If you talk to a woman in Nottinghamshire, East Midlands in the United Kingdom and she doesn't want to be spoken to by you, prepare to get a call from the police.
In an effort to crack down on the alleged "tidal wave of abuse and harassment" women face every day, the county's police force is now considering things like catcalling and pickup lines to be a hate crime if they are directed toward a woman from a man.
The incredibly vague definition of a misogynist hate crime from Nottinghamshire reads: "Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behavior targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman."
Of course, that could include anything a woman deems offensive or unwanted from a man. It's completely subjective. If a man approaches a woman in a bar and attempts to flirt with her, but she doesn't find him attractive, he could be guilty of a hate crime. Unattractive men, beware.
Newsweek reports that now "everything from verbal comments to unwanted physical approaches" will be considered a hate crime. Send a woman a text when she doesn't like you? Hate crime. Tell your female friend she looks good today? Hate crime.
The only thing mentioned in the Newsweek article that even remotely sounds like it merits the time of police officers is when a man takes a photo of a woman without her consent. Depending on the type of photo and reason for taking it, that can be disgusting.
Even with that, not every unsolicited photo should be considered a hate crime. I've had friends send me a photo of a woman they saw out somewhere who looked just like me, adding "doppelganger?" There was no intent to disrespect the unknown woman, but now, just because a man took the photo, that could be a hate crime.
All those whiny outrage feminist articles that most people laugh off as first world problems are now influencing actual criminal law.
"What women face, often on a daily basis, is absolutely unacceptable and can be extremely distressing," Chief Constable Sue Fish said. "Nottinghamshire Police is committed to taking misogynistic hate crime seriously and encourages anyone who is affected by it to contact us without hesitation."
Shockingly, domestic abuse won't be considered a hate crime, even though it is an objectively offensive crime, because it has its own established procedure. Go figure.
Of course, women's groups were all for the new law.
"We're pleased to see Nottinghamshire Police recognize the breadth of violence and intimidation that women experience on a daily basis in our communities," The manager of Nottingham Women's Center, Melanie Jeffs, said. "Understanding this as a hate crime will help people to see the seriousness of these incidents and hopefully encourage more women to come forward and report offences."
Sam Smethers, Chief Executive at the women's rights group The Fawcett Society, told Newsweek: "Women and girls face a tidal wave of abuse and harassment every day. Our law has to send a clear signal that this is not acceptable. It is a crime."
Rachel Noble, Women's Rights Policy Adviser at ActionAid U.K., also praised Nottinghamshire Police for "recognizing the scope and scale of the violence and harassment that women face every day."
It must be nice to have so little actual crime that the police can focus on such things.
In their article, Newsweek links to a severely flawed study that shows women make up to 50 percent of online misogynistic comments. If we take that study at its word, like Newsweek does, then why are only men being punished for alleged misogyny? Want to know how to determine if a crime is bogus? When only certain people are punished for committing it.
That actually makes this law misandrist, since only men can be the perpetrators even though women are guilty as well.
As we've seen time and time again from outrage feminists on social media, any criticism of a woman is misogyny. That would make this article misogynist, but I wouldn't be prosecuted — not just because I don't live in Nottinghamshire — but also because I'm a woman.
It's almost as if we abandoned our moral standards and manners, and then panicked over their absence and are now trying to bring them back in the form of legislation.
I wouldn't be surprised if outrage feminists in the U.S. start pushing for this to be the law over here, too.
Source
Showing posts with label uk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label uk. Show all posts
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Paul Elam exposes actress Souad Faress as a false rape accuser
Souad Faress is named in this article
If I were the accused I would sue this bitch for everything she is worth. I'm not going to name the accused because he is the real victim in all this and has his face plastered all over the media. So let's plaster Souad Faress' photo all over the place with the caption "This is what a false rape accuser looks like". Thanks to Paul Elam for making this video exposing Souad Faress for the criminal she truly is.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Woman uses man to sexually assault another woman
A woman who used sex chatrooms to try to arrange the ‘stranger rape’ of a former work colleague has been jailed for six years.
Joanne Berry, 30, posed as the woman online and invited a man to come to her house and attack her, but the plan failed.
