Category Archives: Crime

It’s News to Me

This from The Observer this Sunday. The title is as follows:

London 2012 Olympics: Crackdown on Brothels ‘puts sex workers at risk’.

Well, yada yada, you say.  Another article arguing that if only we could have prostitutes plying their trade on the high street during school hours, all would be fine and dandy and they’d stop doing that annoying thing of getting murdered all the time.  Yeah, the premise is wrong, but it’s a popular one we’ve heard a lot and we know we won’t learn anything new, right?

What got me about this one was the hilarious sub-title:

‘Police clean-up of London’s Olympic boroughs is pushing vice crime and human trafficking underground, say critics

Is ‘vice crime and human trafficking currently ‘above ground’ then?  Are these things not still illegal??

I missed a fucking meeting again, didn’t I?


Mean People and Their Unspeakable Meanness

I was sneakily taking five minutes this morning to read through an article in Saturday’s Guardian about the Democratic Republic of the Congo, specifically about the use of rape as a weapon of conflict.  As is invariably the case, I only got 1.5 minutes before  Boogie sniffed me out.  She asked me what I was reading.  About a country in Africa, I replied.  What about it, she asked?  Well, how the fuck do you explain the situation in the Congo to a five year old?  Without scaring her to death?  I admit, it was totally beyond me.  Boogie is still a child alive with the wonder of the world and totally unaware that meanness can extend beyond snatching a toy or refusing to allow (yet) another chocolate bar.  Yesterday, we were at the cashpoint and she snatched the money when it came out and ran around waving it about and singing.  I told her off, explaining that some people steal money when it’s waved in their faces (round our way they do anyway, maybe you live in a more genteel part of town – we, my friends, live in what is politely known as an urban neighbourhood).  Her response?  ‘But that’s silly.  People don’t have to steal; why don’t they just take some out of the wall like we do?’  Aah, bless her privileged little socks.

Safe to say, then, that the situation in the Congo, won’t make a huge amount of sense to Boogie right now.

I said it was a country with a lot of problems where people were very mean to each other.  Where people hurt each other even when the person hurt had clearly said no, I don’t like it, in a very loud voice.  ‘No, I don’t like it’ being how we’ve taught Boogie to express her displeasure (initially anyway; further than that, all bets are off) when somebody’s doing something she doesn’t like/want.

Beyond that, I was stumped.  Part of the reason being that, for all my own cynical, black view of humanity, I don’t want to burst Boogie’s bubble of wonder.  Not yet.  In truth, I don’t want to ever, but preparation is all in this world we live in.

Judge me at will.


Rape Culture

Great post from kittywampus about the attack on journalist Lara Logan.

Woman gets sexually assaulted and beaten.

It’s her fault.

She should’ve stayed in the kitchen.

(Where at least she’d have known her attacker personally.)

I’ll also add this article.  Beware, though, it’s CiF.  Under no circumstances read the comments; if you really feel the need, read this instead.


Breaking News Just In

I heard on the radio that those involved in trashing Tory HQ will be ‘feel the full force of the law’.

More breaking news: Bear Defecates in Woods.


Feminists Love You More Than You Know

And just in case you didn’t believe my last post about the Comment Is Free crap, try reading the comments on this piece (thankfully already closed).  All business as usual.

Domestic Violence Happens to Men, Too

What struck me about this particular piece, was that whilst this alleged level of domestic violence by women against men was definitely deemed to be the fault of feminists, it was never actually alleged that the women doing the hitting were feminists.  Which seems a bit of an obvious missed opportunity for the MRAs present, so yah boo sucks.  Where feminists were actually at fault it seemed was that we had caused DV against men not to be taken seriously and further, that we had convinced ‘the world’  that all men were violent, uncontrollable animals.  Hmm.

