SAFER FEMALE TRAVEL....

JEREMY CORBYN's IDEA FOR SAFER FEMALE TRAVEL.

It should be noted how quickly LIZ KENDAL, YVETTE COOPER, and ANDY BURNHAM seize the political opportunity to attack and criticise JEREMY CORBYN's idea, to make it safer for female travel.

JEREMY CORBYN has only stated that, possibly, the introduction of 'Women Only' train carriages might help to ease the problem of women being attacked whilst travelling on a train. He, has not stated, at all, that he intends to introduce the carriages. HE MERELY PROPOSES, 'CONSULTATION"

But, the opportunistic three mentioned above; and, the 'politically correct' of both Media and, some women themselves, condemn the idea out of hand. Thereby, upholding, their 'politically correct' INDEPENDENCE, at any price.

This wholly clarifies in stark vivid detail how stupid both Media and these people, really are.

Were the 'Women Only' carriages to be introduced, no one is forcing the women to travel in them. Those women, who intelligently acknowledge the provision of the carriages is introduced to provide them with better protection, will travel in these carriages. But, the 'politically correct' in upholding their, INDEPENDENCE, will still intend to ignore that, 'safety'; and, by 'cutting off their noses to spite their faces'; they will insist, on travelling at risk.

Gordon J Sheppard

SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS...

LORD JANNER ‘SEXUAL ABUSE’ ALLEGATIONS.

 

NOW WE ALL KNOW, WHAT ALL THESE 'SEXUAL ABUSE' ALLEGATIONS, ARE ALL ABOUT,

MONEY MONEY MONEY.

The DAILY MAIL reports, "Janner sued for damages by 6 alleged abuse victims"; and, asserts that the alleged victims have begun legal action to sue him for hundreds of thousands of pounds. The legal experts asserting, that in a combined compensation claim; the claim would exceed £2.5million pounds.

ALLEGED VICTIMS AND THEIR CORRUPT LAWYERS ARE NOT SEEKING "JUSTICE" AT ALL. MONEY, IS THE TRUE MOTIVATION.

Ever since the JIMMY SAVILE sex abuse allegations first hit the headlines alleged 'victims' have been coming out if the woodwork in droves, alleging they were sexually abused. Lawyers have been actively pursuing 'clients' to seize the opportunity to cash in. All asserting, that they only seek "JUSTICE".

It is imperative now for both Government and Parliament; and, the Judiciary; to make it absolutely clear that sexual abuse 'victims' pursuing any claim in the courts will only receive, "JUSTICE", in future; if the offender has been fully found 'Guilty' beyond all reasonable doubt; and, that the, "JUSTICE", so rendered by the court, will only be by, PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME; but, that, the courts, will not award or entertain, any claims for, MONEY, at all.

Removing the MONEY from all such claims; will verify, the true motivation of "ONLY SEEKING JUSTICE", where any 'sexual abuse' claim, has been made.

Today, with the wild ‘sexual abuse’ hysteria prevailing in the country, after the JIMMY SAVILE allegations first hit the headlines; it is far too easy to assert and allege, 'historical sexual abuse', has taken place; because, historical sexual abuse, is virtually impossible to prove.

The alleged 'victims' and their 'lawyers' merely relying on getting convictions, without actually having to produce any corroborative ‘EVIDENCE’ at all; solely, relying upon, the ‘sympathy’ for the victim; by a Jury.

IT IS NOW IMPERATIVE THAT THE COURTS MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT HISTORICAL SEXUAL ABUSE MUST BE ACTUALLY PROVED BY 'EVIDENCE' ESTABLISHING GUILT. AND, THAT NO MONEY WILL BE AWARDED AT ALL.

GUILT MUST IN FUTURE BE ESTABLISHED,
A. By forensic evidence, or,
B. By several witnesses that have actually witnessed the abuse.

Highly publicised recent sexual abuse trials in this country have been naught but the travesty of injustice; where there has hardly been any 'concrete evidence' being presented in the courts at all.

Guilt, has merely been established by, assertion, accusation, assumption, and speculation, without any actual ‘evidence’ being presented at all.

Everyone, rightly, must have sympathy for the terrible plight endured by the genuine victims of sexual abuse; but, where MONEY is present as a ‘motivator’ for accusation; the ‘word’ alone, of the accuser, must always be in doubt.

LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP ELECTION

Andy Burnham, Liz Kendal, Yvette Cooper, all display evidence of personal political ambitions. JEREMY CORBYN, to the contrary, displays only the need for, Socialism and Democracy. Thus, the 'choice' for a 'leader', is therefore, abundantly clear.

 

Gordonj

      

 

 

ITV, BGT, and the 'alleged' dog con....

ITV and the ‘alleged’ dog con.

BGT AND ITV DIDN'T CON, DUPE, OR, DECEIVE, ANYONE.

 STUNT MEN AND STUNT WOMEN HAVE ALWAYS BEEN USED IN BOTH FILM AND TELEVISION PRODUCTION EVER SINCE THE INVENTION OF THE CAMERA.

 I see no reason at all why 'stunt dogs' or any other animals should not also be used, in TV productions.

NEITHER BGT OR ITV was under any obligation to advise the BGT TELEVISION VIEWER that a stunt dog was being used, in any act being performed in that “Britain’s Got Talent” competition, that night. And, the TV viewer witnessing that entire 'production', as it was transmitted, that night, witnessed with their own eyes, a dog 'walking a tightrope' and, performing other wonderful tricks, throughout that entire act.

 If the TV viewers eyes deceived them into believing that 'only one dog' had performed that act; then that, 'illusion' and, that, 'reality', was entirely due to them. They, only actually saw 'one dog' performing in that act; it was the mischievous reporting of journalism that later informed them, otherwise.

But, neither, BGT or ITV were under any obligation, to tell the TV viewer, otherwise. In film and television productions 'stunt men' and 'stunt women' have always been used; and, in both circumstances, where the cinema goer or, the television viewer, has watched that film or production; the, producers of the production, have, never ever, advised beforehand or afterwards, that a 'stunt double' has been used. When, that film or production, was made.

IN THIS RESPECT THE ITV BGT TV VIEWER WAS NOT MISLEAD AT ALL.
 
THERE WAS NO CON, NO DUPING, AND, NO DECEIT.

The fact that a 'busybody' regulator, OFCOM, has now ordered ITV to refund the cost of viewers paid telephone contributions, made that night; is positively obscene.

BOTH BGT AND ITV SHOULD REFUSE TO REFUND ANYTHING.

Gordonj