> My apologies for my outbursts.. however I am sick and tired of all these
> complaints about how us.* is structured. I host a newsgroup and follow
> all posting rules and enforcement policy to the letter… unflinchingly.
> Ms. Thomas has my total support.
Thanks for speaking up. If this debate is Henrietta vs. the world,
then it is pretty much intractable, but one of the goals (and to some
extent the reality) of us.* is that it is more than just Henrietta.
We’ll make it through somehow.
jwilk…@netcom.com (John L. Wilkerson Jr.) wrote in
us.config,us.issues,us.politics,news.admin.censorship,
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Quite the crosspost there Mr. Wilkerson!!! us.config
)
replaced with alt.censorship. us.issues removed as
irrelevant and off-topic (henrietta imitation of the day
-usad…@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) writes:
-
-
-> Request for Discussion (RFD)
-> unmoderated group us.issues.censorship.henrietta
But that would divert the bulk of traffic from us.politics.
Why not just loosen up a bit instead.
->This is a formal Request for Discussion to create a new
->newsgroup in the us.* hierarchy, us.issues.censorship.henrietta.
Groups made to disparage another are a very bad idea and
something a professional would never engage in. Your
request for your own group however indicates that perhaps
things have been carried to far and that those involved should
step back and take a more objective look at what is
happening.
-
->Newsgroups line:
->us.issues.censorship.henrietta The place to ‘bash’
->Henrietta K. Thomas
So why not go this Usenet II we heard so much about. That
should be sanatized I should think. Give it some thought though–
really Henrietta. You can’t very well complain about ‘bashing’ when
you jump the gun and start threatening to complain to any users
ISP who doesn’t bend to your will. That’s very poor form.
-Another way to end this excessive posting of flames against the
-US Coordinator
The job remains open although many people claim to be many
things. But hey–if the title pleases her let her use it–I was the
King of Spain last night for example.
-would be to simply cancel any articles that are off-topic in
-the groups. The issue of cancellation of off-topic articles could be put
-to a vote in us.config.
Yes–well you can count on the reposting of articles by yourself and
any others who post to a censored group in us.*; however innocently
if there are any content cancels–reposts of course being at random
and personal fancy. Promise.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
————————-
http://www.churchstate.net
Jim Kingdon <king…@panix7.panix.com> wrote in message
news:p4wg14h1kew.fsf@panix7.panix.com…
> > My apologies for my outbursts.. however I am sick and tired of all these
> > complaints about how us.* is structured. I host a newsgroup and follow
> > all posting rules and enforcement policy to the letter… unflinchingly.
> > Ms. Thomas has my total support.
Bullshit, the KKK could have posted *anything* but we were censored. We were
set up for mail bombing and spamming. The hierarchy was run in an utterly
disgraceful manner. It was a racists and bigots paradise but legitimate
opinions were ruthlessly suppressed.
> Thanks for speaking up. If this debate is Henrietta vs. the world,
> then it is pretty much intractable, but one of the goals (and to some
> extent the reality) of us.* is that it is more than just Henrietta.
> We’ll make it through somehow.
Henrietta was making bogus complaints and trolling and emailing europeans
telling them the hierarchy was only for americans. She objected strongly to
criticism of the USA and emailed folks asking them to say nice things. She
caused a lot of trouble and was extremely one sided.
—
Totschläger
Henrietta K. Thomas <usad…@wwa.com> wrote in message
news:374e3561.1473472@news.wwa.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Request for Discussion (RFD)
> unmoderated group us.issues.censorship.henrietta
> This is a formal Request for Discussion to create a new newsgroup in
> the us.* hierarchy, us.issues.censorship.henrietta.
> Newsgroups line:
> us.issues.censorship.henrietta The place to ‘bash’ Henrietta K. Thomas
> Rationale: us.issues.censorship.henrietta
> There has recently been a spate of complaints against the coordinator
> of the us.* hierarchy, Henrietta K. Thomas. She has been accused of
> trying to censor posts in various newsgroups over the last couple of
> months. As she refused to bend over and kiss anybody’s ass, more
> and more voices were raised against her, and the arguments spilled
> over into other hierarchies. This is not good for Usenet. Each hierarchy
> should keep its arguments to itself, and not bother other hierarchies
> with their drivel. It is therefore proposed to create this newsgroup so
> that people who want to ‘bash’ Henrietta K. Thomas will have their own
> special place to do so without bothering people in other hierarchies.
