Feminist Equates Men with Terrorists

Another day, another Feminist writing garbage.

Today’s big winner Jean Hatchet, who would like to conflate “domestic violence” with terrorism and equate “terrorist” with “man.”

And then feminists wonder why some of us don’t like them.

Terrorism affects our lives with quite miserable regularity at present. Most days we wake up with the niggling fear that somewhere in the world a man will have driven a car or lorry into a crowd. Or a man will have walked into a pop concert with an explosive. Or a man will have reversed his car into a protesting crowd. We are afraid of men in airports. We are afraid of men while on demonstrations and marches. We are afraid of men on public transport. We are afraid of men while we walk around cities.

MUH FEELZ!

Your paranoia is neither my fault or my problem.

Some men, and some women, will be bristling angrily already while reading this. I am using the word “man” they will be thinking. They will probably be shouting in annoyance, “that is sexist!” “Women kill too” they will protest.

Yes, women do kill too. Mainly, they kill children and each other.

Truth isn’t sexist. All of the men who have committed all of the most recent acts of global terrorism are men. All of them.

Except for the ones who were female.

Britain’s first ‘All-female terrorist gang’ at Old Bailey – two allowed to hide faces

Female terrorists and their role in jihadi groups

Indictment against female terrorist who stabbed Israeli Arab in Jerusalem

Greece to Extradite Belgian Female Terror Suspect

Beware the Women of ISIS: There Are Many, and They May Be More Dangerous Than the Men

It was therefore frustrating to see Jason Burke in the Guardian at the weekend finding all sorts of different links between the perpetrators of recent terrorist attacks except the one that was blindingly obvious. They are all men. Violent men.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

This is the same line of reason in which an abundance of Jews in Hollywood = Hollywood is controlled by THE Jews.

But okay, let’s ignore the culture, ethnicity, and the…religious ideology or political ideology of terrorists and just chalk it up to them having a penis.

By the way, who initiates the majority of the divorces in the Anglosphere?

70%+ women? That must mean vaginas inevitably lead to divorce.

Joan Smith wrote here about the other notable link amongst other recent male terrorists. They frequently, so frequently that it is impossible to exclude its relevance, have a history of violence against women. Often the violence is against women they are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Unless the men in question hit the women in question over the head with a stick and dragged the women in question back to their man-cave, she knowingly selected this man to associate with.

Men present value; women accept value.

If a woman picks a man with a tendency for beating ass, that’s her fault.

Since that article one of the suspects in the Barcelona attack has been shown to have a history of domestic abuse. James Alex Fields Jr. the murderer in Charlottesville had a history of domestic abuse of his own mother.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

James Fields is a diagnosed schizophrenic, but let’s leave that crucial fact out. Don’t want to fuck up this anti-male narrative we’ve got going on here.

The World Health Organisation report ‘Violence Against Women. Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Against Women’ in 2016, showed that globally 30% of women will experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner.

Let’s think about that. Terrorism is horrific. But 30% of the global population will not experience directly an act of terrorism that harms them physically. 30% of women will.

That’s a shame. Sounds like they should have picked a better dick.

On my project ‘Ride for Murdered Women’ the other day the woman I honoured on bike ride 72 was a 43-year-old, qualified solicitor by the name of Alison Jane Farr-Davies. Alison had been beaten to death and thrown downstairs naked by her boyfriend.

James Dean, her murderer, hit her like a rocket or a bomb. It could be said that he was her war. Being in a relationship with a violent man is similar to being in a war. It hurts like war. It is perpetual lived terror. It hurts like terrorism.

Ha. Now for some fact that are inconvenient to Hatchet’s narrative: First, the guy’s name is DEAN JONES, not James Dean. I’m not even English and figured that out in 30 seconds. Huffpo, tell your bloggers to step their game up.

Second, Farr-Davies was a drug addict. She was an addict prior to her relationship with Jones, who is also a drug addict.

