The Truth About IPP Sentences

Lord Rennard should not give in to ambitious feminists

Lord Rennard should not give in to ambitious feminists

Lord Rennard should not give in to an ambitious feminist agenda

Whilst the Liberal Democrats involve themselves in the inevitable bloodbath that is to follow possible legal action by the Liberal peer, Lord Rennard, feminist activists are using the whole affair as an excuse to advance their own damaging agenda. has never been a great supporter of feminists or the politically engineered advancement of women based on gender rather than ability.

The political feminist agenda which was imported from the United States and championed by Tony Blair when he became Prime Minister has resulted in many women entering politics in the UK without first having experienced anything of real life.

Many of those who are now female MPs came straight from university to Parliament as administrative assistants to MPs and then progressed through the political ranks until being selected as Parliamentary candidates.

Many of the worst policy decisions made by New Labour and the present coalition administration have been led by ambitious women who have no objective other than their own advancement.

When Lord Rennard was accused by several female Liberal Democrat activists of inappropriate touching and of sexual harassment, such was the venom seeping from the fangs of these highly ambitious women that the police were involved and a criminal investigation pursued.

The police found that there was no case to answer; the women concerned – no doubt anxious to jump on the sexual abuse bandwagon that has been rolling in the UK for the last 20 years – decided that this was not good enough and that further action was  necessary.

Presumably hoping for a different outcome, they insisted that the Liberal Democrat party should undertake its own investigation.

Again, the investigation found that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations made against Lord Rennard. The report into the incident did however “recommend” that the peer should make an apology, presumably for what he had allegedly done.

Lord Rennard’s response was forthright and extremely clear: He had no intention of apologising as he had done nothing wrong.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg has today admitted that the party mishandled the whole affair but still defended his own demand that Lord Rennard should apologise. suggests that Mr Clegg’s attitude and approach to this matter demonstrates – perhaps more clearly than anything else in this whole sorry affair – that Mr Clegg is completely and utterly dominated by the feminist agenda; along with most other male politicians who share the same weakness.

With the Home Secretary, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the shadow Home Secretary, various chief constables and the heads of various children’s charities all being women, it is a fact that policy and policy direction in all the three main parties has been fatally skewed towards a protectionist agenda.

Whereas individuals were once expected to be robust and to deal with the inevitable unfortunate events that affect everybody as they go through life, nowadays everyone is required to be ‘protected’ from everything.

Not only does this apply to children – who are nowadays best regarded as being a protected species – but also to adults, be they in the 18 to 25 age bracket or much older.

Even more astonishing however is the gross hypocrisy of these nasty, vindictive and avaricious feminists.

These women demand equality with men both in the workplace and in life generally but at the same time demand that men become subservient to the delicate nature of the female psyche.

To put it another way, women involved in politics and business cannot expect to be treated the same way as men unless those women are prepared to accept the occasional smack in the mouth that life delivers.

In short, they can’t have it both ways; if they want equality, they must take the rough with the smooth – and that includes going up against men who will not give in to feminism.

Lord Rennard, in the view of at least, is absolutely right not only to refuse to apologise for something that he has not done but is also right to take any action necessary to expose the hypocrisy and weakness of the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

Any political fallout from the complete mismanagement of this sorry saga must be laid at Mr Clegg’s doorstep.

It is Clegg himself who has buckled under the feminist pressure – in exactly the same way as David Cameron and Ed Miliband have done – and not his party. Clegg cannot therefore expect those who see this feminist driven policy machine as being dangerous to keep quiet any longer.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is in our opinion an interesting parallel between the women involved in the Lord Rennard allegations and those giving evidence in the trials of the Coronation Street actor, Bill Roache and other celebrities. It is a parallel that feminists will probably not want exposed for all to see:

Under cross examination, several of the witnesses in the Bill Roache trial have started to show great weaknesses in their evidence, often citing poor memory or inaccurate recall as the reason for conflicting recollections of the past.

Several of theses witnesses have claimed that had they known what would happen to them in court, they would not have come forward in the first place. In other words, they were not expecting to be robustly questioned by defence counsel and have their weaknesses exposed for all to see.

The women concerned also claimed they did not come forward when the alleged offences were committed – some 40 years ago in some cases – because they were ‘too frightened to do so’.

They also insist that whatever the flaws in their evidence, “These things happened… whatever you may think.”