Bullshit Henrietta indirectly fostered by her behaviour a regime of abject
hatred against liberals and europeans and even ethnics in my personal
opinion. She was utterly disruptive and went trolling against her foes on
other hierarchies. She was very ambivalent about dirty tricks to the extent
we regarded it as more of an encouragement than much of a hindrance.
She made utterly bogus complaints to ISP and was emailing europeans
reserving the hierarchy exclusively for americans. She was utterly
unreasonable. If she wanted us.supremacist she needed to form it instead of
misappropriating a hierarchy designed for the very issues she was censoring.
All that required was a level playing pitch and common decency. That was
beyond her talents.
–
Totschläger
Jim Kingdon <king…@panix7.panix.com> wrote in
<p4wg14h1kew….@panix7.panix.com>:
>> My apologies for my outbursts.. however I am sick and tired of all these
>> complaints about how us.* is structured. I host a newsgroup and follow
>> all posting rules and enforcement policy to the letter… unflinchingly.
>> Ms. Thomas has my total support.
>Thanks for speaking up. If this debate is Henrietta vs. the world,
>then it is pretty much intractable, but one of the goals (and to some
>extent the reality) of us.* is that it is more than just Henrietta.
>We’ll make it through somehow.
If you canvass in Vidor Texas for a replacement the continuity might be
harmoniously maintained in my opinion. Speaking up was the problem. She should
have been listening rather than leading her troops into battle against
europeans and ethnics and people talking about politics.
alt.trigger.guard is all hers if she forms it. What is the point of a charter
when she just wanted a white exclusive suburb with the odd right wing crazy as
a muscle boy in case foreigners or dark skinned ethnics came to the door?
There was no need for the crap that happened. Henrietta started it and
maintained it and even went trolling for more on other hierarchies until we
just had enough of the crazy shit.
–
catho…@justinian.idps.co.uk
ISP_Ratings <bou…@alt.net> wrote in <374f8137.16286…@news.alt.net>:
> –
> ->Newsgroups line:
> ->us.issues.censorship.henrietta The place to ‘bash’
> ->Henrietta K. Thomas
> So why not go this Usenet II we heard so much about. That
>should be sanatized I should think. Give it some thought though–
>really Henrietta. You can’t very well complain about ‘bashing’ when
>you jump the gun and start threatening to complain to any users
>ISP who doesn’t bend to your will. That’s very poor form.
Yes it is rough stuff, it was do or die and she made the rules. She tried to
turn us off. She was laughed at. No surprises there, it is almost a reflex at
this point.
> -would be to simply cancel any articles that are off-topic in
> -the groups. The issue of cancellation of off-topic articles could be put
> -to a vote in us.config.
> Yes–well you can count on the reposting of articles by yourself and
>any others who post to a censored group in us.*; however innocently
>if there are any content cancels–reposts of course being at random
>and personal fancy. Promise.
Sounds interesting.
On Fri, 28 May 1999 11:57:41 GMT, bou…@alt.net (ISP_Ratings) wrote:
> -Another way to end this excessive posting of flames against the
> -US Coordinator
> The job remains open although many people claim to be many
>things. But hey–if the title pleases her let her use it–I was the
>King of Spain last night for example.
Henrietta is NOT in charge of us.politics. She is in charge of being
a pain in this irish person’s hairy arse and that is the extent of her
empire. Has she the missile launch codes?
We’ll need them back. I have a cadre of poor barefoot souls mumbling
about elections and revolution. One or the other. The evil ice bitch
will find her palace mobbed by the oippressed and soon it will be
over.
If you are the King of Spain why did you pretend you couldn’t speak
English in Pamplona when I asked why the poor bulls had to die? This
was 1993, in case you forget. I was carrying a placard and wearing a
green shirt with a pen in the top pocket that had leaked.
I think there might be a slight possibility that you are not really
the King of Spain.
social@psychology
On 28 May 1999 07:52:07 -0400, Jim Kingdon <king…@panix7.panix.com>
wrote:
>> My apologies for my outbursts.. however I am sick and tired of all these
>> complaints about how us.* is structured. I host a newsgroup and follow
>> all posting rules and enforcement policy to the letter… unflinchingly.
>> Ms. Thomas has my total support.
>Thanks for speaking up. If this debate is Henrietta vs. the world,
>then it is pretty much intractable, but one of the goals (and to some
>extent the reality) of us.* is that it is more than just Henrietta.
