Gynocentrism Sucks
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'd like to see a permanent thread on which we post every false accusation article
False Rape Accusers are individuals who willingly and knowingly makes or files a false rape accusation. This is arguably more corrosive to civil society than any other violent crime. False accusers make a cynical use of the legal system for personal vendetta, or in many cases, for profit and elevated social status which comes from being classified "victim." Western courts and governments appear to be encouraging this, and incentivizing false rape accusations, by lowering the standards of evidence - and providing victim benefits, legal anonymity and reduced civil rights for individuals accused.
The list of false rape accusers presented on this site represents only the tip of the iceberg. A majority of false rape accusers are never charged, much less convicted. Among other things, many jurisdictions have informal policies not to charge false rape accusers due to external political pressures on the courts, which insist that charging false rape accusers will deter rape victims from coming forward. Some commentators have expressed a position that false accusers should not be charged at all. This is not the position of the editors of this site. Of those false accusers who are charged, an inordinately high percentage are convicted. False rape reporting is the only crime for which charges are generally brought only when law enforcement is close to 100% certain of a conviction. But many false accusers are not charged, even after recantation.
Temitope Adenugba - False Rape Accuser
Cariann Backus - False Rape Accuser
Jacqueline Barkley - False Rape Accuser
Emma Blunden - False Rape Accuser
Faye Branighan - False Rape Accuser
Jade Brooks - False Rape Accuser
Leoni Campbell - False Rape Accuser
Vanna Chief Eagle aka Fast Wolf - False Rape Accuser
Katherine Clifton - False Rape Accuser
Louise Creighton - False Rape Accuser
Andrea Davio-Michaud - False Rape Accuser
Christina Dallison - False Rape Accuser
Helen Dalby - False Rape Accuser
Jennifer Day - False Rape Accuser
Jessica De La Vega - False Rape Accuser
Tracee Deane - False Rape Accuser
Danielle Deichman - False Rape Accuser
Liselle Ellis - False Rape Accuser
Chloe Dolton - False Rape Accuser
Melinda Denham - False Rape Accuser
Roseanne England - False Rape Accuser
Cheryl Fleming - False Rape Accuser
Felisha Hardison - False Rape Accuser
Kay Hoofe - False Rape Accuser
Kirstie Hodgson - False Rape Accuser
Sarah-Jane Hiliard - False Rape Accuser
Sarah Hunter - False Rape Accuser
Leyla Ibrahim - False Rape Accuser
Louise Johnson - False Rape Accuser
Heidi Jones - False Rape Accuser
Jemma Knights - False Rape Accuser
Bernadett Kore - False Rape Accuser
Michaela Lodge - False Rape Accuser
Amanda Little - False Rape Accuser
Aisha Mather - False Rape Accuser
Samantha Merry - False Rape Accuser
Tamara Moonier - False Rape Accuser
Samantha Morley - False Rape Accuser
Amanda Moyes - False Rape Accuser
Louise Ndikum - False Rape Accuser
Danmell Ndonye - False Rape Accuser
Eloise O'Donovan - False Rape Accuser
Hannah Patenall - False Rape Accuser
Biurny Peguero-Gonzalez - False Rape Accuser
Jessica Perry - False Rape Accuser
Victoria Salter - False Rape Accuser
Kimberley St.Charles - False Rape Accuser
Deanna Taulbee - False Rape Accuser
Emma Wallace - False Rape Accuser
Elizabeth Wilkinson - False Rape Accuser
Kate Woodhead - False Rape Accuser
Rebecca Knight - False Rape Accuser
Amanda Lang - False Rape Accuser
Shannon Taylor - False Rape Accuser
Cinzia Sannino - False Rape Accuser
Lynn Walker - False Rape Accuser
Tracey Knowles - False Rape Accuser
Regina Birindelli - False Rape Accuser
Maryanne Morin - False Rape Accuser
Tracy West - False Rape Accuser
Kelly Weston - False Rape Accuser
Rebecca Howard - False Rape Accuser
Annie Hylton - False Rape Accuser
Gemma Capon - False Rape Accuser
Christine Wagner - False Rape Accuser
Erika Wagner - False Rape Accuser
Janelle Martinez - False Rape Accuser
Angela Poindexter - False Rape Accuser
Amanda Knox - False Rape Accuser
Jennifer France - False Rape Accuser
Danielle Gates - False Rape Accuser
Soroyal Washington - False Rape Accuser
Keeley Horrocks - False Rape Accuser
Crystal Mangum - False Rape Accuser
Charlene Kielty - False Rape Accuser
Chris Huhne's former wife passed the story about his speeding offence to the press in revenge for his extra-marital affair, Southwark Crown Court heard.
