#Stella Creasy

[tweetingukpolitics]

[fuckyeahilike]

Labour MP says police giving 'green light' to trolls after man tried to get her kids taken away

A senior MP has accused police of giving the "green light" to internet trolls after a vexatious complaint saw her subjected to a social services investigation.

Stella Creasy was told her harasser would not face criminal sanctions because he was "entitled" to his view her children should be taken into care because of her "extreme" views, she told Sky News.

The extreme views in question are that she is a feminist and she has a vagina, so she should know that she's a second class citizen. This makes her unfit for motherhood. She’s an MP, but she doesn’t make the rules, men do.

[convertgrapeling]

I don't know why Diane Abbott *wants* to be in the Labour party at this point, but if Rosie Duffield or Jess Phillips or Stella Creasy received even 10% of the abuse Diane gets, the Labour party would set have themselves on fire in protest by now. With Abbott, they look for bullshit excuses to exclude and belittle her whilst fundraising on the back of Tory racism against her.

There is absolutely a hierarchy of racism in this country and the fact that the first black woman in parliament still faces this kind of shit from her own party on a regular basis is a striking symbol of that. People inclined towards "tactical voting" might want to remember Starmer's part in exploiting that in the run-up to the next election.

[ukrfeminism]

5 minute read

Thousands of protesters marched through central London (Saturday) afternoon as they demanded Carla Foster to be freed from jail, after her sentencing earlier this week reignited calls for abortion to be decriminalised.

Ms Foster was given a 28-month extended sentence on Monday after she admitted illegally procuring her own abortion during the pandemic when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant.

Protesters marched from the Royal Courts of Justice to Whitehall today chanting “Free Carla Foster” and waving signs saying “abortion is healthcare”.

They called for an end to Victorian legislation that renders abortion a criminal act in England, Scotland and Wales, with women granted exemptions in certain circumstances up until 24 weeks of pregnancy.

There are seven exemptions that can be granted to allow a woman to have an abortion, but none stating that a woman simply does not want a baby. For 98 per cent of women who had an abortion last year, it was recorded as being “performed because of a risk to the woman’s mental health”, classified as “F99 (mental disorder, not otherwise specified)”.

Under current legislation, abortions can only take place after 24 weeks in specific circumstances including when the mother’s life is at risk or if the child will be severely disabled.

Labour MP Stella Creasy delivered a speech to protesters who gathered in Whitehall this afternoon, claiming that current abortion legislation is no longer “fit for purpose”.

“This week proves what some of us have been trying to tell, often at length, patiently, to middle-aged men on Twitter,” she said.

“We do not have a legal right to choose in England and Wales, and that has very real consequences.”

She later told i that the significant turnout to the march “shows women aren’t prepared to accept to the possibility of prosecution hanging over their right to choose”.

“Lawmakers who think they can ignore these concerns fail to understand how important protecting a womans right to choose is to so many,” she said. “Parliament has to act as with more prosecutions on the way this issue isn’t going away.”

Lucy Wing, a 21-year-old from Walthamstow in London who attended the march, said she was “outraged” at Ms Foster’s case.

“I am here because I do not believe that the law that Carla Foster was sentenced under was at all just,” she said.

“A legal understanding of what a person is does not encompass a foetus and it does not encompass a child that was born not breathing. That child does not have any human rights because it is not seen as a person.”

Ms Foster was jailed earlier this week after being found to have ended her pregnancy in May 2020 with “pills by post” that allowed women under 10 weeks pregnant to receive abortion medication during the first Covid lockdown, when access to health services ground to a halt.

The “pills by post” scheme, which was intended to be a temporary measure ushered in during the pandemic, has now been introduced permanently.

Ms Foster, a mother-of-three, pleaded guilty to administering drugs to procure abortion significantly beyond the 10-week time limit, contrary to the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. The offence carried a maximum life sentence.

The judge, Mr Justice Pepperall, had received a letter from medical bodies including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives urging him to pass a non-custodial sentence.

However, he said this was “inappropriate” and sentenced the woman on the basis of the law as it stands.

The case has reignited calls to decriminalise abortion in the UK, with charities launching a fresh campaign to reform “outdated” laws that allow woman to face life imprisonment for ending their own pregnancies. 

Ed Dorman, 64, an obstetrician and gynaecologist who also attended the march, said that Ms Foster’s case had “galvanised” the abortion movement and drawn attention to the punity of current laws. 

“As you can tell from today, it has galvanised a lot of very strong feeling about the inappropriateness of the way the law, if it’s applied, can result in somebody being sent to prison for ending their own pregnancy,” he said. 

“I would like to see, as in Northern Ireland, the whole remit of abortion care being taken out of the criminal law and, whilst still regulated, be like any other part of healthcare.”

Abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in October 2019 after Westminster passed laws while the government at Stormont had collapsed.

