Archive for the ‘government’ Category

The rise of single mothers is no accident
September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

14 June 2007

Family misfortunes

PDF

The figures are stark and astonishing: because of the huge bias in favour of single parenthood that prevails in the tax credit system, a single mother with two children under the age of 11 who works 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, receives, largely thanks to tax credits, an income of £487.

A two-parent family, on the other hand, also with two children under 11, in which either one or both partners works for the minimum wage, would have to put in a total of 116 hours a week to take home the same income.

..

In effect, unmarried women with children are being bribed to remain single, while existing two-parent families are penalised.

The above article from The Telegraph is simple, to the point, and correct, as is this reply from a commenter:

Labour, being infected with old, Marxist, collective dogma, hates the family. Ultimately people will always be more loyal to families than the State. The first thing any totalitarian state does is to nationalise children by conscripting them into the ‘Pioneers’, the ‘Hitler Youth’ etc. Mr [Gordon] Brown wants to make us all vassals of the state.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:05 PM

(more…)

The state of what’s left of the nation
September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

10 June 2007

Why England is rotting

PDF

This superb article from a Canadian news site, lamenting the state of England, covers a broad spectrum of things, but although it doesn’t mention the ‘f’ word, it specifically points out the damage caused by feminism’s results (and objectives) of family breakdown. The various statistics relating to the welfare state, the bloated civil service (900,000 new civil service jobs since Labour came to power), more and more laws and regulations, and the state becoming a surrogate parent to children makes it clear that, despite Blair and Brown’s fancy ‘Trendy Cool-Britannia New Labour’ hype, we’re living in a Socialist state.

A good read, albeit rather depressing. Know wonder tens of thousands of people are emigrating from the UK.

It’s a fairly long article so here’s a few highlights:

The welfare bill is becoming unmanageable. In 1971, only eight per cent of the working population was on benefits. Today the figure is 18 per cent, and some economic think tanks estimate that one-third of British households rely on benefits for at least half their income.

The central government’s policies, extending to the ballooning public sector and expanding welfare provision, have rendered large parts of the populace reliant on redistributionist state largesse. Added to this is the government’s fondness for legislation and intervention in many aspects of its citizens’ affairs.

For instance, the Home Office, which handles crime, immigration and security, has put no less than 3,000 new offences on the statute book since 1997 — on issues from detention without trial to the correct use of cellphones in cars. Myriads of new laws affecting personal liberty have been introduced, from religious hatred legislation to a national identity card scheme. Bible tracts are seized as evidence of hate literature at homosexual rights rallies, Catholic childrens’ agencies are required to place foster children with gay couples, and protests are banned in the vicinity of Parliament.

A few weeks ago, for instance, a mother, a grandmother and two aunts of a pair of toddlers were spared jail for filming a fight between the children in which they were goaded to viciously assault each other. On the same day, a man was sent to jail for four months for dogfighting. Similar inconsistencies are everywhere increasingly apparent. Tony Blair recently announced a plan to provide pregnant problem mothers with state “super-nannies” to teach them good child-rearing practices. At the same time, local government authorities employ nurses to provide underage girls with morning-after contraception services — the most notorious example of this was when a nurse met a girl at a McDonald’s and administered the dose in the restroom. Another girl of 14 had an abortion after counselling from school health workers. In both cases, parents were not informed because of the child’s right to privacy.

Despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits, social and economic, of marriage to society, Gordon Brown in one of his first acts as chancellor abolished the married couples allowance, which gave tax breaks to a husband and wife who stayed together.

A Conservative party policy paper last year revealed that three-quarters of family breakdowns affecting young children now involve unmarried parents, and that cohabiting parents were more than twice as likely to break up than married couples. Government figures show that by 2031 there will be four million cohabiting couples. Over the past 20 years the proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from 12 per cent to 42 per cent.

Labour’s highly complicated tax credit system, born partly from a need to reduce child poverty, made welfare benefits for lone parents far more generous and, perversely, rendered a poor family headed by a single parent better off than a poor family headed by a couple. An out-of-work couple with children would thus be better off by between 27 and 35 per cent if they broke up, and a couple earning minimum wage with children would see their income rise by 12 per cent if the father moved out.

Britain leads Europe — and most of the world — in terms of single-mother households. Commentators and politicians are increasingly linking this to the fact that the country offers the most generous benefits in Europe to those same households.

The message [from Gordon Brown] is clear: wealth cannot stay with the earner, who, arguably, is better able to make decisions about their personal financial circumstances. Wealth instead belongs first to the state, which sets itself up as the sole axis and arbiter of redistribution.

