Roman Polanski won’t be charged with molesting a ten year old

This is a rallying call to Meryl Streep, Oprah Winfrey and all of the #MeToo and #Timesup movements!

Get out your black dresses, dust off your “Time’s up” badges and drag out a victim of abuse to attach to your hip like a designer handbag (to show how much you REALLY care)

It’s time to go to WAR!

anigif_enhanced-buzz-13393-1424662115-34

According to The Guardian (see link here) the Hollywood Elite’s favourite degenerate Director won’t be charged with allegedly assaulting a 10 year old girl in 1975 during a photoshoot in which he made the girl pose nude, after which he (again, allegedly) abused her.

Normally, when someone is said to have “allegedly” assaulted another person, I immediately call for due-process in order for guilt, or a lack of, to be found in a fair and just way.

That is still true with Mr. Polanski in this case.

However…

In 1977, Polanski was arrested and charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. He subsequently pled guilty to the charge of statutory rape. He was released from prison after serving 42 days, and as part of an apparent plea bargain, was to be put on probation. When he learned that the judge had changed his mind and planned to reject the plea bargain, he fled to Paris before sentencing.

Quoted from Wikipedia

He admitted, plead guilty, was charged, and was put in prison for drugging and raping another girl; this time a 13-year-old.

He then fled.

Sorry Roman, but you’re looking pretty guilty to me son.

Certainly a lot more than some of the celebrities who have been taken down by the #MeToo movement, and for a lot less than the child-molesting exploits of Polanski.

So, Ladies, this is your chance!

After years of:

giving standing ovations,

signing petitions demanding he be released from detention in Zurich

and singing the praises of an “alleged” Kiddie-fiddler for decades

(all while knowing of Polanski’s guilt), it’s time to disavow. March down to the offices of the Los Angeles DA (obviously stopping along the way for photo opportunities) and demand that they ignore the statute of limitations and lock his ass up!

#Timesup Roman.

Surely now, after so many victims have come forward in Hollywood. After all of the rhetoric. After the #MeToo and the #Timesup movements standing up and demanding an end to the abuse of women; surely NOW is the time to finally stop looking the other way and forgiving Polanski for his crimes. NOW is the time to treat him exactly like you’ve treat the rest of the sexual abusers in Hollywood.

#Timesup Hollywood.

Isn’t it?

RANT OVER

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Golden Globes – uninviting the REAL victims

Rose McGowan. Mira Sorvino. Asia Argento. Daryl Hannah. Rosanna Arquette. Annabella Sciorra.

All women who were abused and assaulted by Harvey Weinstein.

All women who have had their careers either set-back or stalled completely because of Weinstein.

All women who suffered at the hands of a vile, power-mad rapist.

And, all women who were allegedly not invited to the Golden Globes 2018 as part of the #Timesup movement.

According to a Tweet by Rosanna Arquette, she and the above named victims of Weinstein weren’t asked to appear at the event or even to comment on the #Timesup movement itself. You’d have thought Rose McGowan would have at least been invited, (being the one who first brought to light the heinous actions of Harvey Weinstein) if not mentioned somewhere in the evening; but alas, no.

McGowan’s public fall-out with Meryl Streep is reason enough for her to be uninvited, in order to stop her stealing Streep’s spotlight. Meryl is in “Damage control mode” at the moment after the whole #Sheknew movement began, highlighting the fact that she claims she knew nothing of Weinstein’s behaviour prior to McGowan’s statements about her ordeal. Add to that the fact that she was more than happy to clap and cheer for known rapist and peadophile Roman Polanski, when it’s quite clear that he is guilty of his crimes, is hypocrisy at it’s finest. Streep, who is seen by most on the Liberal side of the scale as a shining beacon of righteousness, is at the heart of this movement in order to cover for her own failings. By having McGowan, who has slammed Streep for not noticing Weinstein’s past behaviour, as a voice of the #Timesup movement would be a catastrophic move, potentially exposing Streep’s hypocrisy to the point that the Liberal idiots who are blatantly ignoring it, would not be able to do so further.

metoo-2859980_960_720

Although Weinstein’s actions were certainly at the heart of the #Metoo and #Timesup movements, he certainly wasn’t the only person in Hollywood using his power to abuse people. There are supposedly untold numbers of abusers in Hollywood, and a countless number of victims left in their wake. Every single one of them need to be exposed and pay for their crimes, just as each and every victim deserves any help and support that can be offered.

