Famous British Paedophiles: A Response to Anglo-American Puritanism?

A deeply disturbing, if interesting, site:

http://www.glgarden.org/ocg/archive1/brits.html


No further comment is needed...

Great Essay on Rampant Misandry in Britain - by a Woman

Melanie Phillips is a British Sunday Times and Daily Mail columnist. In this thought-provoking piece, she describes the condition of males in contemporary Britain - outrageously oppressed in legal, political and cultural terms:

Why is the British Establishment so Anti-Male?

A SURVEY into women's attitudes this week exploded the official line that they are vulnerable to sexual harassment at work. Women may not be universally the victims they are painted.

Yet one of the many mysteries of our age is why the British establishment has declared open season upon half the human race. It is men who are being systematically robbed of their reputation, their children and their purpose in life.

The people responsible for this sexual warfare are sober women and men in suits - pinstripe, rather than boiler - not to mention wigs and gowns.

If what is routinely thrown at men was directed at any of our fabled victim groups - women, black people, gays - society would stand condemned of the most vile prejudice, discrimination and even persecution.

Yet the vast majority of people either don't know how the dice are being loaded against men or, if they do have an inkling, think deep down (or not so deep) that, well, they really do deserve it.

You think this is exaggerated?

Consider the review of sexual offences which is about to be published.

Through judicious leaks, the Government has indicated that it wants to toughen up the rape law because not enough men are being convicted. So it intends to skew court proceedings against them to make them less able to defend themselves against a prosecution.

Just think about that for a moment. Suppose the Government said, for example, that not enough women were being convicted of shoplifting so it was going to make it more difficult for them to mount a defence.

Unthinkable, isn't it?

That's because the implication that women were naturally shoplifters would be preposterous, that artificially inflating the number of convictions for shoplifting to fit this false stereotype would be grotesque, and that it could be done only by junking our most precious legal maxim: that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Yet this is precisely what is being proposed in rape cases.

The Government intends to change the definition of consent to sex, the common defence against the charge of rape, so the defendant will have to prove that the woman did, in fact, consent.

LAWYERS are divided over whether this would technically mean reversing the burden of proof. All agree, however, that it would make it much more difficult for a man accused of rape to defend himself. And that's because the Government assumes that all men accused of rape are guilty.

In fact, the evidence suggests this is completely untrue. Home Office figures for 1996 showed that 25pc of rapes reported to the police were false or malicious, or the complainant withdrew the charge.

In a further 39 pc of reported cases, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service took no further action because the complainant and suspect knew each other and so the circumstances were ambiguous. And a further 7 pc of cases resulted in an acquittal.

Yet the Government not only fails to acknowledge this, but also uses statistical jiggerypokery to produce a false picture of soaring rapes and thousands of rapists escaping conviction.

True, there was a fall in the conviction rate from 24 pc in 1985 to 9 pc in 1997. Yet that may be because freer sexual behaviour makes rape claims more untenable.

While 'stranger rapes' are rare, 'date rapes' between acquaintances soared from 1,300 in 1985 to 5,000 in 1996, almost half of all reported cases.

Rape is without doubt a most heinous crime. Yet most reasonable people would probably think that being jumped on in a dark alley is a completely different matter from having second thoughts, sometimes in retrospect, about a bloke with whom you've gone home after a party or with whom you've already been sleeping.

Anti-man prejudice, in fact, runs through government thinking. Baroness Jay and her Women's Unit constantly bring out the old chestnut that one woman in four is assaulted by her partner.

In fact, most British domestic violence studies on which the Government relies for such claims are effectively rigged; they ask only women, not men, for their domestic violence experiences, mainly from self-selecting samples of abused women.

Yet reputable international research shows overwhelmingly that acts of domestic violence are initiated by women upon men at least as frequently as vice versa.

Asked why the Women's Unit had made no reference to all this research, Jay replied that the Government couldn't get involved in such 'subtle' issues.

Instead, it resorts to unsubtle threats to pursue feckless 'deadbeat dads' for child support, promoting the impression that fathers routinely desert their children.

