The Left's Cultre Wars - The Castration Of A Gender
Sweden' Ruling Social Lunatics Plan A Politically Correct Army
The Swedish Armed Forces are determined to have a gender advisor in every regiment by 2016, as part of an ambitious action plan to help the military develop its gender equality policies. Not bad, you may think, until you remember that traditionally there were three gender and they apply only to latinate nouns, masculine, feminine, neuter. Man and woman are sexes.
Now, under our Politically Correct masters, genders are multplying faster that bacteria in a petri dish. man. woma, trans, bi, gay, lebian, queer, asexual, what next? Not long ago you might have bet the next step in Politically Correct left wing loonyness would come from California, the American state that gave us the equal rights for goldfishes campaign.
Lately however, the Loony lefties running Sweden have been giving crazy California a run for its money in the deranged world view stakes.
With the number of women applying to join the military on the rise, so called 'Gender Focal Points' (GFPs) will be appointed to help develop and implement gender action plans for their respective regiments.
Captain Anna Björsson, who supports the chief of operations on gender issues, said: “We've been working with this for ten years. It's nothing new, but what we want to do now is try to find concrete ways of working with gender issues.”
A course to educate the GFPs has just been held by the Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations.
Course leader Major Ola Nilsson said in a statement: “The course has by and large consisted of workshops and seminars. The goal is that we will have a GFP stationed at every regiment, by 2016 at the latest, who will use 10-20 percent of their work hours to focus on gender issues.”
A prominent Swedish psychiatry expert and debater also commented, saying "Who needs Monty Python's Department of Silly Walks when we have the Swedish Ministry Of Gender Equality."
Electoral Reform in Britain - Is It Time for True Proportional Representation?
Dapper Laughs Is Offensive. But So Is the Lefty Drivel that Passes for Comedy
James O'Reilly declared on Newsnight that his character, Dapper Laughs, was dead, never to be performed again, after a petition with almost 70,000 signatures resulted in the termination of his ITV2 show.
The character, a self-confident cheeky chappy with an eye for the ladies and no chat-up line too outrageous was, as he said himself on Newsnight, no more than a character, as many of his defenders have said, much in the same vein as say, Al Murray's the Pub Landlord.
But what was different in this case? Internet feminists decided that the mere presence of Dapper Laughs on television was going to cause men to commit rape.
In seemingly the only actual grilling of a guest on Newsnight since Paxman's departure left the show toothless, Emily Maitlis went at O'Reilly with no holds barred, reciting things the character had said but stripped of any context and accusing him of inciting rape.
She followed the "incitement to rape" line for some time, to the point where he was conceding he would "feel terrible if his act led anyone to go on to do something like that", despite the fact there is not and has never been any evidence to suggest that monkey see, monkey do, in the face of decades of moralising crusaders attempting to show just that, with study after study attempting to link violent video games with real world violence and 'disrespectful' porn to real world rape all bearing no fruit.
Perhaps Maitlis had access to some top secret files about some particular definitely-inspired-by-Dapper crimes that have been committed of late, but more likely, realising that there was going to be hysteria for daring to even invite him on, she had to make the interview a ritualistic slaughter, lest the net nannies click their mice to pull the plug on Newsnight too, for "spreading this sick filth".
At the British Comedy Awards, Jo Brand, when asked what her favourite type of man was, answered, "a dead one". Had James O'Reilly said this to an equivalent question about women he'd be arrested for psychically channelling Peter Sutcliffe.
Lynton_Crosby_2 • 2 hours ago
I would like to get The Now Show taken off the air. I find its blatant left wing bias and constant sneering at UKIP (but never Labour) offensive.
Unfortunately the BBC gets copper-bottomed funding from anyone who wants legally to watch live TV so they can just tell me to sod off. Complaining is pointless.
The only way it's going to change is a UKIP Government removing the BBC's funding. If the BBC is as good as the left wingers say it is, it will have no problem relying on subscriptions. Sky's susbcription income is about £7bn, compared to the £4bn the BBC gets from the licence tax. Then we will see how many people really want to pay for 24-hour soft left multiculti propaganda, from The Now Show to The Archers.
Katabasis • an hour ago
We are living through truly frightening times where speech and expression is concerned.
Frankie Boyle has said far worse than 'Dapper Laughs' and yet is given a free pass because he holds the "correct" political views for the consumption of herd approval.
Similarly, even the slightest hint of violent language towards one of our poor darlings of the New Left and there's mass outrage. Expressing violent, lurid fantasies about anyone remotely associated with the 'right' is fine though.
