Here’s something our young won’t be taught in school, since these days political correctness almost invariably trumps historical truth: there is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that the antisocial antics of the Suffragettes in the early 20th century actually set back the introduction of votes for women by a good many years…According to the woke myth, drummed into many schoolchildren today, a significant step forward for women’s suffrage came when Emily Davison deliberately threw herself under the hooves of the King’s horse during the 1913 Derby, earning the nation’s support by sacrificing her life for the noble cause.
In fact, the film footage suggests she had no plan to be martyred, but was simply attempting to attach a ‘Votes for Women’ slogan to the horse’s bridle.
If you ask me — and a great many of my fellow reactionaries in the pub will agree — this was a stupid, potentially homicidal thing to try, with an 80st horse thundering towards her at more than 40mph. Yet now there are statues to the idiot.
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’. Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here. If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
There are many things that are inconvenient. Not least that Emmeline Pankhurst’s Barrister husband was the one who formed the national society for women’s suffrage, which his much younger wife (she was 24 years younger than him) then joined. Richard Pankhurst was a Barrister and leader in the development of the independent labour party ( and is buried just down the road from my home). Emmeline and her daughters Christobel and Sylvia (though not Adela who got packed off to Australia and son who died aged 20) went on to campaign with Richard becoming more radical after his death.
WW1 really opened up the split between Sylvia, who followed her fathers socialist beliefs, and her mother and sister who supported the war, the white feather campaign to get young men to volunteer and conscription when it was brought in (sylvia opposing all this on the grounds it was a capitalist war). Emmeline and Christabelle supported the war, the British empire and hated “bolshevism” . Emmeline was in fact accepted as a Conservative parliamentary candidate in 1927! (She died the next year) nobody mentions that ! Now of course what actually held things up was the fact that for hundreds of years the right to vote had been tied to “property”, in effect to who paid tax. Up until the mid nineteenth century this meant few men had a right to vote. But during the century gradually the property requirement got less and less. However it still excluded most of the men who would fight in the trenches in WW1. Emmeline and Christabelle were not so keen on people who were servants (despite his politics “Red” Richard had employed butlers and domestic staff) voting preferring a better class of woman and man as electors. The radical aspect of tye 1918 Act was that it ended this centuries old property condition, in order to give men the vote and women over 30. Sylvia spiralled off into revolutionary Marxism. Given that the Pankhursts are local heroes here in Manchester (there last home is a museum on the University campus) the details of their lives are not hard to research. Unsurprising the once famous (or notorious) “Red” Doctor Richard Pankhurst who actually drafted key legislation for parliament as well as being a leading light in first liberal then labour parties. And who clearly set the tone for his young wife and his children (specially Sylvia), well he gets no mention. As “brilliant” man (he had multiple degrees and awards at university rising rapidly to silk) creates a movement that his young wife joins and later their daughters, is not the narrative the sistas want people to know!
LikeLike