However, abortion is still technically illegal in the rest of the UK as legislation brought into force in 1861 has not yet been repealed.

No 10 said earlier this week that the Government has no plans to alter abortion laws despite outrage over Ms Foster’s sentencing. 

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said on Tuesday: “Through the Abortion Act, all women have access to safe abortions on the NHS up to 24 weeks and we have made changes so that now includes taking abortion pills at home.

“We think this approach provides the right balance and … there are no plans to change this.”

The spokesman added: “We recognise that this is a highly emotive issue and obviously we recognise that the strength of feeling on all sides.”

[charlotte-of-wales]

'Ball breaker' PR guru who was hired as Princess of Wales's new private secretary rejects job offer and chooses to stay working with chef Jamie Oliver 'to stay under the radar'

Alison Corfield, 51, was offered the job after impressing while working for the celebrity chef's campaigns for free school meals and a sugar tax.

After working for Mr Oliver for eight years, she was tipped to take over from former private secretary Hannah Cockburn-Logie when she left the role following the death of Queen Elizabeth II last year for personal reasons.

Ms Corfield has now turned down the opportunity to replace her, reportedly due to not wishing to commit to the publicity that comes with such a high-profile role at Kensington Palace.

A source told The Telegaph: 'She loves the work and is an integral member of the campaigning team.'She decided she just wanted to keep her head down and get on with the job she knows so well in the background. "She didn't want the publicity that comes with working at that level for such a well-known institution”.

As well as working on Jamie Oliver's national campaigns, Ms Corfield had also worked as an air stewardess and on Labour MP Stella Creasy's MotheRED campaign to hire more mothers to be politicians for the party.

Kensington Palace's choice to hire Ms Corfield was a departure from the usual practive of hiring aides from the civil service and government ministries.

Sources close to the royals claimed the decision was part of a move to hire modernising staff and private- sector workers.

Kate is now said to be seeking a 'different kind of courtier' to help her on her early years campaign as she looks for a replacement.

[anyoneknowwhatbrexitmeans]

“The government has admitted it will cost businesses £330m each year in additional charges when new post-Brexit border controls on animal and plant products imported from the European Union are implemented next year.”

Sunlit bloody uplands

[eaglesnick]

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

I don’t know how many of you have read George Orwell's "1984", but it is a story about one mans ultimately pointless struggle against a country governed by propaganda, surveillance and censorship: a country where all citizens must come to love “Big Brother".

Big Brother has his face on every wall, his eyes following your every move, and the phrase “Big Brother is watching you” is plastered on every building.  In the country ruled by Big Brother, people are short of food, social services are crumbling, the population live in poverty, electronic surveillance is everywhere, while those at the top of society live in  luxury. The novel is set in England.

In this dystopian England we have “doublethink", which is the act of holding two contradictory thoughts at the same time and believing both: e.g. Boris Johnson and Partygate. Then there is the Ministry of Truth, which rewrites history to suite Big Brother's agenda: e.g. the Tories constantly saying it was the Labour Party that bankrupt the country in 2008 when it was in fact the greed of bankers. There is also the Thought Police who are charged with arresting people with “thoughtcrime": e.g. the police upholding a vexatious complaint against Stella Creasy that might have led to her children being taken into care simply because the complainant did not agree with her socio-political views.

The hero of the novel, Winston Smith, does his best to resist Big Brother and the corrupt powers of the state but the odds are stacked against him. At the end of the novel he finds himself in Room 101, the room all dissidents are taken to be tortured by their worse fears. In Winston’s case it is dark places inhabited by rats, and when he is threatened by having a cage full of live rats put on his head so they can eat his face he surrenders to his torturers and betrays Julie,  the woman he loves.

But it is not enough for Winston to have surrendered his individuality and those dear to him, for Big Brother demands not only loyalty and obedience: he demands that his subjects love him.

Before Winston is moved to Room 101 he is told:

“You hate him (Big Brother) Good. Then the time has come for you to take the last step. You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him”

I realise that it is probably only me who sees parallels between Orwell’s 1984 and present day England but I do find the proposed oath of allegiance to King Charles  - euphemistically, called the   “Homage of the People” - sinisterly worrying. Does the King really expect us to stand up in front of our tv sets and other electronic devices, hands on heart, and pledge our allegiance to him?

“ I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God." God Save King Charles. Long Live King Charles. May The King live forever.”

Not quite the expression of love Big Brother would have demanded but pretty close. As for us wanting the king to live "forever", well, that’s just downright bazaar.  Does the king see himself as a god or is he  just a delusional? The sound of a “chorus of millions of voices”, all pledging allegiance to King Charles has more in common with Kim Jong Un’s North Korea than it does democratic Britain.  It also  has a parallel in “1984” wherein the population has to stand in front of their screens and chant the name Big Brother,  Big Brother” over and over again.

