Assaults on our Freedoms

[Southampton Gull]

I like your response there, can see where your coming from.

All i'd say is, i agree entirely, there is no way the government or an alphabet agency alone could orgainse any of these things. But i would suggest looking at the government as a front, a group of puppets put there to create the impression that we the people have some kind of choice and freedom. There are hidden people pulling the strings behind all governments, including the monetary systems and the ebb and flow of money.

When it comes to organising something like 911, no it wasn't the CIA as such, but likely 1 or 2 people in the CIA were involved, as maybe 1 or 2 government advisors and mayeb some form the NSA, but it would nevr have been an offical play, not even top secret. You have to look beyond the front organisations and see where the people at the top of this tree are connected. Sometimes it's through a Masonic Lodge, not your avergae run of the mill lodge. Sometimes they are related, checkout bloodlines and the Bush family tree, or the Royal family.

Just a suggestion. But this stuff takes time to research and isn't pretty, however, i don't think of myself as a doommonger, i think an awareness of this stuff is enlightening and leads to a far more positive outlook on life.

Only just read this and I have to say that I'm in total agreement with everything you've written. One of the most decent and honest politicians I've seen in a long time comes under the guise of ex-professional wrestler and former US Navy Seal, Jessie Ventura, he has some admirable views on the world we live in and isn't afraid to tell it how it is. I've been expecting to hear of his "accidental" death for some time now. Have you read anything of his or seen any of his documentaries?

[AustrianAndyGull]

Only just read this and I have to say that I'm in total agreement with everything you've written. One of the most decent and honest politicians I've seen in a long time comes under the guise of ex-professional wrestler and former US Navy Seal, Jessie Ventura, he has some admirable views on the world we live in and isn't afraid to tell it how it is. I've been expecting to hear of his "accidental" death for some time now. Have you read anything of his or seen any of his documentaries?

No but I saw him in that superb film he made, 'ACE' which was about pets.

[Southampton Gull]

Thought you were abstaining until the weekend? Knew you couldn't stay away

[AustrianAndyGull]

I am now. :na:

[Gullscorer]

Everybody, not only Americans, should be concerned about the subject of these videos and the events described. Assaults on freedom of speech and self-expression and other freedoms have been increasing over the years; don't think it's not also happening here in the UK, in Europe, and around the world.

[Gullscorer]

As soon as a police officer has reason to believe that a person being questioned has committed an offence (even if they have not been arrested), the officer must issue a caution. I believe it goes something like this: ‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’ At the police station the caution must be repeated, and the person being questioned must be advised of their right to consult a solicitor before answering any questions. This caution was introduced with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Unlike the old police caution which it replaced, this one is ambiguous, confusing, and open to misinterpretation. If you are being cautioned, and weighing up the decision to stay quiet or to answer everything, you need to be aware of the changes in your right to remain silent. The court is allowed to infer a lack of innocence from a refusal to talk. If you refuse or fail to
· account for objects, substances or marks in or on your clothing or person at the time of your arrest; or
· explain, after you have been arrested, where you were at the time the offence is alleged to have taken place; or
· mention something before you were charged, which you later rely on in you defence, or which it would have been reasonable to mention at the time;
then the law allows the court "to draw such inferences as appear proper" from this silence. That all seems fair enough, doesn’t it?

However. it should be remembered that this right of silence is a right that is sacrosanct to our freedoms. It wasn't designed to shelter the guilty but the innocent, and that's what most people (including politicians) don't get. Too often the innocent think they can just tell the truth and the police will drop the charges. That's not how it works, as any criminal defence lawyer will tell you. This right was originally designed to protect innocent people who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. In a criminal case, the burden remains on the prosecution to prove defendants’ guilt, and all citizens, whether guilty or innocent, enjoy the right to refuse to provide information that may assist the prosecution in its efforts to accuse, charge, or convict them of crimes.

In the USA, it is prosecutorial misconduct for a district attorney even to suggest to the jury that persons who invoke their rights under the Fifth Amendment are guilty of a crime. At trial, the jury is instructed by the judge that no inference whatsoever may be drawn from a witness' reliance on the Fifth Amendment.

The average person almost certainly doesn't understand the critical importance of the right of the accused to remain silent, and the courts should recognize that the average person will improperly draw negative inferences from it. Unfortunately, allowing negative inferences is exactly what the courts themselves have been doing since 1994.

Perhaps somebody will tell me if I am being over-anxious about this or mistaken in some way, and I don’t know what studies, if any, have been carried out to monitor the effects of the current caution (I don’t have the time to check), but the mere fact of its existence in its current form appears to constitute just one example among a number of others of the gradual erosion of the principles of justice in the UK.

