MURDER IS RARE : MURDER OF WOMEN EVEN RARER

While the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard was an appalling crime, we have yet to find out any of the underlying details. Was she targeted or just unlucky ? Did she have any previous connection with her murderer ? Was the man accused actually the murderer ? What was the motive ?

Given the huge volume of unknowns, the reaction of some members of the public, almost entirely of the 'female activist' variety, has been utterly unbelievable, even idiotic. Indeed, the way in which some people have reacted to every high profile such incident in recent times has become morbid and ridiculous in the extreme. Flowers left in huge rotting piles for local authorities to eventually clear away, candle lit vigils, protest marches and other displays of supposed public grief, often no more than opportunities for those with specific political aims to gain publicity for their causes.

Murder is rare. In the year to March 2020, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) there were 695 homicides in England and Wales, a figure which includes the 39 illegal would-be immigrants who were found in a lorry at Grays in Essex. The numbers can be broken down to 506 murders of men, an increase from 422 in 2019, and 188 of women, a reduction from 225 in the previous year. The total can be expressed as being under 12 murders per million of population, hardly an epidemic and surely not worthy of the ludicrous reaction and, of course, men are 3 times more likely to be murdered than women.

Although most of the victims of homicide were white, there were 105 murders amongst the black population, a rate of just under 50 per million of population, and 120 in other minority ethnic groups. Overall, 142 of the victims were in the 16-24 age group and 275 were killed by a sharp instrument such as a knife.

Women are considerably more likely to be the victims of domestic violence, with nearly half of all adult female victims being killed in such occurrences, the number being 81 in the year to March 2020. However, this was the lowest number recorded since the relevant data was  first collected in 1977 and does not support the outlandish claims of feminist campaigners such as the Labour Member of Parliament, Jess Phillips, whose implications regarding the murders of women at the hands of men simply do not stand scrutiny; indeed, they are little short of outright lies.

While interviewing Phillips on his Sunday morning programme, Andrew Marr allowed her to make claims unchallenged and simply accepted her overall premise. Even when the National Statistician appeared, Marr's questioning continued along the same lines and there was no attempt to bring any balance to the situation. We were told that there is huge under-reporting of crimes against women but there was no consideration as to whether the same applied to men. Indeed, does anyone in authority actually care about  unwelcome homosexual approaches, female bosses targeting male employees, punch-ups between men or even situations in which men are the humiliated victims of domestic abuse ? The answer seems to be no. In order to become a cause célèbre, victims need to be female or black.

The abduction and murder of Sarah Everard is a very rare event and yet we have the media conniving in the creation of a culture of fear amongst women. Women have been accosted on the streets by broadcasters determined to find anyone who claims to be frightened for their life in the light of the murder and yet seem to have made no effort to be balanced in their reporting. When we know more, it is quite likely that we will discover that Sarah Everard was not the victim of a random attack and that these now terrified women actually have nothing to be terrified about.

If anyone should be worried, it's the men, mostly white men, who are 3 times more likely to be the victims of murder and are much more likely to be murdered by friends, acquaintances or absolute strangers outside of the home. In reality, women are much more safe when outside than are their male counterparts, who are 4 times more likely to be killed while going about their daily, or nightly, business.

Despite the media headlines and claims of crazed feminists, men are not evil any more than are women. There are good and bad in both sexes and both have their share of very nasty people. Perhaps there are more really bad men than women, which is no doubt a consequence of genetic differences, but the modern drive to manufacture an entirely imagined environment in which women are victims and men the evil perpetrators of all manner of shocking crimes against them is simply wrong. We are assailed by wholly unsubstantiated claims that are simply accepted by media and politicians alike, with little apparent scrutiny but lots of subsequent intrusive and frequently insane legislation. 

If men don't wake up and start fighting back, very soon, they will soon find themselves having to prove their innocence, rather than their female accusers needing to prove their guilt. 

BBC GOES LEFT, LEFT, LEFT !!

As if to prove its left-wing credentials, the BBC's 'Andrew Marr' show has opted to have a gaggle of guests who are heavily weighted against Theresa May and Brexit.

Toby Young appeared as the right wing representative to review the day's newspapers and spoke positively while recognizing that things were far from ideal. However, we then had George Osborne, the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer and prospective Prime Minister himself, who was sacked by Mrs May when she became Party Leader, has since become editor of the Evening Standard and carried out a vitriolic campaign against her during the last few weeks. On today's programme, Osborne was given free rein to carry on his campaign on air and made it clear that he continues to be bitter and twisted.