In “1984”, Winston’s lover, Julie, tells him:

 "It's the one thing they can't do. They can make you say anything—anything—but they can't make you believe it. They can't get inside you." 

If only that were true.

[zurdta]

I posted 526 times in 2022

9 posts created (2%)

517 posts reblogged (98%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@pearlsandpetticoats

@freakingoutthesquares

@parts-of-me-unravelling

@asongthatsingsitself

@bogarde

I tagged 194 of my posts in 2022

#russell senior - 24 posts

#dave - 15 posts

#ron - 9 posts

#pulp - 4 posts

#conny - 4 posts

#shoes - 3 posts

#cool - 3 posts

#lol - 3 posts

#youtube - 3 posts

#oh conny - 3 posts

Longest Tag: 78 characters

#and there are too many men who would rather highlight nonsense as men's rights

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

"Remember after the overturning of Roe v Wade, how many women in England breathed a guilty sigh of relief that our reproductive rights were safe in this country? Rees-Mogg’s comments at Westminster Hall should disabuse anyone who still thinks that access to abortion – a form of essential and life-saving healthcare – isn’t at risk here, too."

I’ll say this for Jacob Rees-Mogg: he’s predictable. Dangerous, disingenuous, arrogant – but predictable. Yesterday, he offered another of his rousing anti-abortion speeches – this time at a Westminster Hall debate about a petition for terminations to be included in the government’s planned Bill of Rights. He never tires of caring for the children, that one.

Given all his talk of protecting babies, you’d expect him to be a staunch supporter of affordable childcare – especially for the most vulnerable families – a fierce advocate for free school meals to make sure no child in the UK goes hungry, and a steadfast proponent of anti-poverty policies.

Not likely.

Remember when UNICEF had to step in and help feed deprived children in the UK during the Covid-19 pandemic – the UN agency’s first domestic emergency response in its history? Rees-Mogg accused them of a “political stunt”. And that time when he said increased food bank usage was “rather uplifting”?

That’s right, the MP for North East Somerset only goes all “think of the babies!” while they’re still foetuses. Once they’re out of the womb and really need the help, his heartfelt “preference for life” appears to suddenly disappear. Funny that. It’s one of the most startling contradictions of those who describe themselves as “pro-life”, that they’ll happily dismiss the needs of children and adults – but foetuses must remain sacrosanct.

To me, it’s almost as if it’s not really about ‘babies’ at all; it’s almost as if it’s about controlling women’s reproductive rights instead. I’m sure that’s not the case with Rees-Mogg, though. He’s got integrity. Oh no, wait, sorry, I’ve got that wrong; I’m just looking at my notes here and it appears to be the exact opposite.

Rees-Mogg doesn’t mind making a mint “in a very roundabout way” from abortion pills in Indonesia, and he’s apparently not too fussed about an unnecessary death or two (or a hundred thousand) through draconian policies that effectively punish people for being poor.

Still, he’s got a way with words. Honestly, his powers of rhetoric during the abortion debate almost brought me to tears (of horror).

He used every trick in the book. Incendiary language? Check: the former Leader of the House of Commons spoke of essential healthcare “killing babies”. Demonisation of supporters of reproductive freedom? Check: he referred to abortion rights as a “cult of death”. But there goes the Moggster – forever serving up 19th century attitudes to a 21st century society.

MP for Walthamstow Stella Creasy was having none of it. On Twitter, she posted a damning indictment of Rees-Mogg’s comments during the debate. “If you think we don’t need to codify in law that women have a human right to choose to have an abortion, Rees-Mogg just argued against women who are victims of rape or incest having a right to have one. Women deserve equal rights. Whoever is in government #trustWomen.” Well, it seems you can certainly trust Rees-Mogg to attack women’s bodily autonomy whenever he gets the chance.about:blank

Rees-Mogg’s gutter politics surely put him in a difficult position to take the moral high ground over anyone, but to condemn those who’ve had abortions and those who support reproductive rights is a new low even for him – and there are so very many lows to choose from.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Remember after the overturning of Roe v Wade, how many women in England breathed a guilty sigh of relief that our reproductive rights were safe in this country? Rees-Mogg’s comments at Westminster Hall should disabuse anyone who still thinks that access to abortion – a form of essential and life-saving healthcare – isn’t at risk here, too.

His impassioned speech – which was effectively in favour of endangering the lives of women across the country – comes just after government documents outlining plans to curb access to home abortions were leaked. It’s unsurprising that such a move would be detrimental to the most vulnerable women – those at risk of domestic violence and those without a fixed address. But then, Rees-Mogg doesn’t seem to care about those lives. Those lives don’t suit his political narrative at all. Not a bit.

How many unnecessary deaths have the Tories caused since they came into power? Never mind. They don’t matter anyway. Not to Rees-Mogg, it seems. He’s apparently more interested in the slitheringly slow but certain erosion of women’s right to bodily autonomy.