>We’ll make it through somehow.
Not by treating folks like niggers you won’t or by deporting the Bill
of Rights to a substandard NG. This one is shitty enough as it is.
However if we all work constructively and ignore Henrietta things
should improve.
I for one will not be taking a blind bit of notice of her. I might
fling the odd rebuke but she is no longer running things around here.
We need to attract back the folks driven away by the suburban white
racist shit.
social@psychology
SPAM ALERT!
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Henrietta is NOT in charge of us.politics. She is in charge of being
>a pain in this irish person’s hairy arse and that is the extent of her
>empire. Has she the missile launch codes?
>We’ll need them back. I have a cadre of poor barefoot souls mumbling
>about elections and revolution. One or the other. The evil ice bitch
>will find her palace mobbed by the oippressed and soon it will be
>over.
>If you are the King of Spain why did you pretend you couldn’t speak
>English in Pamplona when I asked why the poor bulls had to die? This
>was 1993, in case you forget. I was carrying a placard and wearing a
>green shirt with a pen in the top pocket that had leaked.
>I think there might be a slight possibility that you are not really
>the King of Spain.
>social@psychology
SPAM ALERT!
Fraternally,
Walt
Sgt. NYSOCS
"If ya can’t do the time, don’t do the crime!"
Tony Barretta
SPAM ALERT!
>Not by treating folks like niggers you won’t or by deporting the Bill
>of Rights to a substandard NG. This one is shitty enough as it is.
>However if we all work constructively and ignore Henrietta things
>should improve.
>I for one will not be taking a blind bit of notice of her. I might
>fling the odd rebuke but she is no longer running things around here.
>We need to attract back the folks driven away by the suburban white
>racist shit.
>social@psychology
SPAM ALERT!
Fraternally,
Walt
Sgt. NYSOCS
"If ya can’t do the time, don’t do the crime!"
Tony Barretta
On 1 Jun 1999 04:26:17 GMT, Sgt Walt <sgtw…@aol.com> wrote:
>SPAM ALERT!
(repost of framed material snipped)
I’ve noticed that Andrew Gierth, a trusted despammer, has cancelled some of
these as spam themselves. I would advised Sgt. Walt not to do this any
more.
–
Rebecca Ore
In article <slrn7l7v7e.ceq….@ogoense.net>,
rebecca….@op.net wrote:
> On 1 Jun 1999 04:26:17 GMT, Sgt Walt <sgtw…@aol.com> wrote:
> >SPAM ALERT!
> (repost of framed material snipped)
> I’ve noticed that Andrew Gierth, a trusted despammer, has cancelled some of
> these as spam themselves. I would advised Sgt. Walt not to do this any
> more.
Corrections officers have been spamming non stop since we turned up. They
can’t manage rebuttals.
> —
> Rebecca Ore
–
Kan man das Wasser unbedenklich trinken
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Henrietta K. Thomas <usad…@wwa.com> wrote in
<374e0218.921…@news.wwa.com>:
> CHARTER: us.politics
>Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules may be reported
>to the us.* hierarchy administation, your Internet Service Provider,
>and/or legal authorities in appropriate situations. This applies
>especially to illegal chain letters, forgeries, unauthorized use of
>registered domains, newsgroup "spamming", and/or the constant
>harassment of other posters.
Of course Henrietta might just do a few bogus complaints on her own behalf
based on nothing more than personal dislike and bigotry. She will not
complain about right wing racists or kooks. She will let them do what the
hell they like. Pity any Hawaiian who comes along thinking that their
concerns might heaven forbid be us,politics material. Nope that sort of
ethnic shit won’t be tolerated on the new improved and very white
us.politics. We’ll be telling the europeans to go away as well.
–
catho…@justinian.idps.co.uk
usad…@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) wrote:
-
-
- Posting Rules for the us.* hierarchy
-
<huge clip>
-
-For further information on cancels, see Tim Skirvin’s Cancel FAQ
-at: http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/cancel.html.
But Tim Skirvin has openly admitted that he publishes false
information about people on his website Henrietta. And you
are certainly aware of that so I fail to see how you can
use him as a legitimate reference and it certainly calls
into question everything else you just posted in this
missive.
-
-Amendments:
Best fix the Skirvan thing if you wish any further
pretense of ‘authority’.
