Marchessini Blog & Forum

Domestic Gestapo

It is reported in the press that the Home Secretary will be announcing powers to allow the police to prosecute men who are guilty of “psychological and emotional abuse”.  I must say that I do not think that this has been carefully thought out.  Under the terms of the bill, a man could face up to fourteen years in prison.  It is important to remember that all the women have chosen their husbands or lovers.  If they find they do not like them, they can divorce the husband or leave the lover.  But to send them to jail is monstrous.  For those who are married, the wife made marriage vows to look after her husband for the rest of her life.  If she sends him to jail, those vows become lies.

Even more important, the government does not have the right to interfere in people’s private affairs.  We are meant to live in a country where there is personal freedom.  Furthermore, to try to decide who is right and who is wrong in a domestic squabble would be an administrative nightmare.

I would strongly urge the Home Secretary to rethink this matter.



There was a letter in the Daily Telegraph recently that contained some common fallacies about Fascism. In particular, it stated that the “Stalin regime was just as Fascist as Hitler’s”. In fact, neither Stalin nor Hitler were Fascists.

The Fascist Party was founded in 1919 by Mussolini, and its stated purpose was to fight Communism. So Stalin, by definition, could not be Fascist — he was the enemy of the Fascists. Similarly, the Nazis were not Fascists either — they were Socialists. Indeed, the word ‘Nazi’ comes from the capital letters of the party’s title, which was the National Socialist Party of Germany. Furthermore, the Nazis had no qualms allying themselves with the Communists when it suited them. All three governments were violent dictatorships, but only one was Fascist. To state that all violent dictatorships are Fascist is quite incorrect.


One Way Or The Other

I was extremely interested by a recent column in the Sunday Times by Hannah Betts on the harassment of women in the streets.  I certainly agree that this is extremely unpleasant for the women.  The problem is what to do about it?  Fifty years ago, this problem did not exist.  Women were respected, and rarely harassed in the street.  But since then, there have been several changes in the world.

To begin with, the traditional view of women being weaker than men, and, therefore, having to be protected, has disappeared, because of women’s assertions that they are “equal” to men.  If they are “equal”, then they do not need to be protected, and men naturally assume that they can speak to them the same way that they speak to men.

Secondly, there is the question of attire.  Since time immemorial, women’s attire indicated their place in society, and their intentions.  Modest women dressed modestly, those who did not were indicating interest in men.  Therefore, men always knew how to behave to each woman.  This principle has now been destroyed, and even upper class women often wear clothes that are meant to be sexy, but are, in effect, just vulgar.  Men, therefore, are confused.  Many women argue that they should be free to wear what they like.  Indeed, they are free to wear what they like.  But the point is, they must then accept the consequences.  What reason does a woman have to wear vulgar and tarty clothes, except to attract men’s attention?  What other reason can there be?  Suppose, for example, three women walked into a pub, one wearing conventional dress, the second wearing a skirt up to her crotch, with her boobs out, and the third completely naked.  Would each of these three women expect to receive the same reaction from the men in the pub?

The reality of life that Feminists always ignore is that you can do what you like, as long as you are prepared to accept the consequences.  Women claim to be “equal to men”, but then they complain of sexual harassment.  If women are equal, how can there be sexual harassment?  Men never complain of sexual harassment.  The reverse side of women’s claim to be “equal” is the loss of the traditional respect that they have had from men for centuries.  It is one thing or the other – women cannot have it both ways.

Miss Betts mentions “men’s attitudes never seem to change”.  Actually, attitudes often change.  It is not their attitudes, but their nature that does not change.  Human nature never changes, neither men’s nor women’s.  It is the same now as it was at the beginning of time, and it will still be the same at the end of time.  An important part of men’s nature is that they are attracted to women.  We hope that will not change, because otherwise there will be no more babies, and the world would come to a stop.  How good a man’s manners are depends upon his upbringing, but one cannot change his nature.


Open Letter to Tim Cook

Dear Mr Cook,

In his famous essay, On Language, George Orwell pointed out that “Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking”.  You have stated publicly last week that you are proud to be “gay”, and that you consider being “gay” “among the greatest gifts God has given me”.  I would point out to you, with respect, that the only reason that you have been able to make such an extraordinary statement by using the word “gay”.

