Approaching Sodom > In Orwellian Britain, truth and common sense give way to feelings and authority; French protection of minors from CSA inadequate - ECHR

 

UK’s Starmer Discovers What a Woman Is, Because a Court Tells Him So

Apr 23, 2025 6:00 am By Robert Spencer

New in PJ Media:

Keir Starmer identifies as prime minister of Britain, and no one is challenging his self-identification, so it could well be more or less accurate. Nevertheless, it is clear that whatever else he may be, Starmer is a typical early twenty-first-century leftist. For such people, if that is indeed what they identify as being, truth is an entirely subjective matter, based more upon how someone is feeling and what he or she or xe desires rather than upon objective reality. And so Starmer has just announced that a woman is indeed an adult female, but not because every human being since there have been human beings has known this, but because a British court has just said so.

It’s quintessential leftism. Remember the famous scene in Orwell’s “1984” when the torturer O’Brien forces the incipient independent thinker, Winston Smith, to affirm that two plus two equals five? The idea was to impress upon Winston the principle that reality was not what one sees with one’s own eyes, but what the rulers say it is. It’s the apex of totalitarian control, and it’s today’s shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain.

Sky News reported Tuesday that Starmer was “asked if he believed a transwoman should be considered a woman,” and Starmer gave the perfect response of a man who is convinced that two plus two equals five if his socialist masters say it is: “A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear.”

What Starmer, and every sentient human being who has ever been asked this question, should have said is that men are men and women are women, and everyone knows what the differences between them are, and no one needs a court to say so. He could even have added that men can’t become women, and women can’t become men, and no amount of surgery and cosmetics will change that fact.

Instead, Starmer made it clear that if the court had said that a woman was a table or a head of lettuce or an alarm clock, he would have accepted it just as readily as he is now prepared to accept that a woman is an adult human female. His own perceptions don’t matter in the slightest degree; all that matters is what the relevant authority has declared.

If Britain were remotely a sane society today, this would cost Starmer the prime minister’s office, but he is in no electoral danger. His answer likely didn’t differ in any substantial way from the answer that the leaders of the other parties would have given. What is needed to restore sane rule to Britain and so many Western European states is not a new prime minister or president or chancellor or whatever, but a wholesale repudiation of the entire political class, which has uncritically embraced the left’s guiding fantasies and delusions.

There is more. Read the rest here.

====================================================================================

ECHR rules France failed to protect victims who were sexually assaulted as minors

April 24 (UPI) -- The European Court of Human Rights announced Thursday it has determined that French law and practice failed to protect three minors from sexual assault.

In court documents released by the ECHR, each of the three plaintiffs alleged that "investigating authorities and the domestic courts had failed to protect the applicants, who had complained of acts of rape and had been aged only 13, 14 and 16 at the relevant dates, in an adequate manner."

The ECHR found the "French State had failed to fulfil its duty to apply, in practice, a criminal-law system capable of punishing non-consensual sexual acts," and that it "was not called upon to rule on the criminal liability of those who had perpetrated those acts and that its findings could not therefore be interpreted as an opinion on the guilt of the accused in the respective cases."

The applicants filed their suit in order to move France to "enact and apply criminal law provisions that effectively punish rape reported by teenage girls below the age of majority."

Related

• European court rules Switzerland violated human rights with climate inaction
• European court finds Italy violated human rights in landfill mismanagement
• Court rejects case involving Vatican's response to sex abuse

All three plaintiffs allege that their "status as minors and their situation of vulnerability at the time of the events were not adequately taken into account."

Two of the applicants further purport that "authorities did not promptly comply with their obligation to investigate and punish the perpetrators of the offenses they had complained of," one of whom also alleges she was "subjected to secondary victimization and discriminatory treatment" during criminal proceedings.

The ruling found that France failed to meet its obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, which relate to "prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment" and the "right to respect for private life." The ECHR also ruled that France has failed to meet its obligation under Article 14, which is "prohibition of discrimination."

Each of the plaintiffs will receive financial compensation as part of the judgment, with the remainder of the claims dismissed.