Like attracts like. Farr-Davies met Jones, accepted the value he presented (fellow druggie), and consented to a relationship with an unstable drug addict who ended up committing manslaughter on her (the court agreed that he did not intend to kill her).

Feminists can blather on about “domestic violence” until they are blue in the face, but they cannot talk their way out of basic sexual economics and the fact that while men may express interest, ultimately, women choose men, especially in the world of the “liberated woman.”

And when a woman chooses a man who has some blatant, obvious moral defect, then she gets what are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of entering relationships and having sex with morally defective men, whether it is losing their money, getting their skulls cracked, or ending up dead at the bottom of the stairs.

Violence and abuse of women is committed in such numbers that it is, and should be seen as, terrorism. It is designed to create terror in women specifically and to stop them going about their daily lives in safety.

Interesting. Allow me to pull a few numbers.

From the 2015 Uniform Crime Report prepared by the FBI:

Total murders reported for 2015: 13,455.

Total number of male victims of murder: 10,608

Total number of female victims of murder: 2,818

From the UK’s Office of National Statistics for the year ending March 2015(Caveat: The UK jukes its murder stats so they aren’t really reliable)

Total number of male victims of murder: 331

Total number of female victims of murder: 186

Let’s try another. From Juristat in Canada for 2015:

Total number of male victims of murder: 428

Total number of female victims of murder: 175

Getting the point yet? Allow me to make it unambiguously. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence, up to and including murder, than women. And now feminists want to expand the already overbroad umbrella of “terrorism” to cover their demonstrated inability to pick a morally upright man? They want to raise the hue and cry when women are less likely to be murdered, both in total and per capita, than men?

Absolutely not.

It does. It should be tackled as a priority as high on the list of global governments as any extremist terrorist threat. There should be a COBRA meeting, or its global equivalent, called every day that a woman dies. A woman dies like this somewhere in the world every day.

Call the meeting.

When a woman dies, there needs to be a Cabinet-level meeting. When a man dies, just broom his corpse off the street and continue with business as usual.

Explain this feminist definition of “equality” to me again, because I, for the life of me, am not getting it.

Wait a minute, I think I’ve got it now: In Feminism, equality means that women are sacred and men are disposable.

Source

Advertisements

Feminist Rails Against Legalized Prostitution Based on Fundamental Misunderstanding of Economics, Criminology, and the Sexual Marketplace

Kat Banyard, a British Feminist and founder of UK Feminista, attempts to explain why prostitution is exploitative…and fails.

Right now, a global push is under way for governments to not only tolerate but actively enable the sex trade. The call is clear: decriminalise brothel keepers, pimps and other “third parties”, allowing them to profiteer freely – and certainly don’t dampen demand for the trade. This is no mundane policy prescription. The stakes are immense.

Feminists know everything under heaven except how voluntary transactions work and why they are preferable to involuntary transactions.

For all the ways it is marketed, the sex trade boils down to a very simple product concept: a person (usually a man) can pay to sexually access the body of someone (usually a woman), who does not freely want to have sex with him. He knows that’s the case – otherwise he wouldn’t have to pay her to be there. The money isn’t coincidence, it’s coercion. And we have a term for that: sexual abuse. Getting governments to facilitate a commercial market in sexual exploitation therefore requires masking it with myths such as: that demand is inevitable; that paying for sex is a consumer transaction, not abuse; that pornography is mere “fantasy” and that decriminalising the entire trade, pimping and brothel keeping included, helps keep women safe.

This is some top-shelf nonsense. By her standard of “coercion” every person who works a job for money is “exploited.” How many men throw garbage into trucks because they freely choose to dig into other people’s waste? How many people mop floors because it edifies their soul? How many men’s life long dream is it to be a truck driver, or a gravedigger, or any of a hundred more dangerous and lower paid jobs than being a whore?

In Pimp State, I set out to track down the reality behind these myths.