-Henrietta K. Thomas
-us.* hierarchy coordinator
-usad…@wwa.com
Stephen Boursy
King of Spain
————————-
http://www.churchstate.net
On Fri, 28 May 1999 05:01:08 +0100, "Totschläger"
<budap…@breathemail.net> wrote:
>For example, women often have a very subordinate role in drug dealing and so
>may have little information to offer in order to be eligible for the more
>lenient sentences imposed on people who assist the police and prosecution.
Essentially correct, but it goes way beyond women. The manner in which
mandatory minimum laws were designed virtually guarantees that it’s
the smallest fish who receive the largest sentences, regardless of the
sex of the offender. The big enchilidas always have names to offer
rapacious prosecutors, while the guy or gal who drove the car for a
set fee doesn’t know diddly.
>Very few women pimp and very few women coerce men.
Sydney Biddle Barrows won’t like reading that!
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a…@interport.net
Andrewk…@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
: I have the precise data on another computer I think .
If you do it’s as little as possible!
I will post it in
: tomorrow. Well the war on drugs is arresting few grannies and great
: grannies.
Going for a quick subject change?
There are estimated to be more than 80,000 mothers among the women
: in prison and jail.
Last time you posted they were "mostly" young so that would make your
current allegations "mostly young mothers". Keep in mind many have lost
their kids not due to incarceration but to abuse and endangerment.
:
:
: Abuse of Female Prisoners Escalates, Human Rights
: Report Says
:
: By Barbara Vobejda
: Washington Post Staff Writer
: Thursday, March 4, 1999
:
: That rapid increase for women is primarily a
: result of the nation’s war on drugs, which was
: launched in the 1980s and led to much stiffer
: sentences for drug offenses. The number of women
: sentenced to state prisons for drug crimes, for
: example, increased tenfold between 1986 and
: 1996, the report said.
:
: But as the number of women inmates has
: increased, prison facilities have not kept pace
: in accommodating the female population. In
: federal prisons, for example, 70 percent of
: those who are guarding women are men. In Canada,
: by comparison, 91 percent of such guards are
: women.
:
: In 12 states, there are no laws prohibiting
: sexual contact between guards and inmates.
: Virginia’s legislature approved such a law last
: week.
:
:
:
: They have approximately 200,000 children aged under 18. Surveys indicate
: that the great majority of imprisoned women with children under 18 lived
: with their children before they were imprisoned.
:
: The number of women incarcerated in prisons and jails in the USA is
: approximately 10 times more than the number of women incarcerated in
Western
: European countries, whose combined female population is about the same
size
: as that of the USA.
:
: One of the most striking characteristics of incarcerated women is that
the
: proportion who are of racial and ethnic minority background greatly
exceeds
: their representation in the general population. The rate of imprisonment
of
: black women is more than eight times the rate of imprisonment of white
: women; the rate of imprisonment of Hispanic women is nearly four times
the
: rate of imprisonment of white women.
:
: Many women enter jail and prison pregnant. In 1997-98, more than 2,200
: pregnant women were imprisoned and more than 1,300 babies were born in
: prisons. In at least 40 states, babies are taken from their imprisoned
: mothers almost immediately after birth or at the time the mother is
: discharged from hospital.
:
: ‘Without any fanfare, the "war on drugs" has become a war on women, and
it
: has clearly contributed to the explosion in women’s prison
: population…While the intent of get tough policies was to rid society of
: drug dealers and so called king-pins, over a third (35.9%) of the women
: serving time for drug offenses in the nation’s prisons are serving time
: solely for "possession."’ A study of women in California prisons
:
: "We need to be more honest with ourselves that the vast majority of women
: receiving prison sentences are not the business operatives of the drug
: networks. The glass ceiling seems to operate for women whether we are
: talking about legitimate or illegitimate business. They (women) are very
: small cogs in a very large system, not the organizers or backers of
illegal
: drug empires.
:
: This, coupled with a growing mood among the American public reportedly
: concerned about early intervention for troubled kids and more drug
treatment
: in preference to more prisons, should give us the opening we need to look
at
: better and more cost- effective ways of dealing with women offenders."
:
: Elaine Lord, warden of Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, New York
State’s
: maximum security prison for women
:
: Another concern that has been raised by people who have looked at the
: impact of the laws is that restrictions on the sentencing discretion of
: judges with respect to people convicted of violating drug laws (and other
: crimes) adversely affect many women.
