WMAF crime: 2 white guys rape Vietnamese mom and burn her alive

TWO men accused of raping and murdering a young mum treated themselves to a curry as her body lay on the floor, a court heard.

William John McFall and Stephen Unwin are alleged to have kept Quyen Ngoc Nguyen captive at a house for four hours before dumping her body in a car and setting it ablaze.

The mum-of-one, from Killingworth in Newcastle, may have been still alive when the blaze was started in Sunderland and could only be identified through dental records.

The Newcastle Chronicle reports how McFall admitted the pair had eaten curry as he gave evidence for the third day at Newcastle Crown Court.

The convicted killer, who met Unwin while they were both serving life sentences for murder, admitted they had tucked in as the 28-year-old nail salon worker lay on the floor.

Prosecutor Jamie Hill QC asked him: “Did you and Stephen Unwin cook and eat a curry about this time?”


McFall said: “At some point.”

Mr Hill said: “With someone, you told us, dead lying on the floor, you attended to your own needs to have a meal?”

McFall replied: “Have you read my defence statement. I didn’t eat all the curry.”

He added that he’d had a “few spoonfuls” of the curry before putting the “rest in the bin”.


The prosecutor accused the pair of blaming the horrendous crime on each other “in the hope that nobody will be able to work out what happened”.

Both Unwin, 40, from Houghton, and McFall, 51, of Blackpool, deny rape and murder.

During the trial, jurors at Newcastle Crown Court were shown a “selfie” photograph taken by McFall in Unwin’s car after the killing last August.

Prosecutors say the image, which appears to show McFall smiling in the foreground while Unwin is driving in the background, was taken after the men dumped Miss Nguyen’s body and went back to Unwin’s house on foot, where they collected his vehicle.

But McFall told jurors he was not smiling in the photograph as he has “false teeth” that would fall out if he took a selfie.

Both men have told the jury they have received threats from their co-accused after they were arrested.

Jurors have heard Unwin was given a life sentence in 1999 for murder after he broke into a 73-year-old man’s home in Houghton Le Spring on Christmas Day in 1998 and attacked then stabbed him in the chest before starting three fires.

He was released in 2012.

The court heard McFall was jailed for life at Belfast Crown Court in April 1997 after he had broken into the home of 86-year-old Martha Gilmore, who had mobility problems, at Station Road, Greencastle and repeatedly hit her with a hammer in May 1996.

McFall was released on licence in 2010.

The trial continues.


Men ‘raped and murdered young mum then treated themselves to a curry as her body lay on the floor’


Outrage as feminist paedophile Germaine Greer suggests #MeToo victims are ‘career rapees’ for taking six-figure non-disclosure deals from Harvey Weinstein Read

Feminist Germaine Greer was today slammed after she called the alleged sexual assault victims of Harvey Weinstein ‘career rapees’.

The 79-year-old was speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning and was discussing the #MeToo movement.

The campaign was launched when a host of A-list celebrities accused the Hollywood executive of rape, sexual assault and harassment.

But she said that the movement has ‘not got anywhere at all’ and added that we need to urgently ‘sort out our concept of what rape is’ and amend the law.

The outspoken feminist author, from Melbourne, Australia, went on to call alleged victims of Weinstein ‘career rapees’ who have had ‘extraordinary exposure’.

She said: ‘Some of whom have been paid six figure sums in the form of non-disclosure agreements.

‘That’s a dishonorable thing to accept and it’s not something you should boast about.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5523475/Feminist-Germaine-Greer-suggests-victims-career-rapees.html#ixzz5AQR8dFCM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

B.C. teachers’ union head calls for ‘mature conversations’ ahead of contract

VANCOUVER — British Columbia will replace a “one-size-fits-all” funding formula for school districts to account for differences in urban and rural communities, Premier John Horgan says.

He told members of the B.C. Teachers Federation at their annual general meeting Tuesday that the previous Liberal government introduced a funding formula in 2002 without conducting broad consultations.