In fact, many fathers desperately want to continue to parent their children after divorce, but find that the courts put huge obstacles in their way, even if the men have acted blamelessly.

Family court judges tend to force fathers to prove they are fit parents, prove they are not violent or feckless. By contrast, they assume that a mother is generally the best parent for the child to live with, regardless of how she has behaved.

Of course, some men do behave very badly towards their wives and children.

Divorce barristers, however, estimate that no more than about a third of the husbands they see are violent, and that women and men cheat on each other in equal proportions.

YET THE courts are institutionally biased against husbands, ousting them from their homes on the slightest pretext, stripping a man of his children and his assets even if his wife has gone off with a lover and his own behaviour has been exemplary.

The judges will also accept a wife's claims that the man is violent on the basis of no evidence, in a system where it is impossible to mount a proper cross-examination of her allegations. Yet on this pretext they will deprive a man of contact with his children.

Lack of contact with their children is a source of immense injustice and misery for many fathers.

Lawyers say a typical scenario is this. Mother decides to divorce because she's got a new man. The easiest way to get rid of the father is to claim he's been violent to her or the children. The father leaves or is ousted. His access to the children is governed by a contact order made by the court on the advice of a court welfare officer.

Yet the mother has the whip hand in controlling the father's contact. He finds regularly that the children are too busy to see him. Yet somehow the mother seems able to persuade the court that she is entitled to move the contact goalposts without redress.

The new president of the High Court's family division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, denied earlier this year that fathers got an unfair deal on contact although, she added ambiguously, a small minority of non-custodial fathers 'gave rise to real problems'.

How could she possibly be so complacent when fathers are routinely denied contact on grounds produced by welfare officers that are so spurious as to be incomprehensible?

There was the father who, in McDonald's, spread his arms to his daughter and said 'Bet you haven't seen me in a suit before', a watching welfare officer misinterpreted the gesture, decided the child had refused to return the father's proffered embrace, and he was denied all contact with the child as a result.

Then there was the father whose overnight contact with his five-year-old was stopped because 'the child had many milestones ahead of him'; another who was denied contact because he 'had to prove his commitment'; yet another because 'the child fell asleep in his car on the way home'.

One child of 13 hadn't seen his father for eight years because he was led to believe that an injunction against his father prevented it. No one - certainly not his mother - had told him that the injunction would last a maximum of three months and that for most of that eight years he had every right to see his father. And so on and so, appallingly, on.

The impact of fatherlessness upon children is well- documented. The impact on fathers is less well-known.

Some are driven to nervous breakdowns or suicide: others lose their jobs as they try to visit their children who have moved to a different part of the country.

Of course, there are men who walk out on their wives and bust their families. But the majority of men are divorced against their will.

The pain of family breakdown becomes unbearable when compounded by the gross injustice of a legal system that, under cover of impartiality, so often rewards the offending spouse and punishes her victim.

HOW CAN this happen? Welfare officers' conclusions about divorcing spouses are rarely questioned by judges, who regard these officers as the only source of expert advice in such cases.

Until now, they have been probation officers; henceforth, they will also be drawn from the children's branch of the Official Solicitor's Department and from guardians ad litem.

Yet this reform is unlikely to do much to counter their prevailing ethos, encapsulated by a document produced by the National Association of Probation Officers in 1996.

Entitled Equal Rights: Anti-Sexism Policy, this proclaimed that marriage subjected women to male tyranny; that society was based on patriarchal male control over women and children which extended into all institutions; that the oppression of women must be challenged in the courts; and that therefore the aim of the welfare officer was to 'challenge the discrimination against women in contested residence and contact decisions'.

Such sentiments may seem extreme; but the presumption of male violence which underpins them is common throughout the family law system.

The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law said last year that the courts should stop fathers seeing their children simply on the basis of allegations of violence by their ex-wives. The board's extraordinary presumption of male guilt was backed by its claim that domestic violence research indicated 'in the great majority of cases the abuser is male and the victim female', and that fathers were overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence.