:
: For example, women often have a very subordinate role in drug dealing and
so
: may have little information to offer in order to be eligible for the more
: lenient sentences imposed on people who assist the police and
prosecution.
:
: As well, women may participate in drug crimes because they are under
: considerable pressure from a man with whom they are in a relationship,
: without being able to establish persuasively that they were coerced for
the
: purposes of a reduced sentence.
:
: Very few women pimp and very few women coerce men.
:
: —
: Totschläger
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Bru <margi…@hotmail.com> wrote in <01bea929$338bb620$LocalHost@craigmeg>:
>: I have the precise data on another computer I think .
>If you do it’s as little as possible!
>I will post it in
>: tomorrow. Well the war on drugs is arresting few grannies and great
>: grannies.
>Going for a quick subject change?
No grannies are old usually. It was stated the figures would be
forthcoming.
–
catho…@justinian.idps.co.uk
Well you bring forth your data and we’ll talk about it (lol) but as for
old, I’m 36 and just found out I’m going to be a grandma so there goes your
average I guess.
—
Those who can do a job, do the job. Those who cannot do the job critisize
those who do.
Gregory <catho…@justinian.idps.co.uk> wrote in article
<8DD513497justin…@news.free-online.net>…
: Bru <margi…@hotmail.com> wrote in
<01bea929$338bb620$LocalHost@craigmeg>:
:
: >: I have the precise data on another computer I think .
: >
: >If you do it’s as little as possible!
: >
: >I will post it in
: >: tomorrow. Well the war on drugs is arresting few grannies and great
: >: grannies.
: >
: >Going for a quick subject change?
:
: No grannies are old usually. It was stated the figures would be
: forthcoming.
:
:
:
: —
: catho…@justinian.idps.co.uk
:
Susanna13 wrote:
> Someone wrote:
> >There are estimated to be more than 80,000 mothers among the women
> >>in prison and jail.
> As of December 1997, there were 79,624 women incarcerated in the US. I doubt
> more than all of them are mothers. There has been a sharp increase in rates
> among persons aged 35 – 39 (up 66%), 40 – 44 (up 75%) annd 45 – 54 (up71%).
> (US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics)
> susanna
I think the rest are county. Look at how many strip searches are done
here. It is *one* jail. Bad reputation as well. Is it opposite gender?
Funny it is only the females being strip searched. Strip searching women
must hold some attraction that strip searchinng men doesn’t. I wonder
what that can be. I think that you might double your figure. The sexual
abuse of women in county prisons is horrific. Some of the inmate stories
are so appalling. I have no doubt that some very abusive institutions
need a full crew of depraved sadists and sex perverts as no normal soul
could tolerate the horror of it.
ICAR
Between 1994 and 1996 12,000 women inmates at the
Cook County Jail were strip searched after returning
from court
hearings. Of this group, many had been relereleased
at their
hearings or had their cases dismissed. They were
marched right
back into jail and subjected to the humilation of a
strip search
before being let go. The fact that this was
happening was not
disputed by Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheahan. A
class
action suit was filed on behalf of the women by a
Chicago
Attorney. Cook County Jail spokesman, Bill Cunnigham
defended this practice by saying that the strip
search policy
was similar to procedures at other detention
centers. US District
Court Judge David Coar agreed with the plaintiffs
that this was a
violation of their 14th amendment right to equal
protection under
the law because Cook County male inmates were not
subjected to strip searches under identical
circumstances.
Males make up 90 percent of the popluation at Cook
County
Jail. Judge Coar gave the Sheriff 15 days to submit
ot the court
a decision on whether all males returning from court
would be
strip searched before they were returned to their
cells or
whether all such searches would stop. Did they hang
their
heads in shame as well they well they should? No,
the
attorneys for the sheriff’s office decided that they
were going to
review the decision and said in all likelihood they
would appeal.
My dear Sgt. Walt give me one good reason why women
who
were released should be strip searched? And in a
hundred
words or less tell me why this does not constitute
abuse.
mary_ann3147
On Sun, 30 May 1999 04:00:20 +0100, ICAR <dublin.i…@virgin.net> wrote:
>Susanna13 wrote:
>> Someone wrote:
>> >There are estimated to be more than 80,000 mothers among the women
>> >>in prison and jail.
>> As of December 1997, there were 79,624 women incarcerated in the US. I doubt
>> more than all of them are mothers. There has been a sharp increase in rates
>> among persons aged 35 – 39 (up 66%), 40 – 44 (up 75%) annd 45 – 54 (up71%).