“We’ve put in place a team to address that and I’m confident that, with the input from the B.C. Teachers Federation and others, we’re going to have a funding formula that makes sense in every corner of British Columbia,” he told the teachers, who begin contract talks in about 10 months.

School districts currently receive funding based on the number of students, but the union is calling for a needs-based formula that would prevent cuts to programs and staffing levels when enrolment decreases.

The government will invest more money in public education up to 2021, Horgan said.

“I know you’re saying, ‘But what about the bargaining?’ That’s not in there, that’s somewhere else, and I’ll leave it at that.”

Since September, the province has increased funding to hire 3,700 full-time teachers, Horgan said, though he acknowledged many of the positions were filled by substitute teachers, leaving few teachers on call.

“That’s a problem you didn’t have 10 years ago. That’s a problem, let’s hope, you won’t have five years from now,” he said.

Union president Glen Hansman said members want a wage hike but he’s realistic that other public-sector workers across the province will also be heading to the bargaining table at around the same time.

Hansman said “mature conversations” will make a difference for the union that had a bitter relationship with the former Liberal government, which in 2002 stripped teachers’ right to bargain class size and composition.

“Teachers in B.C. have some of the worst starting wages in Canada. It’s only us and Quebec that are that far down,” he said.

More teachers are needed to meet the objectives of a landmark 2016 Supreme Court of Canada ruling requiring the province to restore staffing to 2002 levels, he said.

“We need more bodies, from Manitoba, Ontario, and Alberta,” Hansman said, adding teachers in those provinces earn up to $20,000 a year more than their counterparts in B.C.

“That’s a problem. We need a plan to entice more teaches to come west of the Rockies.”

He said special-needs teachers are often pulled from their classes when there’s a lack of teachers in other classes, leaving vulnerable students without the resources they need.

But students in many subjects are doing without adequate staff, he said.

“We’ve got kids now that still don’t have their teacher. It’s the 120th day of the year, something like that, and there are still students who have a revolving door of people so far in the school year.”



Hillary Clinton’s Woman-Bashing Is Why Women Find Feminism So Distasteful


Why are so many women reluctant to call themselves feminists? It might be that widespread hostility toward men defines modern feminist movement.

Certainly that was the theme of Hillary Clinton’s remarks earlier this month, when she blamed her 2016 presidential loss on husbands pressuring white women to vote for Donald Trump. Clinton has since been widely criticized and apologized. But her comments suggest so much that is wrong with today’s feminist movement: it’s both anti-male and anti-woman at the same time.

Clinton said “all of a sudden white women, who were going to vote for me, and frankly standing up to the men in their lives and the men in their workplaces” were pushed to vote for Trump. These remarks certainly warranted loud criticism. But positioning men as bullies and women as suffering from political laryngitis is no surprise.

An anti-male drumbeat has carried the feminist movement for decades, intensifying in recent years with fears over a “rape culture” on college campuses, the clamor over “street harassment,” and last year’s “Day without Women” campaign, which sought to put a spotlight on the “economic injustices” set against women.

The modern feminist movement has advanced the narrative that most men, not just the Harvey Weinsteins of society, abuse women. Many of today’s feminists insist the preponderance of men harass, sexually assault, discriminate, and generally mistreat women. “A Day Without Women” suggested men wouldn’t care if women disappeared altogether.

Men Are Bad, Women Are Helpless

Of course, the #MeToo campaign demonstrates that a lot of women feel they have been treated badly, perhaps more than some of us may have wanted to recognize. That shouldn’t be ignored. In fact, I urge more conservative feminists to publicly accept some of these problems and not overlook real grievances.