It took me to a multi-storey brothel in Stuttgart, where I accompanied Sabine Constabel, a local support worker, as she went room to room to let women know there was a doctor available for them to see that night. Thirteen years earlier, the German government had bowed to calls for pimping and brothel keeping to be decriminalised, so this one operated openly and legally, with fewer regulations placed on it than the restaurants we passed to get there. Constabel didn’t hesitate when I asked her who drove efforts for prostitution to be recognised as work. “It was people running the brothels … they wanted these laws that made it possible to earn as much money as possible.” Those laws have certainly delivered for some. Germany is now home to a chain of so-called “mega-brothels” and a sex trade estimated to be worth €16bn (£14.5bn) annually.

That sounds pretty civilized to me. People petitioned the government, the government approved of their petitioning, and they got what they wanted. No guns needed to be fired, no blood was shed, no one was beaten, or killed, or anything of the other events arise when political discourse breaks down.

The women Sabine and I met that night in Stuttgart lived and “worked” in their single room in the brothel. None spoke German as a first language, and all were young – most around 20 years old. The brothel owner charged each woman €120 a day for her room, which translated as having to perform sex acts on about four men every day before she could even break even. “I have women here, young women … They say: ‘I died here,’” Sabine told me. “I can empathise with what they mean. I believe them. I believe them that in reality the ‘johns’ can damage the women to the extent that it is not possible for everything to go back to normal.”

And now…it’s time for math!

€120 for four johns equals €30 per hour. That’s some pretty economically-priced pussy. I am assuming that the brothel-keepers, in line with industry standards in America, stipulate that the €30 covers the first hour or the first nut, whichever “comes” first, so whores are typically not getting railed for an hour straight. Four hours covers the expense of the room. If a whore works four more hours, she walks away with €120 in her pocket. According to Glassdoor.com a McDonald’s Crewmember in Germany earns €8.85 per hour. In the same eight-hour shift, our non-German speaking whore would gross €80.50 for the day. Our actual whore is grossing €39.50 more than our imaginary McDonald’s worker in the same period of time for less physically rigorous work.

In the feminist narrative, no female would WILLINGLY sell pussy. In reality, selling pussy is not only an economically sound decision for many women with few useful job skills, but it is a smart economic decision for an attractive woman who could easily clear €120 in an hour or less.

Researching Pimp State also led me to spend hours speaking to johns – sex buyers – after placing an ad in my local paper for men willing to talk about why they pay for sex. Based on the response my advert got, there is no shortage of sex buyers ready to ruminate about what they do. Indeed, the number of men who pay for sex in the UK almost doubled during the 1990s to one in 10, with a survey of 6,000 men finding that those most likely to pay for sex were young professionals with high numbers of (unpaid) sexual partners. I heard a range of justifications rolled out by the men I spoke to about why they pay women for sex: “I don’t have any option … At the moment I’m just single so I have to buy it”; “It’s just a male thing where it’s get as many as you can” … “I think it’s just a fact of ‘I’ve done my duty’,” for instance.

I’m not certain why it is more honorable to bid for pussy with food and entertainment than it is just pay for it with actual cash.

What united these men, however, was an overpowering sense of entitlement to sexually access women’s bodies. Some explicitly drew on the notion that they were merely consumers availing workers of their services. One complained about occasions that had been “poor value for money” – which he defined as “them clearly not enjoying it”. Another man described having paid for sex with a woman who obviously didn’t want to be there as a “very bad service, very”. He recalled over the phone: “We went upstairs and, how can I say, she was, like, very frigid. Very frigid. It was very disappointing in the sense I was paying … no touching in places like I would like. Even the sex was really, really crap. It was really, really disappointing.”

Yes, when you pay for prostitution, you are buying a service. If you paid for a massage and the massuese spent an hour beating you in the head with a stick, you would probably complain that it was a bad massage and you didn’t enjoy it. If you went to a restaurant and the waiter slapped you across the back of the head everytime he passed you, you would complain about the service, no matter how good the food was. If you hailed a taxi and the drive crashed into every lamppost on the way to your destination, you would complain that it was bad service, despite reaching your destination.