This bloke who’ll never get impregnated by a rapist, this bloke who’ll never get pregnant at all, this bloke who’ll never need an abortion. This bloke dares to denounce the women who do experience all those things. This bloke, with his extravagant wealth and all the privileges imaginable, dares to try and make life worse for the most vulnerable women.

2 notes - Posted December 1, 2022

#4

If you are scrolling through your timeline trying to distract yourself from something you don't want to think about, or you're looking for a sign.

It is going to be okay.

Just breathe.

You are alive and you matter.

via Pink News on Facebook.

3 notes - Posted December 17, 2022

#3

🎶✨️ when u get this u have to put 5 songs u actually listen to, publish, then send this to 10 of your favorite followers (non-negotiable, positivity is cool) ✨🎶

Tagged by @asongthatsingsitself, thank you:

Europa Endlos - Kraftwerk

This House is Condemned - Pulp

The Light That Has Lighted the World - George Harrison

Der Räuber und der Prinz - DAF

Separations - Pulp

3 notes - Posted November 13, 2022

#2

5 notes - Posted December 14, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

Sparks, 1980.

@parts-of-me-unravelling this is for you.

20 notes - Posted December 9, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

[trustsnew]

A senior Labour backbencher is seeking to have liabilities from schools and hospitals built under private finance initiative (PFI) deals scrutinised under a new budget responsibility bill.Stella Creas...

[superkalafragilisticiexpectitall]

Please, please. please sign this to save lives in UK..🙏✝️

[and-then-there-were-n0ne]

I don’t normally write off a single tweet but Stella Creasy MP has such a note-perfect professional-managerial class striver take on motherhood that I can’t let it pass unacknowledged. She reports:

As I walk past everyone going to Christmas parties and drinks on my way to get the kids from nursery, yet again acutely aware the motherhood penalty is just a gift that keeps giving…. Not just flexible working we need but flexible networking too…

I found this an uncomfortable sentiment to see in public. I won’t castigate her here for publicly resenting her kids, though, as plenty of others have already done so. What interests me in her utterance is what it reveals about the gap between the women who set family policy, and those who simply live with its fruits.

For those unfamiliar with UK politics, Creasy is the Labour Member of Parliament for the London borough of Walthamstow, and a vocal advocate for liberal feminist causes such as abortion rights and the “gender pay gap”. In other words: very much on board with the notion that “liberation” for women looks unambiguously like the right to enter the market on the same terms as men. But is she right to imply this is universally the case for women? I don’t think so.

In her 2000s research on this topic, the sociologist Catherine Hakim showed that given free choice concerning work/life balance, around 20% of women would prefer to be stay-at-home mothers, and a further 20% prefer to prioritise work. The rest, which is to say the majority, would prefer a mix of the two.

But politics has a structural blind spot where this 60% is concerned. For reasons that should be obvious, the kind of high-achieving women who make it to the top tend to come from the 20% who prioritise work. Some never have kids, but for the ones who do, having to step away from your work to meet your kids’ needs may feel genuinely like a big and painful sacrifice. Creasy had two in her early 40s, by which point she was already a public figure. It’s not hard to see how trying to balance the needs of tiny infants with the demands of Parliament would be extraordinarily challenging. And from that perspective, it would be easy to conclude that what every other working woman needs is the same as what you feel you need: more childcare support and infrastructure, such that no mother ever has to step away from their rewarding and exciting work quite so often.

What such high-achieving women sometimes miss, though, is that theirs is a minority view. Lots of people, of both sexes, don’t have careers; they have jobs. Few of these jobs are as fun and exciting as being an MP. For a great many people of both sexes, even before kids, “networking” is not a thrilling prospect but a dreary chore. (So much so, that in 2022 a Frenchman known only as ‘Monsieur T’ won the legal right to avoid after-work drinks.)

If that’s you, or even if you just aren’t very sociable, needing to be home with the kids doesn’t look like unjustly asymmetrical obstacle to professional develoment. It looks like a blessed excuse to duck out of an evening of dull chit-chat, and professional opportunities be damned. In other words: while Creasy describes the so-called “motherhood penalty” bitterly as “the gift that keeps on giving”, for many happily less ambitious mothers (and there really is, or should be, nothing wrong with having modest ambitions) this is unironically true. Being needed at home really is a gift. And not just in the sense of being rewarding on its own terms, but also in giving the gift of liberation, or at least some measure of opt-out, from the endless, miserable grind of PMC striving.

Or it should. But if you miss this clear diversity of views on the relative value of professional ambition and family life, and take the Creasy approach of focusing all your advocacy for women on liberating us from our kids so we can have an equal crack at the PMC greasy pole, you may end up not just shaping a public culture of maternal resentment, but a legal and economic one that takes this resentment as a baseline assumption. Such a culture simply assumes that every mother is as keen to be out “networking” as the Creasys (Creasies?) of this world, and needs policies to support this. In turn, if you do this, you will end up advocating family policies that “liberate” less ambitious women from their preferences, in favour of yours, while expecting these women to thank you.

