Free Speech Against Feminism

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Why is this idea important?

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

domestic abuse support

Review prevention, protection and support for women affected by domestic violence.  While the focus on the criminal justice approach has been good, this has taken away funding and support for those at medium and low levels of risk eg. outreach services in the community.  Both are required.  Many of the homicide victims have not previously had contact with the police or IDVA services.   High risk is around 5% of those affected by domestic violence, the other 95% is finding it increasingly difficult to find support – and these are more likely to end up as homicide victims.  'Generic' services providing for a range of client groups are not meeting the needs of those affected by domestic violence, as to intervene and offer support with domestic violence requires a different approach focussed on safety of the victim and an understanding of the difficulties facing the survivor in engaging and meeting services.  Future provision should ensure

  • A diverse range of specialist services to meet the needs of those fleeing domestic violence.
  • Cuts now should not jeopardise the existence of services that will be needed in the future for commissioners to commision appropriate specialist services.
  • Services need to be gender specific
  • Services need to be integrated and address all levels of risk
  • Commissioners require a government steer to ensure these services are commissioned.  The experience in the past has been that without clear government steer services are not prioritised and/or generic services are commissioned which do not meet the needs of survivors of domestic abuse.

 

  •  
  • Why is this idea important?

    Review prevention, protection and support for women affected by domestic violence.  While the focus on the criminal justice approach has been good, this has taken away funding and support for those at medium and low levels of risk eg. outreach services in the community.  Both are required.  Many of the homicide victims have not previously had contact with the police or IDVA services.   High risk is around 5% of those affected by domestic violence, the other 95% is finding it increasingly difficult to find support – and these are more likely to end up as homicide victims.  'Generic' services providing for a range of client groups are not meeting the needs of those affected by domestic violence, as to intervene and offer support with domestic violence requires a different approach focussed on safety of the victim and an understanding of the difficulties facing the survivor in engaging and meeting services.  Future provision should ensure

    • A diverse range of specialist services to meet the needs of those fleeing domestic violence.
    • Cuts now should not jeopardise the existence of services that will be needed in the future for commissioners to commision appropriate specialist services.
    • Services need to be gender specific
    • Services need to be integrated and address all levels of risk
    • Commissioners require a government steer to ensure these services are commissioned.  The experience in the past has been that without clear government steer services are not prioritised and/or generic services are commissioned which do not meet the needs of survivors of domestic abuse.

     

  •  
  • Abolish ‘sanction-detection’ target for incidents of domestic violence

    It is quite right that police should be required to pay attention to domestic violence.  However they must get called to quite a few trivial domestic rows, either by one of the parties or a third party.  The priority should be to calm the situation and not necessarily to criminalise someone.

    It is much better that police investigate the more serious incidents of domestic violence even if these might not always seem the most likely to end in a ‘sanction-detection’ than that the system should encourage them to pursue less serious cases where there may be a better chance of getting a result. 

    Pursuing incidents of domestic violence is praiseworthy but there are budget cuts coming and if police have to prioritise it is surely better that they pursue cases of violence according to the level of violence, regardless of whether they are domestic or not.  Which is worse, a minor slap in a domestic row where a couple have lived together without incident for some years and are going through a crisis, or a glassing at the pub?

    Why is this idea important?

    It is quite right that police should be required to pay attention to domestic violence.  However they must get called to quite a few trivial domestic rows, either by one of the parties or a third party.  The priority should be to calm the situation and not necessarily to criminalise someone.

    It is much better that police investigate the more serious incidents of domestic violence even if these might not always seem the most likely to end in a ‘sanction-detection’ than that the system should encourage them to pursue less serious cases where there may be a better chance of getting a result. 

    Pursuing incidents of domestic violence is praiseworthy but there are budget cuts coming and if police have to prioritise it is surely better that they pursue cases of violence according to the level of violence, regardless of whether they are domestic or not.  Which is worse, a minor slap in a domestic row where a couple have lived together without incident for some years and are going through a crisis, or a glassing at the pub?

    Financial Help for Victims of Proven Domestic Violence

    People in violent relationships tend to financially penalised if they secure a conviction against the violent partner – this strategy aims to counteract that.

    The Social Invention:
    Most instances of domestic violence are those where the male is violent towards the female. It is also the case that where the male is the main financial contributor then removing him from the scene can leave the woman and her children (if there are any) financially vulnerable and in many cases, in dire straights.

    There should be a requirement in cases of domestic violence that the court is given the full details of the financial circumstances of the family. The objective should be that where a conviction is secured the victim of the abuse is in no worse situation financially.
    This may mean seizing assets or paying the victims out of the public purse – money that would have to be refunded by the abuser.  Legal Aid should also be an automatic right for the Victim in matters of divorce and ancillary arrangements – particularly when the Offender is in receipt of full legal aid for the same matter!! 

    Why is this idea important?

    People in violent relationships tend to financially penalised if they secure a conviction against the violent partner – this strategy aims to counteract that.

    The Social Invention:
    Most instances of domestic violence are those where the male is violent towards the female. It is also the case that where the male is the main financial contributor then removing him from the scene can leave the woman and her children (if there are any) financially vulnerable and in many cases, in dire straights.