For several centuries, the word “gay” has usually referred to someone who led a “loose or immoral life”, in particular, to prostitutes.  It had never specifically been used for homosexuals.  But, in the last thirty odd years, because the homosexual community did not like the words used in the past to describe them – “sodomite”, “pederast”, or even “homosexual” – because they gave too clear a picture of homosexuality, they adopted the word “gay” to describe themselves.  More to the point, however, they have persuaded other people generally to accept “gay”.  Of course, the word “gay” is a euphemism – a word that is used to conceal a distasteful fact by the use of a pleasant sounding word.  This “shyness” does not exist elsewhere.  In France, for example, the word “pede” (short for pederast) is still commonly used.

For example, could you have said publicly “I am proud to allow other men to shove their cocks up my bottom”?  Everyone would have laughed.  Could you have said that among the greatest gifts God has given you, is the opportunity to “suck other men’s cocks”?  More laughter.  Yet, this is exactly what all homosexuals do.  That shows the extent to which the use of euphemisms has permeated into modern life, a continuous effort to gloss over reality.

You are certainly free to commit as many homosexual acts as you please, but please stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  We are not all stupid, and you are insulting our intelligence.


Big Brother

The press reports about Nicky Morgan’s (the Secretary of Education) recent statements on teaching in schools, are somewhat confusing. She first says that pupils should be encouraged to respect other people, even if they do not agree with them. Most people would agree with that. But it does not follow that, therefore, they should respect other people’s faiths – that is absolutely impossible for anyone with firm religious views. I have several homosexual friends, but that does not mean that I approve of homosexuality. I have some Muslim friends, but that does not mean that I approve of the Muslim religion. Is the Minister aware, for example, that in the Muslim religion one is not allowed to kill one’s father, or one’s brother, or one’s friends, but one is free to kill as many “infidels” as one wishes. Indeed one is encouraged to do so. Does the Minister approve of that? Only dictatorships try to control what their citizens think. In any free country, that is anathema. It is people that one respects, but not necessarily their beliefs.

Miss Morgan is also quoted as saying that she is a “committed Christian”. How can she then support same-sex marriage? Being a Christian does not just mean believing in Christ – it means practising the Christian faith, believing Christian dogma, and accepting the Bible. The Bible states in ten or twelve places that homosexuality is “an abomination”, so how can any Christian approve same-sex marriage? It is not up to the government to decide what people should believe. Children should be educated according to the beliefs of their parents, their religion and the schools that their parents choose. Not by the government.

It was reported that the Yesodey Hatorah girls school in north London was downgraded because it blacked out science exam questions on evolution. But evolution is not science. There is no firm evidence backing evolution, it is simply a theory of Darwin, and we must not forget that Darwin was a Christian, and not opposed to the Christian faith. Schools should not be coerced to force evolution on their pupils.



The Times columnist Ben Macintyre obviously has a rather short memory. He attacks Mr Farage, and UKIP, for adding an MEP to their group, whose views Macintyre does not approve of. He clearly does not remember that the democracies of the West allied themselves with the most vicious and bloodthirsty government in the history of Western Europe, namely, the Russian Communists, in order to defeat Hitler. Russian experts estimate that the Russian Communists murdered between 60 and 80 million of their compatriots, and ruled over a vicious dictatorship for seventy years. How does that compare with one Polish MEP?

Macintyre also referred to “wife beating”, but this is simply a bad translation from Polish. No one beats their wives, except drunken yobbos. What was referred to is smacking your wife’s bottom, which is quite different. It does not hurt, and it simply shows who is in charge. Furthermore, contrary to your opinion, most women like it.

Macintyre quotes Mr Korwin-Mikke on rape (although K-M is not the MEP whom UKIP has adopted), as saying “Women are always pretending that they are showing some resistance, and this is normal”. Macintyre does not accept this, so I must say that every single woman who did me the honour of granting me her favours, always said “NO” at first. Every single one. Of course, this is “normal”. That does not suggest that all women submit – many say “No” and mean “No”. But they all say “No” to begin.

Macintyre objects to Mr Korwin-Mikke’s statement that the difference between rape and consensual sex is “very subtle”. With great respect, he obviously does not have much sexual experience. The men that I know have spent countless evenings wrestling with young women, which sometimes ended with success, and sometimes with failure. As Mr Korwin-Mikke says, the difference is “subtle”.