In practice, I see this happening again and again, among politicians on both sides of the aisle. Ambitious, high-achieving women who belong to the work-first 20% shape public family policy in line with their own preferences on work/life balance, in the process making it ever more difficult for the 60% to be honest about the fact that they just don’t care so much about work. This has effects well beyond Christmas party season: its aggregate effect is public policy on family, that’s nominally “feminist” while uncritically assuming women’s interests are always served by more childcare, more professional development, and more ambition.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with ambition, and I salute every high-achieving woman for her dedication and success. But there’s also nothing wrong with having a job rather than a career, and making family life the centre of your world. I’m not going to blow up this post with concrete policies that would support the great many families for whom this, rather than the Creasification of working life, is what it’s all about. I’ll just end by saying that there are a great many mothers for whom stepping away from the “works do” to make paper snowflakes at the kitchen table, or snuggle up to watch A Christmas Carol with your kids, is not a penalty. It really is a gift. We could do with more women - and men - in public life who are willing to brave the inevitable brickbats, and speak up for those families.

[qudachuk]

MP Stella Creasy says being called an "unfit mother" online has pushed her to call for a law change.

[disabled-dragoon]

[ID: A document. It is a list of British MPs, split into four columns and listed alphabetically in bulleted descending order.

The title "The 125 MPs who voted for a Ceasefire in Gaza, on Wednesday, 15th Nov. 2023" is at the top of the document in red writing.

The MPs listed in column 1 are:

Diane Abbott

Tahir Ali

Rosena Allin-Khan

Hannah Bardell

Paula Barker

Apsana Begum

Clive Betts

Mhairi Black

Paul Blomfield

Steven Bonnar

Deidre Brock

Alan Brown

Karen Buck

Richard Burgon

Dawn Butler

Ian Byrne

Liam Byrne

Amy Callaghan

Dan Carden

Alistair Carmichael

Wendy Chamberlain

Sarah Champion

Douglas Chapman

Joanna Cherry

Hywel Williams

Munira Wilson

Beth Winter

Pete Wishart

Mohammad Yasin

Daisy Cooper

Jeremy Corbyn

The MPs listed in column 2 are:

Ronnie Cowan

Angela Crawley

Stella Creasy

Jon Cruddas

Judith Cummins

Ed Davey

Martyn Day

Marsha De Cordova

Martin Docherty-Hughes

Allan Dorans

Peter Dowd

Sarah Dyke

Colum Eastwood

Jonathan Edwards

Julie Elliot

Tim Farron

Stephen Farry

Marion Fellows

Stephen Flynn

Richard Foord

Mary Kelly Foy

Barry Gardiner

Patricia Gibson

Patrick Grady

Peter Grant

Sarah Green

Margaret Greenwood

Fabian Hamilton

Claire Hanna

Neale Hanvey

Drew Hendry

The MPs listed in column 3 are:

Wera Hobhouse

Kate Hollern

Rachel Hopkins

Stewart Hosie

Rupa Huq

Imran Hussain

Christine Jardine

Afzal Khan

Ben Lake

Ian Lavery

Chris Law

Emma Lewell-Buck

Clive Lewis

David Linden

Rebecca Long Bailey

Caroline Lucas

Kenny MacAskill

Angus Brendan MacNeil

Khalid Mahmood

Rachael Maskell

Andy McDonald

Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Stuart C McDonald

John McDonnell

Conor McGinn

Anne McLaughlin

John McNally

Ian Mearns

Carol Monaghan

Layla Moran

Helen Morgan

Grahame Morris

The MPs in column 4 are:

John Nicolson

Brendan O'Hara

Sarah Olney

Kate Osamor

Kate Osborne

Sarah Owen

Jess Phillips

Anum Qaisar

Yasmin Qureshi

Bell Ribeiro-Addy

Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Liz Saville Roberts

Naz Shah

Andy Slaughter

Alyn Smith

Cat Smith

Alex Sobel

Chris Stephens

Jamie Stone

Zarah Sultana

Sam Tarry

Alison Thewliss

Owen Thompson

Richard Thomson

Stephen Timms

Jon Trickett

Valerie Vaz

Claudia Webbe

Philippa Whitford

Nadia Whittome

/end]

The mps the voted for a ceasefire

[ukrfeminism]

3 minute read

Dozens of women suspected of having illegal abortions have faced criminal investigations from the police in recent years, new figures show.

Information obtained under freedom of information (FOI) laws reveal at least 36 women endured criminal investigations after being accused of having illegal abortions from April 2014 to December 2021.

The data, obtained by National World and based on responses from 35 police forces, looked at recorded crimes for the two charges of procuring an illegal abortion and the intentional destruction of a viable unborn child.