    There should be a requirement in cases of domestic violence that the court is given the full details of the financial circumstances of the family. The objective should be that where a conviction is secured the victim of the abuse is in no worse situation financially.
    This may mean seizing assets or paying the victims out of the public purse – money that would have to be refunded by the abuser.  Legal Aid should also be an automatic right for the Victim in matters of divorce and ancillary arrangements – particularly when the Offender is in receipt of full legal aid for the same matter!! 

    No repeal of hunting act

    This web site is a covert way for the Countryside Alliance and the pro hunt lobby (and shamefully most Tory MPs are pro hunt) to get the Hunting Act repealed.  How are those who are against this to have a voice?  This web site does not give people a right to reply regarding suggestions to repeal laws thus giving blood sport ethusiasts a gift!!   Please remember 76% of the public remain AGAINST blood sports and no amout of trying to 'tidy up' the reality of blood sports by allowing hunting in some 'regulated' form.will wash.  It is immoral, unethical and  the ban needs to REMAIN and be strengethend.  Nick Clegg should listen to the majority not a minority of sadistic people!!

    Why is this idea important?

    This web site is a covert way for the Countryside Alliance and the pro hunt lobby (and shamefully most Tory MPs are pro hunt) to get the Hunting Act repealed.  How are those who are against this to have a voice?  This web site does not give people a right to reply regarding suggestions to repeal laws thus giving blood sport ethusiasts a gift!!   Please remember 76% of the public remain AGAINST blood sports and no amout of trying to 'tidy up' the reality of blood sports by allowing hunting in some 'regulated' form.will wash.  It is immoral, unethical and  the ban needs to REMAIN and be strengethend.  Nick Clegg should listen to the majority not a minority of sadistic people!!

    hunting act

    lift the ban on hunting with dogs, it is unjust, it has'nt saved any foxes, it has caused the death of more foxes[ night shooting]it is a way to get at the upper classes, when there are more working class people take part, it is a past time for many and a way of life for many more that a few with a louder voice objected too

    Why is this idea important?

    lift the ban on hunting with dogs, it is unjust, it has'nt saved any foxes, it has caused the death of more foxes[ night shooting]it is a way to get at the upper classes, when there are more working class people take part, it is a past time for many and a way of life for many more that a few with a louder voice objected too

    Repeal the Hunting Act

    The main reason it is necessary to repeal the Hunting Act is because it is detrimental to the welfare of the fox. Foxes must be controlled and it is my belief that hunting with hounds is the most humane and effective way of doing this.

    Why is this idea important?

    The main reason it is necessary to repeal the Hunting Act is because it is detrimental to the welfare of the fox. Foxes must be controlled and it is my belief that hunting with hounds is the most humane and effective way of doing this.

    Hunting Act

    The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed ASAP. The act has not 'saved' any animal. It just makes good law abiding people criminals.

    How people in Cities can decide what is best for the countryside I do not know. Hunting is part of the community. Packs run shows, point to points, fund raisers for charities and bring visitors in which supports the local B&B's and pubs.

    Get it overturned and then let the people in the countryside decide what is best for it.

    Why is this idea important?

    The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed ASAP. The act has not 'saved' any animal. It just makes good law abiding people criminals.

    How people in Cities can decide what is best for the countryside I do not know. Hunting is part of the community. Packs run shows, point to points, fund raisers for charities and bring visitors in which supports the local B&B's and pubs.

    Get it overturned and then let the people in the countryside decide what is best for it.

    Repeal the Hunting Act 2004

    The Hunting Act was the single largest waste of Parlimentary time during the last Government. It was not introduced to improve Animal Welfare but simply camouflaged as such to hide the true Class discrimination that was so blatantly behind it. Not only is it unworkable but it Crimalises Law Abiding Citizens and wastes Police and Courts time to placate those people who believe that everydoby who rides a horse in the countryside is a "Toff" .

    It has been shown by a Government Enquiry that it has no purpose and no evidence was given to prove Hunting is less Humane than any other methods of controlling the numbers of animal species that no longer have natural preditors.

    Why is this idea important?

    The Hunting Act was the single largest waste of Parlimentary time during the last Government. It was not introduced to improve Animal Welfare but simply camouflaged as such to hide the true Class discrimination that was so blatantly behind it. Not only is it unworkable but it Crimalises Law Abiding Citizens and wastes Police and Courts time to placate those people who believe that everydoby who rides a horse in the countryside is a "Toff" .

    It has been shown by a Government Enquiry that it has no purpose and no evidence was given to prove Hunting is less Humane than any other methods of controlling the numbers of animal species that no longer have natural preditors.

    Repeal the Hunting Act

    The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed. The welfare of the fox population and the vitality of the countryside depends on it. It is the most humane form of fox control which is both selective and beneficial to the fox population. The law, morover, is badly written and non sensicle.

    Why is this idea important?

    The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed. The welfare of the fox population and the vitality of the countryside depends on it. It is the most humane form of fox control which is both selective and beneficial to the fox population. The law, morover, is badly written and non sensicle.

    Abolish state-sanctioned corporal punishment

    Abolish the common law defence of "reasonable chastisement" that allows parents (and some other adults acting in loco parentis) to use corporal punishment against children.

    Why is this idea important?

    Abolish the common law defence of "reasonable chastisement" that allows parents (and some other adults acting in loco parentis) to use corporal punishment against children.