In Britain, poor families crumble, male role models are encouraged to depart, and children of broken unions soon lapse into delinquency and social ostracization.

Government is doing everything it can to keep growing numbers of Britain’s youth from becoming feckless. It has plans to force young people not in training to stay in school until they are 18, but for many, this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The Conservatives say it is the decline of the family unit, the fiscal and practical challenges to good parenting, poor education and the nanny state, that is the root of so many of Britain’s social and cultural problems.

Gordon Brown is possibly even more of an arch-Socialist than Tony Blair, and in case you weren’t aware, Brown will be the Prime Minister of Britain on June 27th when Blair leaves office.

Shit.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:56 PM

(more…)

Lock up your daughters. Even the rich slutty ones.
September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

09 June 2007

Boo-fucking-hoo.

America tunes in to see Paris [Hilton] sent back to jail, kicking and screaming

PDF

The celebrity heiress was dragged from a courtroom screaming and crying after a judge ordered her to go back to jail. She was whisked off to the medical centre at Los Angeles’s Twin Towers jail less than 36 hours after the local sheriff’s department had told her that she could serve out her sentence at her luxury home in the Hollywood hills.

“Mom! Mom! Mom!” she shouted as a female deputy escorted her from the courtroom. “It’s not fair. It’s not right!”

Much as I hate to give yet more attention to this tedious brat, it is funny to see her get what she deserves. A lot of people have been saying that she only got out after three days because she was rich. Maybe so, but being female no doubt played a big part in it.

Sadly enough, her behavior is only remarkable for being so public; this hysterical whining about being held responsible for her actions is common amongst most women, even non-rich ones.

What’s worse is the fact that, in the UK, the idea of women not having to be punished for their actions could become an official reality. A serious suggestion in the UK to all but abolish prison for female criminals and give them community service sentences by default was made in the UK earlier this year. Oh, and the report suggested the empty former women’s prisons could be filled by – you guessed it – men. All this because some women in prison have committed suicide (like male prisoners don’t? A boy of just fourteen did so recently. In 2002, there were 94 suicides in UK prisons, and outrage because – oh no! – nine of them were women. More shock in 2004 when a whole thirteen of 95 prison suicides were women. Nevermind the men I suppose.)

Paris Hilton, at least, won’t be getting off as easy as she’d liked.

Judge Michael Sauer declared that she should serve the entirety of her 45-day sentence for breaching probation on a reckless driving offence. Before her early release on Thursday morning, she had expected her sentence to be cut in half.

Good. Nice to see there’s a judge somewhere in the West who refuses to accept the Pussy Pass. Off to jail you wench!

Incidentally, if you haven’t seen it, check out the South Park episode Stupid Spoiled Whore Play Set:

Wendy: Who’s Paris Hilton?
Red: “Who’s Paris Hilton?”
Annie: You don’t know?
Announcer: [someone takes a picture as he approaches the mic.] Hello, everyone! [drumroll] The Guess Clothing Company is pleased to have as its new spokesperson model, a woman all you young ones can look up to, Ms. Paris Hilton. [she appears and flashbulbs go off amid squeals from females in the crowd. She then lifts her bra and shows off her breasts]
Bebe: Wow, that’s really her! Paris! Over here!
Wendy: I don’t get it. What does she do?
Annie: She’s super-rich!
Wendy: …but what does she do?
Red: She’s totally spoiled and savvy.
Wendy: [annoyed] What does she do?!
Man: [walks by and overhears] She’s a whore. [takes his camera and snaps a few pictures]
Paris: [her left eyelid hangs heavy] Hey everyone. Sorry if I’m a little spent. I did a whole lot of partying last night with a LOT of different guys.

Great stuff.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:33 AM

(more…)

The Hunt & Humiliate Broke Men Agency
September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

06 June 2007

Mothers to name and shame absent fathers

PDF

Single mothers will be invited to name and shame fathers who fail to support their children.

Mothers invited to name and shame absent fathers

Letters are going out to around 100 parents – almost all of them mothers – asking if they want their former partner’s name to be included on an online list of people who have dodged maintenance payments.

More complete anti-male shit from a corrupt government. All the Child Support industry is there to do is to keep the flow of money going from hard-working men to spend-happy women.

Why the fuck should us men have to pay for women’s children? After all, children do, in fact, belong to women in this society.

Women get to choose whether to abort the baby. They virtually get automatic custody. Fathers are not required officially, as single women can get IVF treatment. A ‘family’ is now a mother and her children, with a father as optional.

So, John Hutton, you odious tit, shut the fuck up about demanding men pay for ‘their’ children; they are not theirs!