You can carry out identical actions and yet in one case you'll get praise and the other you could be hounded out of your job, all according to whether you openly adopted the appropriate pose of political New Left Orthodoxy.
How did it come to this?
Kevin T • an hour ago
I'm old enough to remember the tail end of the Mary Whitehouse era, when you couldn't say or do anything likely to offend religious, patriotic, conservative grannies, and people were even arrested for it. Although I was never a lefty, I tended to sympathise with the liberal type who pushed back against this, whether it was with Spitting Image or Life of Brian or horror movies or whatever.
I fell out of love with these people very quickly in the early 90s when it became apparent they weren't in favour of knocking down all sacred cows but just wanted to replace Mary Whitehouse's sacred cows with their own. Now you couldn't say or do anything likely to offend left wing, middle class council diversity officers.
And now we have a situation which is arguably far worse and more dangerous, where far more people are being arrested for "offence crime", where you're not allowed to voice what until recently were mainstream opinions and where arguably we have become more prudish than we were then. Yvette Cooper, who may be home secretary this time next year, wants to criminalise prostitution. Other politicians want to ban access to porn and close down strip clubs. All in the name of feminism rather than Christianity but what's the difference?
Show 1 new reply
V Hale Kevin T • an hour ago
Yes! The Mary Whitehouse brigade are out in force only this time, with a left wing, "progressive" face. Just this morning I saw a petition by some dire organisation called "Child Eyes" which wants anything even vaguely resembling a scantily clad woman to be forever banished from the sight of children. Rather than casting it as being about religion and sin, they're now able to dress it up as "sexualising" and "harmful gender stereotypes". Same rubbish, new name. The facebook group is facepalmingly awful https://www.facebook.com/Child...
mancinblack • 35 minutes ago
Can I take it that Emily Maitlis will now be leading a campaign to ban the Koran ?
GeoffSouth • 23 minutes ago
I guess it wouldn't be a problem for the militant feminists if O'Reilly were a lecherous lesbian and approached women in the same way?
As far as modern comedy goes, I'll stick to the Only Fools, Minder, Dads Army, Likely Lads and Porridge repeats, they maybe decades old but at least they were funny and could be enjoyed by the whole family.
The Authoritarian Left Was on Course to Win the Culture Wars... then Along Came #GamerGate
In all of the distracting, hysterical, evidence-free and unfair allegations of misogyny and bigotry hurled at supporters of GamerGate, the consumer revolt that continues to surface outrageous misconduct in the video games press, something is being forgotten.
GamerGate is remarkable—and attracts the interest of people like me—because it represents perhaps the first time in the last decade or more that a significant incursion has been made in the culture wars against guilt-mongerers, nannies, authoritarians and far-Left agitators.
Industry after industry has toppled over, putting up no more of a fight than, say, France in 1940. Publishing, journalism, TV... all lie supine beneath the crowing, cackling, censorious battle-axes, male and female, of the third-wave feminist and social justice causes.
But not gamers. Lovers of video games, on seeing their colleagues unfairly hounded as misogynists, on watching journalists credulously reporting scandalous sexual assault claims just because a person was perceived to be "right-wing" and on seeing the games they love attacked and their very identities denied and ridiculed, have said: no. This will not stand.
The reaction in the press has been bewilderment and, then, apoplectic rage, driven at least in part by a media establishment that sees video gamers—the supposed dorks and basement-dwellers of popular imagination—mounting a credible and effective defence against the liars, frauds, neurotics and attention-seekers who have already destroyed morale and wrecked culture in the comic, sci fi and fantasy worlds.
In other words, some of the bitterness comes from people who are shocked that it took video gamers to say, "No more of this, thank you."
Because hard-core gaming is overwhelmingly male—don't believe cherry-picked statistics that tell you women now make up 50 per cent of gamers; they don't, in any meaningful sense—and because those men are often of a stubborn, obsessive, hyper-competitive and systematic bent, it has produced an army finally capable of launching offensives against the censors—using the censors' own tactics, such as advertiser boycotts, against them.
And thus a front has opened up in the culture wars; an opening through which others might peek and from which others should be seeking inspiration. The language of the authoritarian Left is quite often outrageously hateful—you can regularly hear even mainstream journalists talking about "killing all men" and excluding "all white men" from industries and cultures.