An “expectation” is not an “entitlement” but a customer in a freely-bargained for exchange of goods for services is entitled to complain when the services aren’t what he bargained for or expected.

Above all, the journey of unpicking the myths that surround the sex trade led me to the inescapable conclusion that change is possible, that we don’t have to live within cultural and legal lines laid out by pimps and pornographers, that there is an alternative. And it is the courage and compassion demonstrated by the many inspirational campaigners I met while writing the book that is required to get us there. Campaigners like Diane Martin CBE, who after being exploited in prostitution in her late teens, spent nearly two decades supporting other women to exit the trade, and now campaigns for an abolitionist law in the UK. First pioneered in Sweden, the abolitionist legal framework works to end demand for the sex trade. It criminalises sex-buying and third-party profiteering, but it completely decriminalises selling sex and provides support and exiting services for people exploited through prostitution.

Ah, the “Nordic Model.” And how is that working out?

Amnesty International published a report on May 23, 2016 about the effects of the “Nordic Model” anti-prostitution law in Norway where “buying sex is illegal, but selling sex is okay”. Let’s take a quick peek:

Police are required to enforce the ban on promotion, the law against trafficking and the ban on buying sex. The regulations are based on the legislators’ view on prostitution as an unwanted phenomenon, and a wish to stop all forms of organization of these activities. The tasks of the police when meeting with people in prostitution are, therefore, complex and challenging.

As a preventative measure against the establishment of the brothel run by foreign human traffickers, the police in Oslo for example enforce the Penal Law through their prohibition to rent out facilities for use in prostitution. People who sell sex from rented apartments risk being evicted, since the landlord may incur criminal liability based on current legislation.”

Prostitution by whores who don’t own their own premises are grounds to evict them. Good job, feminists.

The concept of “promotion” under
the law is broad enough to include sex workers working together or with any other person, such as a cleaner, receptionist or security guard, for the purposes of safety. Working together also increases the likelihood of raids and subsequent evictions as is likely to be viewed by police as “organized prostitution”.

Prostitutes can’t hire security or screeners or door guards, because that would be “promotion” and “organization.” Good job, feminists.

Amnesty International’s research found significant evidence that sex workers continue to be criminalized and penalized directly and indirectly in a variety of ways by the legal framework in Norway – whether they are selling sex from rented premises or hotels or working together or whether they are migrants and in the country on tourist visas. Sex workers also told Amnesty International that the threat of losing their livelihood meant they were unlikely to go to the police to report buyers unless they were extremely violent. In terms of seriousness, the threat and impact of forced eviction, deportation and loss of livelihood on people who sell sex far exceeds the implications of a 15,000 – 25,000 kroner (US$1,700–2,850) fine for buyers. Amnesty International does not consider that buyers now “have most to fear” from the police in Norway. The aim of the “Nordic Model” that the balance of criminalization should be shifted from seller to buyer -has not been realized for the majority of people selling sex in Norway, particularly the most marginalized, who are still penalized, and potentially criminalized, under the law.

Whores will only go to the police if a john roughs them up too much, and whores are afraid to report johns out of fear of losing their livelihood? Good job, feminists.

Here’s another place where the feminist narrative and reality part ways. There is a concept in criminology and economics called the “black market premium.” The more penalized a good or service is, the more expensive it becomes (evading law enforcement ain’t cheap) and the more likely it is to draw dangerous people into supplying and producing it (a person who willingly commits one felony for money will likely commit other felonies). In America, we saw alcohol prohibition turn portions of America into a war zone between law enforcement against criminals and criminals against each other. American and European drug prohibition has turned petty criminals into millionaires and warlords. Sex prohibition has created multimillion dollar human trafficking operations from Eastern Europe and South East Asia and parts of Africa.

But feminists will never let collateral damage happening in the real world tarnish their affection for plainly destructive and irrational policies.

Back to the article:

A trade based on men paying to sexually access women’s bodies is fundamentally incompatible with sex equality. It is up to us to make sure equality wins out.