Yet the research certainly does not show this. Most violence against children, moreover, is perpetrated by mothers or boyfriends. A child's natural father is least likely to be violent towards it.

The courts should actually be giving fathers, not mothers, the benefit of the doubt.

Many judges think mothers are intrinsically vulnerable and must be protected, as they are generally to be the parent with care of the children.

Yet why should this be? If a mother has gone off with her lover, jeopardising the wellbeing of her children and demonstrating infidelity to their father, promise-breaking, deceit and selfishness, why should she be automatically regarded as the fitter parent to bring up the children?

The answer is to restore issues of conduct to divorce and the subsequent care of the children. The spurious argument that 'children's needs' must come before any other consideration means children are being used as hostages to protect adults from facing the consequences of their own behaviour.

Children's needs are, in fact, best met by having both their parents to look after them; failing that, by living with the more responsible parent.

This may even bring the divorce rate down, as has happened in American states where mothers no longer get automatic custody.

Men are terrified of being thought prejudiced against women, not least because of an old-fashioned sense of chivalry. They look at the absence of women among captains of industry or MPs; they look at the football hooligan and the burglar from hell, and they think it must be true that men are basically vile victimisers.

But life's a lot more complicated and the result of such browbeating into false stereotypes is that everyone ultimately becomes a loser.

SOURCE: UK Spectator, 2010

My only criticism of this article is its theoretical naivety. Phillips seems surprised that the British Establishment promotes a gender-feminist agenda when, as the source of Anglo-American puritanism, Britain would be expected to embody such national misandry.

Since puritanism reflexively denigrates males as sexualized beings while exalting women as 'owners' of scarce sexual resources, the puritanical meme inevitably promotes misandry in any culture where it takes root. Given this fact, Phillips' list of injustices becomes perfectly explicable. Indeed, we should expect such iniquities to be promoted by the Anglo-American Establishment: where puritanism reigns, men are always oppressed.

Prince William's Marriage: Truth, Lies and Anglo Fairy Stories

With the Anglosphere's interest in all things British and Royal, a great deal can be gleaned from the recent announcement of the wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. The press are swooning over Kate's wedding dress, not just in Britain but across the Anglosphere. It were as if we lived in a culture where marriage remained a central feature of British people's lives, when if fact Marriage rates in 2010 are at their lowest since records began:

The number of people getting married has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1862. For the first time ever fewer than 2 in 100 women, over the age of 16, got married in a single year. In 2008 the marriage rate for women fell from 2 per cent to 1.96 per cent, less than half the rate 25 years ago.

The rate for men has shown a similar decline, according to the annual figures published by the Office for National Statistics. The figures highlight how marriage has substantially fallen out of favour. From a peak in 1940, when 426,1000 young couples – spurred on by the urgency of World War II – married for the first time, just 147,130 marriages in 2008 were where both partners were getting wed for the first time.

In total, just 228,204 marriages took place during 2008 in England and Wales. The escalating cost of weddings, and the failure of the Government to support the institution of marriage were among the factors blamed. Though, long-term changes in society, especially the increase in the number of women working and their desire to get married later in life, are also key factors.

The average age of women marrying for the first time has nearly hit the symbolic 30-year-old barrier, at 29.9, up from 29.8 during 2007. For men, the average age of getting married for the first time was 32.1 years, up from 32 the previous year.

Many expressed sadness at the statistics.

Dave Percival, a campaigner for marriage, said: "Living together and marriage are increasingly seen as the same by the public, yet the outcomes are radically different. Two thirds of all the first marriages in 2008 can be expected to last a lifetime. Less than 10 per cent of cohabiting relationships last even to their tenth anniversary."

SOURCE: Daily Telegraph, 11 February 2010

So, given the fact that we now live in a post-Marriage era (as American Game experts aver), why all the hysteria about this Royal Marriage? I would argue that we are seeing puritanical Anglo-Saxon memes at work. Like the ever-popular Disney franchise in the United States, the British Royal Family is an archaic residue of core Anglo values: repression, puritanism, misandry and feminism (in no particular order). Consequently, it reflexively exalts events and persons who advertise this agenda. Moreover, the popular appeal of such saccharine fairy tales to the Anglo-American masses shows that, in attitudes at least, puritanism is alive and well across the Anglophone world. If it were not, why does the pan-Anglosphere preoccupation with 'white weddings', 'princesses' and 'happy ever after' remain so perennially popular?