It cannot be said often enough; children belong to women now. That’s the primary principle in defining a Matriarchy, which the UK now is. Hence women can damn well support ‘their’ children, not the dad – who is only referred to as such when it comes to taking responsibility – and not us taxpayers.

At the very least a man should only have any obligations to support a child if the child was born when the man was married to the kid’s mother, and the child still has his surname. Otherwise it’s mummy’s little darling and mummy’s little responsibility.

One last thing; if parents are to be named and shamed for not supporting their children, surely that would mean any and all women who apply for Child Support should be named and shamed. After all, if they’re applying for Child Support they are clearly unable or unwilling to support their child themselves and, if the same definition of a ‘deadbeat parent’ is applied to them as it is to men, then such mothers are deadbeats.

It’s a dumb scheme anyway, it won’t work. Few men with any dignity will give a shit about being ‘shamed’ by spiteful ex-wives or ex-girlfriends, or by the fucking dipshit government. After all, you can only be shamed by people whose opinion you respect, and more and more men just don’t respect women or the government’s opinions one iota.

I’d imagine the sort of thugs who many single mothers have breeded with will most certainly not care anyway. In fact they’ll probably regard it as a rather funny badge of pride. “Hey look at the CSA website guys, it’s me! I’m on teh internet! WOOOH!”

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:31 PM

(more…)

Rant from a single mother by choice
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

05 June 2007

This article is about a 37-year-old career woman who has decided she doesn’t want kids and is fine with this decision. Fair enough, it’s her life. Good for her I say.

She quite refreshingly insists that she believes clearly need a father and thus would never have kids before marriage.

Unfortunately this is not the case with an increasing number of single-mothers-by-choice, such as this man-hating bitch who left a comment at the article, someone called ‘Ekaterina’ from London.

Very sad! I am one of those who decided to be a mom without a man – IVF and all that. What really makes me angry is that the society blames women (as always) for not having kids early. Give me a break! I always wanted to have kids but I met very similar men as the author – some wanted to have more money first and then kids, others did not earn a penny and I was not sure if I wanted to feed a man and a child etc. Men are always fertile so they do what they want. We have to pay a high price! So, I decided that I send all men to hell and have my own family. Some women are not ready or not brave or don’t have the means – but it is MEN to blame for that and not women!

Amazing. In one paragraph we have nearly every damn double-standard and example of man-hatred, broken down thusly:

What really makes me angry is that the society blames women (as always) for not having kids early.

Well, more and more women are putting off having children early by their own choice. I guess it makes Ekaterina very very angry that women are being blamed for their own choices. And what does mean ‘as always’? Society hardly ever blames women. For anything.

I always wanted to have kids but I met very similar men as the author – some wanted to have more money first and then kids…

She didn’t want to have a child with a man who wanted to make more money so he could be a better provider because although such a man’s attitude was surely very sensible and responsible, it didn’t fit in with her impatient demands for a child now!! Basically she wanted a ready-made-millionaire. How awful of society to not be replete with millionaires lining up to marry horrible hags like her.

others did not earn a penny and I was not sure if I wanted to feed a man and a child etc.

Here we get yet another example of how women do not want equality, ever! Only when it suits them. She didn’t want to support a man and a child, she wanted a man to support her and her child. Nevermind that us men have supported women and children for generations (and were told that this was oppressive by feminists. Go figure!)

So, I decided that I send all men to hell and have my own family.

This is what women call ‘liberation’ I guess; damning all men to hell as useless just because one fitting her astonishingly high demands didn’t scoop her off her feet when she wanted. Also, she’s wrong in thinking she has her own ‘family’. She doesn’t. She has an illegitimate bastard whose father is some anonymous guy who wanked into a jar for some beer money. That’s not a family.

(more…)

‘He earned it, but you have half anyway.’
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

24 May 2007

“I’m a multi-millionaire…and I didn’t have to work for a penny of it!

‘Housewife’ keeps record £48m divorce payout

PDF

A woman awarded the biggest divorce payment in British legal history was today told that she is entitled to keep the £48 million settlement that her insurance chief husband labelled “grotesque and unfair”.

John Charman, 54, took the case to the Court of Appeal after contesting his wife Beverley’s share in his fortune. The head of the Axa Insurance group argued that his £20 million offer was more than adequate and a £70 million family trust should not have been taken into account when the total assets of the marriage were assessed at £131 million.

I’ve commented on this case before, it’s fucking sick. This cunt gets £48,000,000 (almost $100,000,000) just because she happened to be supported by a hard-working husband for 28-years.

Surely she should owe him money. Think of how much more cash her ex-husband would have if he hadn’t had to support her for 28-years. The guy would have been better off hiring a maid and calling for a high-class 18-year-old escort girl every night.