Many men related their own experiences of being attacked by the women in their lives and complained that such attacks were treated as a joke, especially, it seemed, by the police.  Even worse, many men related that their attacker was able, with little or no effort, to convince the police that she was in fact the victim.   Both of these things were down to the pernicious influence of the Feminist Menace.  So, if I have this right, police forces across the country are actively working to a feminist agenda, which is news to me (and, I confess, a somewhat heartening piece of information).  Not only do they dismiss male DV victims, they then actively promote the women to ‘victim’ status (wow, thanks guys!) and this utter slavery to the gender norms we’re fed every day – and against which feminists the world over are fighting – is the fault of feminists?

Ooh, I’m missing something, let me just look down the back of the sofa…ah, yes!  I’M MISSING THE IRONY!  These are the very same men who immediately argue that women, say, just don’t have the mental capacity to excel at physics because their brains are too busy empathising and planning their weddings and that’s just biology and you can’t fuck with biology, oh no.  Feminists argue against the idea of gender essentialism but it’s their fault that when you get hit by an ‘iddy biddy woman’ society calls you a poof who should just quit whining and act like a real man.  Jeez, we really are to blame for everything.  Part of me feels quite proud.

To delve deeper into ironic territory (I almost can’t bear to look!),  we’ve not only got the police firmly in our pockets, we’ve got everybody convinced that men are complete animals.  Er, no.  I can only imagine that the thousands of feminists these men must interact with on a daily basis just aren’t of a radical enough ilk.  Probably more of the type to think equality means the freedom to be equally as yuk as men.  Because radical feminists are in fact the only group in the known world who don’t think that men are – inescapably – all animals, beholden to their biology, such biology apparently having been subject to no change whatsoever since they were out chasing woolly mammoths.  Radical feminists, my dear men friends, are the only people who will ascribe to you higher cognitive functions which allow you to make choices - real, informed choices – about how you behave and how big an arsehole you are.  Or not.  Rad fems are the only people giving you the personal agency of an adult.  It’s all those ‘biology is destiny’ people your public relations people need to have a word with I’m afraid; I don’t know the collective noun for them but I suggest you start with anybody who writes a book called ‘Why Men Wouldn’t Know an Emotion if It Bit Them On the Backside And Why Women Do the Biting For Fun’ or anything similar.

And know this: it is only post the feminist revolution when people are finally accepted as individuals rather than a gender on two legs that you will be able to go into a police station and not only be believed in your tale of DV, but be protected and cared for as well as any DV victim should.


Oh, Come On, You Lying Whores!

Hopefully, today’s letter of complaint was less loony-like than yesterday’s.  It had to be really given it was made to The Independent.  Newspapers are sticklers for proper language, grammar and cold, hard facts, aren’t they?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

While I wipe the tears from my eyes, let me lead you to this:

Women Are Liars

OK, so they didn’t actually go with that title, but they may as well have done.  They actually went with the title ‘Is Our Rape Conviction Rate Really So Poor?’

Now the whole article, short though it may be, is offensive, idiotic and boring in equal measures but I’m not tempted to go through it line by line because, well, because it’s all too familiar for words: Man Uses ‘Science’ to Legitimise Hating Women’.  Yawn.

Suffice to say, a large part of it is about just exactly how many women, feeling bored on a Sunday afternoon, or irritated at work, or just generally pissed off with the Patriarchy, decide to falsely accuse a man of rape.  You know, like, ho hum, should I go to the police, be disbelieved and ridiculed, then fight the CPS to get them to take my case to court, then sit through a detailed, personalised attack by defence counsel, then see my attacker walk free because I once kissed a man while wearing a short skirt, or should I do my nails?

Fortunately for us all, the author is a ‘man of science’ whose organisation, ‘Straight Statistics’ apparently seeks ‘to improve the understanding and use of statistics’.  I know, I know – now all you feminists are scared, right?  Because this man will show, using statistical evidence, that women really are liars and you will have to don a pinny and start the washing up.

However.

