North Yorkshire Makes Misogyny a Hate Crime

PCC-Julia-Mulligan 2

Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire, Julia Mulligan

Deputy Chief Constable, North Yorkshire, Lisa Winward

When Nottinghamshire police made (so-called) misogyny a hate crime last July it was inevitable that the contagion would spread. Sue Fish, Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire, had been in post only 3 weeks when Nottinghamshire police decided to enhance public harmony in this manner (see The Law Is A Joke). Now it’s the turn of North Yorkshire to give the latest blow to the wedge being driven between the sexes by following Nottinghamshire’s lead and declaring ‘misogyny’ to be a hate crime. I’m sure it’s just coincidence that the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire is a woman, Julia Mulligan, and that the deputy Chief Constable is also a woman, Lisa Winward, who took up her post only at the start of the year – oh, and that the Assistant Chief Constable is a woman, Amanda Oliver, who has been in post only since February. Certainly these women led the charge for this change to the de facto law. They express the hope that the rest of country will adopt the same policy soon. I’m sure they will.

The PCCs and Police Forces do not act unilaterally in this matter. No, I don’t mean they are responding to changes in the law as properly sanctioned by our legislature or judiciary. I mean they act after being directed (“trained”) by those of suitable ideological authority – by which I mean the all-pervasive feminist priesthood. The unelected feminist lobby has been more or less writing our laws for some time. The January 2016 domestic violence coercive control enhancement is a case in point (see also here). In the case of Nottinghamshire’s new ‘misogyny’ hate crime, it was the Nottingham Women’s Centre who schooled the local police in their duty. (Nottingham Women’s Centre proudly boast to be run by women for women. They seem to want the whole world to be the same). In the case of North Yorkshire, the role of éminence grise was filled by “women from York St John University“.

I note that the Pro Chancellor and Chairman of York St John University is a woman, Ann Margaret Green, CBE, and the Governor and Vice Chancellor of the University is also a woman, Professor Karen Stanton. I’m sure this is also quite immaterial.

But the wider feminist lobby was certainly behind the North Yorkshire initiative, such as the Sheffield Feminist Network, who were holding ‘strategy’ meetings to ‘influence this change’ prior to the change to the law being announced.

Domestic violence is a particular concern of female PCCs (Vera Baird, for instance). Julia Mulligan is no exception. In a recent blog post on her PCC site she notes that,

Domestic abuse is often a ‘hidden’ crime no matter where it takes place, but new figures from the National Rural Crime Network (NRCN) suggest it is even more so in our rural areas.”

Heck. I guess those NRCN data must have shown a particularly high incidence of DV in those rural areas of North Yorkshire? Nope. The opposite. She continues,

There appears to be lower reporting levels in rural areas – indeed approximately half the number of incidents per head of population. This follows the trends identified in the NRCN’s rural crime survey two years ago.”

To anyone without the perspicacity of Ms Mulligan it might seem perverse to be downcast at rural DV figures which are half the figures elsewhere. But Ms Mulligan sees straight through this apparently good news: in truth, DV is being under-reported in rural areas. She writes,

The latest project that I have commissioned is the IDAS Champions scheme, a campaign aimed at recruiting volunteers who will reach out to people in rural areas, helping to change attitudes about domestic abuse.”

Absolutely. Their attitudes must be changed. They must report more DV, the slackers. Seriously, though, I mustn’t be too dismissive. It could be that the rural areas really are under-reporting. How should I know? But I assume that Ms Mulligan would not be happy if rural areas reported twice as much DV as elsewhere – so there is something strangely elastic in her reasoning.

However, I digress. Back to misogyny hate crime…

Some of you may be confused. You may be thinking that only our legislature, our Parliament and due process, could change the law? Ah, but you are confusing the law as it is practiced – the de facto law – with the law that is officially the law of the land – the de jure law. You can have a nice little chat about this distinction with the police officer as he, or she, arrests you. They are not likely to listen.

What do you call a society in which the law is being decided by the police, rather than by the elected legislature? You can supply your own term. But that couldn’t possibly apply in good old Blighty, could it? Could it?

