You couldn’t make this up.
Regular readers will know that I don’t hold back on telling it like it is. I don’t give damn that the trend is towards making it a crime to tell the truth if the truth involves women or those from minority groups having done something wrong. The truth is the truth, regardless of sex or ethnic origin.
This BBC article reports that Victoria Parry, 30, was three times over the drink-drive limit when she smashed into three other cars and careered down an embankment, where her car burst into flames. She’d drunk a bottle of wine. In court, she admitted to dangerous driving – a serious offence which carries an unlimited fine and up to 14 years in prison. To make matters worse, Parry has two previous drink-drive convictions.
Now, if Parry had been a man, he would have been starting a long prison sentence right now. He’d have been fined a lot of money. And he might even have been put on the sex-offenders’ register just as a precaution.
Parry’s case was different, though. You see, both she and the Judge were women. As a result, she was not handed down a prison sentence – which would have been absolutely guaranteed if she were a man. In the Judge’s precise words:
If Miss Parry was a man, there is no question it would have been straight down the stairs, because this is a shocking case of dangerous driving against a background of two previous convictions for excess alcohol.
The BBC article makes no mention of fines or bans, either, and I can’t find any mention in reports from other sources.
Naturally, the mitigating circumstances – which also came from a woman – Parry’s lawyer, Lucy Tapper, pin the blame firmly on men. Parry is apparently an irresponsible pisshead because of being in an abusive relationship, so it’s clearly the fault of men that she has three drink-drive convictions (now) and is lucky she hasn’t killed someone. To be fair, there is no mention of who the “relationship” was with, and I might have got that particular anti-male assessment wrong. Tapper whined:
There is deep and genuine regret on her part.
You forgot to mention that that regret extends across three convictions, now, Lucy. You missed a trick to lay it on even thicker.
Parry and the Judge, Sarah Buckingham, should both be in prison. Parry for being the serial drink-driver that she is, and the Judge for utter contempt of what remains of our legal system.
The case has been referred to the judicial watchdog. Although she probably won’t be, Buckingham should be looking at applying for shelf-stacking jobs at Tesco, where she can do less harm.
I’d imagine that many people are aware of the BBC’s obsession with women’s rights, and its ongoing policy of generating alternative history stories to muddy the past. The one that irritates me the most is how they use every opportunity to portray Charles Babbage as secondary to Ada Lovelace. But that’s another story.
This one is a confusing piece about the suffragette movement. And one section of it concerns a woman who had a tattoo of Emmeline Pankhurst put on her leg to… well, that’s about all, really. She had a tattoo of an historical figure from Victorian England put on her leg because she’d watched the film “Suffragette”.
The first thing that jumped to my mind when I saw the photo (above) was “that looks like bloody Ada Lovelace, again”. When I saw the name, Pankhurst, I then thought “but she didn’t look like that” – a memory from my History lessons at school – so I did a quick bit of Googling.
Here, you can see the tattoo image and a photograph of Emmeline Pankhurst contemporary with the period during which she was an activist. That is the image everyone associates with Ms Pankhurst.
I’d get a refund from the tattoo parlour.
Yesterday, during the worst of the snow, the media were falling over themselves to show inane video footage sent in by the public of cats in the snow, dogs in the snow, birds in the snow, snow drifts, cars covered in snow, snow on runways, snow being shovelled off runways, fields covered in snow, people playing in the snow, gritters gritting the snow, traffic and gritters stuck in the snow, and so on.
One video recorded on someone’s dashcam showed a bus veering to avoid a car. It was funny at the time just because of the audio of the van driver of the recording vehicle.
Today, though, the BBC is falling over itself since it has discovered that the bus driver was… a woman! There’s no mention, yet, of who (or what) the driver of the car which veered into the path of the bus was.
Anyone tell me when it starts?
I mean, I know all about the GB women (well, I would if I’d bothered to read it), the South Korean women, the North Korean women, the synchronised North Korean cheerleaders (women), the joint North and South Korean women’s ice hockey team, a bronze medal a British woman won in Sochi in 2014 in something that’s nearly a sport, and women from a few other countries who have already won medals this year. Oh, and a woman from Britain who won’t be taking part because she broke her foot. And a pointless vlog by some woman competing in something else that’s also nearly a sport (look, winter sport is caning it downhill as fast as you can on TWO skis – long ones – and maybe weaving in and out of some poles stuck in the snow, perhaps even ending up in intensive care – not poncing about on short skis (or even just one fat one), doing somersaults, or doing it to music).
But I was, like, wondering when the proper sport begins.
As I’ve mentioned in the About Me section, I seriously considered becoming a teacher before I went down the route of being a driving instructor. I like teaching people.
I saw an advert on the TV just now from the Department for Education pushing its Get Into Teaching campaign.
I think it’s fair to say, judging from those in the clip, that I wouldn’t be able to do it now. The advert clearly implies that only women and possibly those from minority groups are eligible. The video above carries interviews with seven people (six women, one male). The second video in the series has ten interviews (8 women, two men).
It’s funny, isn’t it? If it had been the other way round, World War III would probably have started.
I hate positive discrimination. It is usually far more deliberate than the usual type everyone gets worked up about.
I saw a news item this week where a female teacher, Alice Mc Brearty, had had a sexual relationship with a 15-year old male pupil. The judge – another female, Sheelagh Canavan – said:
…[she had committed the] grossest breach of trust…
I accept he was consenting – what 15-year-old schoolboy would turn down such an attractive offer?
I accept you truly believed this was a great romance, you were in love with him and vice versa, and that age didn’t matter. But it did.
McBrearty was jailed for 16 months.
Now, cast your mind back. Not very far – just a few years. A male teacher, Jeremy Forrest, ran away to France with a 15-year old female pupil. The link I’ve given here deals with some of the aftermath, specifically that the girl he ran away with still has feelings for him and is likely to enter a relationship with him when he comes out of prison. Although Forrest was accused of “grooming”, the girl has said:
If anything, I groomed him.
Forrest is in the middle of a five and a half year sentence for his crime, and will have to spend the rest of his life on the sex offenders’ register (no mention is made of that in McBrearty’s case).
I am not questioning the crime. Both committed them. Nor am I questioning the moral issues around consent.
What I am questioning is the “equality” on display. McBrearty should have been dealt with in accordance with the precedent set for Forrest and locked up for the same period. Or Forrest should be released, having already served more time than McBrearty will have to. And who decides whether judges like Canavan should be allowed to get away with overtly discriminatory and sexist comments about schoolboys.
Remind me again who gets discriminated against where it matters?
Quite simply: you tell the truth. Or, rather, you correct falsehoods.
I’m getting sick and tired of the constant attempts to rewrite history and make it sound like women invented everything. It’s bad enough that the BBC has already declared that it wasn’t Charles Babbage, but Ada Lovelace, who invented the first programmable computer, but this latest article, titled “BBC 100 Women: Nine things you didn’t know were invented by women” takes the biscuit.
Let’s take a look at each of the nine entries.
Grace Hopper invented Computer Software
No she didn’t. She created a compiler-like application in 1952. It was not a true compiler – the first serious one was created in Manchester by Alick Glennie, also in 1952. The first fully-fledged compiler came from a team led by John Backus at IBM in 1957. The world has currently convinced itself that Ada Lovelace wrote the first computer program, even though this was precisely what Babbage was trying to do with his work using punched cards, and which never came to fruition – so Lovelace’s “program” never ran anyway.
The first “stored-program” computer was built in Manchester and ran its first program – software – in 1948.
There’s no doubt that Grace Hopper holds an important position in the history of computer programming, but it isn’t anywhere near as far up the ladder as some would have you believe, and it’s definitely not right at the top.
Dr Shirley Ann Jackson invented Caller ID and Call Waiting
No she didn’t. Theodore Paraskevakos developed a caller ID system in 1968 in Greece. He took out 20 patents between 1969 and 1975, and they predate all others.
Famous Black Inventors (Jackson is African-American) says:
Dr. Jackson conducted breakthrough basic scientific research that enabled others to invent the portable fax, touch tone telephone, solar cells, fiber optic cables, and the technology behind caller ID and call waiting.
In other words, she was involved in the theoretical side of what eventually led to the modern system we use. Along with many other people.
Mary Anderson invented the Windscreen Wiper
No she didn’t. The first ideas seem to have come from Jozef Hofmann and Mills Munitions of Birmingham. At least three people patented wiping systems at the same time – Mary Anderson, Robert Douglass, and John Apjohn. Douglass filed his patent three months before Anderson, Apjohn three months after. Anderson’s might have been better, using an arm instead of a moving brush-bar, but she wasn’t the first to come up with the idea of a wiper.
Olga D Gonzalez-Sanabria invented Space Station Batteries
No she didn’t. Wikipedia says:
González-Sanabria played an instrumental role in the power systems area with the development of the “Long Cycle-Life Nickel-Hydrogen Batteries”. Her technical contributions helped to enable the International Space Station power system.
Contributions and involvement are obviously not be sneezed at, but it’s wrong to overstate them.
Josephine Cochrane invented the Dishwasher
No she didn’t. The first dishwasher was patented by Joel Houghton in 1850. A later patent was awarded to L. A. Alexander in 1865. Cochrane’s patent was awarded in 1887, and she was “assisted” by George Butters. The first dishwasher that was anything like today’s modern devices was patented by William Livens in 1924.
Marie Van Brittan Brown invented the Home Security System
No she didn’t. Not on her own, anyway. Wikipedia says:
Ann Tsukamoto isolated Stem Cells
No she didn’t. She was a “co-patentee” (out of four) of a process to isolate human stem cells.
Stephanie Kwolek invented Kevlar
That one’s correct, though the BBC neglects to mention that is was an accidental discovery and she had little or no involvement in the subsequent development of Kevlar and its uses, and doesn’t seem to have realised its potential.
Elizabeth Magie invented Monopoly
No she didn’t. Magie invented The Landlord’s Game – a game designed to spread the teachings of the 19th Century American economist, Henry George – specifically, his “single tax” theory. She was awarded a patent in 1904. Various similar games came and went between 1903 and the 1930s, and all dealt with the sale and development of land.
Monopoly was sold for the first time in 1935. Parker Brothers purchased the rights from Charles Darrow, but when they realised Darrow was not the sole inventor, and had borrowed ideas from Magie’s game, they also bought rights to Magie’s patent – bearing in mind Monopoly was being sold by Parkers four years before Magie marketed the third version of The Landlord’s Game, in 1939. Monopoly was not the same game.
There is no doubt that these women were major contributors to the fields they were involved in, but it is wrong to talk their involvement up.
Women should have equal opportunities. They should have equal pay for doing the same work as a man. But we have to face the fact that women and men are different, and just as there are things a woman can do better than most men, equally there are things men can do better than most women.
Re-writing history won’t change that.
I just saw this report from the Evening Standard. Imagine what would happen if a 37-year old man did this:
- had a gambling addiction
- was an accountant for a tech company
- created over 400 fake invoices
- stole £350,000 in one year
- spent £250,000 of it playing online poker
- concealed details to avoid being caught
Now imagine what would happen if the only altered detail was that it was a 37-year old black woman.
Unbelievably, Natalie Saul, the thief in question, was given a two-year suspended sentence, 250 hours unpaid work, and a fine of £360 (and I haven’t missed any 0s off that). She was defended by a woman, Lucie Daniels, whose pathetic mitigating plea included:
This offending is so out of character, she has worked hard and paid her taxes and been a responsible citizen…
The judge, Catherine Newman – yes, that’s right: a woman – said:
It has caused considerable harm to your employer which could ill afford to lose such a substantial sum, but thankfully survived. Your grandmother’s death rocked the stability of your hitherto good citizenship.
You had a steady partner who had no idea of your gambling addiction and stands by you. I’m prepared to take the wholly exceptional course of reducing your sentence and suspend it.
Saul was only caught when she went on maternity leave (sigh) and the new accountant uncovered the fraud. Incidentally, it isn’t made clear what happened to the other £100,000 she ripped off.
Newman also said:
I’m taking a considerable risk that the Crown will think it lenient and appeal, but it’s a risk I’m willing to take.
Let’s hope the Crown agrees, does appeal, and also kicks Newman out for gross incompetence (not to mention what appears to be overt discrimination). If Saul had been a man, they’d be arguing the upper sentencing limit wasn’t enough, but Newman seems to think that even the lower limit isn’t low enough for a woman. Thank God for equality, eh?