Despite the author’s own view that it is ‘almost impossible‘ to calculate the number of false rape claims, he then confidently goes on to assert that it is ‘far more than the 2% cited in the CPS’s Rape Manual.‘  He then repeats this allegation (‘The real level of false accusations is higher.‘) before stating that ‘Nobody knows [the real level of false accusations]‘.

My question becomes obvious (and should be obvious to anybody with two dendrites to rub together): if it is indeed ‘impossible‘ to know the figure, then how exactly does he know it is much higher that that asserted by the CPS or any of the other similar studies which put the incidence of false rape claims at the same levels as other crimes?  Are we to assume that he has extensive personal knowledge of false rape claims (which he has then unwisely extended to make assumptions about all rape claims)?  Or are we to assume that well, women are just all liars, aren’t they?  No prizes for guessing which assumption springs to mind more readily, eh?

But surely, I’ve quoted selectively, you think!  As part of my evil feminist plan to smash The Patriarchy, I’ve missed out the statistical evidence this man must surely provide, no?  He’ll surely have provided some if only to ‘improve my understanding of statistics‘, n’est-ce pas?

For shame, but the man gives me no opportunity for self-improvement.  There seems little danger in misunderstanding his statistical evidence for the incidence of false rape claims given that he provides no evidence, statistical or otherwise, for his assertions.  It seems that there’s just a Truth Fairy sitting in his head.  Unfortunately for us all, she’s not called Cassandra.

Jeez, I’m so tired of this shit.


Just How Much Do They hate Us?

If you were wondering, just take a sneaky peek at this piece of vile bile striaght out of the Misogynists-R-Us Handbook.

Rape Defendant Anonymity

God, I heard about this when it was proposed and I did nothing, thought no more about it because I thought it was just sabre-rattling shit; it couldn’t possibly come to pass, could it?  Such naked, outright, institutionalised hatred of women.  Nooo.

Sometimes I wonder about my level of stupidity.

And then something like this comes along and I know I’m as thick as constipated dog doo.


Reading Murder

When I first heard about the murder of Asha Muneer on the news last night, my blood boiled a little bit.  Obviously at the fact that someone has taken the life of this teenager, but also at the way the murder was reported on my local news in a 10 second segment.  Listening to that 10 seconds, you could only take away the impression that the most important part of the story was not that a life had been lost but was instead a combination of (1) a woman was walking (2) it was dark and (3) she was alone.  Why these facts taken together were deemed to be so important is a mystery.  Well, it is if you discount the over-riding patriarchy commandment that women shouldn’t go out on their own and certainly not after the sun has set (cos only prostitutes do that, see? and whatever they get they deserve, OK?).  Discount that and you’re left with no reason at all why.  As it was the message was brief but clear: she’s been murdered but it is somehow, in a way we can’t explicitly spell out but we’ll provide the dots and let you join them up, her fault. 

I let it go, though.  I spend too much of my time being mad.

But then I unfortunately read this in the Guardian this morning http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/19/teenager-murdered-reading-river-footpath and again this emphasis on the actions of the victim, only this time we got the ‘expert’ opinions of local dogwalkers who expressed ‘shock’ at the death, ‘but said the stretch of footpath was considered dangerous to walk on at night.’ So, they’re shocked but not entirely surprised? If you’re stupid enough to walk on it at night, you get what you deserve, huh?  One (female) dogwalker asserted that she ‘would never go down there in the dark on [her] own.’  The inference of the article is clear, viz: we have no idea about what happened or why, but we’re sure that the victim had some culpability in her own death by her own ignorance and stupidity and, unfortunately we can’t even go on about the fact that she was drunk (cos she was on her way home from work) so we’ll light upon the fact that she was ‘female, alone, in the dark’. Like that’s the real crime here. 

How about this instead: a teenager was walking home minding her own business when somebody decided to brutally murder her; whilst we have no other facts at this time, we are completely certain that culpability for the murder rests entirely with the murderer.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers