The answer to drunken letches? Sober women and sober clothes

cancel2 2022

Canceled
I am not sure how much of this has been taken up by the US media, probably not much, but it should be. In the wake of Jimmy Savile scandal, the powers that be have gone on a PC fuelled witch hunt that is totally out of proportion to the original crimes, such that they are. In the case of William Roache, he was charged with sexual assaults that went back nearly fifty years. There was never a stronger case for granting both men and women equal protection under the law.

Another week, another expensive acquittal. This time, of the former deputy speaker Nigel Evans, who was cleared of sexual assault and rape. His colleagues called for an urgent change in the way such cases are dealt with because ‘men’s lives are at risk of being ruined’. It’s rare for men in power, white men at that, to be talked of in such terms, but because of over-zealousness in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal these men are indeed suddenly vulnerable, like giant pandas.

And what a roll call there has been of late: Dave Lee Travis, Michael Le Vell and Bill Roache. Travis was accused of a ‘fumble’, and a ‘grind’. To my mind, taking a man to court for being, in his words, ‘cuddly not predatory’ decades ago is disrespectful to women who are actually raped with violence. The crimes are not even in the same ballpark, but the accusations have the same effect on the alleged perpetrators – trial, financial hardship and loss of reputation whatever the verdict. In the case of Nigel Evans, he made a drunken pass. If you want to avoid a drunken pass, my advice is: don’t hang out in a bar.

And while I feel sorry for women, and men, who feel wounded by a distant event (I was indecently assaulted by a fellow pupil in primary school), I imagine this pain is nowhere near as bad as being falsely accused and your name splashed across the newspapers. The pendulum has swung too far and I would think every famous man in the land, and every man in some sort of authority, has been quaking in their shoes in case some woman with a grudge accuses them of a grope at a time when Showaddywaddy were in the charts.

Are the CPS and police star-struck? It seems so, when they dig up something, in the case of Evans, that happened ten years ago, and when witnesses are surprised to find themselves giving evidence in court. This isn’t an entirely British phenomenon either. In Paris, the young women ‘victims’ of John Galliano told me they never intended their accusations to lose him his job, let alone land him in court.

The only answer is for defendants in sexual abuse cases to remain anonymous, their identity only revealed if they are found guilty. The argument against doing so is that other victims will not come forward, but to me this is ludicrous – you either were assaulted or you were not. Men accused and cleared of rape or sexual assault will never be able to have a normal life again: there is always the lingering suspicion there was no smoke without fire. We used to immerse witches in ponds. We are now doing the same thing to men.

If a man puts his hand on you, or flirts, or is lascivious, you tell him to bugger off, and report it at the time, but only if you really, really believe him to be dangerous. These women who feel so affronted need to put whatever happened, or they think happened, behind them, and get on with their lives. Ghastly things happen to all of us. Digging up events that happened decades ago is not useful. Instead, we need to empower young women: encourage them to speak up for themselves, to demand respect, to be unafraid, to reclaim the night. Don’t dress like a prostitute, or be too drunk to know what you are doing, but beyond that, live your lives. Stop being victims.

 
Tom the rape apologist. Before anyone comments on the last sentence, I want to be the one to point out that the responsibility isn't on women to dress modestly, but on men to not rape them.
 
Tom the rape apologist. Before anyone comments on the last sentence, I want to be the one to point out that the responsibility isn't on women to dress modestly, but on men to not rape them.

I do not care what you call me. This is an important story and shows what the excesses of political correctness lead to, it is plainly obvious that you haven't the foggiest idea what this is all about. I posted on Facebook and have had many women saying this has been a witch hunt and is shameful, which it is.
 
More Daily Mail misogyny from tommy, the woman hater and rape apologist; at bottom telling women what to wear and how much to drink when they wear it. Thanks tommy, you never fail to get to the bottom of the swamp. And the representation of rapist as giant panda is so endearing! And of course being "cuddly" with complete strangers of the opposite gender is so appropriate! As if to say, I'm only assaulting you not raping you, so what's the problem? Yes, the poor powerful men of England are quaking in their shoes, especially the innocent ones, that they may be charged with a crime.

But the misogyny and double standard is demonstrated here most fully in the discussion of drinking and the behaviors associated with such drinking, that is, who is responsible for the drunken bahavior of women and men. Not surprisingly, according to this author in both cases it is women!

The piece tells us that Mr. Evans made a drunken pass, no harm no foul, if women want to avoid a drunken pass, they should steer clear of bars; so here the responsibility for Mr. Evans behavior rests with the women who he assaults not with his own drinking to excess and subsequent drunken behavior. In the last paragraph though the author now having forgotten where the responsibility for drinking and drunken behavior lies says that women shouldn't be too drunk to know what they are doing. So in the case of the man he is absolved because he is drunk and women should stay away from bars and in the case of a drunken woman she is to blame because she got drunk in the first place.

Thanks tommy for showing us once again just how fucked up you and the writers at the Daily Mail are. Good work, tool!
 
More Daily Mail misogyny from tommy, the woman hater and rape apologist; at bottom telling women what to wear and how much to drink when they wear it. Thanks tommy, you never fail to get to the bottom of the swamp. And the representation of rapist as giant panda is so endearing! And of course being "cuddly" with complete strangers of the opposite gender is so appropriate! As if to say, I'm only assaulting you not raping you, so what's the problem? Yes, the poor powerful men of England are quaking in their shoes, especially the innocent ones, that they may be charged with a crime.

But the misogyny and double standard is demonstrated here most fully in the discussion of drinking and the behaviors associated with such drinking, that is, who is responsible for the drunken bahavior of women and men. Not surprisingly, according to this author in both cases it is women!

The piece tells us that Mr. Evans made a drunken pass, no harm no foul, if women want to avoid a drunken pass, they should steer clear of bars; so here the responsibility for Mr. Evans behavior rests with the women who he assaults not with his own drinking to excess and subsequent drunken behavior. In the last paragraph though the author now having forgotten where the responsibility for drinking and drunken behavior lies says that women shouldn't be too drunk to know what they are doing. So in the case of the man he is absolved because he is drunk and women should stay away from bars and in the case of a drunken woman she is to blame because she got drunk in the first place.

Thanks tommy for showing us once again just how fucked up you and the writers at the Daily Mail are. Good work, tool!

Hey fuckwad, you are always saying that people ought to read for comprehension. So take your own fucking advice, Nigel Evans is gay you fucking useless twat!!
 
I do not care what you call me. This is an important story and shows what the excesses of political correctness lead to, it is plainly obvious that you haven't the foggiest idea what this is all about. I posted on Facebook and have had many women saying this has been a witch hunt and is shameful, which it is.

Oh, tommy, you posted on facebook, wow! Why don't you just do us all a favor washer woman/rape apologist and stay on facebook! Evidently that's where your fan base is. It must just be your masochism that keeps you posting here where we all think you're full of shit! And have no problem telling you so!
 
Oh, tommy, you posted on facebook, wow! Why don't you just do us all a favor washer woman/rape apologist and stay on facebook! Evidently that's where your fan base is. It must just be your masochism that keeps you posting here where we all think you're full of shit! And have no problem telling you so!

Do you really think I am intimidated by a geriatric twat like you?
 
Hey fuckwad, you are always saying that people ought to read for comprehension. So take your own fucking advice, Nigel Evans is gay you fucking useless twat!!

Show me where it says Nigel Evans is gay? Please just quote the part where it says Nigel Evans is gay in this story!
 
Show me where it says Nigel Evans is gay? Please just quote the part where it says Nigel Evans is gay in this story!

This story has been massive over here, but because you are so fucking ignorant and determined to have a go, you couldn't even take a few seconds to google his name. That is because you are a fucking cretin who lives in his own little bubble and knows fuck all about the real world.
 
I'm still waiting, tommy! Show me where it says Nigel is gay, you fucking idiot. It should be pretty damn simple if the story actually says that! But I can see why you are having a problem locating where it is, because in fact the story doesn't say it and it is you with the reading comprehension problem. Indeed, your problem is more than simply comprehension it seems to deal with reality and hallucinations. If it is a problem of reading comprehension the information has to be in the story we are reading not some other information that is not in the story! But that you imagine is there. And in fact, the story says "women, and men," so my criticism still stands, tommy.
 
This story has been massive over here, but because you are so fucking ignorant and determined to have a go, you couldn't even take a few seconds to google his name. That is because you are a fucking cretin who lives in his own little bubble and knows fuck all about the real world.


Oh I see so reading comprehension has to do with all information available anywhere and not just the story that one is reading! Got it! Yeah, that's the accepted definition alright. You're too funny tommy! Don't you have some laundry to do?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 
This story has been massive over here, but because you are so fucking ignorant and determined to have a go, you couldn't even take a few seconds to google his name. That is because you are a fucking cretin who lives in his own little bubble and knows fuck all about the real world.

I thought you "knew" where I lived tommy. if you did know, you would know that it is not "over here" and that I don't care one way or the other. My criticism is sound and still stands. The double standard I identified applies to women in this story.
 

I was going to let this go tommy, but since you insist! If in fact Nigel Evans is gay, tommy, then why is your own title of the story: The answer to drunken letches? Sober women and sober clothes! Maybe I missed it, but is there another drunken letch mentioned in this story besides Nigel Evans, and if there is could please give me his or her name! I'll wait!
 
I was going to let this go tommy, but since you insist! If in fact Nigel Evans is gay, tommy, then why is your own title of the story: The answer to drunken letches? Sober women and sober clothes! Maybe I missed it, but is there another drunken letch mentioned in this story besides Nigel Evans, and if there is could please give me his or her name! I'll wait!

Do your own research, I am not here to help you!! Although you might want to Google Jimmy Savile, Dave Lee Travis, Michael Le Vell and Bill Roache for starters.

 
So you admit that my criticism was sound and the whole Nigel Evans detour was nothing but a distraction, is that it, tommy. Well at least we got that out of the way. Thanks for playing "I'm a tool"! Sunday morning just wouldn't be so much fun and give so many laughs if you weren't here to kick around tommy. Please, don't ever go away. I don't know what I would so without you! No one else, not even mediocre man, gives me quite the laughs you do.

Any new identifies you want to pin on me tommy. If there are, I already agree that I am all of them and more! I am actually several posters on this board tommy! Can you name them all! I bet you can! Go ahead tommy, give it your best shot!

hahahahahahahaha
 
James Delinpole is a great journalist in my opinion, the Daily Telegraph were incredibly stupid letting him go to Breitbart.

No, All Men Aren't Rapists – Whatever Embittered Feminist Harridans and the Crown Prosecution Service May Think

JimmySavile.jpeg




by James Delingpole 12 Apr 2014 109 post a comment
bb-contributor-80x100-jdelingpole.png


How do you tell the difference between a predatory paedophile and an ordinary bloke making a drunken pass?

Personally, I would have thought the answer was obvious. Take the two most egregious recent examples children's entertainer Jimmy Savile and prominent Liberal MP Cyril Smith. Both were widely suspected within their work circles of being creepy sexual predators who used their celebrity and their charidee work to gain access to their vulnerable targets. Smith's vile predilections were an open secret not just within his own party but also to the police who had received at least 144 complaints from his victims and who once stopped him on the motorway to find a stash of child porn in his boot. The only reason he was never brought to justice was because of a high-level cover up orchestrated by senior politicians. Something similar happened at the BBC, where senior management turned a blind eye to Savile's sordid activities because, thanks to shows like Top Of The Pops and Jim'll Fix It, he'd become so central to the BBC's popularity he was too big to fail.

But it's not as if there was any shortage of clues: the enormous caravan, for example, that Savile kept parked nearby for his quick liaisons; his habit of wearing tracksuit trousers, the more easily to whip them on and off; the way, walking through a children's hospital, he would on occasion seize the nearest child and stick his tongue down her throat; the fact that he was given a bedroom at three children's hospitals and his own keys to high-security Broadmoor mental hospital; the fact that he was widely known among hospital staff to be a predatory paedophile, with at least one staff member having witnessed him repeatedly raping a mentally ill-patient.....

Now compare and contrast the recent series of prosecutions which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided in its wisdom were definitely worth pursuing. They include: disc jockey Dave Lee Travis; children's entertainer Rolf Harris; Coronation Street actors Bill Roache and Michael Le Vell; celebrity fixer Max Clifford; It's A Knockout presenter Stuart Hall; deputy speaker Nigel Evans. Only one of these cases has resulted in a successful conviction - Stuart Hall - prompting a former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, QC, to observe that prosecutors need to "keep a cool head" when approaching historic abuse cases. "What the CPS need to avoid...is going on a mission and losing perspective. This particularly applies to historical cases which have garnered a lot of publicity."

Lord Macdonald is weighing his words carefully here, almost to the point of sitting on the fence, as lawyers do. But this is as close as we're probably going to get to anyone from the judicial establishment admitting the scandalous truth of what has been going on in the CPS in the wake of Savile: it has been conducting a witch-hunt against whatever celebrities it can find with a vaguely murky sexual past in order to cover up its embarrassment over its historic failures (ie Savile and Smith) and also to appease the mob vengeance mentality of certain sections of the hysterical public.

By "certain sections of the hysterical public" I mean particularly the resurgent feminist movement and the politically correct left generally. I'm not saying that conservatives aren't equally disgusted and appalled by the likes of Savile and Cyril Smith (whom Liberal leader David Steel wanted to knight, by the way, and whom Nick Clegg praised on his 80th birthday "You were the beacon for our party in the 70s and 80s and continue to be an inspiration to the people of Rochdale). But what conservatives generally lack is that "all men are rapists" ideology which is at least partly blame for this run of vexatious and probably pointless prosecutions.