Prosecutors say Vicky Pryce, 60, took speeding points for Huhne a decade ago.
The jury was read an email from 2011 - after she found out about Huhne's affair - in which Ms Pryce, of Clapham, London, said she wanted to "nail him".
She denies perverting the course of justice. Huhne admitted the same charge on Monday and has resigned as an MP.
'Play ball'
Ex-Liberal Democrat cabinet minister Huhne and Ms Pryce, an economist, were charged last year over an incident in March 2003 when Huhne's car was caught by a speed camera on the motorway between Stansted Airport in Essex and London.
It is alleged that between 12 March and 21 May 2003, Ms Pryce, who was still married to Huhne, falsely informed police that she was the driver of the car so he could avoid prosecution.
Vicky Pryce-Chris Huhne phone call transcripts released
Phone conversations between Vicky Pryce and her ex-husband Chris Huhne have been heard by a jury at Southwark Crown Court during her trial on a charge of perverting the course of justice.
Ms Pryce, who denies the offence, recorded the calls with the help of Sunday Times political editor Isabel Oakeshott around April 2011, as she tried to get the former MP to admit points-swapping for a speeding offence from 2003.
Huhne did not admit to the offence in the calls but on Monday he pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and resigned as an MP.
In an audio of the first conversation, which was released publicly on Thursday, Ms Pryce complains about journalists outside her house.
This prompts Huhne to say: "Can I suggest if you want to stop journalists door-stepping you, you stop telling ridiculous stories to the press."
Ms Pryce says she is "talking about you... making me take your points," but Huhne replies he had "no intention of going on with this nonsense".
Expletives
In a second call, she again is heard to be seeking a confession from Huhne, who himself appears to be accusing her of going to the press with the story.
"It is not in anyone's interests that you should tell nonsense to the papers," he says.
Chris Huhne
You told me you wanted to ruin my political career"
MS Pryce then insists: "You know full well that I took your points" but Huhne does not confirm her claims.
As the exchange continues, the conversation becomes more heated.
The jury has been told Ms Pryce passed the story about his speeding offence to the press as she wanted to "destroy" his career after he left her.
Ms Pryce uses several expletives during the phone conversation and describes Carina Trimingham, the woman Huhne had an extra-marital affair with, as a "man".
Former journalist Huhne goes on to address the allegation of points-swapping directly when he says: "For heavens sake, I absolutely deny you took my points" and he suggests that reporters' may just be trying to "stand up a ludicrous story".
But Ms Pryce says "the entire family" knew she had taken the points, and threatened to tell journalists the "truth".
Huhne goes on to claim that Ms Pryce was "maliciously briefing the press... because you told me you wanted to ruin my political career".
Aladdin's lamp
In another conversation, Huhne advised Ms Pryce not to take calls from Ms Oakeshott, saying: "They have no story and they cannot have a story unless you give it to them. There's no reason for you to give them a story because it isn't true."
It's one of the things that's always worried me when you made me take them in the first instance"
Vicky Pryce
He told Ms Pryce not to tell "false stories" and compared the situation to "rubbing Aladdin's lamp".
"It's very, very simple, if you don't want to appear in the newspapers, don't talk to journalists," he said
In a fourth call, Huhne said he refused to get embroiled in conversations with journalists because things could get "twisted".
Ms Pryce expresses concerns about compromising herself if the truth ever comes out, saying, "I have to be careful because the last thing I want to do is for it to come out and I have actually perjured myself or whatever..."
This prompts Huhne to warn her that she could find herself being contacted by the DVLA or the police if a "half-baked" story appears.
Ms Pryce replies: "It's one of the things that's always worried me when you made me take them in the first instance."
Hunhe, who repeats earlier offers to meet Ms Pryce in person to talk, continues to insist the allegation is "simply not true".
Amanda Wheeler - a 31 year-old from Cheltenham was found guilty of sexually assaulting several young boys.
Judge stated Amanda Wheeler could walk free, saying 'although these were paedophile acts ... it was [they were?] a one-off.
[Judge creating further excuses?] Adds the molestation was 'acts of drunkenness, selfishness and childishness'
Yesterday, MailOnline reported on the case of Amanda Wheeler - a 31 year-old from Cheltenham who was found guilty of sexually assaulting several young boys.
The mother-of-three got drunk at a party before kissing and groping a 12-year-old on a bench in November 2011.
She then performed a lap-dance and straddled a group of male children, before biting a 13-year-old boy on his neck and coercing him to perform a sex act on her.
She denied the charges, but was found guilty during a recent trial and faced several years in prison.
