MGM – BBC Three Counties Radio to host another discussion, 6pm Sunday, 11 March

BBC Three Counties Radio (Beds, Herts & Bucks) is the home of Jonathan Vernon-Smith – ‘JVS’ – to the best of our knowledge the only British radio show presenter to have hosted substantive discussions about MGM since 2016. Other presenters have recently come on board, following the possibility that MGM might be made illegal by the Icelandic government, but few have hosted live-on-air discussions between anti-MGM campaigners and religious proponents. My four interviews on MGM with JVS are on our YouTube channel (29.1.16, 19.4.16, 8.12.16, 20.2.18). In each case I was debating with JVS and Jewish proponents of the practice.

I’ve been interviewed twice about MGM by Julia Hartley-Brewer, again the files are on our YouTube channel (3.10.16, 30.6.17).

In four days’ time, Sunday, 11 March, I’ll be in a discussion with a man from the Muslim Forum, from shortly after 6pm on Yasmeen Khan’s Show on BBC Three Counties Radio. I hope to inform him of the Muslim anti-MGM website Quranic Path, also to direct him towards William Collins’s three pieces debunking the claimed medical benefits of MGM – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Far more than Jews, in my experience, Muslims claim medical benefits for MGM.

I’ve been told to expect a discussion lasting 10-15 minutes, after which the lines will open to callers. I invite you to call in, Yasmeen Khan’s show will continue until 8pm. Thanks.

Feminist corruption of the criminal justice system to be extended to juries. Petition to the government for all jurors in rape trials to complete compulsory training (from radical feminists) about “rape myths”.

If this petition succeeds, it will remove the last element of due process (jurors exercising their judgment, untainted by feminist propaganda at the beginning of trials) in the trials of men charged with sexual offences against women.

Police Sergeant Blair Pettigrew, 35, accused of raping two women. The case collapsed when one of the women complained she’d been coerced by other (female) officers into making false allegations, while the other admitted she’d never met him.

A piece by David Brown in today’s online edition of The Times, considerably longer than the piece in the print edition. Emphases ours:

The case against a policeman accused of raping two women has collapsed after one of the alleged victims said that she was coerced by other officers into making false allegations.

Sergeant Blair Pettigrew was accused of raping two women and indecently assaulting a third.

The case has been dropped after the High Court in Edinburgh was told that one of the alleged victims admitted she had never met Sergeant Pettigrew.

His defence lawyers had repeatedly sought the disclosure of the prosecution evidence.

It was claimed that two female detectives involved had questioned one of the alleged victims three times, and she had initially denied knowing Sergeant Pettigrew before identifying him.

Days before the start of the four-week trial the alleged victim, who cannot been named for legal reasons, withdrew her allegations.

In an email to one of the detectives involved in the case, which was read to the court, she said: “I’ve got a meeting with the [prosecutor] on Friday and I am sorry but I will be telling her I only said what I thought you wanted to hear.

“Your officers wouldn’t leave me alone at my mum’s and then you started coming to my new house. I told you I didn’t know him and you pushed. I have a new life and you made me push into my past. I think I mixed the guy you are after with someone else.”

A hearing last August was told that Sergeant Pettigrew, 35, raped one woman twice while wearing his police uniform. The officer denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the allegations had been concocted by the women, who were connected with each other.

A spokesman for the Crown Office said: “It is the duty of the Crown to keep cases under review and after full and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, including the admissible evidence currently available, Crown Counsel instructed there should be no further proceedings at this time. Should the evidential position change, the Crown reserves the right to re-raise proceedings. The complainers in the case have been advised of the decision.”

Sergeant Pettigrew, from Ardrossan, Ayrshire, pleaded not guilty to all charges. The offences were alleged to have occurred between 2005 and 2015.

He was accused of threatening to expose the “private life” of one of the women if she did not agree to sex. Another alleged victim claimed he had threatened to take her “into police custody” if she did not carry out a sex act.