The women involved in the Lord Rennard saga also took their time to come forward; about 10 years.

When asked why they did not come forward sooner, a similar explanation was offered and again, they were ‘too frightened’ to say anything.

It has of course become today’s norm for people to come marching forward many years after an alleged event was supposed to have taken place – often with compensation in mind – and for them to be believed even before anything has been proven.

With the alleged victim being automatically and unquestionably believed, it is of course implicit that the alleged perpetrator must be guilty, whether the evidence supports that view not.

The women in the Roache trial have so far claimed that their allegations must be true and that they ‘have no reason to lie’.

The women in the Lord Rennard affair say much the same thing, particularly that they have no reason to lie; yet all these female antagonists have every reason to lie as they stand to collect not insignificant amounts of compensation should they choose to pursue such recompense for the alleged sins of others.

Those accusing celebrities of inappropriate behaviour have, almost without exception, claims lawyers working for them; those accusing Lord Rennard have not categorically ruled out pursuing compensation for what they say he has done to them. There is no difference.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that whereas in the past people dealt with the upsets of life and quite naturally put them behind them, nowadays people are not permitted to do any such thing; even if it is the best thing to do.

In the new feminist-driven order everyone is automatically a victim and every sin must be punished and paid for – preferably in cash. believes that for the sake of democracy and civilised society, the ever expanding and more and more dangerous feminist ‘protectionist’ movement must at the very least be slowed and preferably halted altogether.

It is absurd to say that men and women are equal; they are not.

Men and women are totally different, both physically and in their psychological make-up. In no way are they equal and no amount of social or political engineering will change that.

Both men and women have their own distinctive strengths and weaknesses and both these qualities should be recognised in the workplace and especially, given that it affects us all, in their work in Parliament and public offices throughout the land.

To do otherwise is to invite a similar society to that that exists in the United States of America, purportedly the ‘Land of the Free‘ but which is in fact one of the most repressed and controlled societies on the planet.

Repression is of course good for politicians but extremely bad for citizens.

The obsequious and iniquitous ‘political correctness‘ that now permeates British society came directly from the United States where it has inevitably caused huge damage to families, businesses and national policies.

Cameron, Miliband and Clegg should not seek to emulate the Americans, however much they may be driven to do so for the sake of cheap votes from the feminist lobby.

All female shortlists for British political parties must never be allowed for if they are, true democracy – which relies on individuals being able to honestly express what they feel, especially in the Parliamentary chamber – will come to a very sticky end very quickly. wishes Lord Rennard the very best in his battle against the feminist protectionists who seek to control every policy put forward by government in the UK.

For the record, we also make no apology whatsoever for upsetting any of our feminist readers, all of whom are welcome to comment below if they feel so inclined to do so. The present writer will not feel himself to be a victim by what may be said!

(Express your honest view in our Forum. You will find no political correctness there!)

8 Responses to Lord Rennard should not give in to ambitious feminists

  1. uaruman
    February 12, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    A heavy subject which deserves a little light relief. Anybody around in the 60s will tell you what the Modus Operandi was in those days.

    All a woman had to say in her place of work (against a male work colleague) was “he was undressing me with his eyes”. Nobody was able to say exactly how this feat was achieved, but rest assured, it had the desired effect.

    Those simple words could ruin a career. If you look at what’s happening today, and study that prime past example, you can see a clear and distinct pattern that’s developed since then

  2. pete
    January 25, 2014 at 8:47 pm

    I was working on my laptop in the local library when I read this courageously truthful piece by Raymond Peytors; I had to physically restrain myself from standing up and applauding.

    The feminists Mr Peytors refers to in his trenchant and brave article should more properly be termed “victim feminists”. They bear no resemblance to an earlier, and much saner, generation of feminists (including the heroic suffragettes) who refused to accept the lie that all women were inherently inferior to men. Equality doesn’t mean sameness; it means a mutual appreciation for different strengths and aptitudes.

    The victim fems, spawned in the USA to the dismay and outright opposition of their true feminist counterparts like Professor Camille Paglia and Dr Germaine Greer (and countless ordinary women and men), hijacked the agenda and imposed a totally unsubstantiated and massively divisive theoretical paranoia upon it. Intelligent former feminists such as Dr Janet Halley call this “paranoid structuralism” – an entirely theoretical exercise with no attempt at rigorous empirical validation, an article of prescientific faith, no less, reflecting the privileged upbringing and leisurely free time of indulged and pampered young women, who desperately wanted to belong to a cause capable of interrupting the comfortably empty tedium of their lives.