It comes after Carla Foster, 44, was sentenced to 28 months in jail earlier in the month, having obtained drugs to end her pregnancy at 32 to 34 weeks during lockdown.

Dr Jonathon Lord, who represented medical organisations in the case, told The Independent the sentencing of the mother-of-three “brought back the horrors of the 1960s”.

The consultant NHS gynaecologist at the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust added: “The really big fear is that we know the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are sitting on lots more cases - waiting to see whether this one would be jailed and thereby prove a public interest in prosecuting. 

“So we now expect anything between six to 40 proceeding - it is so hard to know numbers as it’s all so secretive. We don't know if these cases will be charged. Another issue is that patients are told to speak to nobody. So one woman had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for over six months before we heard she’d had a premature delivery that arose suspicion.”

Dr Lord explained the CPS evidence in the recent headline-grabbing case involving Foster included the fact she searched for ways to cause physical harm such as “Can being hit in the stomach cause a miscarriage?”, adding this demonstrates “she was so desperate she was even considering self-harm”.

Dr Lord noted she had been imprisoned under a law from 1861 - “an era when public hangings drew large crowds and 67 years before women were able to vote”.

The latest Home Office data show the number of Britons being investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions has more than tripled in the last decade.

Recorded crimes for abortions surged from eight in 2013/2014 to 27 cases in April to December 2022 so far.

This includes recorded crimes for three separate charges of procuring an illegal abortion, the intentional destruction of a viable unborn child and concealing an infant death pre-birth. While the first two charges are punishable by life imprisonment, the latter carries a three-year prison sentence.

Some of the cases included in the government data could relate to investigations into abusive partners forcing a woman into having an abortion, those who sell abortion pills, and individuals whose violence against a woman or person with a womb causes them to lose their pregnancy.

Earlier in the month, Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard Foster was between 32 to 34 weeks pregnant when she took the abortion pills – with Justice Pepperall saying she felt “very deep and genuine remorse”, was “racked with guilt” and still had nightmares over her actions.

Kate Osborne, a Labour MP who sits on the women and equalities committee, told The Independent the imprisonment of Foster was a “disgrace” and was “perverse” as she called for abortion care to be decriminalised.

“This case shows that the current legislation is unsafe for women and could potentially open the door for more prosecutions,” she added.

Labour MP Stella Creasy, an outspoken campaigner for abortion rights, noted “no other healthcare service sits on a criminal foundation” as warned “it’s time to treat all patients equally and introduce a proper medical framework to guide access rather than use the threat of prosecution to deter it.”

A spokesperson for the CPS said: “These exceptionally rare cases are complex and traumatic. Our prosecutors have a duty to ensure that laws set by parliament are properly considered and applied when making difficult charging decisions.”

[msclaritea]

Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677669822388219904.html

"Since 1970, Rupert Murdoch's toxic Sun had published images of topless 'glamour models' on Page 3.

In 1983, Sam Fox became the youngest Page 3 model in The Sun, when aged just 16 she first featured topless with the headline 'Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels'.

It wasn't until 2003, with the passing of the Sexual Offences Act, that the minimum age for women posing on Page 3 was raised to 18.

The Sun ceased publishing topless Page 3 images in Ireland edition in 2013, in the UK in 2015, & on its website in 2017. https://t.co/r27ZiZWrd3Page3.com

Katie Price - Latest news and gossip - The SunKatie Price has been known on the celebrity circuit for many years, starting out her career as a glamour model…http://Page3.com

Although feminists had for many years criticized the feature, The Sun had always vigorously defended Page 3.

The Sun introduced the feature in 1970, which boosted its readership & prompted the Mirror, Sunday People, & Star to begin featuring topless models on their own Page 3.

Page 3's mainly male defenders portrayed it as 'a harmless British cultural tradition', but it drew criticism both from conservatives, who tended to view it as soft porn inappropriate for inclusion in newspapers, & feminists, who argued it objectified women & perpetuated sexism.

Some politicians—notably Labour's Clare Short, Harriet Harman, & Stella Creasy, LibDem Lynne Featherstone, & Caroline Lucas—made efforts to have Page 3 removed, although other politicians eg Nick Clegg & Ed Vaizey, expressed concern that such a ban would compromise press freedom.

The Sun vigorously defended the feature. Typically representing Page 3's critics as prudes, spoilsports, or ideologues, it also routinely portrayed female critics as physically unattractive and jealous of its Page 3 girls.

When Clare Short in 1986 tried to introduce a bill banning topless models from British newspapers, The Sun ran a "Stop Crazy Clare" campaign, distributing free car stickers, calling Short a "killjoy", printing unflattering images of her.

The grotesque must-read of the yearNick Davies' book about media bosses making MPs and celebrities pander to them is essential reading for the politically informed.

The Sun polled readers on whether they preferred to see Short's face or the back of a bus. Murdoch's News of the World ran bogus stories suggesting Short was involved with porn, tried to buy old photos of her as a 20-year-old in a nightdress, & published other smear stories.

"Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 row

The Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne."

Rebekah Brooks was reported to be against Page 3, & was expected to terminate it when she became editor in 2003. Upon assuming her editorship, she defended it, calling its models "intelligent, vibrant young women who appear in The Sun out of choice & because they enjoy the job".

When Clare Short stated in a 2004 interview that she wanted to "take the pornography out of our press", saying "I'd love to ban [Page 3 because it] degrades women and our country", Brooks targeted Short with a "Hands Off Page 3" campaign.

Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 row

The Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne.

The Sun's campaign included printing an image of Short's face superimposed on a topless woman's body, calling Short "fat and jealous", and parking a double-decker bus with a delegation of Page 3 models outside Short's home.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner

Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 rowThe Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jan/14/pressandpublishing.politicsandthemedia

The Sun also called Harriet Harman a "feminist fanatic" and Featherstone a "battleaxe" for their opposition to Page 3.

In February 2012, the #Leveson Inquiry heard arguments for and against Page 3.

Women's advocacy groups argued that Page 3 demeaned women and promoted sexist attitudes, but Sun editor Dominic Mohan called the feature an "innocuous British institution" that had become "part of British society".

Sun editor defends Page ThreeThe editor of The Sun newspaper, Dominic Mohan, has defended the continued use of topless pictures on page three.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/16927925

Lucy-Anne Holmes began campaigning against Page 3 after noticing during the 2012 Summer Olympics that the largest photograph of a woman in the nation's best-selling newspaper was not of an Olympic athlete but of "a young woman in her knickers".

No More Page 3 campaigner Lucy-Anne Holmes on her battle with the SunKira Cochrane: First offended by the newspaper's topless models at the age of 11, she wants Rupert Murdoch to remove the featurehttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner

The campaign got 240K signatures & support from trade unions, universities, charities, women's advocacy groups & 140+ MPs.

It sponsored two women's football teams, Nottingham Forest WFC & Cheltenham Town LFC, who played with the "No More Page 3" logos.

No More Page 3 campaigners sponsor another women's football teamNotts Forest Ladies support call for Sun to end topless photoshttps://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/19/page-3-sun

In 2012, Lynne Featherstone called for a ban claiming it contributed to domestic violence against women. Then–deputy PM Nick Clegg said "If you don't like it, don't buy it, you don't want to have a moral policeman or woman in Whitehall telling people what they can & can't see".

Then–prime minister David Cameron also declined to support a ban on Page 3, stating during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour: "This is an area where we should leave it to consumers to decide, rather than to regulators".

Cameron refuses to back ban on Sun's Page 3 topless imagesPM says it is up to consumers to decide whether to buy the Sun, as he sets out plans for greater regulation of online pornographyhttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/22/cameron-no-ban-sun-page-3

After becoming The Sun's editor in 2013, David Dinsmore confirmed he would continue printing photographs of topless models, calling it "a good way of selling newspapers".

On 20th January, 2015, Murdoch's Times reported that the tabloid was "quietly dropping" Page 3.

But on 22 January, The Sun appeared to change course, publishing a Page 3 image of a winking model with her breasts fully exposed and a caption mocking those who had commented on the end of the feature. The Sun did not feature Page 3 thereafter.

In a TV debate with Harman & Germaine Greer, Harman said: "In 100 years' time, if you look back at the newspapers of this country, & you see women standing in their knickers with their breasts showing, what would you think about women's role in society?"

No More Page 3 campaigner Jo Cheetham: Sexism in the media is less in your face, but it’s still thereA decade after taking on The Sun’s topless models tradition, Jo Cheetham talks to Imy Brighty-Potts about her new book, and why she quit social media.https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/the-sun-sexism-laura-bates-page-jessica-ennishill-b2295544.html

The #NoMorePage3 campaign was widely acclaimed, described by one MP as a “seismic victory”. Activist Katherine Sladden wrote, “No other campaign has done as much to inspire a new generation of young feminists.” It is still actively campaigning

No More Page 3: how a feminist collective took on a media behemoth to challenge everyday sexismThe campaign to stop newspapers publishing topless photos of women relied on a special brand of emotional energy.https://theconversation.com/no-more-page-3-how-a-feminist-collective-took-on-a-media-behemoth-to-challenge-everyday-sexism-156478

The British government never enacted legislation against Page 3.

In the mid-90s, The Sun began printing Page 3 photos in colour as standard. Captions, previously containing suggestive double entendre, were replaced by a listing of models' first names, ages, and hometowns.

After polling readers, The Sun in 1997 ceased featuring models who had undergone breast augmentation. In 1999, it launched the Page3 .com website, featuring additional photos of current Page 3 models, archival images of former Page 3 models, & other related content.

In the UK, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modelling from 16 to 18.