Nothing much needs to be said about Polly Toynbee who seems to be beloved of the BBC and is a 'hard left' journalist and commentator. Then there was Jeremy Corbyn, looking like the cat who swallowed the cream even though he actually lost the election; there are few serious politicians in the country who are more left-wing than him.

The supposed 'political balance' was then achieved by bringing in Michael Fallon and Michael Heseltine. While Fallon is an honourable and loyal member of Mrs May's cabinet and government, Heseltine has rarely been anything other than trouble for the Conservative Party and its various leaders, having failed to become such himself. He is pompous, arrogant and a strong Europhile; he is no lover of Theresa May or of Brexit. His contribution was centred on Brexit being a 'cancer at the heart of the Conservative Party', while completely ignoring the fact that it is actually the will of the people; he still refuses to accept the result of the referendum.

Finally, we had a socialist Member of the European Parliament who was at pains to point out how difficult everything was going to be.

Taken together, this added up to 2 voices speaking for Theresa May, her government and Brexit, and 5 speaking against. Balance ?!!

EU REFERENDUM : VAROUFAKIS SHOOTS BLAIR'S FOX.

This morning on the 'Andrew Marr' show BBC1, we were graced by the presence of one Tony Blair, well, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair actually; the 'Tony' was only ever an attempt to demonstrate that he was a 'man of the people', which he never was.

Anyway, Blair was his usual disingenuous self, not answering questions and simply repeating a mantra about the horrific economic consequences should the UK vote to leave the EU. In his usual style, Blair showed apparent absolute certainty in his views, saying that everyone knew that leaving the EU would have dire consequences, though without providing any evidence. He also said, bizarrely, that the bulk of immigration into the UK was from non-EU countries, a fact which is clearly disproved by the statistics published by the ONS only a couple of days ago. Clearly, Blair believes the old idea that if you say something often enough and with enough apparent authority, people will believe it to be true; sadly, it is often the case and politicians rely on this gullibility of the electorate time after time.

 His comments came after Liam Fox, a dedicated 'Brexiteer' had concentrated his remarks on the issues of sovereignty and immigration and, much more interestingly, were sandwiched between the comments of a genuine economist, Yanis Varoufakis. The last named is a pro-European who believes that the UK should stay within the EU, but he utterly rejects the economic projections put out by the 'Remain' campaign. As an economist, his stance is that no one can possibly know what the consequences of an exit would be as there is no previous experience from which to develop a model, so all of the projections are just as likely to be wrong as right. In fact, they are meaningless and should be ignored.

The 'Remain' campaign has concentrated its fire on their certainty that voting to leave the EU would be catastrophic for the UK and have backed up their claims with reports from a number of supposedly independent and respected economic forecasting bodies, such as the Bank of England, the IMF, the Treasury and the IFS. All of these bodies use the same basic forecasting models and make the same assumptions about a possible future, and all have been wrong many times in the past. The truth is that most economic forecasting is a matter of politics rather than of economics and can be used to support whatever outcome is required. Varoufakis knows this and admits it, Blair also knows it, but will happily lie through his teeth about it.

Leaving the EU will have consequences but so will staying in. Anyone who wants to live in a United States of Europe governed from Brussels should certainly vote to 'Remain'; anyone who wants to live in a free and independent United Kingdom must VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : IZZARD CONFIRMS VOTE LEAVE.

Andrew Marr's Sunday morning television programme is rarely very taxing and Marr is not exactly the most probing of interviewers. His political guests tend to have a pretty easy time of it and he also brings in non-politicians to voice their opinions at times.

Today, it was the turn of Eddie Izzard to tell us what a wonderful thing the European Union is. Izzard is a major supporter of the Labour Party, wants to get rid of the monarchy and likes dressing in women's clothing. He appeared this morning smothered in make-up and lipstick, and wearing a bright pink beret; he clearly has gender-identity issues. It's also the case that his socialist and republican standpoint fits perfectly with the centralised, unaccountable and left wing basis of the EU. From his perspective, remaining in the Union will eventually lead to the type of United Kingdom which he wants to see, one in which 'Kingdom' no longer applies and which, presumably, would be the 'United Republic' and subservient to its faceless masters in Brussels.

Why anyone should care what such an odd creature thinks about the EU is a mystery to me; why anyone would be persuaded by his views is an even bigger mystery. Indeed, being confronted by such a peculiar vision spouting Europhile jargon makes me still more determined to VOTE LEAVE.