What gamers have done is draw insistent, unapologetic attention to the fact that, were the tables turned, such language would be regarded as socially unacceptable. They have exposed it for what it is: bigotry and hate speech. And they have not shied away from revealing the personal shortcomings of some of the far-Left loons who seek to poison their hobby with finger-wagging about "sexism."
They are right to consider those shortcomings. The opponents of GamerGate include a former soft-core porn actress who claims to have stabbed someone in the face and killed him but not reported it to the police, and who, by her own definition, is a rapist.
They are right to consider those shortcomings. The opponents of GamerGate include a former soft-core porn actress who claims to have stabbed someone in the face and killed him but not reported it to the police, and who, by her own definition, is a rapist.
They include a neo-Nazi who has written that Hitler was "my f—cking idol" and has written things about Jewish people not repeatable here. They include a dishevelled, psychologically unstable transsexual, said to have been the subject of a restraining order, who is a proven liar yet whose claims are repeated uncritically by a credulous press.
No arrests have been made as a result of her reports and many suspect her threateners are figments of her own feverish imagination.
And they include a former multi-level marketing scammer turned feminist heroine, who has never really been particularly interested in video games, but who can be seen at conferences revelling in her newfound fame and wealth which has come about not because her critiques are effective, but because she embarked on a massive press tour off the back of threats she says she received, not a single of which has ever been traced to a GamerGate supporter.
This is the pantheon of self-promoters, opportunists and oddballs who have made gamers' lives a misery over these past few months. And yet: gamers are not going away.
For years, it was accepted that once the finger-wagging feminists moved in on your industry, you would capitulate quickly to their pseudo-academic treatises on the "male gaze."
EricHobsbawmtwit • a day ago
Can I just point out that to make "gamer" a group identity would be to fall into the same hideous trap the various other pockets of resentment have fallen into.
derpletonsmith EricHobsbawmtwit • a day ago
You are very right, and it's something that GamerGate is trying to deal with. Hopefully GG can avoid those pitfalls.
David Flory EricHobsbawmtwit • a day ago
Not any more than "blacksmith" or "electronics hobbyist" are traps. "Gamer" is defined by the people who play video games seriously and are connected to the culture that surrounds them. It isn't an ideological grouping.
derpletonsmith David Flory • a day ago
I think this is a good point, but gamergate itself is kind of an ideological grouping, and we have had instances of hero worship and selective listening like any group of people with a similar cause. It has at times devolved into an us vs them situation, which always makes things ugly.
GamerGateUnite!!! derpletonsmith • 20 hours ago
hence #OpSkynet... It's purpose is to send out a signal that no one voice is worth more than any other ;)
Michael Lawson derpletonsmith • 15 hours ago
If gamergate has an ideology it is this: fairness. Gamers know how to follow rules and gamers hate cheaters.
Dunno David Flory • a day ago
By "Group identity" i think he means like gay or trans where they are offered protection or societal safeguards for being applicable to that group.
David Gray EricHobsbawmtwit • a day ago
As others have said, gamer is self identified.
Look at what newcomers that approach with respect achieve:
Milo is welcomed and celebrated despite his past characterisations, indeed he still unflinchingly broaches sometimes uncomfortable truths that many of us share (why many of us escape into games) and manages to do it with dignity and compassion.
Look at how Christina Hoff Sommers is treated:
With respect and affection, even as a complete outsider.
Within gamergate there are plenty of casual gamers and even none gamers that empathise through shared nerd-hood (eg: Mike Cernovich)
All are welcomed.
So, while we our proud of our identity, we do not hoard it.
Anyone that wants to be a gamer is welcome, as long as they do so with a modicum of decency, instead of insulting, shaming and mocking us while saying we MUST change in order to make them more comfortable..
LogunOne David Gray • a day ago
Christina Hoff Sommers is accepted by gamers and nerd
culture because she backs up her claims with facts, doesn't pretend to be something she’s not, is intellectually genuine, most importantly doesn't speak down to us from a podium and invites criticism and debate.
LogunOne therealmac • 20 hours ago
I think you got it backwards, it’s the other side that’s trying to force an agenda, tell gamers their wrong for liking what they like, and want to force change into their hobby without a debate or open dialog. I don’t see that as helping gamers. If you want to effect change you don’t approach it by standing on a podium and preaching like your views are the only ones that matter. If you want to get in the way of Gamers and their GTA5 that sold over 32.5 million copies expect a less than enthusiastic response. We've been through this with other forms of art and media before and it leads to self-censorship .. see Comic Code Authority 1954…http://historymatters.gmu.edu/... …and it always start with one person on a podium.
