fortytwowrites

The world through the eyes of a male domestic abuse victim, but its so much more than that !

The Quest

Screenshot 2019-11-04 at 05.01.25 

The young man

who had embarked on the journey 

with a thirst for enlightenment

had became old 

his weary bones felt the chill 

his mind was tired

and confused

 

It was not the frigid cold he encountered 

when he met the Inuit Tribal Elders

this was more akin to a coldness 

founded in despair 

 

This thought brought forth memories

of other climatic conditions 

he had encountered 

 

The humid rainforests 

where he sat and talked 

with the Yanomami shaman 

or the arid desert 

where he had ate peyote 

with the Navajo Chief 

both of which starkly contrasted 

with the comfortable coffee shop 

where he exchanged experiences 

with the exiled Dalai Lama 

 

Was it conspiracy or coincidence 

that every enlightened soul 

carried the same message ? 

even the yogis in India’s searing heat 

had whispered the same words 

Epstein did not kill himself

TUPE An Emploies Guide

Screenshot 2019-09-15 at 21.11.21

This post is designed as an overview for employees affected by a company takeover and sets out their rights and responsibilities under the new management. It provides links to the relevant regulations in order that you as an employee may combat myths being peddled by management or trade union representatives who may be trying to coerce the employees to accepting negative amendments to their contract of employment. When a company is taken over the employees rights are protected by 

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. This is commonly referred to as TUPE. 

These laws began life as European Union Directive 2001/23/EC. I have provided a link to this document in the sources. If you enjoy reading the the bureaucratic nightmare that is any EU Directive that is a good starting point, however this is genuinely a case of I have read it so you don’t have to. As with all directives passed by the European Union it was then taken back to the Member States Governments to be enacted into their own laws. These are the regulations you need to look at. I am using the United Kingdom Regulations as that is the country where I live. If you live in a different member state the relevant regulations will be a quick Duck Duck Go search away. The regulations will be the same, just written in your native language. 

Overview 

TUPE applies to employees of business in the UK regardless of the size of the business. Their terms and conditions of employment and continuity of employment automatically transfer. The exception to this rule is if an employee is made redundant during or after the takeover process. Any redundancy would be paid at the rate agreed in the original contract of employment. 

TUPE applies to both Business’s and Service Providers. For Business transfers the name of the employer must change. For service providers it is when a contract ends and the work is given to a new contractor. 

If you work for a company in the supply chain for a business that is being take-over you will not be protected. 

Consulting and Informing

Prior to the takeover the employers mist tell the Trade Union or Employees Representatives 

That the transfer is happening, when it is happening and why it is happening.  They also need to inform the employees how it will affect them individually and if the company will one subject to reorganisation.  If the workforce is not unionised properly elected representers have the same legal rights as trade union representatives. If such representatives are not already in place they can be elected for the purpose of consulting and informing prior to the takeover. 

Transfers of Employment Contracts

The employees retain all of their previous terms and conditions of employment. They retain their holiday entitlement and their service. The employees start date remains the same as before the transfer so continuous employment is not broken. All collective agreements previously in place are retained. 

The employer can not change the contracts prior to a transfer in order to help the sale of their business. 

The new employer can change an employee’s terms and conditions if the reason is an ‘economic, technical or organisational reason’ (ETO) involving changes in the workforce or workplace, such as a result of redundancies or a move from a managerial to a non-managerial position.

An employer can’t normally impose changes – they have to be agreed by the employees or their representatives.

Employees’ company pension rights earned up to the time of a transfer are protected, but the new employer doesn’t have to continue an identical pension.

When the transfer is complete the employee should receive a new up to date statement of employment. This should include the name of the new employer and state the employees terms and conditions have not changed. 

Employers can renegotiate terms and conditions after 1 year. However they can only do this if they are improving the terms and conditions. For example  employers could decide to increase shift premiums to incentivise employees going onto shift work. However they would be disbarred from reducing shift premiums to save money. 

This post sets out the key details most employees will need to know about during a transfer. For a more comprehensive explanation (and a document that carries more weight than a blog post !) the first link I am providing in the source’s is the UK Government Guidelines. I have mirrored their format so if you wish to check the information in my Overview section, it will be in the overview section of the government document. 

 

Source :

Business transfers, takeovers and TUPE

https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers/employees-working-abroad

Directive 2001/23/EC Summary 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32001L0023

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/introduction/made

A Close Shave

Screenshot 2019-08-25 at 21.25.55

Society seems to believe men have a problem with loyalty and commitment. Granted this is normally an accusation launched at men in the dating market and driven by the currant reluctance of men to marry. However when one realises that signing a marriage certificate a man is generally signing a blank document that creates a legal company. At the dissolution of this contract a third party will write in the rules and responsibilities for each of the married people. 