Berry had recently lost her temporary job after displaying "increasingly erratic behaviour" at work, and a judge said she may have held the victim responsible.
Aggrieved, the university-educated mother of one resolved to exact some form of "revenge or retribution".
She began contacting a man online over a period of time, pretending that she enjoyed “rape scenarios” and engaging in role play.
Eventually she gave him her ex-colleagues address, telling him it was her own, and persuaded him to knock on the door and rape her.
The unwitting man tried to barge his way in to the woman's home to act out the rape, but aborted the plan after realising he had been set up.
Berry, of Grove Park, south-east London, was convicted in May of putting a person in fear of violence in 2012.
At Maidstone Crown Court, Judge David Griffith-Jones QC said Berry had developed an "irrational vendetta" against the victim who had only shown kindness towards her.
She was convicted of committing an assault with the intention of committing a sexual offence, common assault and attempting to cause a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.
Judge Griffith-Jones said the combination of direct and circumstantial evidence against Berry at her trial was "compelling and the jury was not fooled", and described her behaviour as "wicked and calculating".
He went on: "That (the victim) was not in fact raped or seriously sexually assaulted is entirely fortuitous.
"That is plainly what you intended. As it is, however, the trauma inflicted upon her was, as can only be imagined, very substantial indeed."
Part of a victim impact statement was read out at court in which the victim described how the ordeal had left her suffering panic attacks.
She now refuses to sit out in the garden on her own because she fears men may force their way in, and she panics when someone knocks on her door.
The judge said the man involved should also not be forgotten as he was "duped" into acting in a way which could have had repercussions for him.
In mitigation, defence counsel James Manning said Berry - who has one previous conviction for shoplifting in 2004 - was of good character up until now.
She had also not committed any offences while on bail and she was a woman educated to degree level who had a child.
Mr Manning told the court: "This is an offence which is highly out of character for the defendant."
Berry remained impassive as she was jailed, and told she must sign the sex offenders register indefinitely and may be barred from working with children.
Source
Joanne Berry, 30, posed as the woman online and invited a man to come to her house and attack her, but the plan failed.
Berry had recently lost her temporary job after displaying "increasingly erratic behaviour" at work, and a judge said she may have held the victim responsible.
Aggrieved, the university-educated mother of one resolved to exact some form of "revenge or retribution".
She began contacting a man online over a period of time, pretending that she enjoyed “rape scenarios” and engaging in role play.
Eventually she gave him her ex-colleagues address, telling him it was her own, and persuaded him to knock on the door and rape her.
The unwitting man tried to barge his way in to the woman's home to act out the rape, but aborted the plan after realising he had been set up.
Berry, of Grove Park, south-east London, was convicted in May of putting a person in fear of violence in 2012.
At Maidstone Crown Court, Judge David Griffith-Jones QC said Berry had developed an "irrational vendetta" against the victim who had only shown kindness towards her.
She was convicted of committing an assault with the intention of committing a sexual offence, common assault and attempting to cause a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.
Judge Griffith-Jones said the combination of direct and circumstantial evidence against Berry at her trial was "compelling and the jury was not fooled", and described her behaviour as "wicked and calculating".
He went on: "That (the victim) was not in fact raped or seriously sexually assaulted is entirely fortuitous.
"That is plainly what you intended. As it is, however, the trauma inflicted upon her was, as can only be imagined, very substantial indeed."
Part of a victim impact statement was read out at court in which the victim described how the ordeal had left her suffering panic attacks.
She now refuses to sit out in the garden on her own because she fears men may force their way in, and she panics when someone knocks on her door.
The judge said the man involved should also not be forgotten as he was "duped" into acting in a way which could have had repercussions for him.
In mitigation, defence counsel James Manning said Berry - who has one previous conviction for shoplifting in 2004 - was of good character up until now.
She had also not committed any offences while on bail and she was a woman educated to degree level who had a child.
Mr Manning told the court: "This is an offence which is highly out of character for the defendant."
Berry remained impassive as she was jailed, and told she must sign the sex offenders register indefinitely and may be barred from working with children.