This goes for non-millionaires too. Think of an average guy who has been married for more than ten-years. Think of how much more money he would have saved away, or at least have to spend on himself (without having to ask for anyone’s permission to do so) had he not had some ungrateful fucking harpy sitting on his couch spending his money and creeching for more.

This goldigging cunt spent almost three-decades not having to work but living a life of leisure (I cannot imagine she did one ounce of housework once hubby reached his first million), and the courts have decided she is entitled to half the money that he earned!

(more…)

Women in/out the workplace
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

17 May 2007

We hear a lot about “getting women into the workplace”, about new schemes or ideas to ensure more women (or subcategories thereof, such as mothers, single-mothers, female ex-convicts, women with AIDs, etc) are in the workplace. Or in a specific workplace (e.g. company directors, I.T., film directors, journalism, politics, etc. But never – strangely enough – construction, sewer maintenance, front-line soldiers, pest-controllers, etc.)

All these schemes and plans always seem to talk of offering:

* Paid maternity leave
* Flexi-time
* Job-Sharing schemes
* Part-time position
* Career breaks
* Paid leave when a child is ill
* No harm done to promotion prospects for taking an X-years-long career break
* Opportunities to work from home

Every damn time there is talk of getting more women into work, or a certain industry, the above items are touted as ways to accomplish this.

Forgive me if I’m being silly, but are all those things actually orchestrated to ensure the woman in question is actually out of the workplace? Either whilst she has kids, whilst she raises them, whilst the kid is ill, or even just to fuck off at three o’clock every day to make the school run?

There’s always a bit of the old positive discrimination/affirmative action thrown in too of course; nothing like boosting the numbers of women in a job by forcing companies to recruit them under threat of fines or closure. But otherwise, it seems the best way to get woman into a certain job is to provide her with plenty of opportunities to be paid without having to be there all the time, or indeed at all for considerable periods of time (working full-time for ever and ever and ever is, it seems, only us men have to do.)

Whilst, of course, she keeps her fancy job title – for her grrl-power ego-boost – and, most importantly of all, the full salary too.

It says a lot about women’s attitude to work that even the government implicitly accepts that the only real way of encouraging more women into a workplace is to ensure that the women have plenty of opportunities to not actually have to be there.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:38 PM

(more…)

Dad’s not needed, says British government
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

17 May 2007

New fertility laws say dads not needed to make babies

PDF

A major relaxation of IVF rules was announced by ministers today.

The changes will make it easier for single people and lesbians to receive fertility treatment on the NHS.

Well, it’s official guys, we’re now officially redundant. We’re not needed now.

Apart from, of course, working the dangerous jobs women don’t want to do, being cannon-fodder in times of war, paying the bulk of taxes to fund single mothers and the taxpayer-funded IVF treatment for them, being extorted for Child Support, building the air-conditioned offices for women to sit around in filing their nails, policing the streets to keep women free from violent criminals…anything unpleasant basically.

But having a stake in society, a role in children’s lives, a position – at the head of it or otherwise – in the family?

Forget about it.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:42 PM

(more…)

Men = ATMs
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

16 May 2007

There’s talk of paternity leave in the UK for fathers, whereby a woman can give up some of her paid maternity leave to him. Not that that will work. How many women will go back to work earlier than they have to and be the primary breadwinner and support a man? Not many.

Amongst the comments at the Daily Telegraph (PDF) about the story is this, from some snotty bitch called Michelle:

Men’s contribution to the family is really nothing more than a few moments of pleasure 9 months before birth and then years of making the money it takes to finance the resulting kids. Men should keep to their traditional role, which is to be the family’s ATM machine, nothing more. Men have their careers, their work. Women have their kids. And this is why men don’t have many rights when it comes to divorce and subsequent custody/visitation arrangements. They just are not needed when it comes to taking care of children, right?

In saying that, though, I do think the whole “You are getting something that I don’t get” argument from those who remain childless is evidence of what is wrong with our society. To whine because you think that someone else is getting a benefit that you don’t get reflects a selfish attitude. If you feel so aggrieved, go home and be thankful that your life isn’t tainted by having to take care of a bunch of sick kids or some such thing.

I don’t think any of us enlightened men are surprised at this attitude, that us men are just a family’s ATM machine (family being the wife and her children), that us men are selfish for wanting a privilege women have, and that if us men feel aggrieved about anything we should, in her view, “go home” and contemplate how bad women have it.