[Gullscorer]

Another assault on our freedoms. This is outrageous. It seems the Equalities Commission, in their letter to this bakery, has decided its guilt even before the bakery has had a chance to respond: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paign=1490

They don't appear to have considered the following before diving in with all guns blazing:
1. No-one should be forced to take part in pressure group campaigns with which they don't agree.
2. The depiction of the cartoon characters may be a breach of the creators' copyright.
3. If the bakery had discriminated by refusing to sell its normal products to the activist, this may be grounds for the Equalities Commission to take action under the current law, but this was a special request by the activist, and so (somebody will correct me if they think I'm wrong) would form the basis of a specific contract between the activist and the bakery for this particular item, so the bakery would therefore be liable to be sued for breach of contract, nothing more.

This is another example of the heavy-handed politically-correct ideologically-driven State interfering to an intolerable degree in people's lives. I can see the day coming when to even criticise or disagree with these politically correct tyrants will be criminalised..

[Gullscorer]

How ideologues create problems where none exist, and magnify insignificant ones, to further their agenda: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... abour.html

Up there with Harridan Harman (http://dottal.org/LBDUK/harriet_harman_ ... minazi.htm), Yvette Cooper is one of the most detestable of her type. She mentions the behaviour of some boys as if it were a universal problem, yet fails to mention the greater number of teenage girl bullies, and completely ignores research which reveals the behavioural problems of the 2.7 million children raised by single mothers, and statistics which show that the majority of abuse suffered by children come from mothers and other females, not from men and other boys.

Indoctrination not education is probably her motto. Here, from the horse's mouth, are some of the lies she uses (the debunked gender 'pay gap' to name but one) to promote her cause: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... er-is.html

[Gullscorer]

I've never been a huge fan of the Daily Mail, nor of any other of our national newspapers, but I am impressed these recent articles of Richard Littlejohn which give snapshots of modern Britain. If, after reading them, anyone remains complacent about the direction in which our society has been heading in recent years, then I despair:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... river.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... d-men.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ither.html

[Gullscorer]

A frightening proposal currently being considered by the European Parliament would direct governments to monitor citizens deemed “intolerant” and could even lead to a ban on all criticism of Islam and feminism.

The European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance, which was drafted by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), an NGO based in Paris, was presented to the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee last year and is thought to be on the verge of implementation.

According to the Gatestone Institute, the Statute represents an “unparalleled threat to free speech” and would have the impact of “effectively shutting down the right to free speech in Europe” by banning “all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law, a key objective of Muslim activist groups for more than two decades.”

The main purpose of the Statute is aimed at eliminating “anti-feminism” and “Islamophobia,” according to the document, which means that any criticism of feminist political doctrines or the Muslim religion would be considered hate speech.

Section 4 of the document states that, “There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned.” In other words, stamping out “intolerance” trumps the free speech rights of millions of European citizens.

“Faith-based groups and schools, adherents of a particular religion or even just parents who want to teach their children certain moral values would all be put under general suspicion of being intolerant,” warns civil rights watchdog European Dignity Watch.

The proposal dictates that “Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, additional to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State.”

This basically mandates that the free speech rights of European citizens need to be revoked in order to secure the “additional” rights of minority groups to not be offended by “intolerant” remarks, which include holding such groups to “ridicule,” a definition which would presumably outlaw satire.

The framework calls for the doctrine to be implemented by “a special administrative unit” in each of the EU’s 28 member states that would “operate within the Ministry of Justice” and have the power of “penal sanctions.” In addition, a “National Tolerance Monitoring Commission” would also be created to “promote tolerance.”

“The principles of freedom of contract and the freedom to live according to one’s personal moral views are in danger of being superseded by a newly developed concept of ‘equality.’ It would undermine freedom and self-determination for all Europeans and subject the private life of citizens to legal uncertainty and the control of bureaucrats,” states European Dignity Watch. “It is about governmental control of social behavior of citizens. These tendencies begin to give the impression of long-passed totalitarian ideas and constitute an unprecedented attack on citizens’ rights.”

The proposal also caters for the re-education of individuals deemed intolerant. “Juveniles convicted of committing crimes….will be required to undergo a rehabilitation program designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance,” states the document.

Schools from elementary level upwards will also be mandated by governments to “introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity and promoting a climate of tolerance as regards the qualities and cultures of others.”

The proposal also calls on citizens to be brainwashed into “tolerance” via mass media, with governments ensuring that television networks “devote a prescribed percentage of their program to promoting a climate of tolerance.”

The program is not only an alarming threat to free speech but is also deliciously ironic in light of complaints by major EU powers about NSA monitoring of citizens and world leaders.

Given the EU’s history in this context, it’s highly probable that they will adopt the recommendations wholesale. Back in 2001, the EU announced that it had the power to outlaw criticism of itself when the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU could “lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures.”

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/10/eu-set-t ... -citizens/

[Gullscorer]

At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US, says whistleblower William Binney; that's a 'totalitarian mentality'.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... on-control

[Gullscorer]

Gender politics taught in UK schools is indoctrination not education

Yvette Cooper rocked the gender political boat last week by saying we should raise our sons as “confident feminists” http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 88177.html writes Glen Poole.

Chris Maume at the liberal left newspaper, The Independent ,agreed (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 98890.html). He declared, as confidently as a boy feminist: “Should we be teaching boys to be feminist? [The] answer, naturally, is a resounding ‘Yes.’ And really, who could argue with that? Rod Liddle, possibly, but nobody in their right mind.”