Source
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
U.S. Government persecutes U.K. subject
Join Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales: Protect Internet Freedom And Seek Justice for Richard O'Dwyer
Hi, I am Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, and if you care about justice and the future of Internet freedom, Demand Progress and I need your help. This will only take a few seconds, but you can really help us change things for the better.
Richard O'Dwyer is a 24 year old British student at Sheffield Hallam University in the UK. He is facing extradition to the USA and up to ten years in prison, for creating a website - TVShack.net – which linked (similarly to a search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies online.
O'Dwyer is not a US citizen, he's lived in the UK all his life, his site was not hosted there, and most of his users were not from the US. America is trying to prosecute a UK citizen for an alleged crime which took place on UK soil.
The Internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement. As citizens we must stand up for our rights online.
Please sign on at right here to join me in demanding that British authorities refuse to extradite O'Dwyer, and that US officials cease persecuting him.
When operating his site, Richard O'Dwyer always did his best to play by the rules: on the few occasions he received requests to remove content from copyright holders, he complied. His site hosted links, not copyrighted content, and these were submitted by users.
Copyright is an important institution, serving a beneficial moral and economic purpose. But that does not mean that copyright can or should be unlimited. It does not mean that we should abandon time-honored moral and legal principles to allow endless encroachments on our civil liberties in the interests of the moguls of Hollywood.
Richard O'Dwyer is the human face of the battle between the content industry and the interests of the general public. Earlier this year, in the fight against SOPA and PIPA, the public won its first big victory. This could be our second.
This is why I am petitioning the UK's Home Secretary Theresa May to stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer, and asking the United States to end his prosecution. I hope you will join me.
- Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder
Source:click here
I'm not a big wikipedia fan so you should know that I would rather let the blind master from Kung Fu shave my pubes with a straight razor in a pitch black room than be on the same page as wikipedia. If it was staff at wikipedia getting fucked I would have no problem but in this case it appears that the U.S. Government is overstepping its bounds. This is the same government that doesn't do shit in the middle east,ignores Pro-American sentiment amongst the Iranian youth yet they can persecute some guy running a tv guide style website. This is rediculous and the U.S. government should just hang it up on this one. If you feel the same way sign the petition.
Hi, I am Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, and if you care about justice and the future of Internet freedom, Demand Progress and I need your help. This will only take a few seconds, but you can really help us change things for the better.
Richard O'Dwyer is a 24 year old British student at Sheffield Hallam University in the UK. He is facing extradition to the USA and up to ten years in prison, for creating a website - TVShack.net – which linked (similarly to a search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies online.
O'Dwyer is not a US citizen, he's lived in the UK all his life, his site was not hosted there, and most of his users were not from the US. America is trying to prosecute a UK citizen for an alleged crime which took place on UK soil.
The Internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement. As citizens we must stand up for our rights online.
Please sign on at right here to join me in demanding that British authorities refuse to extradite O'Dwyer, and that US officials cease persecuting him.
When operating his site, Richard O'Dwyer always did his best to play by the rules: on the few occasions he received requests to remove content from copyright holders, he complied. His site hosted links, not copyrighted content, and these were submitted by users.
Copyright is an important institution, serving a beneficial moral and economic purpose. But that does not mean that copyright can or should be unlimited. It does not mean that we should abandon time-honored moral and legal principles to allow endless encroachments on our civil liberties in the interests of the moguls of Hollywood.
Richard O'Dwyer is the human face of the battle between the content industry and the interests of the general public. Earlier this year, in the fight against SOPA and PIPA, the public won its first big victory. This could be our second.
This is why I am petitioning the UK's Home Secretary Theresa May to stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer, and asking the United States to end his prosecution. I hope you will join me.
- Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder
Source:click here
I'm not a big wikipedia fan so you should know that I would rather let the blind master from Kung Fu shave my pubes with a straight razor in a pitch black room than be on the same page as wikipedia. If it was staff at wikipedia getting fucked I would have no problem but in this case it appears that the U.S. Government is overstepping its bounds. This is the same government that doesn't do shit in the middle east,ignores Pro-American sentiment amongst the Iranian youth yet they can persecute some guy running a tv guide style website. This is rediculous and the U.S. government should just hang it up on this one. If you feel the same way sign the petition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)