But Clinton’s comments weren’t simply problematic because they cast men, once again, in a negative light. What was even more egregious but seemed to escape notice by some is that she also stripped women of any free will, a posture the modern feminist movement has increasingly adopted. Whether it’s a conversation about the so-called wage gap, the political gap between sexes, or sexual assault on college campuses, feminists more and more overlook how women make choices, and those decisions contribute to the realities of our society.

It’s hard to argue that women in America today don’t have more choices than ever before. But progressive feminists like Clinton frequently rob them of their free will by putting the problem—and the power—in the hands of men. One doesn’t have to be a Trump supporter, or even voter, to be bothered by Clinton’s willingness to refashion women as objects of their husbands’ political leanings rather than free agents of their own.

Women Are Free and Capable Beings

Some conservative women were deeply troubled by the Donald Trump they saw in the Access Hollywood video and on the campaign trail, and chose to vote for Clinton or a third-party candidate instead. Still other women chocked up his behavior to the way presidents have long talked and acted, and voted for him with the economy or health care or foreign policy as their guide. We can argue over the choices they made, but not the fact that women, not men, made them.

It’s encouraging to see how quickly and swiftly lawmakers criticized Clinton. Democrats like Sen. Dick Durbin, no doubt, worry less about the effects of her comments on feminism and more about the ripple effect they might have on the party as a whole. But beyond the politics, perhaps now is the time to change the conversation.

The reaction against Clinton suggests more Americans of all political stripes are ready to end the blanket hostility against men, and to remind women that despite the bad actors out there, they have more choices than ever before, and great sway over the kind of society they live in.

Progressive feminists like Clinton need to take a step back and realize that winning the game of sexual equality—or an election—doesn’t come from moving the goal posts.  Feminists need to recognize that women will make choices at home, in the workplace, and in the voting booth, and they won’t always be the same choices. Feminists might not agree with a woman’s decision to study English, work part-time, or even vote for Trump, but these choices are the result of women’s free will, not the fault of men.

Of course, some might have thought Clinton couldn’t make any more bad choices. But she continues to, and for that, she has no one to blame but herself.

Sabrina Schaeffer is a vice president at The Herald Group and chair of the Independent Women’s Forum’s Leadership Circle.

Are People Born Transgender?


Two recent headlines proclaim, “Transgender people are born that way, a new study has found,” and “Scientists uncover 20 genes linked to being transgender – supporting claims the condition has a physical basis.”

What are we to make of this?

Before we evaluate these announcements, it’s important that we understand that we are not discussing the question of people who are intersex, referring to those who have a biological or chromosomal abnormality in terms of their sex. By very definition, people who are intersex are born that way.

It’s also important that we remember the many sensational headlines that proclaimed that a gay gene (or the like) had been discovered. Every few years, a new “discovery” would be made about “proving” that people were born gay, only to be replaced by the latest “discovery,” none of which proved definitive.

Back in February, 1992, a cover story for Newsweek featured the face of an infant and the question, “Is This Child Gay?” In July, 1993, the New York Times ran a story titled, “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes.”

Yet today, 25 years later, even left-leaning, LGBT-affirming organizations like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association do not make the claim that people are born gay. In their view, the causes of same-sex attraction are complex, including both nature and nurture.

Not only so, but Dr. Lisa Diamond, a lesbian feminist psychologist who is also a highly respected member of the American Psychological Association, has spent years refuting the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable.

As expressed by clinical psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes, through her publications and YouTube lectures, Diamond is proclaiming that, “The battle to disprove ‘Born that way and can’t change’ is now over, and (Diamond) is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth.”

Yet these myths are so widely believed and propagated today that California is attempting to ban all professional counseling for anyone who is struggling with same-sex attraction or gender confusion. Put another way, the state is trying to pass an utterly tyrannical, freedom-stifling law that says, in effect, “You must embrace your homosexuality and your gender confusion.” (Outrageously, a number of states have successfully banned counseling for minors struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions.)

This is what happens when lies and propaganda and misinformation become accepted as fact. And that’s why we need to address these “born trans” claims the moment they are out of the gate.