This legal change meant that all topless images of 16- and 17-year-old models that had previously been published on Page 3 became potentially illegal content.

In 2020, Channel 4 produced an hour-long documentary, Page Three: The Naked Truth, to mark 50 years since The Sun first introduced Page 3.

#dontbuythesun #FuckRupertMurdoch #Leveson2

Just two weeks ago, Rupert Murdoch's Fox paid $12MILLION to settle two lawsuits alleging “systematic chauvinism” & a “misogynistic environment that permeates Fox News”, where “female workers are verbally violated on almost a daily basis by a poisonous & entrenched patriarchy”.

[ultrajaphunter]

French racism is not the problem

From magazine issue:08 July 2023

Last week we learned that a woman in a park in Skegness was dragged into the bushes and raped by a 33-year-old male. The man had arrived in the UK illegally on a small boat just 40 days earlier.

If you have open borders and no checks on who is arriving, an uptick in crime will inevitably occur

Strangely, I can find little anger about this.

The story was reported in a couple of papers but there were no fulminating editorials or emergency questions in the House.

Jess Phillips hasn’t found room to grandstand about it. Nor have Yvette Cooper, Stella Creasy or any of those other Labour MPs who like to shake their heads in disgust as the Home Secretary explains that the British taxpayers can’t forever foot the hotel bills of illegal migrants.

The Conservative MP for Skegness, Matt Warman, described the rape as ‘hugely shocking’.

Which it both is and isn’t. Every-one should by now be well aware that if you allow very large numbers of young men to break into your country illegally, this sort of thing will happen (as Germany, Sweden and France can all attest).

What are you gonna do about it?

Personally, I would tear up the earth to find which officials in the Home Office, UK Border Force, NGOs and others encouraged, helped or permitted the suspect to come to this country, let him stay and later let him loose.

And I don’t just want them to lose their jobs.

I want them to serve prison time for aiding and abetting people smuggling. After all, someone let the attacker into this country, didn’t they?

And then couldn’t be bothered to deport him.

‘It goes from 0-100°C in under six seconds.’

Naturally, at this stage we have to say that not all migrants are rapists or terrorists.

But if you have open borders and no checks on who is arriving, a certain uptick in rape and other crimes will inevitably occur.

We all know this, but because politicians from every main party have presided over or actively encouraged it, the whole business becomes just one of those unacknowledged downsides of diversity.

In France in October the body of girl called Lola Daviet, aged 12, was found in a travel trunk in Paris.

She had been sexually assaulted, asphyxiated, stabbed and mutilated.

The person arrested for her killing was a woman of 24 from Algiers who was in France illegally and living with an expulsion order.

And while there was political anger around the killing, nothing happened.

As with the UK, by now everybody knows the score.

There are benefits to allowing ongoing illegal mass migration – like getting to feel all warm and good about yourself. And then there are the negatives – such as the occasional raped and mutilated 12-year-old.

Now a different killing in France actually has provoked reactions.

This is the death in Nanterre of Nahel Merzouk, 17 and of Algerian descent. Merzouk was too young to have a licence to drive, but was careering around in a Mercedes when the police tried to stop him.

He resisted arrest and was shot.

In the days afterwards there were riots, lootings, assaults and burnings across France.

From Paris and Strasbourg to Marseilles, much of urban France resembled a warzone.

Of course the media – in the Anglophone world in particular – has been keen to talk about the ‘victim’, his family and the horrors of police violence (especially ‘racism’).

All of which explains next to nothing.

It does not explain, for instance, why these millions of North African migrants and others are in France in the first place. Why would they be if it is such a terrible country?

There have been large population transfers between North Africa and France before.

If the situation is so bad, why not move again?

The answer is that France is not the problem.

A significant chunk of the non-integrated immigrant population is.

They use the country without belonging to it.

Moreover, many of them clearly know that as long as they say ‘racism’, France will be in fear of them.

All the while, the chances of them leaving the hellhole of France and returning to the garden of Algeria are near zero.

France – like Britain – is one of those countries that we are always told people ‘risk their lives’ in order to get to.

Once they arrive, we are then told how little we do for them, how terrible our housing and integration systems are.

We hear only what evil, racist countries we are.

None of this – like the other responses to the killing – makes any sense.

Let us say for a moment that you do think the police were heavy-handed, and that when they encountered a teenager tearing around a neighbourhood at the start of the school day they ought to have let him drive on, or at least approached him in a more kindly manner. But even if you do think that, why, when they failed to behave as you wished, should you set fire to libraries or other municipal buildings or smash your way into the local luxury-goods stores?

Does the society that sheltered and paid you owe you a spate of shopping with violence?

One business paper this week led with ‘Irate rioters in France looted high-end stores such as Louis Vuitton, Zara and Nike amid violent protests over the death of a 17-year-old boy’. Ah yes, those ‘irate’ people who head straight to the handbag section when they want to protest against police racism.