will be available to catch afterwards through this link. It’s about damned time the BBC ran programmes with titles such as, “Should we all be anti-feminists?” I won’t hold my breath.

An excellent review of a vile book, much lauded by feminists.

Channel 4 News is, if anything, more feminism-driven than BBC TV News. Cathy Newman (43) is the most bombastic feminist interviewer on the programme. So I was delighted to watch five minutes from her interview of Jordan Peterson on the programme this evening.

Newman interrupted Peterson repeatedly and outrageously, pressed him with feminist narratives (gender pay gap, the number of female CEOs in the FTSE100, yawn…), asked daft questions such as, “Is gender equality a myth?” (Peterson: “I don’t know what you mean by the question”), kept taking offence, and repeatedly put words in his mouth. He responded with remarkable patience, making Newman look like a silly schoolgirl in the process. The full interview is on the programme’s YouTube Channel – here (video, 29:55).

In 2011 the Mail published a piece by one of their columnists, Liz Jones, The craving for a baby that drives women to the ultimate deception. In the piece she admitted she’d tried to become pregnant by using the contents of both her ex-husbands’ condoms – thankfully, without success.

Our thanks to Mike P for a new piece in the Mail, ‘Child support is 18 years of easy money’: Women reveal the REAL reasons why they’ve lied about being on the Pill – and many DON’T regret what they’ve done. A selection:

I’m having unprotected sex with my friend’s crush tonight, I lied and said I was on birth control. I’m desperate for a baby.

I slept with a guy I knew who was rich & told him I was on birth control (I lied) now I am 5 months pregnant. He rented a (sic) 🙂 apartment for me he pays for everything. I don’t feel guilty one bit.

I lied to my boyfriend about being on birth control because I got tired of getting a shot every 3 months.

I lied about being on birth control because I really wanted a baby. I was scared about being alone forever.

I lied to my boyfriend about being on birth control and accidentally got pregnant. [J4MB: A typo there. When she said ‘accidentally’, what she meant to say was ‘deliberately’.] We are married now and I’m still filled with guilt that I purposely had our child. [J4MB: So, a duplicitous liar / fraudster, AND a virtue signaller. Nice.]

I lied to my boyfriend that I was on birth control… it has been two months of constant hooking up and I still haven’t gotten pregnant.

My pregnancy test is positive. I lied to my boyfriend about being on birth control because I was tired of leading a purposeless life. Now I have a little one to motivate me.

No one knows who the father of my baby is because I lied and told him I was on birth control, so he can’t know.

I lied about being on birth control and had a baby… I never once looked back to regret it.

I lied about being on birth control and got him for child support. 18 years of easy money!

We covered the issue of paternity fraud in our last general election manifesto (pp.52-4). Of our proposals (below), only (2) would give men any potential protection in the event of paternity fraud resulting from women lying about contraception. Many men naively believe their partner’s lie that the pregnancy was an ‘accident’ – “John, you must know the contraceptive pill isn’t 100% safe!”

Most of the proposals relate to another form of paternity fraud, illegal under the Fraud Act 2006, but never pursued by the Crown – women lying (or allowing it to be assumed, maybe in the context of a supposedly ‘stable’ relationship) that named men are the biological fathers of the children in question.

The manifesto proposals:

1. The government should introduce compulsory paternity testing for all new-born babies, and both parents should be informed of the result of the tests (verbally and in writing) within a week of the babies’ births. If a man is not the biological father of a baby, he should be informed of the fact in the course of a face-to-face meeting with a health professional, and sign a document confirming he’s been made aware of his non-paternity of the child in question.
2. The state should only require a man to have financial responsibility for a child if he’s previously signed a legal declaration that he’s willing to support a child who results from the sexual relationship in question, and a paternity test has proven him to be the child’s biological father.
3. Legislation should be introduced requiring women found guilty of committing the first form of paternity fraud to compensate the affected men for the full sum of their financial contributions to the child’s upbringing.
4. Paternity fraud is such a grave assault upon the human rights of men and children that attempted (but failed) paternity fraud should attract a minimum three month prison sentence. Where a woman has carried out a proven paternity fraud, her minimum prison term should be 12 months. Where the fraud has continued for more than three years, her prison term should be 12 months plus three months in prison for each year of fraud. Frauds relating to two or more children should attract consecutive, not concurrent, sentences.
5. DNA samples should be destroyed as soon as results are known and communicated to both the mother and the putative father, or as soon as criminal prosecutions and any appeals are completed.

Two years ago I was interviewed on LBC along with a female ethicist who strongly opposed the idea of compulsory paternity testing at birth. The interview is here (audio, 14:50). The piece has so far attracted almost 50 upvotes for every downvote.

Last April, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) interviewed Jordan Peterson at length. Enjoy (video, 2:06:32).

Our thanks to John for this. An extract:

The LegalFling website is crystal clear that anyone has the right to change their mind at any time.

“‘No’ means ‘no’ at any time. Being passed out means ‘no’ at any time,” the FAQ page states.

“This is explicitly described in the agreement. Additionally, you can withdraw consent going forward through the LegalFling app with a single click.” All you need to do in the thick of the action is take a deep breath, open the app and adjust the settings to tell your sex partner you are no longer comfortable with something.