Their voices need to be heard, and yet they were so obviously missing from the red carpet.

Why?

Because this entire event wasn’t just about exposing sexual abuse in Hollywood. It was never just about that.

The main point of it was to act as one big Feminist outreach program; a chance for women to “have their moment in the spotlight” and “take charge”, while riding a tidal-wave of virtue-signalling and hypocrisy.

And it was all built on the back of the suffering of REAL victims.

How do I know this?

Well, instead of having Queen Oprah (Yassssss! Queen!) giving her first inaugural speech as President-elect, or Connie Britton wearing a $400 sweater saying “poverty is sexist” in a non-ironic manner, or Debra Messing calling out E! for the Catt Sadler “pay-gap debacle”, surely they should have had the ACTUAL victims of misogyny and abuse stood out on the red carpet?

And not just the female victims that they failed to invite: what about the male victims of abuse? Lord knows there are plenty of them (though you’d be hard-pressed to actually find a cover story about them…).

Don’t get me wrong; I know you all made it quite clear that it was “time for men to step back and listen”, but in the name of EQUALITY, which, after all, is what Feminism is really all about, (according to any theoretical Feminist anyway) you could have brought out the uninvited women alongside other victims of Hollywood sexual abuse and exploitation. MALE ones, such as Terry Crews, and Anthony Rapp, and Corey Feldman. There could have been a huge picture of Corey Haim hung inside and outside the venue in order to remember and honour another victim of misogyny. Then, you could have all gathered in front of these people, these REAL victims and REAL Heroes, and knelt at their feet; knelt in front of them and chanted in one true voice:

“WE’RE SORRY! WE KNEW! WE ALL KNEW! AND WE LET IT HAPPEN!”

You’d be lucky if you could find more than 5 or 6 people out of the entire guest-list of the Golden Globes who didn’t actually know anything about the actions of Harvey Weinstein, or any of the sexual abusers in Hollywood. They knew, and they didn’t say anything because they couldn’t possibly risk losing any of the power they themselves had attained. Their careers, their money and their influence were and are far more important to them than actually exposing the people who afforded them it in the first place.

Harvey Weinstein was outed for what he really was and that was the opportune moment for these sycophantic morons to be able to prove that they do care and that they are virtuous people who only have your interests at heart.

At the Golden Globes their masks slipped off, exposing them as the power hungry, enabling frauds they really are.

Never forget this:

#Theyknew

#Theyallknew

#Theyletithappen

 

RANT OVER

 

 

Remembering Charlie Hebdo

3 years ago today was quite possibly the day that summed up to a tee, just how far Religious Extremists would go to further their ridiculous agenda.

“On 7 January 2015 at about 11:30 local time, two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamist terrorist group Al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region, on 7-8 January 2015. On 9 January 2015 was the Hypercacher Kosher Supermarket siege, where a terrorist murdered four Jewish hostages and held fifteen other hostages.”

Sourced  from Wikipedia

I think back to that day and remember how, for just one day, everyone in the Western World seemed to be on the same page. Political lines were erased; there were no “Left v  Right” arguements, no “SJW v anti-SJW” debates. The only thing that seemed to matter was that EVERYBODY knew that this was indefensible, and barely ANYBODY was trying to excuse the actions of these animals.

Free Speech was important and neccessary, including the right to ridicule Religion without consequence.

The sad thing was, it didn’t last long.

A week after the massacre, according to a report in The Telegraph (link here) the Journal du Dimanche newspaper in France ran a poll that showed that 4 in every 10 people polled thought that Charlie Hebdo had gone too far by publishing the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

4 in 10. Let that sink in for a moment.