Moreover, the marriage gives us a deeper understanding of Anglo feminism. Kate Middleton is a fairly average girl: average looks, average intellect and distinctly average accomplishments. When swept up in the Royal Marriage tornado, however, she suddenly becomes an exalted goddess striding down the aisle of Westminster Abbey in a (faux) virginal white gown, set high above all others. Even Prince William becomes a mere dramatic prop in her all-pervasive psycho-sexual drama - and he is the heir to the throne of England! And so we see who Anglo feminism strives to stifle male sexual self-expression with all the forces at its disposal, why it vilifies male virility at every turn and why it does not differ one jot from Victorian puritanism: because those agendas exalt women and diminish men. It really is that simple. And this is the fountainhead of all that oppresses men in the contemporary Anglosphere. While draconian punishments are meted out to males for the least infraction (or no infraction, in the case of divorced fathers) women are essentially above the law - guiltless goddesses on pedestals, one and all.

But really, given the Royals' abysmal record at long-term relationships (very much in line with the rest of the British population), the likelihood of Kate and William becoming a long-term symbol of wedded bliss are slight indeed. Understandably touchy about this very fact, the British Establishment (composed of women, White Knights and Gay White Knights, from all I can gather) has recently suspended an Anglican Bishop for daring to even mention this possibility:

A leading bishop has been criticised after publicly denouncing Prince William’s engagement to Kate Middleton and predicting that their marriage will only last for seven years.

Canon Peter Bruinvels, a Synod member and former Tory MP, said: “This is deeply disappointing and disrespectful. The Bishop should be reminded that we are an estab­lished Church in which the Monarch plays an integral role.”

The Bishop’s immediate superior, the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, is a close friend of the Prince of Wales and sources have suggested that he may be asked to conduct the wedding service.

But Lambeth Palace played down the furore, insisting that the bishop was “entitled to his views”.

Bishop Broadbent made his comments about the engagement on Facebook, shortly after it had been announced last Tuesday.

He wrote: “Need to work out what date in the spring or ­summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France.”

He went on to say: “I think we need a party in Calais for all good republicans who can't stand the nauseating tosh that surrounds this event.

“I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears (Prince Charles) and the Porcelain Doll (Lady Diana), and hope to avoid this one too.”

He said the wedding should belong to the family, as opposed to becoming "national flim-flam” paid for by tax payers. And he criticised the media for descending into “fawning deferential nonsense”.

“I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me,” he wrote. “Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone.”

He later added: “I give the marriage seven years.”

Source: UK Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2010

Beneath the predictable Anglo-Saxon hysteria and 'fawning deferential nonsense', of course, lies a very serious ideological agenda. The good Bishop has dared to challenge the inane puritanical meme that still exerts such a pernicious influence over the Anglosphere and for that, he has to be publicly pilloried.

In our view, seven years is rather too long for this marriage; three is a far more accurate assessment. This is largely because Anglo-Saxon repression brings unrealistic expectations to marriage, which is paradoxically why the institution is crumbling across the Anglosphere. It is fanciful and cruel to expect still-virile males to rely on past-prime wives as their sole sexual partners. More rational, less puritanical peoples (the Latins and Japanese, for example) allow husbands sexual escapades beyond matrimony with prostitutes and other women of 'easy virtue'. This erotic pragmatism actually maintains the institution of Marriage by introducing a safety-valve to dissipate accreted sexual tensions. By contrast, Anglo Marriages crumble under the weight of unrealistic, Disneyfied expectations. And then, of course, there is the thorny issue of Anglo men refusing to marry at all for fear of post-divorce penury at the hands of feminist judges...

So much for puritanism.

Surprise, Surprise: Conservative U-Turn on Men's Rape Anonymity

The Anglobitch Thesis is unique among MRA theories in that, being cultural, it transcends the vagaries of politics. In our view, there is no difference between pan-Anglosphere conservatism or liberalism, at least on men's issues. Both political wings are inherently misandrist and matriarchal, because the Anglo-Saxon cultural architecture underlying both is misandrist and matriarchal.

Now we have thunderous confirmation of the Anglobitch Thesis in the British Conservative government's climbdown on the issue of male anonymity in rape cases. Predictably, the government crumbled before 'pressure' from 'feminist Labour MPs', despite Labour having been routed in a General Election this year. Ever and again we hear 'conservative' MRAs rambling on about 'Marxist-Feminism', wilfully refusing to acknowledge the rabid misandry that also characterizes pan-Anglosphere conservatism (consider the recent American calls for bans on porn and masturbation).

I am getting tired of repeating this - but I will do, anyway: men cannot look to Anglo-Saxon conservatism for help. Anglo-Saxon conservatives extol a sexless, repressive puritanism that reflexively vilifies men as sexual beings. Women, on the other hand, being sexually disinterested and manipulative, are reflexively set upon pedestals of deference and virtue whatever their conduct. While this misandrist agenda also characterizes Anglo-American left-liberalism, Anglo conservatives - being closer to the traditional puritan meme - fully embody these iniquities.

Anyway, here is the sorry tale:

Plans to give anonymity to men charged with rape were abandoned yesterday (12th November 2010). The decision marks a dramatic U-turn and abandons a key pledge in the Government’s coalition agreement.

Justice Minister Crispin Blunt announced the proposal would be ditched because there was not sufficient evidence to justify a change in the law. But at the same time he published a report which revealed that between eight and 11 per cent of rape claims are fabricated.

Just 36 per cent of rape trials result in a rape conviction and more than half result in no conviction at all, even for a lesser offence. That fuelled accusations last night that the Government had caved in to a chorus of protests from women’s groups and Labour (Democrat) MPs.

Women who accuse a man of rape will continue to receive anonymity, a legal right they have had for 35 years. Meanwhile more than 200 men every year who face false claims will continue to have their reputations damaged. Victims of false claims such as snooker player Quinten Hann, who was acquitted in 2002, have seen their lives derailed by false accusations.

The reverse is embarrassing for David Cameron, who endorsed plans to give men anonymity between arrest and charge at Prime Minister’s Question Time in June. But even that limited protection was ditched yesterday. In a ministerial statement yesterday, Mr Blunt said: ‘The Coalition Government made it clear from the outset that it would proceed with defendant anonymity in rape cases only if the evidence justifying it was clear and sound, and in the absence of any such finding it has reached the conclusion that the proposal does not stand on its merits.’

Mr Blunt said there was not enough evidence to overcome concerns that ‘the inability to publicise a person’s identity will prevent further witnesses to a known offence from coming forward, or further unknown offences by the same person from coming to light’.

Officials say Attorney General Dominic Grieve has been a supporter of the policy of anonymity for men. But one source said Mr Blunt and his boss, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, had taken ‘the path of least resistance’ by abandoning the plans.

The policy was included in the coalition agreement because the Tories (Republicans) believed it was formal Lib Dem policy before the election, but Nick Clegg’s party claimed to be surprised by the inclusion. The plan created a backlash in Westminster from feminist Labour MPs.

Shadow minister for women and equality Yvette Cooper said: ‘It was a deeply unfair plan to single out rape defendants to remain anonymous and would have sent a message to juries and to victims that uniquely in rape cases the victim should not be believed.’

But George McAulay, of the UK Men’s Movement pressure group, said: ‘I can’t say I’m surprised by this because the feminist lobby is extremely powerful.’

SOURCE: UK Daily Mail, November 13th 2010

To us, the climb-down comes as no surprise. Anglo-American misandry perennially sprouts across the Anglosphere, whatever the political weather. While it may be beaten back awhile, it always returns: for misandry is the default agenda of any puritanical culture.