The sexes are not equal. Pussy is expensive and dick is cheap. That concept is universal across all sexual species on Earth. Males demonstrate value, females accept value in exchange for access to sex. It doesn’t matter if it is a wedding ring, a house, or a €30 toss in the sack.

Until females are willing to buy dick, or stop trading pussy for resources, the sexes will never be equal. Men will play the game for sex, not by the “rules” that feminists articulate, but by the rules they see females actually playing by … which is pussy for resources and status.

Source

Jess Phillips and the Tyranny of the Male Feminist

My second-favorite Labour MP (second because there’s Jeremy Corbyn and the heterosexual white males always have to win) Jess Phillips attended the Edinburgh International Book Festival. While there, she had some interesting things to say about “left-wing men.” Compliments? Of course not. This is men we’re talking about. Nope, Jess wanted to complain about how left-wing men are the absolute worst.

A Labour MP has claimed that left-wing sexists are the worst of them all and that men on the left are the “absolute worst”.

Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, accused left-wing men of benign neglect in the fight for sexual equality.

She told the Edinburgh International Book Festival the “well-meaning, left-leaning” men were worse than what someone else said are the “out and out sexists of the right”.

Benign sexism vs. Out and out sexism?

This is going to be better than any Clegane-bowl could possibly be.

She said: “They [the left-wing men] are the worst, the actual worst”. Men said they supported better female representation but, when it came to losing their own jobs, they would say, ‘Oh, you mean me? But I am so clever. I’ve got so much to offer the world’. They are literally the worst.”

Keep in mind that Phillips is the same woman who wanted to ban men from running for office under the Labour banner until women achieved “parity” with men.

Phillips does a good job exposing two Feminist lies about men and power and the type of man who supports Feminism from a position of power. The first lie exposed is that men in power are in business for their fellow men. This has been untrue since the beginning of civilization. Men in power are in the business of retaining their power, not to help other men.

There is no Patriarchy. But there is an Oligarchy and feminists have proven very useful tools of that Oligarchy to keep men without power from having a chance of getting power of their own. That is what Feminism is and has always been: Females who were part of the Oligarch class, but excluded from being Oligarchs themselves, demanding to become Oligarchs in their own right. To rule over inferior men as they saw similarly situated men do. Feminists became willing servants to tyranny for the promise of power.

These same oligarchical men freely support better female representation in government, in the C-suite, in Hollywood, in universities, in the military, etc. do so at no cost to themselves. They intend for someone else’s ox to be gored, not their own. The female representation in government will, by Phillips own admission, be paid for by excluding men who aren’t already in positions of power.

Ms Phillips told a tale of how a left-wing journalist at the Guardian had told her Harriet Harman was not good for women and that Jeremy Corbyn had “always voted the right way”.

Although it was thought she was referring to Seamus Milne, the Labour Party director of communications, both parties denied this.

The Labour MP said sarcastically: “So yeah, Jeremy Corbyn better for women than Harriet Harman, obviously,

“I remember him in all those meetings, there with his banners for [equality]”.

It might have been Owen Jones. I have no proof of this. However, Jones can hardly be stopped when it comes to fellating Comrade Corbyn’s Commie Cock.

She also said that while left-wing men think they want equality for women, “they don’t think of you on the same level”.

Of course they don’t think of you as on the same level. A beggar is never on the same level as a giver. So long as Feminists run around begging powerful men to give them things, then they are admitting that they are inherently not on their level.

Do for yourself and be treated like an equal, or beg and be treated like what you are.

“When they close their eyes at night and think of amazing people who have changed the world, it’s always some white dude that pops into their head,” she continued.

That…is a strange thing to think about before going to sleep, but this is Jess Phillips we are talking about. However, it is interesting that Phillips is objecting to men THINKING in a way she doesn’t like at the same time she is objecting to men not acting in ways she does not like.

Ms Phillips also added that women are completely missing from Labour Party industrial strategy because it was all about “men with shovels”.