Though I believe in God, I’m not a huge fan of organised religion. Put simply, I think it causes more problems than it solves. However, I DO believe in respecting the fact that people have strong beliefs and that when those beliefs are challenged or openly ridiculed, that those people will either defend them or ignore them. Do you believe every word of the Bible, the Quran or the Torah? All power to you; just don’t try and shove it down my throat and don’t try to hold me to the same moral standards as yourself.

Defending your religious beliefs through discussion and debate is one thing. Slaughtering people because they drew a cartoon of your Prophet is not a reasoned reaction.

ThePenIsMightierThanTheSword28CartoonistsPayTributeToTheVictimsOfTheCharlieHebdoSho

Yet still to this day, people insist that Charlie Hebdo should not have published the cartoons. To me, that says everything about the mindset of the “Left” and the “Woke” of us in western society; ready and willing to mock Christianity for being out-dated and archaic, yet among the first to defend any kind of insult to Islam. Ask someone who thinks that the cartoons shouldn’t have been published, about the violence that followed and you’ll get a half-baked response consisting of “but it’s mocking their religion” and “they shouldn’t have killed them but…”

It reeks of cowardice and the inability to be able to say anything negative about religious extremism.

It also has a more chilling undertone to it:

It’s justifying the outcome.

Are we so cowed and afraid to stand up to religious extremists that we’re willing to gloss over violence and slaughter? Have we really digressed to the point where we can’t even poke fun at the things that seem to some as beyond credible?

You need look no further than the likes of Justin Trudeau and Angela Merkel for an answer to those questions.

Free speech is the very foundation upon which any society should be built. It allows us to develop and progress; to express ourselves fully and bring popular AND unpopular ideas to the forefront of human discussion. It is essential for the progression of our population, as without it, we are surely doomed to die out as a species.

If you can mock one religion, then you can mock them all.

WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.

You don’t have to like it. But you DO have to accept it.

At this moment, 3 years after the fact, I feel that as a society we can no longer say:

“Je suis Charlie”

But hopefully, with a little backbone, we can throw off the blanket of cowardice and fear and once again claim the right to be able to say:

“Nous sommes Charlie”.

 

RANT OVER

“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”
Christopher Hitchens

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave the Kids out of it

Ok, I’m going to be the one who says it.

This is just plain wrong.

Go for it.

Call me intolerant. Call me a bigot. Call me a sexist, homophobic, transphobic, gender-bashing, hate-mongering piece of shit.

I’m not any of those things. But this is going too far.

I can tell you until I’m blue in the face that I’m all for people living their lives the way that they see fit. As long as someone isn’t hurting somebody else, I don’t care. I’ll stand up and defend anyone who is being bullied because of their Race, Religion, Gender, Sexual preferences, how they want to dress or what they want to look like.

That’s every adults choice to make and I’ll defend them from persecution every time.

But this?

A 10 year old boy who likes to dress as a Drag Queen decides to start a club for other like-minded children?

This is a child.

A 10 YEAR OLD CHILD

The “Child” in question (I highlight the word Child as I honestly believe this boy has been forcefully pushed beyond the realms of childhood) is named Desmond Napoles, a 10 year old from New York (who’d have thought eh?) who is known on the internet as “Desmond is amazing”.

This is quoted from Desmond’s website:

“At age six, Desmond expressed boundless joy when he received an Elsa costume from Disney’s movie “Frozen” for Halloween. After that, he often asked for princess costumes or dresses while out shopping. Soon, he often wanted to wear his dresses outside of the home. Initially uncertain if they were making the right decision for allowing him to do so, Desmond’s parents quickly and fortunately realized that the source of their uneasiness came not from Desmond’s personal choices, but from their own misgivings about how the outside world would react. It was as simple as defeating those feelings, accepting Desmond as he is, and respecting Desmond’s own tastes and preferences.”

The part of the quote in red is where I’d like to focus my attention.

When you have children, you have to make decisions for your child; choices that children are unfit to make due to their age, life experience and understanding of complex situations and societal norms. Leave it to a child to make decisions regarding their safety and up-bringing and you’ll generally find that they eat nothing but sweets and soda, test to see if a fire really is hot and cross a busy road without paying heed to the truck barrelling towards them.