What exactly is the new so-called misogyny hate crime? Well, it’s explicitly gendered. It is a crime category which, by definition, can be committed only by a man or a boy, and the victim can only be a woman or a girl. The offence is any male person doing the following to any female person,

  • unwanted or uninvited sexual advances;
  • physical or verbal assault;
  • unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement;
  • sexually graphic and explicit obscene language;
  • use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent.

Oh dear. There are a few problems with this. Leaving aside that an unelected body should not be defining our laws, there is another reason why the police should not be doing so. You see, it’s quite tricky to write laws without introducing unintended consequences. Also, if you are unscrupulous, it’s very easy to deliberately introduce consequences which are not immediately apparent to the uncritical eye. What, for example, is “verbal assault”?

As far as I am aware, “verbal assault” is not a recognised offence in English law. There is existing legislation which recognises that it is an offence to use abusive, threatening or insulting words, language or behaviour with the intention of causing alarm, distress or harrassment. However, I suspect the offender would need to “pursue a course of conduct”, i.e., be persistent in the behaviour, to be guilty of this offence.

But consider,

  • uninvited verbal contact or engagement

What this means is that a male person must not initiate verbal contact with any female person. A man, or boy, must wait to be spoken to before he may address a female person of any age. Clear? Think Victorian servants and their masters (or, rather, mistresses).

Oh, but the law wouldn’t be abused to apply to benign exchanges, would it? Would it? Are you sure? If you think that, you underestimate the extent to which many young women now regard all men as creepy. They may claim to be traumatised and their life completely ruined by you, my friend, merely for saying “hello”. Daisy Buchanan made this perfectly clear in her Guardian article, “I’m tired of being kind to creepy men in order to stay safe” .

Next consider,

  • use of mobile devices to send uninvited messages

Err….but virtually all telephone calls and texts are uninvited. That’s rather their point, in general. Oh, you cry, they mean – you know – nasty stuff. Not ordinary messages. Oh really. And who is to decide which is which? Well, let’s see – “perception is reality”, “always believe the victim” – are they the guiding principles? The point is, laws should not be formulated in such a manner as to give unlimited latitude in their interpretation. Actually, all “hate crimes” are a very bad idea, for they are types of thought crime. Increasingly we now have categories of crime for which it is impossible, even in principle, to establish by objective means that they have even occurred.

Now consider,

  • use of mobile devices to take photographs without consent

This happens all the time. But now if a male person takes a photograph of a female person without permission he has committed a crime – at least, if the female person says so. The reverse is perfectly fine, obviously. Take the web site, for example. This site exists solely to post pictures of ‘fit’ looking young men taken surreptitiously on the London tube, almost entirely by women. The photos are accompanied by a caption, provided by the woman photographer, of drooling lasciviousness. (In passing I note that these lady photographers seem to quite like manspreading rather than the reverse). For men to take similar photos of young women on the tube, let alone post them on-line with sexually explicit captions, is not acceptable. The TubeCrush site itself proved the point. It notes,

When Tubecrush hit the internet back in 2011 many copycat websites sprang up that imitated what we had set out to do but with just images of women. These sites were quickly taken down due to (amongst other reasons) public outcry at the sheer idea of men (or women for that matter) photographing women in a public place.”

Call it hypocrisy or call it double standards, but whatever you call it, our society is pickled in it.

And finally, think a little about the consequences of banning men from initiating…

  • uninvited sexual advances

Well, to be fair I’m not sure how that one plays in the modern world of app driven hook ups. But in good old fashioned cases of real physical presence, what it means is that women must initiate all potential sexual encounters – because for a man to do so is now a crime. Sounds good to me. Let the ladies take the rejections, then. Except it won’t happen. A lifetime of experience tells me that, in this brave new world of female initiated overtures, any boy or young man who is currently a virgin can expect to die that way – and our civilisation will shortly be finished. Increasingly, I no longer regard that as a bad thing.

26 thoughts on “North Yorkshire Makes Misogyny a Hate Crime

  1. Pingback: Corrupted Justice | The Illustrated Empathy Gap

  2. Pingback: Rape – Part 3 (Politicians) | The Illustrated Empathy Gap

  3. M

    >”Well, to be fair I’m not sure how that one plays in the modern world of app driven hook ups.”