Addressing the court during sentencing, Judge Patrick Thomas QC incredulously stated that: 'Although these were paedophile acts...it was a one-off...they were [also] acts of drunkenness, selfishness and childishness'.
He then claimed that sending her to jail would be wrong because her victims have 'largely recovered' from their traumatic experiences...as if that makes a difference.
Shockingly, this is nothing new. In December last year, Lucie Slater - a 21 year-old woman and former X Factor contestant - glassed her defenceless boyfriend in the face over a Facebook post, but still enjoyed Christmas in the comfort of her own home.
Two months previously, Claire Roundhill from Yorkshire was spared jail after getting pregnant by sexually assaulting a 15 year-old boy. Following the ruling, the victim's father said: 'If it had been the other way around and this was a man having sex with a 15-year-old girl, he would have been locked up, without a shadow of a doubt. But, because she is a woman, she has walked free.'
Yet, ironically, a man like Scot Young - who's embroiled in a bitter divorce row with his wife can be jailed for six months over a private matrimonial matter. It's a complete joke ... without being remotely funny.
Sadly, the issue is endemic. Recent national statistics prove that 58 per cent of male offenders who entered a guilty plea were given a custodial sentence - compared with just 34 per cent of UK women.
Out of the thirteen women's prisons in Great Britain, two are private - and the rest benefit from an additional set of 'gender specific standards', which men's don't.
And, in 2010, judges were formally advised to go softer on female criminals, thanks to the (ironically titled) Equal Treatment Bench Book - published by the Judicial Studies Board.
Where is the equality in that?
Not only does this offend, but it devalues the concept of justice - something which should run through the core of society evenly, like letters in a stick of rock.
Fortunately, others with more balanced views have voiced criticism. Egalitarian Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell told Mail Online: 'If this had been a 31 year-old man with young boys the sentence would have been much tougher. It seems a case of double standards. Child sex abuse, regardless of whether it is perpetrated by men or women, is wrong and should be properly punished.'
Erin Pizzey - who opened the world's first domestic violence shelter for women in 1971, before exposing feminism's scope for hypocrisy in her work as a men's rights activist - agreed.
'Normal people - drunk or not - do not under any circumstances molest young children,' she told MailOnline. 'The fact that this woman insisted on pleading "not guilty" shows she has no remorse. In my opinion, jail was the only option. I cant help feeling that - had she been a man - she would have been incarcerated.'
And they're right. Feminism (like the law) needs to be even-handed if it is to be credible. It must rage against women's unfair advantages as well as their disadvantages - both socially and legally. Otherwise, the message they send out is this: treat women equally to men, except when they're treated better.
Anyone who disagrees is not only abusing the system - but our country's young boys, too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21051062
UK firearms: Licence applicants may need partners' approval
People applying for gun licences could be asked to prove that their current or recent partners have consented to the application, Theresa May[an unmarried, childless lesbian seperatist] has suggested.
The home secretary said it was "not appropriate" for people with a history of domestic violence to own guns.
Ministers are examining if the extra check could "reduce the risk to domestic violence victims", she said.
Her comments came in a letter to MPs which was sent soon after the Newtown massacre, but published on Wednesday.
The massacre took place on 14 December at Sandy Hook Elementary School, near Newtown in Connecticut, leaving 20 children and six adult staff members dead and re-opening debate in the US on gun controls.
Suspended sentences
Mrs May wrote to the Home Affairs Committee, advising MPs that the government was working with the Association of Chief Police Officers on how to strengthen "guidance on how reports of domestic violence should be treated by police considering firearms applications".
She told the committee: "Although each case is considered on its merits, we will discuss with ACPO [the Association of Chief Police Officers] amendment of the guidance to make it clear that it is not appropriate to issue a firearm or shotgun certificate where there is a history or successive reports of domestic abuse.
"The proposal that the Canadian practice of consulting the partners of firearms applicants should be introduced here needs greater scrutiny and analysis of the evidence base, to establish whether such a measure would reduce the risk to domestic violence victims as intended."
In Canada, spouses or recent ex-spouses are required to sign gun licence application forms. If they decline, additional checks are carried out on the applicant.
Mrs May's letter constituted a "supplementary" response to the committee's 2010 report into firearms control, which was prompted by the murder of 12 people in Cumbria by gunman Derrick Bird.
The statement marks a shift in tone from the government's initial response, which said it would look into the proposal despite its "concerns that involving partners and recent ex-partners in signing applications may put them in a position of vulnerability and increased risk of renewed violence and abuse.
"Also, consent from a current partner may mean that the partner signs the application to ensure their imminent safety without consideration for future safety."