Perhaps women ought to pick up some shovels if they want to be included in a conversation about industrial labor. Oh, wait, that’s not an air-conditioned, C-suite job or a ministerial post where a woman would get to order men around.

She said she is abused on Twitter a lot by “dunder-heided Neanderthals”, and revealed that after her friend Jo Cox MP was murdered she reported all the death threats she received to West Midlands police, and it was “quite a lot”.

That’s what the Block button is for. If a brutish, pussy-grabbing, evil male like Donald Trump can have someone manage his Twitter, you would think that a smart, empowered female like Jess Phillips could get one as well.

This latest spat between Jess Phillips and men in the Labour Party demonstrates the type of men in power that Feminists ally with: Those who already have their boots firmly placed on the necks of the supermajority of men who lack power and are looking for any excuse to press down even harder. The male feminist aspires to benevolent tyranny, to decide when any particular man gets to succeed over any woman.

And that is why Feminists are the Handmaidens of Tyranny.

Source

Nigerian Economics Student Exonerated After 27 Minutes of Deliberation

On December 5, 2014, Sam Obeghe, 26, an economics student at the University of Salford, Greater Manchester, and his friend Zack Garrigan, were out celebrating Garrigan’s birthday when they met the accuser and another woman at the Vogue bar. Obeghe, who had not been drinking, gave the four a ride back to his flat at Atlas Mill, Bentinck Street, Heaton, around 5 AM, where Garrigan and the accuser went to Obeghe’s room to have sex. Garrigan and the accuser did not have sex. Garrigan left the room to find a Viagra and the accuser fell asleep. Obeghe went to roust the accuser out of his bed so he could get a few hours of sleep before work. The accuser, believing him (get it? Believe Him? No? Forget you then.) to be Garrigan, began fondling Obeghe and the two had sex. The accuser claims that she thought Obeghe was Garrison. Obeghe insisted that he stopped when she called out Zack’s name during sex.

Obeghe told Garrigan what had happened. The accuser came out of the room hysterical and saying she had to leave. When she told her mother what happened, they called the police. Three hours later, police arrested Obeghe at his residence on charges of rape.

Obeghe waited 17 months for a trial in which he testified in his own defense. He asserted and emphasized that the accuser initiated sex with him, and that he stopped when he knew that she believed she was having sex with Zack Garrison. The jury exonerated Obeghe of the rape charge after 27 minutes of deliberation in the Bolton Crown Court.

Source

Archived Source

Serial False Accuser Sentenced to Three Months

Sharon Linda Adams of Hoop Hill Park, Lurgan, was convicted in Magistrate Court on nine counts of wasting police time (I guess that’s a thing in England).

Adams filed false reports of rape and assault on April 26, May 1, June 17, July 27, and September 18, of 2014, as well as on January 30, February 7, and April 9, of 2015.

For these, and an unrelated case of harrassment, the Court sentenced Adams to three months on each count, sentences to run concurrently.

Source

Archived Source

False Rape Accuser Sentenced To Six Months in Jail

Wendy Wilson, 62, of King’s Lynn, Norfolk, England, was sentenced in the Norwich Crown Court to six months in jail after filing a false rape claim back in 2013. On December 22, 2013, Wilson summoned Norfolk police to her residence, claiming two men with Eastern European accents broke into her house and raped her in the kitchen at knife point (Swarthy Foreigners).

The police spent five months, £70,000, and 2,244 man hours investigating Wilson’s accusation. But it was the insurance adjusters who revealed Wilson’s rape claim for its falsity. As the police were investigating, Wilson filed an insurance claim for £6,000 in goods she told the insurance company had been stolen after the non-existent rapists knocked her out. But Wilson never mentioned any stolen goods to the police. The police finally concluded that Wilson had fabricated the rape story specifically to make the insurance claim.

Wilson pled guilty to perverting the course of justice and fraud. Judge Anthony Bate, upon handing down the sentence, rebuked Wilson, stating:

‘While officers were investigating your bogus claims they can’t be investigating other people’s genuine concerns. It diverted them away from much more important lines of inquiry.’