===================================================

Approaching Sodom > EU Court of Human Rights Overrules Romanian Morals

..

Did Romanians know when they joined the EU that they were surrendering

their moral compass to a bunch of unelected, godless lawyers in Rome?

Romania must recognise same-sex civil unions, EU top rights court rules

Issued on: 23/05/2023 - 16:11

France24 (Reuters)

Participants hold banners during the Bucharest Pride 2021 in Bucharest, Romania, Saturday, August 14, 2021.

© Vadim Ghirda, AP

Romania must legalise same-sex civil unions, Europe's top rights court ruled on Tuesday, in a victory for LGBTQ+ campaigners in the socially conservative southeastern European country.

Twenty-one same-sex couples took Romania to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), arguing the lack of legal recognition of their relationships "deprived them of their dignity as spouses". 

In a ruling on Tuesday, the ECHR found the country had violated Article 8 of the European Convention, which protects the right to respect for family life, by not giving LGBTQ+ couples any means of legally safeguarding their relationships.

The Romanian couples cited the disadvantages faced under current domestic laws, such as being barred from mortgage programmes, spousal bereavement leave or joint health insurance.

The ECHR said none of the government's arguments outweighed the couples' concerns, and further ruled that recognising same-sex civil unions would not harm the institution of marriage.

The ruling will become legally binding after a three-month period in which both sides have the right to appeal to a higher court of the ECHR.

If neither do, the ruling will stand and lead to Romania being required to implement legislation to introduce same-sex civil unions.

The Balkan nation of almost 20 million people remains largely socially conservative, ranking 41st out of 49 in the 2023 ranking of European countries' LGBTQ+ rights by advocacy group ILGA-World.

However, in 2021, a survey by Romanian civil rights group Accept Association showed 43% of respondents said they were in favour of legal protection for same-sex relationships.

Seventy-one percent said the move would have no impact on their lives.

Activists welcomed the ECHR's judgement, saying they hoped to see a bill concerning civil partnership, which has stalled in parliament since 2019, finally becoming law.

"For too long we, the LGBTQ+ people in Romania, have been treated as second-class citizens and it is time for a change," said Vlad Viski, executive director of MozaiQ LGBT Association.

This Week's Global Pervs and Paedos List > Norfolk's Red House School; Multiple Rapes of 6-8 y/os Nets 23 yrs in UK; ECHR Orders Russia to Pay Abused Women; Prolific Necrophiliac

..

Child Abuse allegations at Red House School in Norfolk

April 8, 2021 | 

By Ellie Davies | 

Child Abuse Law

Norfolk Police investigating allegations of physical and sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990s at

Red House School near Buxton

Norfolk police are continuing to investigate claims of abuse at the Norfolk residential school after former pupils called for a fresh investigation to be commenced in July 2019, following an investigation in 2018 which had ended due to there being “no prospect of achieving a conviction against any suspect set against the standard required by the court”.

The Eastern Daily Press passed new evidence onto the police in July 2019 which led to the police re-opening the investigation, which is still ongoing.  A police spokeswoman has said that the work is “complex and extensive so will take time to complete”. 

Red House School (“the School”), also known as the Small School at Red House in Buxton, opened in 1984 and was presented as a soft option for problem children across the UK for an alternative education which involved trips abroad and a relaxed regime.  Former pupils have now come forward and shared details of abuse from both the teachers and other pupils, including sexual abuse from older pupils in the School.  The School has been described as the “home of horrors” by one survivor, whilst another survivor shared their experience of having broken bones from being restrained and being physically abused for not following the rules.  Those interviewed have claimed that much of the physical abuse was committed by head teacher Benny Joergensen, who was at the school from the late 1980s to mid-1990s, and passed away in 2013. 

It has also been discovered that the School’s social worker was a paedophile who changed his name before arriving at the School, and who was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2008 for rape, although he was not convicted of any abuse relating to his time at the School.