CH Sommers, is saying sure we need more diverse games that are appealing to women but it doesn't mean that the next GTA game can't coexist alongside of them. ...let talk about it.....That's the path to move the media forward.
And frankly I don't think anyone can argue that Anita hasn't co-opted her brand of Feminism and views on games into a profitable business
Her videos are full of contradictions, she also goes on to say that sexist and misogynistic content can have an effect on the player and if you think it doesn’t you’re likely even more susceptible. Sounds to me like the old argument of violence in video game makes us violent, but we now know that’s not true.
Since she never puts herself out there for critical debate and the gaming press laps up everything that comes out of her mouth, it’s hard to guess what her intent is but it sure sounds like she would like to see any game she deems sexist or misogynistic sanitized as to not turn us all into a bunch of women hating zombies. That and so many of her examples are complete bunk. We are talking about the same woman that thinks if a woman portrays a teen on TV even if said woman is nearly 30 she should not model in swimwear….LOL
The problem truly is that when we start thinking of art as sexist, Misogynistic, Religious, Political we run the risk of artists being forced into state of self-censorship for fear of low review scores because their art wasn’t politically correct enough…we don’t need that.
Will • 17 hours ago
Very much agreed. But 1) I want insider critics, not outsider critics (or I find their criticism more valuable due to actually knowing what it's about.) 2) I'd like her not to steal artwork or lets play videos, as the funding secured was for buying and playing those games HERSELF http://www.dailydot.com/fandom... http://victorsopinion.blogspot... 3) when you watch a video instead of play it yourself you lose context - you can't understand a game just by watching it played 4) She's a sex negative feminist, so she cannot properly critique what is a positive sexual representation 5) Her critiques are mostly repackaged Bell Hooks rewritten for the cute white non-intersectional feminist.
So you find me a third wave feminist who games, who doesn't steal content from others, who pays developers for the content with money provided to do so, who doesn't hate female designed character Bayonetta because she dares to be sexy and isn't just ripping off black intersectional feminism, then *I* will back her with my hard earned gamerbux. Deal?
The narrative keeps being reframed as "You are against feminism." I'm not - I'd just like someone who knows what she's talking about/doesn't do the things above, and I'm not a misogynist just for doing what you said, giving an informed critique.
If we can take her critique, it's fair that she takes ours.
TardmadeFlesh EricHobsbawmtwit • 40 minutes ago
"Jocks" are allowed to have an identity, even though most Jocks are not actual professional players but merely enthuthists. So by your comment the Jocks should have also succumbed to this rot. But they have not? Know why? It's rather simple.
We're both highly competitive within our respective hobbies. This inbuilt competitive nature allows us to do what the authoritarians of the left/socialist/marxist (same thing anymore) cannot. Weed out the bad ideas through actual competition.
The L/S/M side cannot do this. By their very nature they must agree with the authority (or the elected chosen authority) in charge of said subject. They are willing sheep, comforted by the fires of their liberty and choices being burned away.
Sad really, when you think about it. We're facing an army of Slaves and their Masters, monolithic and terrifying to be sure, but pitiable in it's inability to adapt to the changing climate.
They are like the blue whale, awe inspiringly huge and powerful, but facing a swarm of sailors and boats the end is predictable.
Ched Evans: the dangers of mob justice
We must not let Media Luvvies and Left Wing Screechers destroy traditional concepts of justice.
Right, here goes. Tin hat on. I think that Ched Evans should be allowed to resume his football career.
I don’t know what’s worse: the frothing hysteria over the possibility that convicted rapist Evans might resume his professional football career, or the shrill denunciations of anyone who thinks he should as a rape apologist and misogynist. It reminds me of the febrile and intolerant world of student politics I encountered in the 1980s. If you found someone else’s views objectionable, you shouted them down or demanded ‘No Platform’. No one could criticise pro-censorship feminists like Andrea Dworkin if they weren’t female, nor could they take issue with the anti-Apartheid movement if they weren’t black. If you criticised Arthur Scargill for refusing to hold a national ballot during the Miners’ Strike then you were branded a ‘scab’. I expected nothing less from the childish, febrile shouting contest that passed for student politics. Ad hominem arguments – ‘playing the man not the ball’ in football parlance – are symptomatic of an immature, dishonest strain of politics. If you can’t win the debate, just impugn your opponent’s motives or character. The problem is that those cowardly tactics have migrated from university campuses into mainstream politics.