The fact that Desmond’s parents had doubts about allowing him to dress up in dresses not just inside the house but outside as well, tells me everything I need to know about the whole situation. As a parent you generally go with your gut instinct on situations you’ve never come across before; your first instinct is almost always the correct one. You can’t gamble with your child’s future, particularly if it means putting said child in the firing line of all sorts of people and scenarios that a 10 year old is not capable of fully understanding or dealing with.

Desmond’s parents have gambled and allowed their child to behave as a fully responsible adult when he clearly is not. If he wants to dress up in women’s clothes when he is old enough to understand the impact of his choices, then fine. All power to him. But he is being allowed and actively encouraged to make decisions about his life that even a teenager or an adult would struggle with, all in the hope that his parents portray to people that they are “doing the right thing” and “promoting a sense of inclusion and progressivism”.

There are easier and less harmful ways of teaching a child about inclusivity and tolerance, without the need to throw them into the pool of life and see if they swim or drown.

Children should be protected, not exploited.

The whole situation reminds me of the young child actors in the ilk of Macauley Culkin and Lindsay Lohan; pushed and encouraged into acting by their parents at incredibly young ages; unaware of the dangers and pitfalls of the life they were being pushed into, all in the name of making their parents rich.

Everybody knows what happened to these two young actors, and the dozens of child stars who were unable to cope with being prematurely promoted to adult status. I hope beyond hope that the same doesn’t happen to Desmond.

Let him be a child.

He’s 10 years old, and at 10 years old he should be worrying about nothing more than what sandwiches he has in his lunchbox, and not having to deal with the amount of ridicule and abuse that he will surely be receiving now, and in his teens from intolerant assholes in the world. It’s bad enough dealing with that as an adult, never mind as a child.

Like I said earlier: live your life the way you see fit. As long as you’re not hurting anyone else with your life choices I don’t care.

Desmond’s parents are hurting their child with their choices.

So I DO care.

 

RANT OVER

 

 

My empathy for the Chef who spiked a Vegan

As a former Chef myself, I always find it funny reading stories about Chefs who “exact revenge” on someone.

Especially when that someone is an annoying, self-entitled pain in the arse.

This story came from the RT website which you can view by clicking here.

It tells the tale of Laura Goodman; Chef at the Carlini Restaurant in Shropshire, and how she “spiked” a Vegan with a non-vegan product, and then bragged about it in a series of Facebook posts, one of which was:

“pious, judgemental Vegan has gone to bed still believing she is a Vegan”

According to Goodman, she had spent hours coming up with a Vegan menu with the alleged victim of the “spiking”, after which the same person then ordered a non-vegan meal for herself.

Extremely unnecessary if true isn’t it?

She was simply looking after the other people in her party who were obviously all hard-core Vegans, and who:

“MUST be given only the finest Vegan delicacies, and there CANNOT POSSIBLY be any non-vegan items anywhere near the food at all! I must make you aware of the fact that we are VEGAN and we are saving the World one meal at a time! We MUST be accommodated more than the average customer for the same price that everyone else pays because: WE ARE VEGANS!!!!!!”

“Oh, and I’ll have cheese on mine.”

“But cheese isn’t Vegan?”

“That’s ok, a little bit is fine.”

I know, I know. That was quite a bit of conjecture on my part, but I guarantee that’s pretty much how it would have went.

The amount of times I’ve sat down with clients who have “Dietary issues” who, instead of politely asking for their needs to be accommodated, suddenly grow a huge chip on their shoulder and start DEMANDING things that aren’t even on the Dietary menu that I have provided for them.

“But I don’t WANT that, I want THIS instead! I’m allergic to Gluten and can’t possibly have THIS menu!”

“But those are the Gluten Free options Sir/Madam” I respond (generally through gritted teeth)

To which the client will suddenly remember that they are also allergic to most of the other items on the menu, so I will absolutely HAVE to make the dish they have specified and that is NOT on the menu.

And which normally always contains an item that they earlier claimed to be “allergic” to. (For more insight into my detestation of “allergen” sufferers, see my Post: Gluten free – my arse!)