The School was later closed in 1998 following an investigation by the Charity Commission into its finances and the welfare of pupils.  It was found that funds were being channelled to the Danish group “Tvind”, which has been accused of being a cult-like organisation with some of its leaders being wanted in Denmark for alleged embezzlement.  A former teacher at the School, Steen Thomsen, blew the whistle on Tvind and supported the allegations of violence at the School, stating that one of the previous principals Steen Conradsen was “at all times… trying to express physical supremacy towards his students.”  Although most of the fresh allegations relate to a time after Mr Conradsen was at the School, some of the allegations relating to that time have already been investigated by the police.

Although a spokesman for the School said that they had no record of any complaints from pupils, some of the former pupils who have now come forward to discuss their abuse have confirmed that they had already reported their allegations to the police, and one survivor had written letters to his social worker in Durham in 1989 asking to be taken out of the School due to his “horrific” experience.  

Later in 1989, pupils at the School had rioted, and the police were called to restore order.  One of the former pupils said “we thought they were coming to rescue us”, but instead 18 of the pupils were taken to court for violent disorder. 

How do you complain when it's the Principal you want to complain about?

As investigations continue, we expect that more survivors will come forward to discuss the abuse they suffered at the School.  The Child Abuse team at Switalskis are currently investigating the possibility of bringing claims against the School and the Local Authority. (We) have extensive experience in helping survivors of historic child abuse, including those who were abused in schools and colleges.  We understand that this is a difficult topic for survivors to discuss and we have a team of experienced solicitors who are able to advise in a sensitive manner whilst maintaining confidentiality. 

Paedophile child molester jailed for 23 years for rapes of girl

By James Connell  @JamesConnell8

Chief Reporter/Crime/court reporting

Worcester News

   

A PAEDOPHILE child molester has been jailed for 23 years for child rapes and sexual assaults against three girls over 20 years.

David Wheatcroft raped one girl at least six times, the abuse beginning when she was just six years old.

The abuse against the three victims happened at various locations including near Worcester, in Kidderminster and Evesham. Harrowing victim personal statements were read out by Glyn Samuels who prosecuted the case.

The 45-year-old sex offender was convicted unanimously of the offences by a jury on Monday afternoon and sentenced by Judge Nicolas Cartwright this morning.

Wheatcroft, of St Michael's Close, Stourport, was convicted of the indecent assault of an eight-year-old girl between May 1998 and May 1999; sexual assault of a second child victim, aged between six and eight, between August 2011 and August 2016; a rape of that second victim between the same dates; at least five further rapes of that same victim, again between the same dates; and sexual assault of a third girl between December 2015 and December 2016.

In total judge Cartwright sentenced him to 22 years in prison with an extra year's licence period of one year added (a 23 year sentence). He must serve a minimum of two thirds of the sentence before being considered for release by the Parole Board.

The effect of this is that the sex offender must serve at least 14 years and four months as a minimum before he is even considered for release by the Parole Board. His release will not be automatic.

The defendant, who had been remanded in custody overnight after the guilty verdicts were returned by the foreman, showed little emotion when he learned his fate, three jurors returning to see what sentence he would receive. Judge Cartwright, sentencing, said: "David Wheatcroft, you plainly had a sexual interest in young girls for a very long time."

He described how one victim, aged just eight at the time, was asked for a cuddle before he stroked her intimately. "She knew something wrong had happened. Indeed, she reported it the next morning first thing. It's clear from that very day until the present she has been living with the consequences of that act for over 20 years."

Judge Cartwight told the defendant it was an aggravating feature that the assault had taken place in her own bedroom 'which is a place every child should regard as a place of safety'.

This victim came across Wheatcroft in Worcester 'by accident' which 'upset her considerably' and again at a funeral, an experience which left her 'distraught'.

This should never happen. It does happen when a rapist's rights are put above those of their victims, even when the victim is still a child.

He said of the second victim, who was raped by Wheatcroft: "It is appalling to think she is only 16 now. Already it has had a profound psychological impact upon her. She has had problems she has had to contend with for many years already. You raped her repeatedly when she was between six and eight years of age."

During one rape he barricaded the door. Judge Cartwright, laying out the background to the case, said Wheatcroft had also threatened to rape her in future and harm her family if she told anyone about what he had done.