    The cause they espoused was a war on “the patriarchy”, which as Freud and Lacan were already aware, long before the victim fems seized upon it, was an ancient ideological system that had been dying for at least a century or two under the onslaught of a ruthlessly homogenising capitalism. As Marx understood well, the radically new capitalist mode of production may pretend to wear the patriarchal master’s clothes if required to do so in a new market, but actually has no allegiance whatsoever to gender, skin colour, religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation; the capacity to sell at a profit and make money is all that counts.

    Instead of aligning themselves with, say, striking workers, male and female, who were opposing the whims of the more ruthless employers or with, say, the inhabitants of the appallingly oppressed barrios of Venezuela, they constructed a theoretical edifice which cast human sexuality, or rather any sexuality which involved a penis, as inherently “abusive” – we have Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin to thank for this swivel-eyed nonsense.

    We have an eloquent warning from 1992 of where victim feminist ‘thinking’ would bring us, in the form of Professor Paglia’s account of her visit to Brown University in the US to dispute the elevation of rape by victim feminists into the crime of crimes. Above all the massacres, war slaughters and natural disasters of history? Paglia found this stupidly and irrationally ignorant.

    We should recall that, at the time, the victim fems were successfully redefining rape to mean slightly embarrassing sexual misadventures: if, as a young, pampered, middle class female university student, you got pissed in the evening and agreed to have a drunken shag with a male student who, in your inebriated state, you thought looked like Brad Pitt or George Clooney, you could, with the paranoid structuralism of victim fem theory behind you, accuse him of rape when you woke up sober to find that he looked more like Rab C. Nesbitt or Sir Les Patterson (Barry Humphries’ Australian Cultural Attaché).

    Professor Paglia found this monstrously unjust and, frankly, more than a little mad.

    That the terrible women who have plunged Lord Rennard into such a traumatic hell for little more than a bit of maladroit flirting (if that) have succeeded in creating a massive crisis for a major political Party speaks volumes about how this pernicious and misanthropic discourse has spread like a plague through the Establishment.

    It is the Establishment who will ruin your life and imprison you for trivial misadventures, remember, not ordinary people, because the Establishment has fully and willingly submitted to the mad and vindictive victim fem agenda (and, because of its appalling puntiveness, it is now utterly terrified of defying it).
    Here is Camille Paglia describing her experience of challenging the victim fem agenda, an account which vividly shows how they have stifled debate with emotively hysterical howls of execration and demands for punishment at every argument that opposes their (delusional) wishful thinking:

    “Those who doubt the existence of political correctness have never seen the ruthless Red Guard [of victim feminism] in action, as I have done on campus after campus. For twenty years [make that thirty plus today], meaningful debate of controversial issues of sex or race was silenced by overt or covert intimidation.

    As I watched a half-dozen pampered, white middle-class girls, their smooth, plump cheeks contorted with rage, shriek at me about rape, I had two thoughts. First, America is failing its young women; these are infantile personalities, emotionally and intellectually undeveloped. Second, it’s not rape they’re screaming about. Rape is simply a symbol of the horrors and mysteries of the human body, which their education never deals with or even acknowledges. It was a Blakean epiphany: I suddenly saw the fear and despair of the lost, stripped of old beliefs but with nothing solid to replace them. Feminism had constructed a spectral sexual hell that these girls inhabited; it was their entire cultural world, a godless new religion of fury and fanaticism.”

    (Camille Paglia, “No Law in the Arena”, in Vamps and Tramps, 1994, Penguin Books, pp. 29-30)

    These are the people New Labour allowed to write the statute book, and that David Cameron and Nick Clegg continue to indulge and defer to. The should be told to get stuffed, grow up and get psychoanalytic treatment to cure their vicious belief systems.

    This article by Mr Peytors is an important step towards bringing that most desirable eventuality about. These vindictive, destructive, misanthropic lunatics have been indulged by the establishment for far too long.

    Fuck off, victim fems.

  3. SamBest
    January 23, 2014 at 3:22 am

    An excellent editorial.
    To be fair,one of the leading exponents of feminism Germaine Greer has often expressed despair that her original agenda has been hi-jacked by these new opportunists who have twisted her movement into one of ‘man hate’ for reasons that are so base.