So, class, why would a woman EVER lie about rape?

Answer: She saw an opportunity to make £6,000.

Source 1

Source 2

Archived Source 1

Archived Source 2

Hoes Gon Be Hoes: Featuring Donna Vaughan

This story emerged from the UK. Simon Vaughan, a former commando injured in Afghanistan is currently in the middle of a divorce with his estranged wife, Donna Vaughan, who wants her crippled, maimed husband who took bomb for his country, to pay her nearly the entirety of his remaining medical severance (200,000 pounds), and monthly woman-via-child support of 1,500 pounds per month. How a man who can barely move one of his hands is going to come up with 1,500 pounds, who can say.

This sorry tale begins in 2005 when Simon Vaughan married this hideous hambeast of a woman who, in between popping doughnuts in her mouth, popped out a couple of brats. In 2006, they purchased a home in Telford, and used it as a rental property since 2011 (passive income is about the only smart thing that happens here). In December 2008, Vaughan, while on deployment in Afghanistan, gets blown up by an IED. Simon Vaughan ends up with a broken pelvis, spine, femur, collapsed lung, and brain damage. Army doctors didn’t believe that he could survive the flight back to the UK, even going so far as to pin his obituary on him. But Vaughan survived and spent the next three months in a coma, then seven months in a vegetative state. Doctors told his family that he would likely stay that way for the remainder of his life. However, Vaughan was transferred from Selly Oak to the Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability, then to Headley Court for rehabilitation. Now, Vaughan recognizes his family, children, and can even speak through use of text-to-speech device. Though he’s still confined to a wheelchair, his therapists believe he may one day walk again.

While Simon Vaughan was fighting for his life, his wife Donna, was busy burning through his compensation from the Ministry of Defence and insurance money. In 2009, Donna Vaughan, against the advice of the Ministry of Defence, bought a structurally unsound bungalow with 295,000 of her husband’s 1.1 million pound compensation (let’s just keep a running tab of how much of this man’s money his depraved bitch of a wife wasted. Now he’s down from 1.1 million to 805,000). Once the Army found out about Donna’s real estate fuck-up, they advised that she sell the property and cut her losses. Because Donna knew what was best for her husband and children (and being a hard-headed moose-knuckle), she started work on the property to adapt it for Simon’s needs. Then the builders pointed out to her that the building was structurally unsound and it would need to be torn down and rebuilt. Donna says “sure why not? I’ll just shake a few more leaves off the money tree!” So the entire structure is torn down and rebuilt for the low, low price of 297,000 (from 805,000 to 508,000). I’m no real estate wizard, but even I know that when you have to put more money into making a building habitable than you did buying it, you done fucked up. Oh, and as a little icing on the cake, Donna took the step of putting the house, purchased with her husband’s money, solely in her own name.

But the story gets more interesting from here. Donna took approximately 300,000 pounds of Simon’s money and put it into an investment bond in her name alone (men take note: Unlike George W. Bush, your wife always has an exit strategy). Now we’re down from 508,000 pounds to 208,000. Donna managed to blow through about 900,000 pounds in just two years. That would be impressive if it weren’t so twisted. In 2013, on Valentine’s Day, Donna Vaughan summons up the courage to leave her quadriplegic husband, so she can go Eat-Pray-Love her way to another man’s penis. She filed for divorce from Simon. From her list of demands:

  • 100,000 pounds to pay the mortgage on the jointly-owned rental property
  • 85,000 pounds to pay her legal fees
  • 20 percent ownership in the specially-adapted bungalow Simon currently resides in
  • 1,500 pounds per month in “child support”

Keep in mind that Donna still has sole ownership of a 300,000 pound investment bond and the money-pit in Pinewood. Simon racked up 15,000 pounds in legal fees before Richard Sear, Ben Woolridge, and Julian Ribet decided to take up his case pro bono. Sear vigorously cross-examined Mrs. Vaughan with respect to her financial irresponsibility. These were her answers.