A spokeswoman for Police Scotland said: “We acknowledge the decision by COPFS [Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service]. Any reports of crimes committed by police officers or staff are investigated thoroughly. As soon as the circumstances in this case were reported an investigation was conducted and a report was submitted to the procurator fiscal. Correspondence was received in January from a witness who raised concerns regarding the statement they had provided to police during the investigation. As a result, officers independent of the original investigation re-interviewed the witness, who provided new information which was relevant to the case. Police Scotland is absolutely committed to thoroughly investigating reports of sexual crime.”

Sergeant Pettigrew remains suspended and a report will be submitted to the assistant chief constable in charge of professionalism.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Luisa Omielan, Corbynista “comedian”, fails in her attempt to stitch up Philip Davies MP for a BBC3 programme, “Politics for Bitches”

Image result for luisa omielan

This is what an unfunny “comedian” looks like

A tip of the hat to Guido Fawkes for this. An extract:

Omielan told the Tory MPs [J4MB: Philip Davies and Ben Bradley] she approached that she was not political and didn’t know anything about politics. Guido can reveal that to be untrue – Omielan has repeatedly expressed her support for Corbyn and her dislike of the Tories on Facebook, and is even a Labour Party member. A pretty amateurish attempt at a stitch up…

Record number of women are being convicted of sex crimes as the total found guilty doubles and the number of teachers grooming pupils shoots up

Women carry out sexual abuse of men, women, and children, on a far higher scale than is popularly assumed. In our 2015 election manifesto the longest of 20 sections covered the issue of sexual abuse (pp. 31-7). One of the early paragraphs:

This culture leads to inequalities. Few women are held accountable for sex offences, including those women who sexually abuse children. It’s known from a major American survey (details below) that slightly over 25% of sex offences are committed by women against men (with no male accomplices). We would therefore expect the male/female ratio of people charged with sex offences to be a little under 3:1. In the UK, in 2013, the ratio was 146:1.

Our thanks to Mike P for this. Extract:

A record number of women are being convicted of sex crimes, with many of their attacks carried out on children.

Some 142 were guilty of sex offences in 2016 – almost double the 74 convicted two years earlier and more than triple the number at the start of the decade…

Most sexual offences are carried out by men but in recent years there has been a sharp rise in women being hauled into court for these crimes, which include grooming schoolboys.

Steve Lowe, director of Phoenix Forensic Consultants which treats and assesses child sex abusers, said: ‘The rise has occurred because we are more prepared as a society to accept that women can be sexual predators and we are beginning to change our perception of the idea that a young male having sex with an adult woman is a rite of passage.

‘Now we would question a 13-year-old boy having sex with a 28-year-old woman. In the past that was more likely to have been accepted. But if you reverse that, it is obvious that a 28-year-old man having sex with a 13-year-old girl is abusive.

‘Historically, sex with an older woman was routinely seen as a positive thing for young males. It’s possible that films such as The Graduate reinforce this view. But I would never accept that. These are distorted relationships and connections.

‘It is also likely that greater education of young males allows them to talk about having been sexually abused.’ Dr Kieran McCartan, associate professor of criminology at the University of the West of England in Bristol, said: ‘We are seeing an increase in the reporting, recording and sentencing of female perpetrators of sexual harm, nationally and internationally.

‘This is down to a number of factors, including increased numbers of victims coming forward, more attuned police investigations, more cases being referred to the courts and more cases being successful.

‘The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are being more proactive on these cases than ever before.’

The tally of 142 female sex offenders includes 16 women convicted of sexually assaulting males and 21 guilty of the same offence against women and girls.

 

 

Clare Foges: Face it, sexual exploitation can cut both ways

A piece in today’s Times, emphases ours:

Did you stay up last night for the Oscars? I didn’t but let me guess: was it a carnival of sanctimony in honour of #MeToo? Did the winner for best sound mixing tearfully raise his statuette for all women who have ever had an unwanted hand on their knee? Were there starlets in black satin slashed to the navel wearing solidarity pouts? Perhaps the red carpet was graced by a burning effigy of Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman.