Macintyre also objects to Mr K-M’s statement that democracy is the most “stupid form of government ever conceived”. Well, clearly everyone is not obliged to agree with that, but clearly Macintyre is not aware of the number of well known people who do agree with Mr K-M. For example, Aristotle said “Democracy is government in the hands of men of low birth, no property and vulgar employment”. George Bernard Shaw (a Socialist) said “Democracy is the form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many, for appointment by the corrupt few”. The American writer H L Mencken said it was “The worship of jackals by jack asses”. Lord Byron called it “Aristocracy by blaggards”. And no democracy in the history of the world has lasted longer than two hundred years. So although Macintyre and many others may disagree with Mr K-M, it would seem that not everyone does. It, therefore, seems that he has gone over the top by calling Mr Iwaszkiewicz an “extremist monster” for remarks made by somebody else.

Finally, the fuss he made about the UKIP song, shows how intolerant England has become. It is simply a political song, and what is wrong with that? It is sung in calypso style. What is wrong with that? In Germany some years ago, a song came out about Gerhard Schroeder, the then Prime Minister, which said that Mr Schroeder “has his hand in our pockets”. There was no fuss about that, and it climbed to number one in the German charts.

Mr Macintyre must learn to be more tolerant.


You Cannot Have it Both Ways

A recent article by Linda Kelsey in the Daily Telegraph contained certain misconceptions. The most important thing in marital relations is to understand what exactly marriage means. Most people in England no longer understand that marriage is not simply a declaration of whom you are sleeping with – it is a promise. A promise to stay with, and look after another person. If you are religious, you make the promise before God, if not, you make it before the world. Anyone who breaks their promise is considered a bad person.

People who live together, without marriage, often consider themselves “married”, and often consider that they have a “commitment” – but they do not. Without that formal promise, there is no marriage, and without marriage there is no responsibility. I know two couples, each of whom had lived together for 28 years, when one day, the man left, leaving three children behind. What commitment was that?

As society has always been based on marriage, it is normal for governments to encourage marriage, and give married people benefits. But people who cohabitate and have not made any promises, cannot ask for the same benefits. They have no responsibility, and, therefore, no rights. One has to choose in life. If you do not wish to take on responsibility, you do not marry, but then you cannot expect to get the same benefits that people who have assumed obligations receive. It is one way or the other, you cannot have it both ways.

Miss Kelsey said that “the law has failed to keep pace with social change”. The law is not meant to keep up with “social change”. The law is meant to be something one can rely on, come hell or high water. One must remember that everything in the world goes around. Everything has happened before, and will happen again. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that “social change” is progress. It is simply the fashion of the moment, like the length of ladies’ skirts.

As for Nicholas Mostyn, I happen to be a lawyer, and I can tell you that he is talking rubbish. My son-in-law, who is a successful QC, also has a very dim view of Judge Mostyn. One cannot pretend that those who have made a promise, and a commitment, are in the same place as those who have not. Otherwise, civilisation disappears.



In a recent column by Matthew Parris in The Times, he claims that the UKIP calypso tells two “lies”.  One is the verse that goes, “He looked a reporter straight in the eye, when things get serious, it’s time to lie”.  Mr Parris claims that this is a lie.  He admits that Mr Juncker had briefly denied that a meeting was taking place to rescue Greece.  (Presumably “briefly denying” is the same as “briefly lying”.)  Observers at the time called Mr Juncker the “Master of Lies” for organising a meeting, and then denying it was taking place.  But, even more amusing, Mr Juncker was famously quoted throughout the press for saying in 2011 “When it becomes serious, you have to lie”.  This quote became famous, and is now in Wikipedia.  So it is Mr Parris who is lying.

But that is not all.  Mr Juncker is also known to have advised Gordon Brown, then Prime Minister, to mislead the British public over transfers of sovereignty.  “Of course, there will be transfers of sovereignty”, he said, “but it would not be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact”.  He was also fascinating about the introduction of the Euro, when he was quoted as saying “We decide on something, leave it lying around, and see what happens – if no one objects (because most people do not understand what has been decided) we continue step by step until there is no turning back”.

I would suggest that the Times edits Mr Parris’ columns for accuracy in future



In a recent column in the Daily Telegraph, Mary Riddell has her facts completely wrong on crime and prisoners. It is important to understand that, contrary to Miss Riddell’s statements, the UK has the most number of crimes in Europe (6,523,706, at a recent count), slightly ahead of the Germans. Furthermore, crime as a percentage of total population is 10.3% in the UK, according to U.N. figures. This is the second highest in Europe, after Sweden which is 12.9%. By contrast, although the U.S. has vastly more crime, the percentage per population is only 3.8%. Finally, again by U.N. figures, although the UK has the most crimes in Europe, it is only 15th in the number of prisoners. In other words, the UK imprisons relatively fewer criminals than many other countries. The number of prisoners in the UK recently was only 1.2% of the crimes committed. As she seems to have no idea what the truth is, it is not possible to take her assertions seriously.

Miss Riddell alleges that our prisons are overcrowded and undermanned – that is quite true, but it is not because we put too many people in prison. It is because neither political party has built a jail in a very long period of time, while crime has been increasingly continuously. Her statement that “Crime has been falling inexorably for decades, and both Britain and the world have grown more peaceable” is a travesty of the truth. The truth is that in 1954, there were 4 armed robberies in England – in 2004, there were over 4,000. In 1980, the total number of robberies was 15,000 – in 2001 there were 121,375. In 1947, there were approximately 500,000 crimes in the UK. In the year 2000, there were approximately 5,170,000 crimes, and today there are over 6.5 million crimes. Miss Riddell’s assertions are insane. The simple fact is that if you have criminals, you have to have jails for them. Instead of providing more jails, both parties want to put their heads in the sand, and pretend that crime is falling. The only way to reduce crime, and the prison population, is by handing out long prison sentences. Criminals admit that this is the only thing that frightens them – long prison sentences.

Recently, the Labour Government committed an act so dishonest and disgusting that if a private individual had done it, he would have gone straight to jail. Because crime kept going up, they stopped taking the crime figures from the Police, and started taking them from an organisation called the British Crime Survey (BCS). This is a survey organisation in the Midlands, that surveys 40,000 households for crimes that they are aware of (not necessarily reported to the Police), and on the basis of those figures, they estimate the total for the whole country. Even a half-wit would see that this is a scam. The BCS naturally co-operated with the government, and in its first year, it estimated that over 19 million crimes were committed. Yet, in the same year, the Police recorded approximately 5 million crimes. So the BCS figure was ludicrous. But having started with such ridiculously high figures, they are able to reduce the number every year, and give the impression (to naive people), that crime is falling, whereas, in fact, crime, as recorded by the Police, has been continuously rising. The amazing thing is that when the Conservatives came into power in 2010, they did not abolish this absurd method, and they continue to use it. A Tory grandee tried to persuade me that it was necessary!

Miss Riddell is also confused about what Churchill believed. He certainly thought the treatment of criminals was a mark of the strength of a nation, but what he meant was that nations should be firm about crime, and protect their citizens from it, not, as Miss Riddell suggests let our criminals out of prison. She is also confused about, so called, “Human Rights”. When a man commits a crime, he forfeits any rights he has, starting with his right of freedom. He has to accept the punishment of society. Miss Riddell should consider the fact that prisoners today have colour television. I can remember when none of us had colour television.



There was an interesting report in the news today, telling the story of a girl aged sixteen, who had been abused twenty years ago by a group of Pakistani men in Leeds, just after she had left care. A worker at Barnardo’s Leeds Leaving Care project, stated that the situation could have been avoided if the “victim had not been party to the antics of a group of young men … having consumed a quantity of alcohol and taken three Valium tablets, the girl was not able to maintain control or respond to the situation”. This report has now been criticised – twenty years later – and a Barnardo’s spokesman (a lady) said “The view that any child is responsible for their own sexual assault is wrong and totally unacceptable”.

Now, there are two things wrong with that statement. The first is that a sixteen-year-old girl is not a child. Many women have been married at that age. The second is that it has been one of the elemental principles of civilisation from time immemorial, that one must be responsible for one’s own actions. We are now being told that anyone under sixteen is not responsible, and, therefore, free to do what they like. This is, I fear, one of the biggest reasons that the behaviour of young people in England is no longer civilised.

1 2 3 50 Page 1 of 50

If any issues on this site affect you, please leave a comment.

All comments will be responded to appropriately.