This is how most modern women think with regards to relationships:

“You men work forty-to-seventy hours a week. Protect and provide. Us women drop the kids off at school in the morning, turn on dishwasher and washing machine, lunch with mates at Starbucks, go shopping, watch daytime TV, pick the kids up from school in the late afternoon, feed you and the kids a microwavable meal then spend all evening watching TV. You men don’t complain. You men shut the fuck up about your problems,and instead consider how bad us women have it. Otherwise we’ll fucking divorce you and take you for all you’re worth.”

Plus she justifies us men not getting any rights with regards to our children by the fact that we’re not needed…then moans that poor wikkle women have to look after children.

This personifies the official double-standard fembot attitude. They say that us men aren’t needed to raise children, and indeed are unsuited to do so…but also say that us men are bastards for leaving all the child-raising to women.

This Michelle is, clearly, a snot-nosed entitlement cunt.

Her hypocritical gobshite fucking attitude – that men are just ATM machines and not needed in families – is one of the main reasons why us men shouldn’t get married.

The other main reason is the fact that this same hypocritical gobshite fucking attitude is also held by family court judges and the divorce laws.

Stay single men. Don’t become an ATM machine for some bitch and her children.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:09 PM

(more…)

The spy who came in from the cold…to make the school-run
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

14 May 2007

MI6 woos ‘Jane Bonds’ with offers of family-friendly employment

James Bond would surely raise an eyebrow. MI6 has decided that, if it wants to recruit more female spies, it must move with the times.

..

MI6, like its domestic counterpart MI5, is desperate for more women officers so part-time spying, childcare vouchers and “generous maternity pay” are on offer.

And women who are single when they join up are promised they will not have to leave should they marry, and have children.

“Part-time spying”?

Oh, fucking great, now we’re really up shit-creek.

So we’re going to have female spies and agents carrying out surveillance on a suspected terrorist cell, or deep undercover at Finsbury Mosque, except they go home at three, don’t work weekends and take a year off occasionally for maternity leave? Yeah, that’ll work.

And “childcare vouchers”? Hey, Miss Jane Bonds, how about letting hubby stay at home and take care of the children instead of insisting on dumping them on strangers? At taxpayer’s expense.

Why do we need more female spies anyway? It says 38% of applicants are female. It’s not as if that’s a teeny tiny minority. And if the only way to get more female recruits is to just offer them whopping amounts of (paid) time off for maternity leave and the choice of working part-time, then what’s the point? In any case, like soldiers, many female agents would only get knocked up if they sense they are about to be posted somewhere dangerous.

Then again, women would make fairly good undercover agents I suppose; they’re experts at faking attributes and even entire personalities to get what they want.

Oh well, the James Bond movies have long since turned into a pile of politically correct mangina hogwash, the real MI6 might as well go the same way. Life imitating art and all that.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:27 PM

(more…)

Benefit-scrounging, child-abusing, shameless, no-good fucking skank
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

30 April 2007

zaracunt.jpg

Mother who forced toddlers to fight can’t see what the fuss is about

The most infuriating this about this article is not that the (unfortunately surnamed) Zara Care doesn’t know why anyone is bothered that she enjoyed making her toddlers fight and filming them, or that she even wanted to work in Child Care, it’s this bit:

Care and her family live in Plymouth and receive an estimated £40,000 in benefits a year between them.

..

She and her family all live in council or housing association properties and pay little or no rent. They receive income support and – apart from Care – child tax credit.

I read elsewhere that Zara and her two sisters – all unmarried – have ten kids between them. This is what the UK is like; the more illegitimate kids a single mother slag has, the more money she gets. This cunt is even going off on holiday to Spain soon, she says. I work full-time and I haven’t had a foreign holiday in two-years thanks to the ever-rising taxes – income tax, council tax, etc – I have to pay to help fund these fucking scum. And she’s swanning off to Spain? I hope she gets gored by a stray bull.

Yet this is what feminism is all about; it set out at the start to ensure single mothers are as affluent as two-parent families, with high taxes for hardworking married couples and childless singles being the only way to bring this about. Now, after a few decades, we’re fleeced remorselessly by the government and drowning in single mother whores like this.

It cannot be said often enough; feminism is very bad for a society’s health.

£40,000 a year just for one family. Jeez. No wonder so many people are fleeing this country. They’re sick to death of working just to support scum like this.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:22 PM

(more…)

Parenting school
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

25 April 2007

‘Nanny state’ row over parent academy

Ministers have been accused of “nationalising the family” with plans for the first national college for parenting.

In a move designed to crackdown on yobbish behaviour, the Government has earmarked £30 million for the new academy to coach parents on how to control tearaway children.

It forms part of Tony Blair’s “respect agenda” to tackle persistent anti-social behaviour, problem families and young offenders.