    How can society survive these historic claims when such an august figure as Sir Keir Starmer came out with the absurd but dangerous statement that “you be believed” when making claims of abuse. Such meddling with investigation is an anathema for good law-making.

    In the Australian state of NSW they have just passed a new law : no compensation claims will be accepted for sexual abuse after 10 years (although that ten years begins from the age of 18 if a child). This would seem sensible given there are statute limits on every class of claim except murder.

    Needless to say the various charities who rely on donations and the phoney feminist brigade are howling like banshees.

  4. Ramon1940
    January 22, 2014 at 7:25 pm

    I do not believe that anyone would keep it to themselves over an act of sexual abuse, not even a child, they will always tell someone at the time or a day or two later, Adults, as these women were would speak out at the time to the person concerned however high up they imagined him to be. Compensation for sexual abuse was highlighted by an MP on question time over a year ago, since then there have been more than ever complaints made to the police. In the meantime a few women have been sent to prison for False Allegations. Make up your own mind.

  5. Stephen
    January 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    I should not care at all about what is going on, yet I do care, and clearly so do others. I knew nothing about Rennard, I do not even recall hearing his name before in my life until recently. Just another person involved in politics, another person to come and go like so many others. Then the impact of what was being said against him began to infiltrate my ageing mind.

    I forget nothing. None of us forget anything that happens to us. Back in around 1998 there was a report written by a prominent psychiatrist arguing lucidly that the then vogue for recovered memory syndrome was a total fabrication since what happens remains with us, we do not suddenly forget it and then suddenly remember it again a number of years later (and, as this article points out, usually when others also “remember” identical incidents which, taken together, become the onerous similar fact evidence that the CPS relies so strongly on).

    I believe firmly that if something happens to a child, and by child I mean under the legal age of consent in this country, especially if that is done by a person known to or close to the child, then it can be extremely difficult for the child to lodge a complaint. However, by the time that child reaches the age of 18, when we regard them as full adults, there is no reason for them to delay complaining and full assistance can and will be given to protect them. To wait 10, 20, 40 and even more years before laying a complaint on the pretext that no one will believe them is preposterous in our society when stories of abuse litter newspapers and the gutter press on a daily basis – although when the accused is found not guilty they are never given the same column inches in order for their public character to be wholly cleansed.

    The people involved in this case, however, were not children. They were mature, free-thinking adults in the workplace who now say that they were subject to, the “victims” of, inappropriate behaviour by a man (Rennard’s name is no longer necessary here, he is a man and that is sufficient). There was no reason for them to delay making a complaint, indeed, had anything happened they were old enough, mature enough, educated enough to stand their ground and declare that the action, if it happened at all, was not acceptable to them. Why did they not do this? Why were they afraid, in their words, to say anything to the man or to his superiors, why did they not call the police? Indeed, certain points have been suggested to the press, and although there is no proof at all these points can be true, they seem to suggest the touching of a leg above clothes. Is this a sexual assault? Never! Is this inappropriate touching? That depends on what was considered usual for that office environment. Would this have been a matter for the police to be involved with at the time? Definitely not if all that took place was a brief touch of a leg, definitely if it was of a more sexual nature. But the complaint should have been made at the time and, if the accuser genuinely had a case, it would have been believed and appropriate action would have been taken.

    There is no excuse for such educated women (or men, for that matter) to delay for years making their complaint. Had incidents happened, and had they chosen not to complain to anyone at all at the time, they could have moved on to another job. This is what we all do if we do not like the work we do or the people we work with, we leave – although if IF something inappropriate should happen, we make a complaint at the time.

    At around the age of 15 I had to attend a swimming exhibition with others from my school. On arrival, as I attempted to walk down the steps to join my year group, I was slapped soundly across the face by a teacher who I did not know who then loudly announced that only he would decide where I sat and consequently placed me with an all-female group years younger than me. This was witnessed by dozens of others but no one made a complaint, not even me. Perhaps this teacher didn’t like the fact I had hair grown passed my shoulders that was always immaculate, or that I was openly gay, and he saw this as an opportunity to enact his own prejudices. I have no idea but, given what is going on in this country, and given that I can remember the incident exactly, then perhaps I was the subject of child abuse and should now be claiming compensation, plus destroying the life and reputation of that teacher (now long retired). It happened. It is in the past. It didn’t prevent my finishing school and college with a first class honours degree.