The home secretary also said that the government was considering ways to tighten medical background checks on applicants for gun licences.
Under the current gun-licensing regime, criminals who are sentenced to three months or more in prison face a temporary ban on firearm possession; those who are sentenced to three years or more are banned permanently from possessing a gun.
Supplying a firearm laws
But Mrs May told MPs that the government was now exploring the recommendation, also contained in the committee's 2010 report, to extend the ban to criminals receiving suspended sentences.
The report said: "The legislation should be amended to clarify that persons in receipt of wholly suspended sentences are subject to the same prohibitions from obtaining a licence to hold... firearms or shotguns as they would be if their sentence had not been suspended.
We do not believe it appropriate for those convicted of offences which are serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence to retain their firearms"
Home Affairs Committee
"We do not believe it appropriate for those convicted of offences which are serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence to retain their firearms.
"We are also of the view that those who receive shorter custodial sentences should not be allowed to possess firearms."
Twenty years before the Cumbria shootings, Bird had been sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for a year, for stealing decorating materials from his then employer. He also had a drink-driving conviction.
But he had been allowed to keep his shotgun certificate, obtained before his 17th birthday.
In October 2012, Mrs May pledged to create a new criminal offence of supplying a firearm to tackle people who hire out weapons to gangs.
Ms May said those supplying guns were "as guilty" as those using them as the impact was just as deadly.
The maximum sentence for the offence, which will apply in England, Wales and Scotland, will be life imprisonment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20309090
Legislator Margaret Moran took £53K in false MP expenses.
Ex-Labour Luton MP Margaret Moran falsely claimed more than £53,000 in expenses while in office, a jury has ruled.
The 57-year-old was tried in her absence at Southwark Crown Court after she was deemed unfit to stand trial.
She was accused of 15 counts of false accounting and six of using a false instrument over the claims.
The former Luton South MP, who lives in St Denys, Southampton, served in the Commons between 1997 and 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-20309466
Margaret Moran's claims, made between 2004 and 2008, amounted to about £60,000, but £53,000 of it she was not entitled to.
She was accused of 15 counts of false accounting and six of using a false instrument over the claims for parliamentary expenses.
Unable to hold back her tears, the former MP was almost unrecognisable.
In April this year, a judge decided she was unfit to stand trial on mental health grounds.
This meant that rather than assessing whether she was guilty or not guilty, jurors were told to decide whether Moran committed the acts alleged and whether they amounted to the offences with which she was charged.
Mr Justice Saunders told the jury: "It would be unfair for you to be able to find her guilty when she has had no opportunity to give her side of the story.
"Doctors have said to require her to attend court could have serious consequences for her physical health."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-20951734
'Disabled' Newton Aycliffe benefit cheat Alan Lawson jailed
A man who claimed he could hardly walk has been jailed for swindling almost £90,000 in benefits after being caught working as a gym instructor.
Alan Lawson, of Bishop Auckland, pocketed the money over eight years after suffering a back injury that meant he could only walk with a stick.
But when the 58-year-old improved he failed to inform the authorities.
He was convicted of failing to notify of a change in circumstances and jailed for eight months.
He was also found guilty at Durham Crown Court of making a false statement to obtain benefits.
The hearing heard while claiming money for barely being able to walk, Lawson was working as a fitness instructor at Newton Aycliffe leisure centre.
A spokesman for Durham County Council confirmed the defendant was no longer an employee.
A council statement said: "The council takes benefit fraud very seriously and we investigate and assist with any investigations where any member of staff is suspected of falsely claiming benefits."
Can you hear me NOW?
To the National Organization for Women:
My name is Paul Elam and I am a men's rights activist. I have just finished reading a document from your website titled, Fall 2012 - Newsletter of the NOW Family Law Ad Hoc Advisory Committee - SPECIAL REPORT.
Contained in it were the expected canards one would normally anticipate from a feminist organization, such as your attempts to deny the existence of custodial mothers who emotionally and psychologically abuse their children by alienating their fathers. And your claims that it is abused women, and not fathers, who encounter the real sexual discrimination in family courts.
I also noted, with some amusement, that while you continue to define men's and fathers advocacy as a backlash against changing gender roles, you also advocate women be given preference in custody decisions, reinforcing the very same roles you pretend to oppose.
None of that is new or surprising. As an organization with an elitist agenda, deception and hypocrisy are necessary staples in your propaganda.
However, your report did contain something different, and more consistent with the times. For the first time that I am aware, you have launched an offensive against the growing amount of men's advocacy being conducted online; advocacy that is beginning to reshape the public discourse concerning sexual politics, which explains your attack well enough.
