Tag Archives: #MeToo

M and S puking

A Nottingham lady, Fran Bailey, was driven to puking by a display in a Marks and Spencer window at Christmas, which included the words “must-have fancy little knickers”. She also termed it grotesque, and somehow managed to conflate the decision to display this with issues of human rights, migration, abject poverty, and of course the whole tedious litany of gender issues.

Some organisation called FiLiA ‘demanded’ (really ?? who are they to do so?) that M and S disclose who authorised the display, so that if it were a man they could presumably castrate him or (as is more likely) if it were a woman try and convert her to the sisterhood.

Ms Bailey is maybe not aware that Marks and Spencer have been the purveyors of “fancy little knickers’ to British women of all shapes, sizes and age for 90 years. Marks put this in the in the window because – especially at Christmas – women continue to buy such things because they like (and always have) ‘sexy’ underwear.

Ms Bailey continues “It’s pandering to notions of gender that are so outdated that it’s unbelievable”. This is pure piffle – the same factors drive sales of such garments today as they did 90 years ago. What sane woman would wear a thong for comfort? And if she feels that there is no demand for frilly panties amongst today’s women, let her go into business and try and sell grey flannel gym knickers to Marks and see how sales do.

Kylie Jenner (one of the ‘Kardashians’ clan, Grumpy is given to understand) has generated USD 800 million of wealth taking selfies of herself wearing fancy little knickers and such like and influencing her peers to do the same; she probably has a much better handle on what women want than Ms Bailey has.

And if the window display really did make her sick, Grumpy suggests that she should see her doctor, or more probably, her psychiatrist.

Postscript :

Ms Bailey should visit www.bouxavenue.com or www.annsummers.com/ both of which have prominent and rather more salacious displays in Grumpy’s local shopping centre, but with essentially the same theme. The Boux website describes some frillys as “these must-have pieces are just what you need for styling it your way! “. Anne Summers opines “Confidence comes from within, and we think having a hot pair of underwear is the best place to start. ” and “Explore and embrace your sexuality. ” and “Our knickers and seriously sexy thongs come in a range of styles …. maximum sex appeal. “

Grumpy has never noticed vomiting females outside, but the shops did seem to be doing a good trade at Christmas and they clearly remain solvent, so someone is buying. Time to connect with you peers, methinks, Ms Bailey.

more #metoo whining

Jess Phillips MP raised the issue in Parliament (on 23/10/18) of the use of NDA’s by companies to “silence” victims (presumably female) of abuse from speaking out. The trigger for this was a High Court order preventing the Daily Telegraph from naming a businessman who was the focus of the case.

Phillips whined “It seems our laws allow rich and powerful men to do pretty much as they want as long as they can pay to keep it quiet.” This has been the whingeing moan of many ‘#MeToo’ victims, particularly in the US.

For example Zelda Perkins, a former Harvey Weinstein aide, moaned that it was it was ‘ridiculous’ that she was prevented from reporting the information covered by the NDA she signed.

Why ‘ridiculous’ ??? She gave a binding undertaking to not disclose material. This is bizarre, but particularly so in the case cited by Jess Phillips.

If someone signs an NDA (a common commercial document of which Grumpy has signed maybe a couple of hundred) they give an undertaking not to disclose material which is the focus of the NDA. To do that, to give an undertaking and then claim it is ridiculous to be bound by the undertaking they gave, shows that the moaner is either very dumb or has no integrity.

However, in spite of reporting by the Daily Mail, other reporting indicated that it was rather that victim signed what used to be called a Compromise Agreement and is now called a Settlement Agreement. This differs from a simple NDA in that (a) the document requires that the signatory has been instructed at no cost to them by a named lawyer independent of the other party as to the implications of signing, and (b) generally allows for payment to the signatory in exchange for waiving whatever rights are given up.

If this were the case, the victim was hardly bullied into signing; a lawyer had explained her options and the pros and cons thereof, and she accepted monies in exchange for giving an undertaking to be bound by the terms. This was hardly a gun to the head.

In such cases, what we have now is that the #MeToo set want to take money for giving an undertaking of confidentiality, and then whingeing about not being able to casually break this legally binding obligation for which they received an agreed recompense, and in spite of having being instructed by a lawyer as to the implications thereof.

Giving the drum banging that such people do about wishing the weight of the law to be brought down on an alleged abusers it is hypocritical in the extreme to simultaneously take money and ignore the legal agreement they freely entered into. Apart from wishing to extract public revenge, some of them presumably gain publicity and further monies – e.g. Stormy Daniels. This is moving towards the exploitative, which is so damaging for genuine victims that Jess Phillips rightly wants to protect.

Guilty by assumption

One law for males, another for females

From the writings of Justinian onwards the notion of an accused being innocent until proven guilty has been the bedrock of democratic civilisations. The situation relating to the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in the US, in which he has been accused of sexual impropriety many years ago in his student days, seems to have spurred the #MeToo Harridans into ever more dangerous and irrational demands. Amazingly, CNN reported that a poll found that “eight in ten Americans say that victims of sexual harassment should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise”. This would be a reversal of the norms of justice which have stood for centuries.

Given the increasing list in Grumpy’s files of males who have been the victims of miscarriages of justice at the hands of females in the last 12 months alone (examples being Liam Allan, Isaac Itiary, and Conor Fitzgerald) this seems to widen the scope for injustice, given that police incompetence seems to bias cases against the accused from the outset. In the latter case of Fitzgerald, his accuser (who of course remained anonymous) deliberately set out to frame him, texting to a friend “I’m going to ruin his life, LOL” as punishment for breaking off a relationship. The plod even missed this clue (unbelievable!), so further help by an assumption of guilt would seem to weigh the odds too far.

Grumpy feels that the time honoured approach of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is essential for a civilised society.

Execution first, trial afterwards; the #MeToo baying mob

Once again, the lunatic harridan fringe of #MeToo has sought to undermine a basic foundation of due process in England. This was because Jeremy Corbyn had failed to take action against a male MP who had been accused of wife beating. Notice the word ‘accused’ – an allegation, as yet unproved by due process.

However, the hysterical Labour harpies screamed “The allegations against the man are horrific. There is no way he should be an MP and the party cannot just sit on its hands and do nothing.” In old movies, the Wild West state of law in those days was characterised with the cliche “we’ll give him a fair trial, and then we”ll hang him”, but these female tyrants have updated this to “we’ll hang him, and then investigate to see if he was guilty”

Sitting in the middle of this pack of hyenas was the odious and despicable hypocrite, Harriet Harman. She is a lawyer by training, but in matters concerned with ‘Womyn’ (sic) she is happy to put the edict from the Digest of Justinian – “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies” – to one side.

It’s too tedious to list the full panoply of Harman’s hypocrisies, including her abandonment of the concept of due process for males, her disgraceful action on FOI requests (especially as she was fraudulently pocketing tax payers money), repeated law breaking at the wheel of a motor vehicle, and dishonesty or incompetence with expenses. Grumpy can only earnestly hope that any vestige of influence she may have on British life is eroded or extinguished as soon as possible.

The Philippines Rodrigo Duterte has received global opprobrium for sanctioning the extra-judicial execution at the hands of the police and the community where they suspect an individual might have had involvement with drugs. Grumpy sees Harman in the same light; those accused or suspected of any impropriety against women loose their livelihoods and reputations at the hands of an ugly, baying mob, made worse by the acquiescence of males in authority too cowed and too terrified to ensure basic justice.