Over the weekend Mr Brafman took a pin to this bubble of self-righteousness by speaking out about the casting couch. “If a woman decides that she needs to have sex with a Hollywood producer in order to advance her career . . . that’s not rape. You made a conscious decision that you’re willing to do something that is personally offensive in order to advance your career.”

Mr Brafman’s remarks will have had the Hollywood set quivering with indignation, as though the San Andreas Fault were going bananas beneath them. Certainly, the comments sit uncomfortably with what we have heard of Weinstein: his habit of blocking doorways, grabbing, snarling and generally acting like a large poisonous human toad. I do hope his cosy room at an Arizona sex addiction clinic is soon swapped for something a little more austere.

Yet Brafman raises an uncomfortable truth that has been lost in the MeToo noise. In relations between men and women, the latter can also use their assets to exploit the other party. Young, attractive women wield immense power over men, which they sometimes use to their own advantage. The women’s rights campaigns currently being waged are in denial of this. They want to reduce much of what is complicated about sexual interaction to a simple predator-victim picture — and it isn’t the truth.

Whenever one writes on this subject there must come the disclaimer that what follows does not refer to actual coercion, rape or sexual assault. No woman is ever “asking for it”; refusing sex immediately wipes out all earlier flirtation; physical force is always entirely inexcusable.

Beneath this, though, is a whole swathe of grey-area behaviour now routinely cast as exploitation: drinks, flirts, consensual activity between senior men and less senior women that are seen as abuses of power. There is something oddly patronising in this. It ignores the fact that a lot of the time women are not only complicit in a useful flirtation but at the controls. I have not, thank goodness, had cause to say “MeToo” to stories of abuse — but if there were women who came out admitting that their youth or looks had at some point been advantageous, it would get a “MeToo” from this corner. That doesn’t mean sleeping my way to the top (I wouldn’t even sleep my way to the middle); rather that during those years of sharp-elbowed advancement in my twenties, it was clear that simply being a young woman could open doors closed to men.

For years I was a researcher in parliament. There were downsides to being a young woman in Westminster; mainly being patronised by older men (a peer once helpfully explained to me that the First World War was “the one with the trenches”). The flipside to this irritating old codgery was that as a twentysomething woman I tended to stand out against my male counterparts. However upstanding or faithful to his wife, a heterosexual MP is likely to be more receptive to a conversation with a female researcher than a male political nerd in coffee-stained tie. As a woman you may not be unaware of this advantage. You will try to be nicely turned out and pleasant to gain an entrée into various people’s orbits — from which position you can then prove you have a brain too.

This is the truth of a lot of male-female interaction, but alas it doesn’t fit the predator-victim line pushed by the MeToo campaign. When Damian Green was alleged to have brushed the knee of a young female journalist while having a drink with her, the mob raged that it was an abuse of power. Yet let us rewind a little further: would the journalist in question really have been clinking glasses with the deputy prime minister if she had been a hack of equal talent named Gareth and in possession of an Adam’s apple? In the game played daily the world over, many women are wise to the rules and use them to their own advantage.

Of course, the charge levelled at politics, showbusiness and other industries is that men, more than women, tend to be the granters of opportunities, status, money and thus hold the power that obliges women to bat their eyelashes. I agree this needs to change, and slowly but surely it is, as more women reach senior positions. But let’s face it, the implicit transactions between male status and female beauty are unlikely ever to go away. As the writer John Mortimer once remarked, “I suppose true sexual equality will come when a general called Anthea is found having an unwise lunch with a young unreliable male model from Spain.” It is humorous because we know it will never happen. Men will always have their heads turned by youth and beauty; some women will always use this to their advantage.

The key thing is female choice, as Brafman stated. When a woman is choosing to flirt, fluff a man’s ego and perhaps take things further in order to get on, she is no helpless victim of the patriarchy. So let us stop this patronising insistence that men are always the predators and women always the victims — and admit that “exploitation” can cut both ways.

You can subscribe to The Times here.