How then should we respond to these new studies? Are they any different than the earlier “gay gene” or “gay brain” claims?

One study, conducted in Brazil and using MRI images of the brain, concluded “that trans people have characteristics that bring them closer to the gender with which they identify and their brains have particularities, suggesting that the differences begin to occur during gestation” (quoting Giancarlo Spizzirri, the first author of the study).

Yet it is equally possible that the MRI results point to changes in the brain because of fixations on gender resulting from gender confusion. In other words, the differences in the brain studies – specifically, in the insula part of the brain – could be the result of transgender fixations rather than the cause. (For much more on the question of the transgender brain, see Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.)


The second study, conducted here in the States, concluded that, “We identified genetic variants in 20 genes that may play a role in transgender identity.” And note carefully that word “may.” As a colleague of mine who is a former transgender wrote to me, “Do not be taken in by the headline. This article provides no proof of an absolute connection when you look at the words they use: ‘may contribute’; ‘points towards’; ‘lends legitimacy.’”

Shades of the “discovery” of the gay gene back in the 1990s.

It is also well-known that the great majority of children who identify as transgender before puberty no longer do so after puberty. This is especially true if they have not lived out a transgender identity before puberty.

On an anecdotal level, Katie Herzog noted in her article on The Stranger(which is anything but a right-wing, conservative website) that there is “an emerging population of people who have transitioned to a different gender and then later transitioned back.” (The article is titled, “The Detransitioners: They Were Transgender, Until They Weren’t.”)

How does this comport with the idea that people are born transgender? Wouldn’t this data (and these stories) argue against this?

We should also note that the few transgender, identical twin studies which have been conducted also argue against a genetic component to transgender identity.

And even if there was a genetic component, that does not indicate any kind of fixed identity for life. In other words, as has often been noted with regard to the possibility of biological contributions to homosexuality, predisposition is not predestination and correlation is not causation.

This is underscored by the more recent study of epigenetics, of which Lisa Diamond and Clifford Rosky state in their prestigious volume, The APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, “In essence, the current scientific revolution in our understanding of the human epigenome challenges the very notion of being ‘born gay,’ along with the notion of being ‘born’ with any complex trait. Rather, our genetic legacy is dynamic, developmental, and environmentally embedded.” (To put this in context, remember that Diamond is a lesbian feminist and Rosky is a law professor who received the Equality Award from the Human Rights Campaign, the world’s largest gay activist organization.)

It’s also worth pointing out that there are other conditions for which researchers have posited a genetic cause, including anorexia. As a 2017 article notes, “New research identifies, for the first time, a significant genetic location that underpins anorexia.” There is even an ongoing debate about being born pedophiles, as this 2013 headline states: “Are Some Men Born Pedophiles? New Science Says Yes, But Sexologists Say Not So Fast.”

And what about the “obesity gene”?

If there is, in fact, a genetic component to anorexia, do we affirm this deadly condition or, with even greater compassion and resolve, do we work to find a cure?

The same applies to an “obesity gene.” If it exists, do we have fat pride parades and do we discard the massive evidence about the health risks of obesity? Or do we work, with even greater compassion and resolve, to find ways to help people who have this gene.

As for people who are allegedly pedophiles by nature, do we change our moral judgment on pedophilia? Or, with greater resolve and compassion, do we work to help those struggling with these perverse desires while zealously upholding our current laws?

In the same way, the best thing we can do for those struggling with gender confusion is to continue to treat them with compassion, recognizing the great torment they have often lived with, while finding ways to help them find wholeness and contentment in harmony with their biology.

We’ve had decades of experience dealing with misleading headlines about the latest discovery that homosexuality is innate and immutable. Let’s not make the same mistake with the latest claims about transgender identity. At the same time, let’s not downplay how deeply affected some people are by gender identity confusion. May we respond to the depth of their confusion with the depth of our compassion.