>> (US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics)
>> susanna
Please give the figure for fathers.
Julian
I agree with you in part and disagree with you in part.
The "War on Drugs" as well as "The War on Sex" are both, in my opinion,
forms of religious persecution and have their strongest support amongst
the religious communities which have strong ties to law enforcement and
the legislative process. Narcotics are bad for your mental and physical
health. However, narcotics abuse should be treated as a medical problem
not a legal one. Consensual sexual behavior between adults, whether of a
commercial nature or not, is a "victimless behavior" which satisfies the
needs of both. There is no reasonable argument, therefore, for the
criminalization of narcotics which should be taxed, regulated, and
controlled to prevent the associated real crime associated with the
criminalization of the same , the corruption of our criminal justice
system because of the criminalization of the same, the extensive
corruption within the criminal justice system caused by the same, and
the unnecessary criminalization of large portions of our population
because of the same.
You imply that women are treated prejudicially within the criminal
justice system in comparison to men. However, that is not the case. Men
are incarcerated at a much higher rate than women. Men, in general,
receive much harsher sentences than women for the same type and severity
of crime and are convicted at a significantly higher rates in comparison
to women.
The fact that many female prisoners ( and male prisoners) have children
should not be an excuse for granting them deferential treatment within
the criminal justicesystem. Neither society nor the children of these
convicts should have to pay for the irresponsibility of these men and
women with regard to their child bearing. Many law abiding people, like
myself, have decided not to have children because to do so imposes a
responsibility to support the same financially and emotionally. For
society to reward those who do not live up to this responsibility
is unjust to society and the children.
But I tend to agree with you that the oppressive nature of the war on
drugs and the war on sex is extremely unjust and unreasonable and is
having a extremely deleterious affect on individuals who would otherwise
live law abiding and normal lives.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"C.V. Compton Shaw" wrote:
> I agree with you in part and disagree with you in part.
> The "War on Drugs" as well as "The War on Sex" are both, in my opinion,
> forms of religious persecution and have their strongest support amongst
> the religious communities which have strong ties to law enforcement and
> the legislative process. Narcotics are bad for your mental and physical
> health. However, narcotics abuse should be treated as a medical problem
> not a legal one. Consensual sexual behavior between adults, whether of a
> commercial nature or not, is a "victimless behavior" which satisfies the
> needs of both. There is no reasonable argument, therefore, for the
> criminalization of narcotics which should be taxed, regulated, and
> controlled to prevent the associated real crime associated with the
> criminalization of the same , the corruption of our criminal justice
> system because of the criminalization of the same, the extensive
> corruption within the criminal justice system caused by the same, and
> the unnecessary criminalization of large portions of our population
> because of the same.
> You imply that women are treated prejudicially within the criminal
> justice system in comparison to men. However, that is not the case. Men
> are incarcerated at a much higher rate than women. Men, in general,
> receive much harsher sentences than women for the same type and severity
> of crime and are convicted at a significantly higher rates in comparison
> to women.
America is leading the world in the sexual abuse of female prisoners by
corrections officers. I think that is an important factor. America is at the
very frontier of naked barbarism with respect to this genre of abuse.
America has the most abusive female prisons ever developed in a western
modern democracy and they are so abusive one must look very hard to find
third world systems as bad. I think Burma and the Sudan might be two of the
few examples.
I think women serve the same sentences for drugs as men. I think they do
this even if they are coerced by men. I think women who defend themselves
from abusive men are very harshly punished in the USA. When was the last
time you read about a woman pimp? Women are coerced more often than men.
They are less violent and less abusive.
> The fact that many female prisoners ( and male prisoners) have children
> should not be an excuse for granting them deferential treatment within
> the criminal justicesystem.
They suffer more because they are liable to sexual abuse from their guards
and there is often zero provision made for their basic health needs. Women
are even prevented from shaving their legs or underarm hair in places on a
regular basis and must strip to the waist like men during cell searches in
places (we have been told) and this is equality gone mad.
They are often used for sado recreational and sexual pleasure by their male
guards. In Cook County the females are stripped and the men are not
stripped. A perverse state of affairs. I think there were 12,000 of these in
a little over a year. There are a great many sex offenders within the
corrections profession and this is distinguishable possibly from the male
prisons were abuses are often inmate on inmate.