    At 17, a time when sexual acts between males was still illegal for those under 18, I was shown around a new nightclub, marveling at the new things being built, at how much money was being spent on the decor, at how interesting it was to build so much underground and so link the one building to another behind it, and how nice was this young manager for taking the time and trouble to show me so much. Yes, you guessed it, there was a price to be paid for his time and I had been too naive to realise it at the time. Did I complain to the police? No, I shrugged it off. It happened, big deal, bad things happen (although he thought it was a good thing and wanted to see me more often, which I ensured never happened). Was I abused? Yes, under the terms of the law then and even under the terms of the law now, but it is all a part of life, a learning experience, it didn’t put me off sex or men, it simply ensured I was more cautious in future. I learned a lesson, would thousands of pounds of compensation make me remember that lesson even more? No, it would simply have destroyed a young man’s life (and he went on to have a very sound and loving relationship).

    Rennard’s accusers have brought another incident to mind, happening daily in a job I took temporarily after finishing my A levels, a workplace where I was called “fairy” every single day, often many times a day, and always, without exception, by the women, young and old, who worked in the office of that establishment (no men worked in that office, only on the shop floor). The women called me fairy, the men, all heterosexual and all “manly”, used my name. So I was abused again, this time in the workplace, and my abusers were all female and all go-getting women who clearly intended to not only keep their high-paid jobs but intended showing all men in that place that they were above them. Should I have complained? Of course I should but it was only a word and I left voluntarily after 6 weeks because I could no longer put up with the harassment of these women. A year later one of these women passed me in the street, all smiles and politeness, and greeted me with Hello, Fairy. I was incensed and responded with, My name is Stephen. She stopped and looked closely at me then said, But I thought you were Mr Fairy. Whether she was simply trying to cover her own abuse with some quick-thinking or whether she genuinely believed my surname was Fairy, it made no difference. Not only had the abuse occurred in the workplace, it had continued outside the workplace only on that occasion, when I had nothing to lose (and nothing to gain) I made certain that woman knew what my name was and that I objected to being referred to as a fairy just because I was gay. She slunk away, through a very busy part of town, face red, knowing that everyone around us had heard every word. Shortly after this, the company went into liquidation and every single one of those women found themselves without a job. And me? I was then in a very secure career.

    Career? It should have been. But to be accepted in the Civil Service in those days one had to be male or female, and always heterosexual. Pay was equal, conditions of service were equal, promotion prospects were equal. What a lie! Only females were given permanent promotions, only heterosexual men were given temporary promotions (later leading to permanent). And when I looked at the females who were given not one but repeated promotions, it was clear that there was even discrimination amongst the female workforce by the male management because only the “prettiest” (please forgive my use of that word, it is the only one I can think of at this moment) were given repeated promotions. Not only that, this smaller segment of the female workforce always had the holiday days that they applied for without question, always had an afternoon or day off when they needed some time to rest or get over a headache or do some “important” shopping, were always given priority consideration when they wanted to move to a different section of the office… the list is endless. Why would this be? I new these females very well indeed and knew of their backgrounds, homelife, educational qualifications. Why would only certain ones be promoted (using the heinous Civil Service excuse of “senior, suitable”), and why would one reach exceptionally dizzy heights in her career? Perhaps it was because at least one member of the management was seen welcoming them into his office at any time, was seen with his arm around their shoulders as they looked at his notice board and checked holiday days, and countless other reasons and occasions.

    This manager, this male, was openly doing what Rennard has been accused of doing but did any of those females object or resist? No way, because they had learned to use their sexuality to best advantage with men and, in consequence, gained what they were seeking – personal advancement. It can be argued that those females used anything and everything they had to get on the world, and one of them was ardently feminist and openly homophobic (damn, she was my supervisor for many long months so you can imagine the battles we had). They used their “looks” to get on in the world and, by goodness, they succeeded. It had nothing to do with being senior, being better educated, being better able to do the job (after all, no one can be certain one can be good at a new job until the person begins it), it had everything to do with being “suitable”.