    Ah, I hate to break this to you (I wish I didn’t know it myself), but feminists have been putting together Dating Apps – or, paying others to put them together – for a while now.

    These Dating Apps, in an effort to (I shit you not) “level the playing field” are structured in such a way that the system automatically prevents male users from starting conversations.
    Only female users have that Privilege.

    Couple of articles:

  4. Carlos

    This far left hateful extremist/feminist inspired change is so clearly discriminatory it is absurd to think that it is even possible. We must use this m, perhaps to force through Misandry hate crime laws which might start to end this madness/hatred, or to highlight this discrimination and make an example of these people/this kind of undemocratic unaccountable abuse of power

  5. Carlos

    A frighteningly and urgently necessary article. Having read most recent posts, a lot more men need to be made aware/made to get active in relation to this (and good women too). I for one am pursuing complaints against the police forces concerned though the current feasible avenues leave much to be desired, there is a policing act coming in this year that will end the ‘police marking their own homework’. I’ve yet to discover how one raises a complaint against crime commissioner’s….

  6. Tom

    The thing is there’s virtually no opposition from the majority of men ,they support football teams by the 1000’s yet won’t lift a finger to support men’s issues even when they have been screwed over . I’m losing a lot of sympathy now , I just say ‘ well you knew that was going to happen and you did nothing . JFM&B and all the other MRA groups should be bursting at the seams with membership .

      1. Dick Morris

        Most males in this country, and indeed the western world, and especially the sort of guy who opens a newspaper at the sports pages and assumes his elected representatives are protecting his interests , is totally unaware that he is being boiled alive like a frog. One day, he is going to wake up to the fact that he is subject to the laws of this country – all of which will favour females – but not protected by them. And it will only get worse and worse. This recent novel extrapolates present policies to their logical and horrific conclusion:

  7. Dick Morris

    Police commissioners are, I am certain, required to sign an oath that they will completely impartial in their actions. Cannot somebody in North Yorkshire ask this woman why she is supporting something that clearly discriminates against half of the population?

  8. Vincent McGovern

    This is just another turn on the wheel of history. Jim Crow laws from 1865 to the late 1960’s throughout the Southern states of the US, apartheid in South Africa, National Socialists in Germany demonising Jewishness in writings and philosophy etc.

    All that changes is who is demonising who. The methodology is the same, just the process that varies in implementation depending on communications funding etal. And of course let’s not forget that wonderful inquiry into religious values which ended up as the Inquisition.

    William Collins is by far the best critique of this misandric development. Yet there is only one MP in Parliament with the guts to question this child endangering misandry. As for most men’s rights activists these days the lure of virtue signalling and FB far outweigh any desire to actually DO something about this encroaching gender supremacy. And for those of us who seek knowledge Mr Collins is top dog.

    1. Tom

      Exactly most fathers wouldn’t dream of warning their sons against spiteful vindictive women yet readily warn their daughters of the bad men out there .

      1. Meg

        Exactly, and yet these women are thick on the ground. The wolves in sheep’s clothing (however I love wolves).

  9. AJ

    What will the practical effect actually be?

    The law has not changed. Some of these items are completeley and unambiguously legal. Taking a picture in a public place of a stranger, man or woman, is perfectly fine as is uninvited verbal contact. I suspect the purpose is to ensure that a lot of ‘mysogynistic crimes’ will be recorded without ayone who would not have been arrested and prosecuted before being arrested and prosecuted. The goal is to create a climate within which draconian misandrinc legislation can be introduced by pointing at the ‘problem’ of mysogynistic hate crime evidenced by the figures.

    What isneed is as much push back and ridicule as possible. The concept of mysogynistic hate crime is transparently flawed in that almost all of the examples given are clearly not mysogynistic. An ugly man approaching a women may be annoying to the women but it is clearly not motivated by any form of hate let alone mysogyny. In fact I think true mysogynistic hate crime is vanishingly small.

    My own believe base don nothing but personal observations is that the sort of behaviour complained about in this way is actually much less common than previously and that men in general are nervoous about making any sort of complimentary remark to women in any circumstances in which it could be construed as inappropriate.

    1. William Collins Post author

      Yes, I completely agree. I had debated going into the true motivation but decided to keep it simple. In truth, very few men will be caught or punished for these ‘crimes’ – one reason being that only the courts can punish and the courts will not recognise non-existent crimes which the police have invented. The real reason, as you identify, is to compile data ‘proving’ what misogynistic scum men are (based on allegations alone) – and this then underwrites the feminist lobby’s claims for funding, fueling expansion of their empire and more misandry. Chase the money, as always. The police collaborate with this charade because crime is falling and any business in a reducing market has to seek new business – and it’s such a very easy business for them: just recording claims of ‘misogyny’ without any need to find any villains.

      1. clay

        “… and the courts will not recognize non-existent crimes which the police have invented”. Are you sure? They certainly have in the past! This is their ‘Bread and Butter’! And what will you say to the men who actually do get ARRESTED for this made up lie? Since no law can be created (especially man hating laws) that go unfulfilled.

      2. Lawrence Newman

        Totally disagree crime is falling. Third world invasion has sent crime skyrocketing. But as we saw in Rotherham, the police will ignore real rape culture within invader communities and focus instead on white builders wolf whistling and locking up white men for objecting to having their country invaded.

  10. Craig

    I thank you for providing us with more of your fantastic work, and I kick you up the bum for explaining another reason for us to despair.

    What can be done to reverse this madness?
    Boiling frog syndrome in mass production.

    1. William Collins Post author

      Ouch – I think you just kicked the messenger up the bum. Still, I understand what you mean. I promise my next post will be something more upbeat.

  11. Rod

    We seem to have more and more people in power who are completely nuts.
    All have one thing in common they are followers of a leftwing ideology.
    Extremists is a better description, always with a demographic to punish within their sights.
    I grew up with woman like these sickos around me.
    We need to get closer to the alt-Right.

    1. William Collins Post author

      The old terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are now more misleading than helpful. I associate ‘left’, in old-speak, with emphasising a fair deal for working class people. But the modern so-called left has completely abandoned the working class man. Hence the working class voting for Brexit, which is labelled as a ‘right wing’ stance. The modern ‘progessive’ left rationalise this to themselves as working class racist bigotry. But they do so because they cannot accept that ‘progressive’, identity political, middle class leftism has nothing to offer the working class. The progressive left is essentially a fraud in which the middle class feather their own nest whilst pretending to espouse social justice. However, division engenders division, and I am not convinced that the alt-right (whatever that is) has any solutions. The cure for divisiveness cannot be greater polarisation.

      1. Lawrence Newman

        I know what you mean when you distinguish the old left from the new left, but this was inevitable because marxism sees everything as about the oppressed vs the oppressor.

        1. Fred Neesher

          That is not the core of Marxism. The core of Marxism is that capitalism is viewed as a system whose structure unavoidably results in wealth transference from the working classes (a majority) to a minority of capitalists, who thereby have determination over the lives of the majority. The oppression aspect is an effect of that transference. I agree with William about the changed meaning of “left”. But there is a circularity of definition here, in that a certain set of ideas and policies are labelled “left” by their opponents, I presume because they appear to cluster around the Labour Party, which always used to be genuinely left but is now in league with globalists and bankers. The nearest to old left now is probably the so-called “alt light”.

          1. Lawrence Newman

            What I’m saying is the logic they use is rooted in the marxist dialectic. They’re just applying the same logic to gender, race, etc. It’s all got the same anti nation state internationalist purpose. They’ve just changed their strategy. It’s all anti white and anti family.

  12. James Murphy

    Dark days indeed. I believe more and more that we few souls of sound mind and reason have to stand up in this age of lunacy and be counted. This will, of course, also involve being execrated. But perhaps we are the silent (sleeping) majority. In which case we really only need publicity. Indeed, in an age where, as you suggest, perception is all, our question must be, how to get that publicity? Blogs such as this are radiant lighthouses of integrity, but still, I fear, so marginalised as to shed their light on a very small proportion of those who might benefit from it! Of course, it may just be that we have to sit out the storm and out-wait the moral idiocy of our age. In this context, blogs such as this serve as a vital resource in a time of dire need. Shields up! ‘Courage, mes braves!’


Leave a Reply

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