Dustbin wrote:
> It has been my observation that the fascists of
> State never concede anything unless it suits
> them or until they have are FORCED to. In effect
> only something so disruptive as to substatively
> inconvenience them will serve to effect change.
> While theefforts of Fathers4Justice are to be
> applauded (and I know that many on this ng will
> applaud) unless the establishment is thoroughly
> inconvenienced naught will come of it.
>
> There are many examples throughout history. In
> fact, one might even say that history is the
> accumulation of those examples.
>
> When Fathers4Justice pull a stunt, the
> establishment often finds the most trivial
> excuse to condemn. As we sawe with the purple
> powder in the house of commons, it was the
> security issue that got the attention not the
> barbarity of women and the family court system.
> When two men mounted the facade of Buch house it
> we were told that they were lucky not to be shot

No they weren't. It wasn't luck that kept them alive, but simply
evidence that police firearms experts aren't bloodthirsty murderers, as
some people here maintain.

> down. Every little thing will be picked upon by
> the fascists of the establishment to excuse and
> justify abusing these men.
>
> Nothing new in that; remember the miner's
> strike? 11,000 prosecution in twelve months. And

The miner's strike was a completely different proposition. The
government has to be in charge, and thus it resorts to dirty tricks to
win. This was in my opinion Maggie Thatcher's finest hour, one of the
things I most enjoy doing is drinking with the old men in my pub in
Durham, and saying things along the lines of...
"Well Maggie Thatcher was a bitch wasn't she? If it hadn't been for her
you'd be all dead from silicosis."

It's a simple fact that Arthur Scargill wanted to circumvent democracy,
Fathers4Justice don't. They simply want democracy to protect them too.
This is why I urged Matt O'Connor to ensure their minutes were made
public.

> we have seen members of F4J persecuted on the
> most trivial grounds. Meanwhile, what the judges

No they haven't. The law is quite clear, all the police are doing are
enacting it. Fortunately in such cases, the juries consist of men and
women who know men who've been fucked over by the feminist laws, and
hence won't find them guilty.

This is how the three stages of democracy works, the government can
pass laws against lobby groups, but if there is sufficient injustice
caused by it, then persecution can't happen due to the jury system, and
the government lose votes.

This is something Harriet Harmanhater of Peckham, and Patricia "I'm
going to fuck you people of Leicester off by spending a hundred large
of you tax contribution on flowers for my office, causing all your kids
to be on the latchkey, and cause the rise of the rape of grannies by
young men whose future I've destroyed" Hewitt have missed.

> do to men is often far more serious and the
> slime-balls in bvlue look the other way.
>
> I could say that it is the lesson of history.
> Those in power always want what they want and
> will fight to the end to get what they want and
> stay in position. No great battles have ever
> been one without bloodshed in one form or another.
>
> The siffragettes are often portrayed as
> mild-mannered and infinitely reasonable
> middle-class women who did a few silly things to
> bring attention to their perceived injustice.
> One of them chained themselves to the railings
> of Buck house; another threw herself under the
> King's horse during a race. But the girls got
> their well deserved deserts when, after sterling
> service in the factories during World War One,
> they were rewarded with the vote.
>
> Not really. Consider this:

You missed the fact that they also caused almost genocidal death
amongst men, by taunting them into the trenches.

>
> --------------Begin quote
> "The destruction wrought in the seven months of
> 1914 before the War excelled that of the
> previous year. Three Scotch castles were
> destroyed by fire on a single night. The
> Carnegie Library in Birmingham was burnt. The
> Rokeby Venus, falsly, as I consider, attributed
> to Vel=E1zquez, and purchased for the National
> Gallery at a cost of =A345,000, was mutilated by
> Mary Richardson. Romney's Master Thornhill, in
> the Birmingham Art Gallery, was slashed by
> Bertha Ryland, daughter of an early Suffagist.
> Carlyle's portrait of Millais [sic] in the
> National Portrait Gallery, and numbers of other
> pictures were attacked, a Bartolozzi drawing in
> the Dor=E9 Gallery being completely ruined. Many
> large empty houses in all parts of the country
> were set on fire, including Redlynch House,
> Sommerset, where the damage was estimated at =A3
> 40,000. Railway stations, piers, sports
> pavilions, haystacks were set on fire. Attempts
> were made to blow up reservoirs. A bomb exploded
> in Westminster Abbey, and in the fashionable
> church of St George's, Hanover Square, where a
> famous stained-glass window from the Malines was
> damaged ... One hundred and forty-one acts of
> destruction were chronicled in the Press during
> the first seven months of 1914."
> --------------End quote
>
> They wreaked havoc. They caused detruction on
> what for its time was a massive scale.
>
> This is what men must do to get justice out of
> the system.
>
> The sickness of the establishment does not give
> way until it is foprced to. The disease f State
> must be bent over and rogered until they bleed
> buckets-full.
>
>
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Finally, a word to our bretheren north of the
> border. The reference to *Scotch castles* is in
> the original quote and not my doing. I assure
> all Scots that I do know the difference between
> Scotch (a wee dram); Scots (the people of
> Sctland) and Scottish (of, or relating to,
> Scotland). Just so that you don't pour across
> the border and start all that sixteenth century
> stuff again.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> D.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/29/05 4:46:42 AM ---