So, back to Chef Goodman. What did she actually do wrong?

According to another of her Facebook posts she claims to have “spiked a Vegan tonight…”

Her partner and Co-owner has claimed that Goodman simply “mis-spoke” and “had used a poor choice of words”.

Personally I think she was completely annoyed at the customers for messing her about and decided to vent her fury by claiming to have “spiked” them with non-vegan or vegetarian products. I think she was just trying to wind-up some Vegans on Facebook in order to “get back” at the ones who had caused her the stress at work.

Did she really spike them?

Probably not. Chefs are angry, cantankerous and easily offended, however 99% of us wouldn’t actually spike a Vegan.

We’d think about it for sure, but not actually do it.

It remains to be seen if Chef Goodman is part of the 1% however.

I think the moral of this story should be this:

Don’t make claims about “spiking” people, particularly Vegans, when you’re a Chef and own a business. It’s bad for your reputation and that of Chefs everywhere.

Also, don’t annoy a Chef. We understand you have certain dietary needs and we’ll try our best to aid in your pursuit to “save the World one plate at a time”, but stop acting like you’re the most important person ever to grace the globe with your presence.

Nobody cares about your “needs” as much as you do.

 

Well, I’m off now to eat a big, juicy cheeseburger in front of the window of the local Vegan Bistro. I know it’s childish but it’s just too hard to stop myself winding up people who don’t have the energy to chase after me…

 

RANT OVER

 

 

 

 

How to teach Sex Education the RIGHT way…

Happy New Year!

It’s only the 1st day of 2018 and already I’m ready to rant about more liberal nonsense.

Take this little beauty of an article in the Metro by Lifestyle Editor Ellen Scott entitled:

Why you should buy your teenage kids sex toys

Seriously. Go and read it and come back.

I’ll wait.

If, like me, you’re ready to snap your laptop in two, then we’ll begin.

So. The premise of this article, we are told, is not to “buy your son a Fisher Price sex-doll, or your daughter an 8 inch strap-on for her 8th birthday”.

Oh no, that would be crazy…

No, the reason for the article is as “a way to introduce your offspring to the concept of self-pleasure.”

Yes. You heard that right.

She’s suggesting that you buy sex-toys for your teenager

Ok, first of all: it’s a parents job to make sure their kids grow up healthy and safe, with enough food to eat and a roof over their head.

It’s not the job of a parent to sit down with their child and ask if they’d prefer a Pulsating Pussy or a Butt Plug.

lots-of-gifts

Generally, when it comes to discussing sex with your kids, I always find that less is more. The most that me and my parents talked about it was when I came home from school with a pocketful of condoms from Sex Education, to which my Dad warned me:

“Don’t let your sister see those!”

That was it. And the lesson I took from that is: don’t tell kids too much about adult subjects.

They’re called Adult subjects for a reason.

I know it’s the “cool” thing for parents to talk about everything with their kids now; the “no barriers” approach that single parents tend to  take in order to stay relevant to their kids. You know the ones: they’re the parents going through a mid-life crisis post-divorce who begin dressing the same as their kids and actually hanging out as friends and drinking buddies.

“Don’t go with Dad/Mam! Stay with me your Dad/Mam, I’m cool and can relate to you! I’m more like a best-friend than a parent! I’ll let you drink and snort coke with me!”

There’s just certain things that parents and kids don’t talk about in order to have a healthy relationship, and masturbation with sex toys is definitely one of them. Kids know about sex, and parents know their teens masturbate. Let’s just stay oblivious eh?

Can you imagine a single Father having to sit his daughter down and ask her if she wants a sex-toy?

He’d be in prison before he could say “but muh progressive parenting..”

So parents, the only thing I can say to those of you who might be considering offering sex-aids to your kids is: Don’t.

If you really want to help your kids when it comes to sex, do it the old-fashioned way:

Stock up the freezer with plenty of frozen Hot-dogs (a-la “Family Guy”) and occasionally replace the crusty sock that’s stashed under your son’s bed.

And then go about your business. Trust me, the kids will appreciate it more.

RANT OVER