Damn right it’s an attempt to nationalise the family. Labour, despite their fancy rebranding in the 1990s, are Socialist in nature, and Socialist governments want to wreck the family and then move in to what’s left of it.

Plus it’s another £30,000,000 of taxpayers money up for grabs for a punch of Civil Servant cocksuckers, most of who are not there to serve the British public but to simply line their pockets and force their own ideologies onto us.

The new academy – based at King’s College, London – will act as an “international and national hub” to promote the latest ideas on how to raise children and implement recent Government reforms, including new courses designed to improve the bond between fathers and their children and catch-up lessons for parents with literacy and numeracy problems.

Improving the bond between fathers and “their children”? That’s rich coming from a government who have done all they can to remove men from families, including their insistance that single women and lezzers can have IVF on the NHS (to be fair, they are only continuing an implimentation of Socialist/Feminist ideology that began long before they got into power.)

Plus, we all know what their lessons on the correct way to raise children will be like; and teach boys to respect girls unconditionally, play with dolls and don’t be competitive, and teach girls they are all important, boys are stupid and smelly, and that wanting to marry young and have children is a ridiculous concept.

Mrs Hughes said: “Parents increasingly seek help with bringing up their children and we want to be as supportive as we possibly can. The role a parent plays is integral to a child’s development and their future life chances, which is why we want to help parents get it right.”

Sorry, but any parent who needs to go to a government sponsored college to learn how to raise a child must be so grossly incompetent that they shouldn’t fucking have kids in the first place.

Couples used to have no problems raising children on their own, perhaps with a bit of help from the extended family. I wonder why they are increasingly seeking help? Oh yes, I remember; more and more kids are not raised by couples but by single mothers, and the extended family is all but demolished too.

This is the usual feminist/socialist methodology; fuck things up – whether it’s relationships, children, the workplace, communities – and then step in, survey the wreckage they themselves caused, and declare “We are here to help! Now do as we say.” Motherfuckers.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:14 PM

(more…)

Fembots have fucked up our society
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

15 April 2007

Failure has no father

PDF

Seventy per cent of young offenders are from single-parent families. Being raised by your mother on her own is not the strongest predictor of ending up as a criminal: having a father who is himself a criminal is the top of that list. But not far behind is being raised without a father at all.

..

The Government provides incentives to bring up children without both parents. So much so that, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, there are 200,000 more people claiming the benefits and tax credits that are due to lone parents than there are actually lone parents in the UK. The consequences of making single-parenthood ever-more economically viable are completely predictable.

It is uplifting to see that feminist/socialist policies are increasingly denounced in the mainstream press, but it is somewhat depressing that the fucking cunts in charge of what is left of Britain never seem to share – or, indeed, listen – to such criticisms and plough on relentlessly with their fucked up ideology.

The last few words of the article are the most important:

…they certainly haven’t asked the rest of us.

Indeed.

No-one asked our country to be put through the destructive grinder of feminism and socialism. Governments just put us through it and wants us to shut up now that more and more of us are complaining.

I dare say this article will bring strong rebukes from various feminist scum in the coming days, just like a couple of years ago when a judge pointed out that most of the offenders he imprisoned were raised by single mothers, only to be promptly told to take what he said back by a squad of single mother “groups” and whining feminist politicians.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:48 PM

(more…)

Minor blow to gold-digging cunts
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

14 April 2007

Women to receive less in divorce settlements

PDF

The balance of power in divorces tilted away from wives yesterday as a judge warned that ex-husbands could not be expected to provide women with a share of future earnings for life.

Don’t get too excited chaps, this is hardly the swift kick to the cunt of divorce laws we demand.

All it means is that a woman may not be entitled to future earnings of her ex-husband providing she has received enough of a lump-sum divorce settlement.

The case before him concerned Mr and Mrs H who met at St John’s College, Oxford, in 1982 and married three years later. She gave up her job as a teacher to follow him to a posting with a bank in Tokyo, and took charge of caring for their four children, now aged 9 to 19. Mr H formed a new relationship in 2004 and left their £2.7 million marital home, which the wife will keep, after 20 years of marriage.

Mrs H, 46, has been awarded £13 million in cash and assets but told she could have nothing more.

See? She’s entitled to “nothing more” but for, ahem, “sacrificing” a career she no doubt didn’t want in the first place, she’s got a great big mansion and £13,000,000. Her ex-husband doesn’t have to pay her anymore? Well, that’s something I suppose (or nothing, from her point of view) but she’s still made a great big fucking fortune by simply being married to a hard-working rich guy. I dare say it was his future earning potential, and her boredom of having to hold down a job, that resulted in her being attracted to him. To be fair, she has borne and raised her husband’s four kids (at least we assume they’re his) and he did walk out on her, but surely the £2.7million home he gave up is enough for her. Let alone the thirteen-million quid. Yet she wanted more? How fucking greedy. Besides, married women “form new a new relationship” all the time and yet, not only do they not have to hand over any assets and/or continue cooking and cleaning for their ex-husband, they frequently get the house, savings, car, kids, husband’s future income, etc. Surely it is only equality – which, when it doesn’t go their way, women hate with a passion – for a man to ditch his wife and not have to give her anything?