He ruled that she had suffered severe psychological harm as a result.

Wheatcroft was told he had 'increased gradually the seriousness of what you were doing step by step' before showing her a pornographic film and raping her.

The judge said there could be no credit for plea as, instead of showing remorse, Wheatcroft had decided to 'brazen it out in a trial' despite all three victims being 'compelling' witnesses.

This abuse took place when one was already vulnerable because of her home life. The third victim was attacked in Leigh, near Worcester, Wheatcroft grabbing her bottom, kissing her inappropriately and making moaning noises in her ear.

A sexual harm prevention order was also made which will last for the rest of Wheatcroft's life which will run alongside the registration and notification provisions.

By this order he is prohibited from having any unsupervised contact with children under 16 other than is inadvertent or unavoidable in the course of daily life or with permission of the child's parent or guardian and with the express prior approval of social services for the area. He is prohibited from residing even for a single night at any temporary or permanent accommodation at which there resides, at that time, any child under 16 unless prior agreement is is given by social services for the area or a representative of the chief constable for that area.

The victim of the child rapes, who cannot be identified, attended court to see her abuser jailed. After the hearing she said: "I'm just happy he won't be able to hurt other girls in the future and they won't have to go through what any of us went through."

Well, at least, not for 14 years.

The officer in the case, who supported the victim at court, was DC Sarah Turner.

ECHR orders Russia to pay $418,000 to woman

after hands cut off by husband

15 Dec, 2021 13:25

By Layla Guest

© Instagram / margoritka1211

Russia must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to victims of domestic violence, including a woman who had her hands hacked off in a brutal attack by her partner, Europe’s top civil liberties court has demanded.

On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Margarita Gracheva, 29, is entitled to almost $418,000 for both past and future medical expenses, and loss of income, as a result of the ordeal inflicted by her spouse.

In 2017, Gracheva’s then husband, Dmitry Grachev, became violent, tore up her passport, sent her death threats and locked her in her car after she told him of her plans to file for divorce. Gracheva went to the police, but was advised by an inspector to withdraw the complaint as his actions were apparently merely a “manifestation of love.”

Just two months later, however, the woman’s husband kidnapped her, tied her up and hacked her hands off with an axe. Gracheva’s left hand was found in the forest and sewn back on, but never regained full function. Meanwhile, a prosthetic right hand was fitted after a crowdfunding campaign raised cash for the procedure.

Grachev, a father of two, was charged with causing grievous bodily harm and sentenced to serve a maximum of 14 years behind bars.

Russia was also ordered to pay three other women, all from the country’s capital, or Moscow region, to receive $22,545 each for allegedly facing violence at the hands of their partners.

According to the ECHR’s press release, “the Court noted that the Russian legal system lacked a definition of ‘domestic violence,’ adequate substantive and procedural provisions to prosecute its various forms, and any form of restraining or protection order.” It also implored the country’s authorities to introduce changes immediately to prevent similar attacks in future.

Research published in August as part of the ‘Algorithm of Light’ project, supported by the Russian Consortium of Women’s NGOs, found that 66% of killings where the victim was female were perpetrated as part of domestic violence. The overwhelming majority of these women (53%) were killed by their partners.

Women’s rights groups have criticized a 2017 Russian law, which they say has effectively decriminalized ‘first time’ incidences of domestic violence, in a move aimed to draw parity between supposedly one-off assaults on family members and those on strangers, which are dealt with under the Civil Code instead of by criminal courts.

Moscow, however, has previously rejected orders from the top human rights court. In July, the ECHR ruled that changes to Russia’s constitution, defining marriage as a union only between a man and a woman, violated the right to private and family life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights in light of a case presented by three same-sex couples. In response, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said that implementing such changes were “impossible,” following a nationwide vote on constitutional reforms.

Necrophiliac killer sentenced for murders & abusing 100 bodies

15 Dec, 2021 16:56

David Fuller © Kent Police / AFP

A former hospital worker has been handed two whole life sentences to be served concurrently with a 12-year jail term for murdering two women and sexually abusing 100 female corpses.