It's this same attitude, by the by, which was responsible for the hounding not so long ago of the Liberal Democrats' party chairman Lord Rennard. Rod Liddle put his finger on the problem here in the Spectator.
.
Rennard has been investigated by the police, at an enormous cost to the taxpayer, who found after seven months of digging around nothing whatsoever to charge the bloke with. He has also been investigated — at enormous cost to the Lib Dems, ha ha — by a QC who also found insufficient evidence that Rennard had been possessed of ‘indecent’ intent in his undoubtedly cumbersome behaviour towards a few women. And yet none of this is sufficient to shut up his accusers, because as victims, as they see themselves, they cannot possibly be wrong. That is the ideology. It is enough that they have complained: they must be believed, they must be right. That is the ideology. And the party, desperate to prove that it is as one with this warped ideology, suspends Rennard because he will not apologise for something which he believes he hasn’t done and which two investigations suggest he has little to apologise for.

This is what one of the women, Bridget Harris, alleges happened. Remember — alleges. It was ten years ago, after all. In a hotel, after some ghastly and I daresay pointless Lib Dem meeting, the two of them — Harris and Rennard — were left talking at a table. According to Harris, fatso Rennard put his hand on her knee, so she moved away. Later he asked if the two of them should finish their coffees in his room. And that, readers, is it. As a come-on, I have to say, ‘Shall we finish our coffees in my room?’ seems to me on the sedate side, compared to: ‘Howja like your eggs in the morning, leftie chick — fertilised?’
.
When you put it that way, it's pretty hard for anyone but the most vindictive harridan not to feel sorry for Lord Rennard. And the same certainly applies to poor Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans. All right, so the man likes a drink, but that's not a crime. Yes, he's gay but that's not a crime either. And, yes, it would appear that on occasion when he has had a few he is wont to make a clumsy pass at men he fancies - even to the point of shoving his hand down their trousers. Does any of that constitute a crime worth the considerable expense of a prosecution by the CPS? In what way are the interests of the public or justice being served here? Isn't the normal thing for a man to do when a Deputy Speaker shoves his hand down his trousers either to laugh it off (if he finds it unwelcome) or acquiesce (if he doesn't)? Since when was such embarrassing but generally harmless behaviour any of the State's business?

Here's the thing about sex: it's weird, rude, unpredictable, irrational, private, different. If it weren't those things we'd be doing it all the time, in the streets, at work, wherever. But because it generally takes place behind closed doors and because it's an activity set apart from routine and socially regulated human experience the ground rules are much messier and more complicated than they are say, for how to behave when you go into the shop to buy some cigarettes, or, how you reply when someone has invited you to a dinner party.

Inevitably this leads to confusion and uncertainty. Sometimes you might make a pass at someone and be embarrassingly rebuffed; sometimes it's greeted with enthusiasm. And sometimes you don't make a pass at someone because you think they're not interested, only to discover years later that they wished you had and that if only you'd done so your lives might have been completely different. This is complicated still further by the fact that often, when you've found yourself in sexual situations you've been drinking. And still further by the fact that notions of what does and doesn't constitute acceptable courting behaviour vary through time.

For example, in the 1970s there's little doubt that mores were more louche and loose. So much so that the makers of the James Hunt/Nikki Lauda biopic Rush decided they'd have to play down the sexual attitudes of the Seventies era because if they didn't modern audiences would find them simply unbelievable. This, of course, is one of the major problems of the recent string of prosecutions brought against celebrities for things they may or may not have done in the Sixties and Seventies. Sexual behaviour was much more upfront, back then; men were much more chauvinistic; public bottom-pinching, even breast grappling, were not considered sexual assault - as they would be now - but were considered so normal as to be celebrated weekly on the Benny Hill Show.

The only people not to get these obvious truths about a) the complexities of human behaviour and b) shifting social attitudes - and the sheer wrongheadedness of judging one era by the standards of another - are those in the feminist movement particularly, and on the cultural Marxist left generally. For them, it's a key article of faith that society is a phallocentric construct in which men are the perpetual oppressors and women the eternal victims - and that the only way of remedying this is through the intervention of the State. By rights these shrill, embittered harridans ought to be confined to the margins - shrieking angrily to one another in their private Twitter forums and on their campaigning websites, but rightly dismissed by all sensible people as an hysterical, unhinged, socially divisive menace. Instead, their warped, depressing and essentially anti-human vision of the world is being backed by the full weight of the State. This cannot augur well for the future of freedom in Britain. The cultural Marxists are winning.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...s-and-the-Crown-Prosecution-Service-may-think
 
Back
Top