The Ched Evans controversy is a perfect illustration of all that is rotten in the state of modern politics. First, there’s the medieval view that a convicted criminal who has served his time should not be allowed to return to his trade, which is effectively to punish him twice. Then there’s the demand that a man who still maintains his innocence should show remorse and grovel for forgiveness before he is permitted a second chance. And, just for good measure, there’s the attempt to smear anyone who has the temerity to defend Evans’ right to a second chance as a woman-hater and rape apologist. Who needs the Islamic State or Sharia Law when mainstream British politics has become so poisonous and illiberal?
I shouldn’t have to say this, but I simply don’t see how defending an important principle of justice - that a man convicted of rape should be given a second chance - makes you a rape apologist. No one is saying Evans shouldn’t have been sent down. No one is suggesting that rape isn’t a serious crime. It’s not the crime we are defending; it’s the concept that offenders can be rehabilitated after they have served their custodial sentence. I thought we’d left the Dark Ages behind, and moved on from the belief that some people are innately evil, that they can never be reformed. I thought we lived in a civilised society where people who committed crimes could be offered a second chance, a society that accepted people could learn from their mistakes, change their ways and be afforded a shot at redemption. Clearly I was wrong. The spirit of the Dark Ages is very much alive and well, and it’s trampling all over foolish modern ideas like freedom of speech and the rule of law.
Thankfully, not everyone has yielded to the baying hordes of online petitioners who want Evans to be punished in perpetuity. In a rare display of backbone, the usually craven Professional Footballers’ Association has defended one of its own members. ‘Having served his time, he should be allowed to reintegrate back into society and contribute [to] the profession that he’s most suited to’, said PFA chief Gordon Taylor. Initially, Evans’ former employers, Sheffield United, bullishly defended their decision to let him train with the club, saying: ‘In a nation of laws, served by an elected parliament and duly constituted courts of law, there can be no place for “mob justice”.’ However, as soon as celebrity patrons, including Jessica Ennis-Hill, TV presenter Charlie Webster and pop singer Paul Heaton, began to sever their association with the club, the Blades ditched their high-minded principles and decided that there was a place for mob justice after all. The club retracted its offer to let Evans train, saying that the public reaction ‘has been at an intensity that could not have been anticipated’. In other words: Mob Justice 1, Rehabilitation 0.
R v Ched Evans (Chedwyn Evans)
The applicant (a footballer) was convicted of rape and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
A co-defendant, McDonald, was charged with rape on the same girl. He was acquitted by the jury.
The complainant, who was 19 years old, worked as a waitress in a restaurant attached to a hotel. The applicant and McDonald were close friends. There was no doubt that McDonald had sexual intercourse with the girl on the night of 29/30 May 2011. Equally, there was no doubt that the applicant also had sexual intercourse with her. The issues for the jury were: whether she may have consented, although she had consumed a large quantity of alcohol; and if she did not consent, whether the applicant (and McDonald in his case) may reasonably have believed that she had consented to the sexual activity which took place between her and McDonald and between her and the applicant. The complainant stated that she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of the two men.
On 29 May 2011 the complainant finished work shortly before midnight. She drank some alcohol, went home, showered and then went to a bar, where she arrived at just after 1.30am. She drank vodka and left at about 3am. She said that she could not recall leaving the bar. She had a vague recollection of being in a kebab shop and of a large pizza box. CCTV footage, which was recovered, showed her outside the bar, inside and outside a kebab shop, and eventually her arrival at the hotel where the offence with which the court is concerned took place. The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk.
The applicant and McDonald had spent the evening with friends visiting various licensed premises. At some time shortly before 4am McDonald became separated from the group of friends. The complainant seems to have wandered into his path. They had a conversation and got into a taxi. The taxi driver thought that her upper clothing was somewhat dishevelled. The taxi driver took them to the hotel, where the applicant had booked and paid for a room in McDonald's name. During the taxi journey McDonald sent a text message to the applicant telling him that he had "got a bird" or words to that effect.
The prosecution case was that the applicant had booked the room at the hotel with the main or sole purpose of procuring a girl or girls later that night. According to the Crown's case, both men were on the look-out for any girl who was a suitable target. The complainant had literally stumbled across McDonald's path.
The complainant had no recollection of anything which took place after 3am. That extended to the fact that she and McDonald entered the hotel at 4.15am. The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel. While en route to the room the porter heard her say to McDonald "You're not going to leave me, are you?" They entered a bedroom in which various sexual acts took place and eventually they had sexual intercourse.