With respect to a fraudulent form she filed with Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association:

‘I accept the information on the form is incorrect.

‘At the time I was looking after a child. It was horrific, we had no support from Simon’s family. I obviously wasn’t concentrating enough.

With respect to purchasing the structurally unsound house and failing to inform the army:

‘I don’t know why I didn’t tell the Army I had purchased the house. I can’t remember.

With respect to not accepting the structural engineer’s report on cracks in the house’s foundation and walls:

‘It’s true I didn’t take advice but I also didn’t take the advice that I shouldn’t put my husband in residential care because I wanted him to come home.

‘[The property] was supposed to be a forever home, something he could leave our children. People are forgetting all about our little boy who’s going through hell.

With respect to the child support:

‘I can’t believe his own father can’t accept that at some point this would really affect him. I’ve got to try to do the best for my children.’

Simon’s first mistake was he got married. Men who get married in Britain, the United States, or Canada, all you are doing is setting yourself up for failure. You are putting your head in a legal noose and praying that your loving wife doesn’t pull the lever on the trap-door. Military men are especially vulnerable, as they leave their wives for prolonged lengths of time in societies that no longer shame women for either disloyalty or infidelity, even when their husbands take a bomb to the face for Queen and Country.

But notice how Donna takes no responsibility for the financial ruin of her husband that she caused. If she defrauds the SSAFA, it’s not her fault, it’s her in-laws fault for not supporting her enough. It’s her child’s fault for not being self-sufficient and requiring attention. If she neglected to inform the Army that she wasted nearly 300,000 pounds, it’s not her fault. It just slipped her little mind. No way can slipping her mind be held against her. Nobody’s perfect, right? (even though “perfection” is not now, nor has it ever been, a legal standard). If she didn’t follow the engineer’s report and not buy a death-trap house for her injured husband, it’s not her fault, because she just wanted Simon to come home. “To hell with your years of training and experience, mister engineering man! This is supposed to be a forever home! What do you know anyway?” And if her quadriplegic husband is left destitute and living under a bridge due to her child support demands, it’s not her fault, because she’s just doing it for the freakin’ children!

At this point you might be wondering, why doesn’t Mrs. Vaughan go back to work and pay for these little crumb-snatchers herself? Unlike her soon-to-be ex-husband, her back isn’t broken. I’m glad you asked that because there is an answer. The last time Donna Vaughan held a job was 2008, when she was an assistant manager at a pub. Her reason for not returning to this line of employment, or any line of employment, is that Simon made enemies of the locals in Telford, making it unsafe for her to return to their rental property their and resume her employment. But what did Simon do that was so awful that the people of Telford couldn’t find it in them to forgive an injured war veteran? Surely he desecrated some holy relics, killed and raped a few people, stole a bunch of money, knocked out the local dish so people couldn’t watch Dr. Who.

The Situation According to Donna:

‘Simon threw a brick at a youth and ran after him in his flip flops. Our silver Corsa was written on in marker pen and someone put a brick through our window.

‘It’s a bad area with a lot of domestic violence.’

So….he threw a brick at a kid (didn’t hit him) and chased him down the street. For these crimes against humanity, Donna Vaughan is forever exiled from Telford for her husband’s sins.

Sounds perfectly legit.

Here’s the takeaway:

Men, these women mean you no good. Any time a woman who isn’t your mother, professes to love you, she only means at that particular moment. Should she change her mind, no past affections she may have held will stay her hand from seeking your complete and utter destruction. It doesn’t matter if you paid her way through undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral schools, or if you damn near perished in the service of your country. She only loves you insofar as she gets some use out of you. If she gets a child out of you, it’s just a bonus because she can then blame her destruction of you on the child (not my fault! The kid “needed” two-thirds of your gross monthly income).

Don’t commit to them. Don’t marry them. Only reproduce with them if you have some leverage over them.