(more…)

Whatevva!
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

11 April 2007

There was a report on the news tonight concerning the release of various statistics about British society:

One-in-four children are raised by single parents (nine-in-ten single parents are women.)

For every three marriages there are two divorces.

Marriage rates have never been lower.

7,000,000 people live alone (out of a population of 60,000,000.)

One-in-six men aged 45-64 live alone.

Being from the BBC it naturally gave a positive spin to the report of rising single mothers.

There was some skally single mother waffling thusly (spelt phonetically to capture the skalliness of the fat rotten old bitch):

“Me and uvva single muvvas are, like, strong and, like, independent! We’re just not gonna bovva puttin’ up wiv rubbish from men anymore and go it alone.”

Incidentally she packed the word ‘men’ with as much venom as possible, indicating clearly how much hatred she had towards the male sex (she had two young sons by the way; poor kids.)

Strong and independent! Hah! It didn’t go into details about her but I dare say she’s probably on benefits, or if working relies on taxpayer-subsidised childcare, and if ever married, relied on legal aid and the divorce courts to ensure she got ‘her’ house and the kids.

Incidentally the BBC reporter whined that “Women are left looking after the children whilst men live alone”, as if the poor women don’t fight for custody, initiate most divorces and increasingly choose to be single mothers.

Although the BBC tried to make it sound all positive, they did admit that there were ‘great challenges’ ahead, as the breakdown of family life was causing increasing isolation and rising mistrust. However, women living alone raising children, and men living alone with little or no contact with any child they may have is exactly what feminists wanted. And they made that fairly clear at the start; the removal of men from families. This is what they – and society, and obviously women – have got. For women to complain about this state of affairs is laughable. They got what they wanted. Now they can fucking deal with it. Without the help of us men, obviously.

There was one decent little bit whereby one of the many men living alone these days was interviewed. He was in his twenties and lived in a neat flat with his collection of guitars. He bragged that he loved living alone and being free and wouldn’t want to live any other way.

MGTOW in tha house!!!

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:13 PM

(more…)

Woman sued for paternity fraud, claims remorse
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

29 March 2007

croccry.gif

Woman ‘deeply sorry’ for duping lover over paternity of his ‘son’

PDF

A woman accused of deceiving her former lover into believing he was the father of her son broke down in tears as she told a court that she felt ‘deeply sorry’ about the distress caused when he discovered the child was not his.

Giving evidence at the High Court in London, where she is contesting his claim against her for around £100,000, the woman said that what had happened was a ‘great scar on my life and on all of us’.

Yeah, she’s sorry now because she’s being held accountable for her actions. Women are never sorry for the shit they pull on men unless they are caught.

Wipe those crocodile tears away bitch.

Good on this guy for suing her though. If he’s successful it’ll be a significant step against paternity fraudster whores, although ideally a guy should not have to go through private channels to get justice, paternity fraud should be a criminal matter.

It is the mother’s case that she had no reason to believe A was not the father, and had not deliberately pulled the wool over his eyes.

How the fuck can she expect anyone to believe that she had “no reason” to doubt the guy was the father.

Is she honestly trying to say she couldn’t recall having unprotected sex with another person around that time? No doubt this bitch just named the man as the father because he was the wealthiest one of the men she fucked that year. Whore.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:03 PM

(more…)

Pregnant women don’t have a good time at work. Aww!
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

29 March 2007

‘Pregnant workers badly treated’

Most bosses fail to properly manage pregnant staff and many mums feel badly treated at work after maternity leave, a report claims.

So? Why should I, as a man, give a fuck?

This is the simple retort us men should adopt whenever presented with some real or imagined complaint women have; Why should I give a fuck? How does this effect me? If it doesn’t effect me, I don’t care.

After all, women moan about anything and everything.

If pregnant women and new mums can’t cut it in the workforce, even in cushy offices, they can stop moaning, resign and fuck off. There are plenty of men who are willing to work properly without demanding their employer cater to their every need.

EOC chairwoman Jenny Watson said: “Women are now nearly half the workforce. There’s no turning back from this major social change…”

Snigger! Want a bet?