On Wednesday, Maidstone Crown Court ruled that David Fuller, 67, should never be released from prison due to the heinous nature of the crimes he committed. “Your actions go against everything that is right and humane. They are incomprehensible. You had no regard for the dignity of the dead,” Justice Cheema-Grubb told Fuller during sentencing. 

Nor the living, it appears.

Fuller had pleaded guilty to the murder of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce in two separate attacks in Tunbridge Wells in 1987. He also abused female corpses, including those belonging to children, in two Kent morgues while working as a hospital electrician over a period of 12 years.

He was arrested in 2020 as advances in DNA testing linked him to the two killings. On searching Fuller’s house, police found footage in which the murderer had recorded himself sexually abusing corpses in morgues.

Fuller had even labelled folders with names of the victims. The abuses are believed to have taken place between 2008 and November 2020. The dead bodies of three children were among those he molested.

In November, Health Secretary Sajid Javid announced an investigation into how Fuller was able to sexually abuse corpses undetected over such a long period of time.

Approaching Sodom - Unbelievably Disturbing Creature Reads to Kids in London; Israeli Pharmacist Fined for Wrong Pronoun; ECHR Rules Against Russian Constitution

..

This is simply astonishing! What's worse than drag queens reading to children? The Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey!

London borough apologises for having actor in bare-bottomed monkey

costume with mock genitalia encourage kids to read more books

11 Jul, 2021 16:07

The rainbow dildo butt monkey - the dildo is blurred out otherwise it would be very disturbing.

© Twitter / @HasAhmed_

Officials in London's Redbridge borough were left red-faced after a library event designed to promote reading among kids featured a monkey character in a costume that included dangling fake genitalia and exposed buttocks.

The costume and the actor wearing it came from Mandinga Arts, a troupe of street performers based in Clapham South that has "a distinctive style bringing together live music, carnival, street costume, puppetry and dance, drawing on diverse influences from Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa," according to its website. The well-endowed monkey was part of one of the group’s walkabout acts.

Whether this particular style of costume was appropriate for an audience of minors is debatable. Many people complaining on social media believe the answer was a definitive "No."

How is it even debatable? It's disgusting pornography and many people should be arrested for child abuse. That anyone would call it debatable is a measure of how far down the road to Sodom we have already gone.

Redbridge Libraries acknowledged the lapse in judgement and apologized for hosting the performance, but shifted the blame onto the charity Vision. It was they, rather than the borough council, who were responsible for organizing the event, the statement said.

So, the libraries are not responsible for the programs run at their venues? What kind of person would create such a character and then perform before children? It most definitely is someone who should not be allowed near children.

The mischievous rainbow-coloured creature was promoting the Summer Reading Challenge, a campaign encouraging literacy and reading during the summer holidays among children aged between four and 11 years.

"Upon receiving complaints passed on by the Leader and Deputy Leader, we ceased the performance and are truly apologetic for the distress caused to residents. This will never happen again," the officials pledged.

Council leader Jas Athwal called the situation "disgusting" and said the charity had confirmed to him that all scheduled events were cancelled, but he likewise distanced himself from the controversy.

The buck stops with you Jas!

The Mandinga Arts troupe has a record of working with Redbridge Libraries in the past. For instance, they participated in the Day of the Dead celebration earlier this year, and also in previous years.

Some of the online ire over the episode was directed at the Labour Party, which dominates Redbridge Council. One popular tweet claimed that the party members "commissioned" the monkey and then acted dismissive towards people complaining about it. Athwal, a Labour politician, said in response that he would not "take lectures from a Johnny come lately."

Last year Redbridge Libraries had drag artist Mama G hosting a week of "inclusive Story Time for LGBT+ History Month" on its YouTube channel.

This does not, however, appear to have anything to do with party politics. This year Mama G promoted the Summer Reading Challenge for Kent Libraries. Kent Borough Council is firmly Conservative.

At least in name! But are the Conservatives conservative?