Opposite gender searches affect women more as well due to rape trauma and
abuse trauma and having ones breasts and vagina poked and manipulated by a
man is slightly different to a man having his chest felt. Women shower with
menstrual blood running down their legs and must use sanitary inserts with
men watching and men do not really endure similar.
Women are more vunerable to sexual coercion that is an established fact and
a young naked girl in a cell with an all powerful corrections officer is
slightly more intimidated than a man being in a similar position with a
female CO. Women are different to men and the male CO because of biological
and reflexive sexual imperatives which have an intensity not matched in any
other primate is different to the female CO. The girl even in the best of
circumstances
is in very real danger.
There is no system to redress any abuses that take place and the girls
suffer almost universal punishment and retaliation. I am now working full
time on prisons abuses both in the third world and the USA and to be
perfectly frank one rarely finds so many reported abuses in the third world
to the extent they exist in the USA.
In theory in a lot of the third world abuses that are ‘legitimate" in the
USA are illegal for example. In the USA sexual abuse can be cloaked in
legitimacy. In India it needs to be perpetrated in the knowledge it is
illegal. Sexual abuse is part of the salary to many COs. That is why they
are fighting so very hard to retain these benefits.
I have no doubt that other countries are better at keeping secrets and many
kill the women they abuse but nonetheless the USA has genuinely earned her
place in the front ranks of sexual abusers of female prisoners. Many of the
abuses are actually legitimate and sex offenders join the corrections
profession and find their "art" is adequately catered for by the standing
orders. They do not need masks in the park. They get paid to sexually abuse.
–
lisi…@justinian.idps.co.uk
–
Phil
(Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
Lisieux wrote in message <3758AA61.90854…@justinian.idps.co.uk>…
|
|I think women serve the same sentences for drugs as men. I think they do
|this even if they are coerced by men. I think women who defend themselves
|from abusive men are very harshly punished in the USA.
To many "thinks" and not enough FACTS.
|When was the last
|time you read about a woman pimp?
Female pimps abound – except they are usually called "madames"!
| Women are coerced more often than men.
Coerced into what – and what is the SOURCE of this "information"??
|They are less violent and less abusive.
|
Again please cite your source – if you can.
–
Phil
(Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
|
|
Excellent post and brings to my mind the thought "If these folks have so
much "FAITH" don’t they realize the basic ingrediant in most "faith based"
philosophy is those that sin against the fiath will be punished by the rule
and law Giver? It seems a loss of faith to feel one must intervene and use
hyman power to exact that punishment set asise for on High to extract.
I feel such sympathy for folks who carry on their minds that need to do such
work that the burden follows them to work and keeps them awake nights trying
to figure out who is commiting "sin" and how they are required to put a stop
to it.
I find it a terrible burden to control my own desire to engage in frolicing
licensciou behaviour and did carry aburden during the parenting days of just
trying to keep my children on a path free from fear of that awful Law
Giver’s wrath.
Can’t imagine trying to do it for the whole of mankind. Especially if I had
to go to work everyday amoungst those "labeled" sinners. Jeeeezzz!
LOTS OF LOVE
MAX
founder
http://www.WingsOfAmAmgel.com
C.V. Compton Shaw <mist…@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:37583D1D.57B2@swbell.net…
<snipped a great deal of an insightful, interesting post in order to allow
OE to reply>
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> But I tend to agree with you that the oppressive nature of the war on
> drugs and the war on sex is extremely unjust and unreasonable and is
> having a extremely deleterious affect on individuals who would otherwise
> live law abiding and normal lives.
Philip Lewis wrote:
> —
> Phil
> (Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
> Lisieux wrote in message <3758AA61.90854…@justinian.idps.co.uk>…
> |
> |I think women serve the same sentences for drugs as men. I think they do
> |this even if they are coerced by men. I think women who defend themselves
> |from abusive men are very harshly punished in the USA.
> To many "thinks" and not enough FACTS.
Mandatory sentences mean just that. That is a fact. I think all the time, try
it.
> |When was the last
> |time you read about a woman pimp?
> Female pimps abound – except they are usually called "madames"!
They pimp women though and are very rare. Women are the most exploited
gender. Females don’t as a rule pimp males. Males pimp females and are very
common.
> |They are less violent and less abusive.
> |
> Again please cite your source – if you can.
Crime stats. Any country in the world, any culture.
–
lisi…@justinian.idps.co.uk