Month: February 2018

“SMASH THE PATRIARCHY” T-shirts… compared with J4MB ladies’ T-shirts

/ Mike Buchanan / 1 Comment

Front-product-preview

Our thanks to Sylvia for emailing us an image (above) of a T-shirt being sold by ‘Feminist Majority’ for USD22.00. She comments, “Note the slimming black colour haha! Most of the land whales I know would find it a very tight fit!!!” In stark contrast, a small selection of the fitted ladies’ shirts (for fit ladies) from the award-winning J4MB clothing store:

Justice for Men & Boys - white print

Men's rights are human rights, black print V3

This is what a men's... white print

This is what an anti-feminist looks like - white print

Loathing feminists, black print V2

Feminists are stupid, black print V3

How can you tell, white print V2

Feminism is Cancer, black print V5

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich: Rape suspects deserve a better deal

/ Mike Buchanan / 14 Comments

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich is surprised at the belief that women never lie

Times caption: Baroness Wolf of Dulwich is surprised at the belief that women never lie

A piece by Lucy Bannerman in yesterday’s Times, emphases ours. The comments section is well worth catching, too:

It is better for society that a few guilty men walk free than innocent men are imprisoned for rapes or sexual assaults they have not committed, says Baroness Wolf of Dulwich, an economist, author and university professor.

Public pressure to punish every sexual predator would risk more miscarriages of justice, she said. “I do feel strongly that it’s better that people who are guilty walk free than innocent people are imprisoned and have their whole lives ruined,” she said. “That doesn’t mean you don’t put a huge amount of effort into trying to find out what happened. It certainly doesn’t mean you go back to a world where you don’t take allegations seriously. But there is a huge world of difference between taking allegations seriously and taking the position that any allegation is true till proven otherwise, and that distinction seems so fundamental.”

Every rape and serious sexual assault case is being reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service after four trials collapsed over failures to disclose evidence. Police and prosecutors are trying to avoid cases such as that of Liam Allan, 22, who spent almost two years on bail and was on trial for rape before police handed over text messages that exonerated him.

Lady Wolf, a professor of public sector management at King’s College London and an expert in women’s roles in the labour market, said that suffragettes would have been “horrified” to see the identities of men, who were later cleared, revealed in court, adding that it was not unsisterly to accept that some women lied. “One of the things that seems to me very strange is the belief that women never lie,” she said. “I find it really hard to understand how people can believe that. If you read about the terrible history of pre-civil rights in America, they are full of instances in which young black men were lynched on the testimony of white women, which, looking back, we can see was very clearly malicious.

“If we accept, as almost everybody would, that women can lie in those circumstances, why in the year 2018, when we know far more about false memory, emotions and the way people operate when they’re under stress, would some vocal feminists suddenly convince themselves that women don’t lie or at the very least, give a partial picture? [J4MB: Why? To ruin men’s lives, regardless of their guilt or innocence. To feminists, making men suffer is more than a social good, it’s a civic duty.] I think most of the suffragettes would be horrified by this. What’s interesting about them is how very constitutionally minded many of them were.”

Research shows that false allegations of rape are rare and conviction rates for lying are low. [J4MB: No, it doesn’t. See comments.] That did not mean, she said, that anonymous “victims” who falsely accused men of rape should not feel the full force of the law if there was evidence they were acting maliciously. “It’s no different from accusing your female next-door neighbour of setting fire to your fence when you did it yourself to steal the insurance.”

Campaigners say that publicising the name of a suspect is crucial to encourage victims of a serial offender to come forward, but Lady Wolf called for the anonymity of alleged rapists to be protected until conviction.

“People are innocent until they are proven guilty,” she said. “They are being accused of a particular crime and if you don’t have evidence for that particular crime . . . you can’t say, ‘Oh well, they’re guilty, because someone else thinks they might be guilty of something else’.”

She cautioned against trial by social media in the age of the #MeToo movement, and compared public shaming — no matter how noble the cause — to Stalinist denunciations and the Spanish Inquisition. “I do feel incredibly strongly is that if you don’t have the rule of law, you have nothing,” she said.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Operation Divorce (Financial Times)

/ Mike Buchanan / 1 Comment

On Tuesday January 23rd, Madison Marriage published her article in the Financial Times, “Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show” (Ref.1) which reached international controversy. The article was accepted across the board, with very few media outlets expressing any real criticism. The article was accepted by Government, prompting them to reconsider NDA laws and sexual harassment legislation.

However, an analysis of the report, the accompanying video and statements released since (by hostesses past & present, attendees, other staff, etc) has shown how there are far too many holes in Ms Marriage’s story for it to be considered valid and acceptable (Ref.2). Such questions/problems are:

  • If Ms Marriage worked a 10 hour shift, starting at 4pm, why does her footage/timestamps show her entering the premises at 10pm?
  • If Ms Marriage worked a 10 hour shift, why does her footage/timestamps show she was there for a maximum of 1 hour?
  • If Ms Marriage worked a 10 hour shift with a hidden camera, why did she return with only 34-seconds of footage?
  • Why didn’t she show in her undercover footage the abuse she alleged in her article?
  • How did Ms Marriage manage to hide the camera and massive battery pack on her person whilst wearing the transparent dress?
  • Why didn’t Ms Marriage elaborate further on the email sent out 2-days before the event?
  • What evidence were the editors provided with that proved Ms Marriage was employed by Artista?

Tomorrow (Tuesday 13th February), there will be a Twitter campaign to try and gain a response from them. They failed to respond to email when asked for comment so, social media is the next available route.

If enough people are all tweeting throughout the day, using the hashtags #OperationDivorce and #FessUpFT, we could cause this campaign to trend and coax FT into responding to these criticisms. If possible, tag other news outlets as well. The Twitter accounts to tweet at are as follows:

Madison Marriage: @miss_marriage
Financial Times: @FinancialTimes

An example tweet is as follows:

Hi @miss_marriage @FinancialTimes, if Ms Marriage worked a 10 hour shift, starting at 4pm, why does her footage/timestamps show her entering the premises at 10pm? #OperationDivorce http://thebackbencher.co.uk/the-farce-of-the-presidents-club-allegations/

A secondary port-of-call is to complain directly. If tomorrow’s Twitter attempt fails, we shall have to reach out directly to the relevant complaints authority. The Financial Times is not part of the Independent Press Standards Organisation so, if we are to complain about the article, we have to complain to … the Financial Times. How convenient. The address to complain to is editor@ft.com

References:
1 – https://www.ft.com/content/075d679e-0033-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
2 – http://thebackbencher.co.uk/the-farce-of-the-presidents-club-allegations/