On Wednesdays and Saturdays I attend a Zoom meeting, in which Gerry (an Irishman) plays musical requests from the attendees. Tonight, as usual, there were 40+ attendees. The theme for tonight’s meeting was songs from the 60s.
I chose Yesterday (1965). In the course of reading about the song, a riddle popped into my head. That’s never happened before. The riddle is this:
“Everyone believes Yesterday was performed by The Beatles. Everyone is wrong. How can that be?”
Pleasingly, nobody solved the riddle. I now cast it before all of you to solve. If nobody does, I’ll give it 24 hours then publish the answer.
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our website Campaign for Merit in Business was created in the light of the considerable evidence of a causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards and corporate financial decline. Mike Buchanan, Steve Moxon and Dr Catherine Hakim (the originator of Preference Theory) presented evidence to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries in 2012, the video of their House of Commons evidence session is here (56:50).
Finally, we run the award-winning website Laughing at Feminists. The related comedy channel (170+ videos) is here. Remember, it’s more than important to laugh at feminists, it’s a civic duty.
—————————-
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Extracts from the Guardian piece take up the remainder of this blog post:
“The family courts will no longer work on the presumption that having contact with both parents is in the best interests of a child, in a landmark change that domestic abuse campaigners have said “will save so many children’s lives”. [J4MB emphasis.]
The move has been heralded as “groundbreaking” by family lawyers and campaigners who have long argued that the “pro-contact culture” in the family courts places the rights of abusive fathers over the safety and wellbeing of children.
Currently, under the Children Act 1989, courts in England and Wales are guided to work on the principle that children should have contact with both parents unless there is evidence that a parent could put the child at risk of harm.
The government confirmed on Tuesday that it would repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the act “when parliamentary time allows”….
Dr Charlotte Proudman, [J4MB emphases.] a family law barrister, and co-director of Right to Equality, described the move as “a victory for children’s rights, for survivors and for justice” and “a vital step in dismantling the pro-contact culture that has dominated family courts for too long”.
“It sends a clear message: children’s welfare will always be the priority and parents who undermine their welfare cannot use the system to continue to perpetrate harm,” she said.
The change comes after decades of campaigning from the domestic abuse sector, with experts describing the issue of the family courts as the biggest area of concern for domestic abuse victims and survivors.
“It’s incredibly significant because it absolutely reorientates the way that these courts work,” Farah Nazeer, CEO of Women’s Aid, said.
Abusers have long used the family courts as a way of retaining control over their ex-partners, while women who raise domestic abuse in the courts have often been subject to counter allegations that they are attempting to “alienate” the child from the father.
“This is the policy area and area of concern that the vast majority of survivors and children want us to work on, because it’s the one that really touches the core of their safety,” Nazeer added.”
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our thanks to Jeff for this. Extracts take up the remainder of this blog piece:
“Alicia Novas, 19, [J4MB emphasis. Need I point out the insanity of recruiting a teenage girl as a prison officer?!!!] and Declan Winkless, 30, appeared separately at Northampton Magistrates’ Court on Monday charged with committing misconduct in public office at HMP Five Wells between August and December last year… [BBC: Sloppy journalism. The inmate wouldn’t have been charged with that offence.]
Ms Novas, acting as a prison custody officer, is accused of “wilfully” misconducting “herself in a way which amounted to an abuse of the public’s trust”.
The charges, detailed in court documents, state that Mr Winkless is alleged to have encouraged and assisted both offences. [J4MB emphasis. I am reminded of the episode of Porridge in which inmate Lennie Godber complains to a warden, Mr Mackay, that someone has stole something from his cell. Mr Mackay replies with some relish something along the lines of, “You need to be more careful, Mr Godber. There are some dishonest types around here!”]
The court heard that Ms Novas provided her telephone number to Mr Winkless, failed to report his possession of a telephone and cannabis, and entered “into a sexual relationship” with him.