You have cited the Southern Poverty Law Center, and parroted them in attacking the men's movement, using the same hyperbolic and deceptive language.
It probably would have been in the best interest of your followers if you had informed them of the SPLC's subsequent back peddling, in which your source Arthur Goldwag acknowledged, after being publicly humiliated for his accusations, that he never called the men's movement a hate movement, and that indeed the MRM had legitimate grievances that needed amelioration.
Of course, that would not serve your purpose, which seems to be that you are gearing up for a battle. And you know it is one you need to fight.
Too bad for you it is not going to do any good.
The fact of the matter is that the only thing that has held up your ideology and your stranglehold on public perception is the fact that people have been too afraid to shine the light of truth on who and what you are. Another fact is that this is changing, and rapidly.
The SPLC cannot save you. Your current reach into government cannot save you. Your diminishing funding cannot save you, nor can your influence on the media and academe.
There is a rapidly growing body of men and women of all colors, religious and non-religious, gay and straight, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and Independent, who have simply had enough of your hatred and lies. They have had enough of you.
Why? It is because activists are teaching them the truth. These so called fitful bands of "misogynists" are reaching more and more people every day, with the proof that your agenda is not one of equality, but of one toxic, virulent grab for money and power after another. People are finally starting to learn what your ideology has done to the family and to the minds of our children. They are learning that the war you fostered between men and women has resulted only in losers and carnage.
You can claim that VAWA was allowed to die because of misogynistic backlash, but fewer people are buying it because more people know precisely what a sexist, porcine piece of legislation it is. The children being destroyed by it are starting to grow up and talk.
You can scream and chant all you want that feminism is about equality, but, assisted by a half century of your actions, we are showing people the truth. Feminism has devolved into tyranny. Like all tyranny in human history, it will be opposed.
The world is learning of your complicit silence in the face of the advocacy of murder, infanticide, eugenics and naked bigotry, as we have found and documented in the radical underbelly of your movement[1][2][3]. But it is not just the most seedy and sequestered elements in your ilk that we have exposed.
We have also shined a light on your phony wage gap, your corruption of research and science, your falsification of domestic violence and rape statistics and even how these things have crept into our government, and into our institutions of higher education. The knowledge of those things is making its way into the narrative of our culture.
The days of a public remaining ignorant and silent are over. We will no longer allow that to happen, and there is no squeezing that toothpaste back into the tube.
I have to give you credit. 50 years of hateful elitism successfully disguised as an equalitarian movement is quite an accomplishment. It would be all the more impressive, however, had it not so totally depended on the enabling and sacrifice of the very men from which you claim to have been liberated.
And therein lies your problem. An aggressively growing number of men and women are done with the enabling. They are done accepting lies and distortions. And they are beginning to look at our fragmenting, decomposing society and figure out what, no, who the problem is.
All that was ever needed to destroy feminism and promote true equality in this culture was for the truth to break free from the chains placed on it by a fearful and misled society.
It is happening as we speak.
This is going to be a very important year for the men's rights movement, which means it is going to be a very important year for men and women who want to work together on addressing problems with valid, research based solutions - not as competitors out to demonize and vilify and destroy each other, but as partners in an effort that leads us to mutual valuing and cooperation. They understand fully that the absence of that valuing and cooperation has been paid for dearly by our children, especially our boys.
All this means that it is going to be a very bad year for you. All you offer is fear and conflict and people are finally getting tired of it.
I will close with a bit of advice that I know you are too entrenched to heed. If you want to slow the men's movement, the only way to do it is to emulate the raisons d'être to which you have so far only paid lip service, while pursuing a base and malignant agenda.
You need to act as though you have a moral compass, and that means dropping the entitlement and the hate.
Anything less will result in your extirpation, because it is not the men's movement that is your problem. It is the truth told far and wide in a society that is beginning to hunger for it.
That truth is coming for you, and we will breathe relief whether you accept it, or are consumed by it.
[1] AO Part 1
[2] AO Part 2
[3] AO Part 3
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/buckwalter-poza-biden/index.html
Biden will reportedly lead the administration's political response[WHAT?]
Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza
No politician could be better suited to the challenge of passing federal gun control legislation than Biden. Over the past four decades, Biden has been one of the most consistent and effective advocates of gun control and violence prevention legislation. In 1994, Biden shepherded the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act through the Senate, a near miracle six years in the making.
After Biden wrote the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1988, Republicans quickly filibustered, blocking the bill for four years. He steered "the Biden crime bill" through the lengthy filibuster by negotiating with Republicans and making revisions. "Every single line in that bill was written with every single major Republican a part of it," Biden said in a September 12, 1994, interview on the Charlie Rose show.