Actually, thinking about it, maybe women will soon make up 99% of the workforce as more men drop out and refuse to slave away for the Matriarchy (and, of course, we’ll be hearing endless whining from the EOC that women are burdened with having to do all the work, boo-fucking-hoo!)

…so it’s vital that workplaces are equipped to make pregnancy at work a good experience.”

What the fuck? It’s not a workplace’s responsibility to ensure women have a fucking ‘good experience’, pregnant or otherwise. They, the women, are there to do what the men are there to do; fucking work!

(more…)

King Queer
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

16 March 2007

pingu-orange-wall.jpg

UK Government Program Teaching Four-Year-Olds about Homosexuality

Primary schools in the United Kingdom have begun teaching children as young as four about homosexuality, in anticipation of new anti-discrimination laws coming into effect next month, the Daily Mail reported earlier today.

Homosexuality-themed story books are being used in fourteen schools to introduce the children to the homosexual lifestyle. Among the texts in use are “King and King”, a fairy-tale about a prince who rejects three princesses before falling in love with another prince, “Spacegirl Pukes”, about a little girl with two mommies, and “And Tango Makes Three,” telling the story of two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

This is why I would never ever have children in this country. Not only is it the case that, thanks to feminism and slut-culture, there are very few young women who I feel would be good mothers to our children, but our children, in addition to being assessed on gurgling skills by government “practitioners” with clip-boards, would be taught at age five that gays are perfectly normal and fine and it’s really, like, cool to have two mums or two dads.

“The purpose of the project is to support schools in meeting their requirements under the Equality Act,” said Dr. Elizabeth Atkinson, lecturer in social and educational inquiry at Sunderland University, “which will require all public institutions to meet the needs of gay and lesbian users.”

Yeah, because there are so many gay and lesbian 5-year-olds using primary schools aren’t there? You dumb fucking cunt.

Any sane society would shoot cunts like her, but instead, in Shite Britain, she is given a voice and the minds of hundreds of children for her fuckwitted social experiment.

And this is only costing us British taxpayers £600,000.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:13 PM

(more…)

Parents almost officially redundant in UK
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

16 March 2007

babyike.gif

Is your baby playing with its toes yet? If not the government wants to know why

Babies will be assessed on their gurgling, babbling and toe-playing abilities when they are a few months old under a legally enforced national curriculum for children from birth to five published by the government yesterday.

Every nursery, childminder and reception class in Britain will have to monitor children’s progress towards a set of 69 government-set “early learning goals”, recording them against more than 500 development milestones as they go.

Nothing smacks of a Socialist tyranny more than a government’s obsessive interest in its people’s children.

First off – thanks to Socialism and it’s angry big sister, Feminism – young children spend more and more time in daycare centres as women go off to the ‘fulfilling’ 9-to-5 jobs feminism promised them. Then these daycare centre’s staff are issued clip-boards and told to assess the babies.

Throw in a vast Social Worker industry with the power to take children from parents based on any old criteria, and you’re not far off the Marxist ideal of men and women as identical drones working away whilst their babies are raised by the government.

(more…)

Crazed bitches scare WWII veteran to death, escape punishment
September 16, 2007

——————————————————-

28 February 2007

Mother and daughter who ‘scared D-Day veteran to death’ walk free

hags.jpg

A mother and daughter who scared a D-Day veteran to death during a petty neighbours’ row have gone free – to the fury of his family.

Hazel Beesley, 64, and her daughter Hayley, 33, were charged with manslaughter after World War Two hero Albert Gregory keeled over with a heart attack 20 minutes after an argument about a church jumble sale.

It was claimed during the argument in a religious community the women made threats telling 79-year old Albert and his wife Sylvia, 74: “I’ll rip your face off – watch your back – I’ll have you in Tescos.”

Pair of fucking bitches.

Great country eh? Guy risks his life to save the place and ends up dying of a heart-attack when two fat fucking cunts who would never, ever risk their life for the country (nor would they have to, having vaginas) scream and threaten you with violence when you’re a pensioner.

In case I hadn’t mentioned it before I would never fight for Britain in any war, not even if we were invaded. No way am I risking my life to save women and the government, they can fuck off and burn.

One of the bitches is a teacher as well! Fuckin’ hell, would you leave your kids with some nutcase like that?

“But in no way do I feel responsible for it. We were made to feel like murderers. I am thinking about getting the local government ombudsman involved.”

Yeah, typical, running off to the government to fight her battles for her, because she feeeels wronged because she came close to being held responsible for her actions. They even got costs of £194 for some reason!

Look at them. Ugh. They should be shot and flung on dung-heaps to rot. Cunts.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:08 PM

(more…)

%d bloggers like this: