Mick Hartley

Blog

  • TRA charlatans

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Full text:

    Sex differences between males and females generate skeletal differences – height, and hand size, for example. Likewise for muscle strength. But in their measurement of grip strength the TRA charlatans *control these out*.

    Effectively they say – 'Well, yes, males have greater grip strength, but that's not because they are male, that's because they have bigger hands. If we control for bigger hands, then the sex differences disappear.' So they do control (or 'normalise').

    Of course, the fact that males have bigger hands is just a fact. It arises from their/our maleness. So this effectively says – 'If you discount sex differences, then there are no sex differences.'

    It is sometimes difficult to fully grasp how intellectually dishonest this stuff is. It's good to see it aired in court, and not just here.

  • A lack of interest in real life misogyny

    he grooming gangs scandal which Labour just broke a commitment on. pic.twitter.com/ct449f15Ax

    — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) April 10, 2025

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • “If it’s not from the party, it’s not true”

    tives at home are doing well, along with positive news about construction projects in the city.

    That should do the trick. 

  • The return of Eric Gill

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It is weird. BBC puts statue by sex abuser Eric Gill back on display.

    The BBC has once again unveiled a controversial statue of Prospero and Ariel created by one of the 20th century’s most influential artists who also sexually abused his own daughters.

    Hardly "one of the 20th century’s most influential artists". A minor figure at best.

    Maybe if it was somewhere less obvious – but this is on the front of Broadcasting House, in a big protective case, as though to say: look, this is what we're all about. A statue of a man with a naked little boy…

  • A national scandal of epic proportions

    05-45C1-A783-317FB6DA3779″ rel=”noreferrer noopener” target=”_blank”>Hansard if you have the stomach for it. It matters that we understand just how unspeakable these crimes were.

    The two key questions underlying all this are how rape gangs have been allowed to operate – and why there is such resistance to uncovering the full facts. These are, in reality, the same question, the answer to which was provided in a simple statement of the facts by Ms Lam yesterday:

    ‘The girls we are talking about are predominantly white. The men who preyed on them were predominantly Muslim, generally either from Pakistan or of Pakistani heritage.’

    The look on Phillips’s face when Ms Lam dared to state this typified the problem – as if she had said something that should always remain utterly unsayable.

    That's why.

    So cowed were the police by the fear that they might be accused of institutional racism that they started to invert reality. Professor Alexis Jay’s report into Rotherham shows one detective waving away the complaint of a girl, who was 12 when the abuse began, as ‘100 per cent consensual’.

    A further report into Rotherham by Dame Louise Casey found that the council deliberately covered up the rapes because it was worried about racial tensions. Professor Jay’s inquiry also reported that a senior police officer told a victim’s father that the town ‘would erupt’ if the routine abuse of white children by men of Pakistani origin became widely known. Political correctness was placed above protecting girls from rape and torture. The same story was repeated elsewhere.

    The existence of the rape gangs shame Britain. But the decision that there must never be full accountability or a full understanding of why and how they have been allowed to operate is, in its own way, no less contemptible.

    Added:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Muppet

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Bringing stability to the region

    leased to hear.

    In his 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer argues that the Israel lobby wields disproportionate influence over U.S. foreign policy. His more recent work focuses on criticism of the "liberal international order" and why he believes the West is to blame for the Russo-Ukrainian War.

    And a favourite of the London Review of Books, as I recall.

  • Bringing back blasphemy

    m a KC that described the charges as “plainly defective”, with a “fatal” flaw being that “the religious institution of Islam” was not a “person” under English law.

    In the opinion, Akua Reindorf KC argued that treating a religious institution as a person evoked the notion of blasphemy — a common law offence that was abolished in England and Wales in 2008"….

    A CPS spokesman said: “The law is clear and we will never hesitate to prosecute cases where there is hostility towards members of a racial or religious group.”

    But no hostility was shown, as far as we can tell, to any member of a racial or religious group. He's being prosecuted, as they themselves (the CPS) say, for “intent to cause against [the] religious institution of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress”. So they're dissimulating. They're lying. He was protesting the religion, and they're prosecuting him for blasphemy.

  • They’re men

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • The battle for the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act

    led. In this way, scientific censorship becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

    When academic freedom protections become contingent upon expert opinion on the quality of the contested work or the academic expertise of its author, it places orthodoxy-challenging work at risk. When universities punish researchers for pursuing “problematic” lines of inquiry, we all lose. The censorship and self-censorship of scientists damages public trust in science and harms society. As evolutionary biologist Steve-Stewart Williams put it, “Censoring science blunts our ability to understand the world. … By blunting our ability to understand the world, we also blunt our ability to make the world a better place.”

    The Freedom of Speech Act was designed to protect the contrarians, the heretics, the offensive, the foolish, the Galileos. It was intended to strike a blow against scientific censorship and help to make the world a better place.

    Gender ideology, remember, thrived on the mantra "no debate".

Powered by