    So, yes, there really are educated, mature women in the workplace who are prepared to do and say anything to get on, especially if they are not really as good at their job as another person. But this does not make their behaviour right or acceptable. Nor does it make the male managers behaviours right or acceptable. It brings males into disrepute and it brings females into disrepute. The actions of those few, prepared to do whatever it takes to get on in the workplace, not only still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it leaves a stain on both sexes. These people indirectly abused each one of us in that office – yet each of those women could easily, years later, bring a case against the managers, arguing they were too afraid at the time to complain in case it cost them their careers or future promotions.

    I have had male supervisors and managers come up to my desk and put their arms around my shoulders as they discussed a project I was working on. I have had women come up and kiss me on the cheek to say thank you for something I have done for them. I have had people reach out to shake my hand and then, without my asking for it, grip my arm or shoulder with their other hand. I have had people put their arm around my waist and then let it slip to my back as they guided me through the door. I have had… ok, so it looks as though I might be a magnet for people’s hands (said with cynicism) but the point is clear, some people are more tactile than others, it is their nature, they mean absolutely nothing sexual or abusive. Only the repressive British nature that so many in this country cling on to causes the offence.

    So many examples I could cite, so many names could be named, but what is the point? The past is past, we all have to endure bad times as well as good. No one ever told us this life would be easy and that we had a right to anything we wanted. This life is damned hard, each and every single day, it is a battle – and, for some, it is a battle even to buy enough food or scrape enough money together to pay for heating. We will all fall over and scrape our knees, whether that be literally as children or metaphorically as adults. We cannot go around swathed in cotton wool. If a man (or woman) touches a woman’s leg, for example, she can move her leg, she can smile and shake her head, she can make sure she doesn’t sit so close. She does not have to wait 10 or 20 years and then make a complaint!

    This whole case against Rennard shows only one thing, that no man in this country is safe, not even after he dies. Did you play Monopoly with the girl next door when you were 10 and then accidentally touch her hand when you moved your piece on the board? Look out, one day the police will arrest you for indecent assault. Did you glance through the door of the girls’ changing rooms at the swimming pool? Look out, one of those girls will one day say that your lascivious look has haunted her for 30 years and she has been unable to sleep because of nightmares. Did you put your arm around the waist of your girlfriend when you were 16? You will definitely have the police arresting you for indecent assault, especially if you just happen to make good in your life and have a decent job with a wife and children. Did you have sex with a girl when you were 16 and then move away before you could see her again? You will not only be arrested, you will be sent to prison when you are 78 years of age, even though 52 years have passed because the “girl”, now a woman in her 70s, complains that the act has haunted her all her life (true case, by the way, so please don’t let anyone make an adverse comment about this one).

    Life is life, it is good and it is bad. If we read the newspapers, it is all bad and all men are evil. If something happens that we dislike as adults then we deal with it, then and there, we stand our ground and we do not give up – even if it means we lose our jobs because no one will believe us. If something bad happens and we ignore it, then it will happen again to us or to someone else. We then become the abusers because we could have stopped it happening to others. And, if we choose not to complain at the time, then we have accepted what happened, given it the contempt it deserves and we move on.

    I have nothing but pity for the women in the Rennard case. If they are to be believed then mature, adult, highly intelligent women have lived in a state of perpetual fear and personal agony for over 10 years before suddenly waking one morning and deciding now is the day they will complain to the police. They are a disgrace to their sex. I cannot say I believe their stories and I cannot say I doubt them, I can only say that the investigations concluded there was reasonable doubt which is sufficient for a man (or woman) to be found not guilty. And why are they a disgrace to their sex? Because, if what they say really is true, then their continued and prolonged silence over the years has allowed an abuser to continue with his abuse. They are not innocent little children, they are not and were not naive in the ways of the world, and they were not stupid because they will have read the newspapers and watched the television news. They knew they could complain, and on the day the offence happened, if it really did happen. So, if it did happen, those women must be regarded as abusers since their silence allowed others to be abused.

    • Arthur
      January 22, 2014 at 3:58 pm

      A wonderful analysis of the truth Stephen. I hope sincerely that many others read what you have written in response to a brave and serious article.

  6. Aremus
    January 22, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    These women will be the architect of their own destruction if they are not careful.

    Men are beginning to say, “Enough is enough”.

    Pity Clegg and the others aren’t brave enough to do the same.

    Great article as always, though it will upset some…I hope!

    • Ptt
      January 22, 2014 at 3:42 pm

      I hope it does upset them!! Well done again My Peytors. Another wonderful article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.