Over at the conservative Spectator magazine, Lara Prendergast had a different view (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/lara-prend ... feminists/). “School shouldn’t be a place where you indoctrinate pupils to believe a particular ideology,” she said. “And feminism, for all its admirable achievements in the 20th century, is an ideology.”

These left vs right disagreements about gender politics are not unique to the UK. In France, a left-wing programme promoting the teaching of “gender theory” was dropped last month after a concerted campaign by right wingers and traditionalists led to parents removing their children from school.

On one side, advocates like Simon Massei, whose article “France gives way to opponents of ‘gender theory’ in schools” is published at insideMAN today (http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/07/14/ ... n-schools/), claim that the idea of the ABCD de l’égalité programme was simply to teach children that some differences between the sexes are biological, but others are socially constructed.

Meanwhile, opponents of the programme like the Catholic Group Civitas, claim that “an unnatural and perverse ideology” is being taught as early as pre-school “under the guise of equality and ‘the fight against homophobia’”.

Some of these arguments are redolent of the struggle over section 28 of the Conservative’s Local Government Act of 1988, which prohibited schools from teaching “the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. Looking back at this period of recent history, the Conservative MP Francis Maude said in 2012 that “in hindsight, it was very wrong — very wrong. It was a legislative provision that came out of honourable motives. It took me some time to realise what an emblem of intolerance Section 28 had become for gay people. It was the tip of a deep iceberg — the iceberg below the surface being a host of anti-gay social attitudes.”

In the eighties and nineties leading conservatives were convinced they were right to ensure all children were NOT taught that homosexuality is an acceptable form of family relationship. Today, leading thinkers on the left are convinced that it right to ensure that boys are NOT raised to be anything other than feminists—and they believe “nobody in their right mind” could think any differently.

But people do think differently—and not just the usual suspects on the right. In France one of the leading campaigners against the teaching of feminist gender theory in schools is, Farida Belghoul, a writer and filmmaker of Algerian descent who was the main spokesperson for the March for Equality and Against Racism.

In the UK, the former feminist and gender equality consultant, Karen Woodall dismissed Yvette Cooper’s calls for boys to be raised as feminists in no uncertain terms (http://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2014/ ... te-cooper/) saying: “The rights of boys are equal to those of girls and it is not for feminists to determine what makes a ‘good boy’ or a ‘good girl’ either for that matter. Feminism is not synonymous with equality, much as the feminists would have us believe that it is so and it does not and cannot solve the problems of the world in which we are raising our children and grandchildren.”

Another opponent of Yvette Cooper’s proposal to teach boys to be feminists is the 17-year-old sociology and politics student and YouTube broadcaster, Josh O’Brien. In a video recorded for insideMAN he says: “My issue is not that it is feminism that she wishes to be forced upon children, it is that she thinks it is the place of a school to indoctrinate any political belief.”

Josh’s suggestion that children should be given information for and against different beliefs and the critical thinking skills to form an opinion themselves, seems like an eminently sensible idea.

One project that’s already working with boys in schools on the issue of gender equality is the Great Men Value Women project. According to one of their male volunteers, Folarin Akinmade, “feminism is just about being a decent human being. It’s so much more simple than people make it.”

Is it really that simple? Experience suggests that the world of gender and gender politics is deeply and deliciously fascinating and complex. It’s complex because there are many different genders and gender identities and there are many different forms of gender politics.

No politician should seek to dictate what gender identity a British citizen can or can’t adopt and at the same time, no MP should seek to impose his or her own gender politics on every boy in the country. But why not teach boys about gender, gender issues and gender politics in school—from all perspectives, not just a feminist viewpoint—and let them make up their own minds what they want to believe?

Written by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/07/14/ ... k-schools/

[Gullscorer]

Don't nigggerise me..!! On prejudice and injustice: Must read this:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... -misandry/

Police state 1:
Police state 2:

[Gullscorer]

Censorship: it's getting worse:
https://filminginargentina.wordpress.co ... asing-dad/

[Gullscorer]

A vindictive woman falsely accuses her husband of abuse in order to gain the upper hand in a divorce (or even simply states she is afraid of him) and she is automatically awarded a restraining order and custody of the children, while he is removed from his home and denied access to his kids.

A woman engages in a night of consensual sex which she later regrets, and so falsely accuses a man of rape, and, until he proves his innocence, she is believed.

In too many cases, guilt is assumed, based not on the facts of a given case but on the nature of the accusation and the gender of the accused. Guilty until proven innocent.

Prof. Alan Dershowitz once wrote: 'Some people regard rape as so heinous an offense that they would not even regard innocence as a defense.' http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-08/ ... l-activity

Four years ago, feminist icon Germaine Greer called for an online rapists' register "because we know the courts can't get it right."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nline.html

This is a blatant disregard of the due process rights of the presumptively innocent. It’s the lynch mob mentality, and it ruins the lives of innocent people.

Goodbye justice..