A second joint charge of misconduct is said to have been committed by the pair on 23 November, when Ms Novas provided information about whether Mr Winkless was suspected of wrongdoing by prison authorities.
Both defendants face further charges of making an illegal electronic transmission from a prison, one of bringing, throwing or conveying cannabis into a prison [J4MB emphasis. Hmm, I wonder where she hid it on her person?] and one of conveying two mobile phones into a jail, [J4MB emphasis. The same question occurs to me.] all relating to HMP Five Wells, near Wellingborough…
Ms Novas, wearing a white top and black trousers, appeared in court in person while Mr Winkless appeared before magistrates via a prison video-link. [J4MB emphasis. The female BBC ‘journalist’ fails to tell us what the inmate was wearing. Presumably the regulation black trousers and a shirt with arrows pointing upwards.]
The female defendant, of Raunds, Northamptonshire, was granted bail with conditions not to contact Mr Winkless, not to contact any serving HMP prisoner by any means and not to attend any prison except by prior arrangement.”
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Yesterday we posted an outstanding piece by William Collins, Unwin, Glubb, Sulikowski and the Decline of the West. For a time we’ll make it the blog piece at the top on this website. Our thanks to cp for his excellent response, which takes up the remainder of this blog piece:
“Getting our genes into the next generation is life’s biggest battle. Everything else is subsidiary, and merely chess pieces we play with a specific endgame in subconscious mind. Back in the (relatively recent) past of the 1970s, it remained very much up to men to compete and gain the attention of women, who’d (mainly) still wait by the finishing line for the winners. All of us young guys knew, subliminally, the rules of Roy F Baumeister’s Sexual Economics – that having a good job was the main male trading card in the sexual marketplace (even though these rules wouldn’t be published until 2004).
As a result, Reproductive Suppression of one’s peers remained very much a male domain, and was associated with competition rather than manipulation. As a scrawny, working class kid with a (badly) broken nose, I knew that I needed to purchase a Bullworker and play to my strengths. After two degrees and a good job, suddenly developed a gravitational field for women, and the future became bright and beautiful.
But the world was changing fast, and women were on the ascendancy in the workplace (including politics and jurisprudence), giving them direct access to influencing law in a way which would suit female preference for rotating, temporary monogamy, always aiming upwards. Females gain reproductive advantage in their offspring through polyandry, minimising the chances that all of their offspring will carry genetic defects from a single sexual partner.
As a result, we have ‘no fault’ divorce, a form of male asset stripping after providing a woman with a child. We have AA, EEO, ESG and DEI in the workplace, making it more difficult for males to succeed, and where all males beneath a woman’s pay-grade are invisible, and ‘sexual harassment’ legislation keep them invisible. By law. Women with political power act like the Handicapper General, Diana Moon-Glampers (in Kurt Vonnegut’s 1961 novel ‘Harrison Bergeron’). In that way, they can be sure that only the brightest and best males will succeed, and will flock to them. Women appear to have few problems with polygyny, as long as there’s enough money to go around.
Having crocked men in plain sight, the successful women in the know are now attempting to disadvantage their own sex in the reproductive stakes through the spurious ‘equality’ and virtue-signalling dogmas which have served them so well. The sixteen bullet points on page 14 of William Collins’ 17-page tour de force shows the game plan. And the likelihood that it will succeed, through female skill in manipulation, and her deep-seated need for social approval.
I’m not convinced that men will see through the manipulation. It’s not a tactic which we tend to use. Whereas, we have been manipulated by women, biochemically, forever. This article provides some lines which can be read between.
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our website Campaign for Merit in Business was created in the light of the considerable evidence of a causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards and corporate financial decline. Mike Buchanan, Steve Moxon and Dr Catherine Hakim (the originator of Preference Theory) presented evidence to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries in 2012, the video of their House of Commons evidence session is here (56:50).
Finally, we run the award-winning website Laughing at Feminists. The related comedy channel (170+ videos) is here. Remember, it’s more than important to laugh at feminists, it’s a civic duty.
—————————-
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Justice for Men & Boys 