Redbridge Borough, London

Israeli company to pay transgender woman $10k

after pharmacist referred to her as male

9 Jul, 2021 13:04

FILE PHOTO. Gay pride parade in Jerusalem. © Reuters / Yonathan Weitzman

A court in Tel Aviv has made a “precedent-setting” ruling ordering a transsexual woman to be paid nearly $10,000 after she complained of mistreatment at a pharmacy. The chemist spoke to her as to a man, the claimant said.

A person named Isabel went to court after an incident at a pharmacy back in 2018, Israeli media reported this week. The seller, she said, addressed her using male pronouns even after being asked not to do so. Isabel was dressed in female clothes and pointed out she wanted to be referred to as a woman, but the pharmacist judged that she spoke in a male voice, and as such refused to recognize the customer’s self-identity.

Their conversation had been recorded and brought to court, Ynet reported, and ran as follows:

Why are you speaking to me in masculine? Do I look like a man to you?

Will you argue with me? … By your voice, you are male, that’s what I think.

Isabel’s representatives in court claimed the pharmacist’s insistence constituted defamation, discrimination, and sexual harassment, infringing on her right to self-determination and respect. The company originally argued that the employee had only referred to the customer according to biological gender, which could not be objectively degrading. However, the pharmacist was fired shortly after the incident.

Having considered the recorded scene, the court ruled that “the seller not only ignored Isabel’s requests, but implicitly insulted her,” Israel’s The Globes reported. Supermarket chain Shufersal, which now owns the pharmacy, is to pay the trans woman 32,500 shekels ($9,900) in compensation, including legal fees. The verdict has been called a “tremendous achievement” by the complaining party, who said both Isabel’s outcry and the “precedent-setting verdict” would bring “social change.”

And some people think that's a good thing! Truth, reality, sanity, common sense be damned!

European Court of Human Rights rules Russia MUST allow gay marriage,

as Kremlin says move would be ‘impossible’ under constitution

13 Jul, 2021 15:56

© Getty Images / Zolnierek; (inset) © Unsplash / Jasmin Sessler

Moscow has rejected a new order from Europe's top civil liberties court that would require it to recognize LGBT+ marriages, after a joint complaint from three same-sex Russian couples was upheld by judges in Strasbourg on Tuesday.

In the ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) determined that Russian law, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, breached the right to private and family life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights in respect to the claimants. As a result, the decision, issued by a panel of seven judges drawn from nations across the continent, obliges the country to legislate for recognition of LGBT+ marriages. The Court also awarded €2,200 in costs to the claimants.

The case relates in part to the immigration status of one foreign citizen, who moved to the town of Sosnogorsk in the Komi Republic region of northern Russia to co-habit with his partner and their son. When his application for a new residency permit was rejected in 2013 over incomplete paperwork, he complained that requiring him to leave the country and re-enter on temporary visa terms would cause disruption for his family and breach his fundamental rights. These rights, the ECHR found, were ignored because his relationship is not formalized in Russia.

However, one member of the panel, Cypriot judge Georgios A. Serghides wrote a dissenting opinion, attached to the ruling, in which he said that "I am unable to contribute to opening Pandora’s box by giving the impression that the Court may allow applicants to disobey or disrespect laws, regulations and equitable principles and thereafter try to have their behaviour condoned and seek the protection of the Court."

Responding to the court's decision later on Tuesday, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said that implementing such legal changes was out of the question. "According to our constitution, it is impossible," the official declared.

Constitutional amendments passed after a nationwide vote last year have a specific clause committing the state to protecting "the institution of marriage as a union of a man and a woman." In addition, the package of changes affirms the principle that Russian law must take precedence over decisions made by judges abroad, despite it being a member of the ECHR.

Defending that position, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that “the requirements of international law and treaties, as well as decisions of international bodies, can act on the territory of Russia only to the extent that they do not entail restrictions on the rights and liberties of man and citizen, and do not contradict our constitution.”

In February, the ECHR ruled that jailed opposition activist Alexey Navalny must be freed from prison "with immediate effect," citing a supposed "risk to his life." The country's Ministry of Justice, however, slammed the decision as "unenforceable," and said it amounted to "gross interference in the activities of the judiciary of a sovereign state."