In the meantime, no doubt in answer to the message that he had received from McDonald, the applicant arrived at the same hotel with two other male friends. He persuaded the night porter to give him a key card to the room occupied by McDonald and the complainant. He said that he had booked the room for a friend who no longer needed it. The applicant entered the room. Sexual intercourse between McDonald and the complainant ceased. The applicant performed oral sex on the complainant and then had vaginal sex with her. While it was taking place the porter went to check what was happening. He waited outside the room for a while and concluded from the noises that he could hear within the room that a couple were having sexual intercourse. No other concerns were raised in his mind.
After the Ched Evans case, can we please have a grown-up discussion about anonymity in rape trials?
Ched Evans Speak In Rape Trial
SHEFFIELD United striker Ched Evans, accused of raping a woman in a hotel, today denied “using” her for his own “gratification”.
Evans, 23, and Port Vale defender Clayton McDonald, also 23, deny the alleged attack on the 19-year-old at a North Wales hotel in May last year.
The woman told police she has no memory of the incident and the prosecution says she was too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse.
Giving evidence at Caernarfon Crown Court, Evans, of Ashtree Gardens, Millhouse Green, Penistone, South Yorkshire, repeatedly denied accusations put to him by the prosecution that the girl was unconscious, semi-conscious or not in a state to consent to sex.
John Philpotts, prosecuting, said: “She was simply a girl that you and your friend ... you just used her for your own gratification.”
“No, that’s not right,” said Evans, wearing a black suit, white shirt and tie.
Asked what condition the girl was in, he replied: “She was not very drunk. She had had a drink but she was not very drunk.”
He said she was “in control”.
Mr Philpotts accused Evans of leaving the hotel through an emergency exit, adding: “You left through that exit because you knew what you had done.”
“No,” Evans replied.
“And you didn’t want to be seen going through reception.”
“No,” Evans said again.
Mr Philpotts asked: “What was the hurry to leave?”
Evans said: “Because I didn’t want to be in the room in case my girlfriend rang me.”
Previously the court heard that Evans, whose mother lives in Rhyl, had invited McDonald and others for a bank holiday night out in the seaside town on May 29.
Because there was not enough space at Evans’s mother’s house, the Sheffield United star had booked McDonald into a Premier Inn hotel nearby where the alleged rape is said to have taken place.
The court heard that McDonald met the woman and took her back to the room to have sex with her.
The furore over Ched Evans bears a striking resemblance to the contemporary free-speech debate. Those who call for censorship pay lip service to the notion of free speech. But they say there are exceptions. They support free speech but not for racists or homophobes or paedophiles or indeed anyone whose views cross some arbitrary ‘hate speech’ threshold. Similarly, those who do not want Ched Evans to resume his football career will not explicitly say that the rehabilitation of convicts is a bad idea. But they argue that there are exceptions. Evans, they say, has forfeited his right to a second chance by not showing remorse or apologising to his victim.
Now, I really don’t have a clue whether or not Evans was wrongfully convicted, as he claims. But the man is fighting to clear his name, so I fail to see why his rehabilitation should be conditional on a show of remorse. Why apologise for a crime which he maintains he didn’t commit? Equally specious is the argument that professional footballers are role models and therefore can’t expect to return to their old jobs. As I’ve argued before, it’s ridiculous to see professional sportsmen as moral templates. Their job is to excel at sport not teach other people’s children how to behave. That’s the job of parents. If the moral fabric of society is at risk of unravelling just because of the misbehaviour of a few professional footballers, then we really are up shit creek.
Politically Unbiased(!) BBC Launches Left Wing Attack On Donald Trump For Illegal Immigrants Stance
Jew hating Leftie Students Union In New Anti-Semitism Row
Those anti Semites of the The National Union of Students (NUS) are at it again. [ ... ] Hypocrisy and double standards are the stock in trade of the ‘new left’ of course and the anti – Semitism of Labour voters and other younger lefties (University dumbed down airheads who are too historically illiterate to be aware of the role Britain’s Jewish communities played in establishing the Labour Party
We have mentioned that the terms of publicly funded broadcaster The BBC's charter requires that it be completely fair and non partisan in its political civerage. In recent years however, the BBC's bias towards the politics of the left has become blatant. Furthermore, while BBC bosses try to preach a politically correct message via their comedies and dramas, commercial stations are making better quality programmes.