This third party has a long track record of of applying sanctions to the man and benefits to the woman. What are people surprised men are reluctant to sign a blank document. 

However this is not the case for consumer goods. You buy a product, you use or consume it and if it is a good product at a reasonable price, you buy the same again when it needs replaced. In this arena men are either very loyal or very lazy. We don’t tend to check out rival products just because they are available. We minimise the time we spend shopping by repeatedly going to the same shelf, lifting the same product and buying it. When supermarkets rearrange their isles periodically men find it harder to find the products as going down every isle and looking at all the products is not something we are interested in doing. 

In short, to retain male customers all you need to do is not mess too much with the product or packaging and do not go out of your way to offend us. It really is that simple. 

I had been using Gillette razors and shaving gel for around 20 years. The blades lasted well, the gel works, all things being equal I would have been their customer until I died. Not dopes not mean I was a fan, it was just my default choice. That changed in January 2019 when Gillette launched their Short Film, We Believe, the best a man can be. The film highlighted every negative stereotype of male behaviour and demanded men do better. The problem is most of the behaviours depicted are not normal male behaviours. Like many others that was the point at which I stopped buying Gillette Products. 

The You Tube video currently has 1.5 Million  You can view the film from the link below.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0

Gillett seemed to pass off the negative reaction as an “On Line phenomenon”  and dubbed down on their social justice woke advertisement campaign by unleashing a video story about a father teaching his daughter to shave as she was taking male hormone tablets to having a sex change operation. (1) Although Gillette seem to have learnt something from the previous video. They avoided the negative comments and downvotes by not uploading that video to youtube. However in August the news came out that Gillett had made 5 Billion in losses and taken a 8 Billion non cash write down on the value of the business. I am not a financial expert and equipped to explain exactly what all of that means. I do know large companies make write down for tax reasons, that value fluctuate, and the press have been known to get stuff wrong. The only thing I am stating here is Gillette seem to have lost some money. What I can say with confidence is making money seems to have slipped down totem pole of Gillette’s interests. 

The CEO of Gillette said he does not regret his company’s controversial marketing campaign inspired by the #MeToo movement, despite losing some loyal customers over it.

Gary Coombe called the loss of revenue from those customers a “price worth paying”. He  believes the campaign upset the minority in an attempt to bring in the majority, I believe Gary has his assessment backwards. In recent days the media has been awash with claims Gillette has done a backflip with its advertising however when you look beneath the headlines I find that is not the case. It seems they moved from “men are bad” to “get out there and provide and protect”. Granted this is a softer form of Gynocentrism, but it is still Gynocentrism none the less. In the meantime Dollar Shave Club have advertised with Anti Feminist You-tuber Shoe On Head. If Gillette think they are getting their customers back, they are even more deluded than there advertisements saddest. 

For the record, I now use Wilkinson Sward razors and Nivea Men shaving gel. The razors work and are less expensive. In a world where shaving foam rules Nivea was the only Non Gillette product available. It is actually a better product and the fact their advertising points to them actually liking men is a bonus. No, this is not an advertisement, I do not get free product, I only mention it as a product review that might help men looking for alternative brands. I will however leave a link to the Nivea Men film here. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMUhFcsITKo

From what I have seen of the on line reaction, nobody is fooled by Gillett’s switch in advertising or buying their products. It’s not even a close shave.  

Sources  : https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gillette-ceo-losing-customers-over-metoo-campaign-is-price-worth-paying

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/we-will-continue-to-represent-men-at-their-best-gillettes-backflip-after-toxic-masculinity-backlash/news-story/8ae70a5abc31280fc23711dcf7c30e5e

The Iconoclast Has Fallen

 

Screenshot 2019-08-23 at 20.12.48

The Iconoclast has fallen 

gone The Way of The World

Ralf no longer retorts 

and you can no longer see 

How I See The World

 

Black Pidgin still speaks 

For now

like The Angry Foreigner 

he got a reprieve 

oh, they can post 

but payment providers 

decided their money 

Is not good here

Crowder can only be louder 

because of mug club 

yet the silencing continues

 

An Ear For Men still have a voice 

albeit a throttled one 

channel growth hit the immovable object

of censorship

subscribers unsubscribe 

without touching a mouse 

the purge is real and imminent

as the perimeters retract 

the question is now when, not if 

will you be convicted of wrong-think 

 

Time is of the essence 

to write like never before 

take your unfitted thoughts 

pour them on a page

while you still have that choice

and when youtube has been sanitised 

just say fuck it 

hit the BitChute  

 

You may have a knot in your stomach 

when you read what you have written 

and the curser is hovering over “publish” 

what if it pisses people off ? 

my cure for that 

is to pull out the special pen

I signed my divorce with 

write it on a page 

and know 

pissing people off 

is nothing new

 

Author Notes

Hands Up, this does not really work as a poem, and would have been better as a blog post type thing, but I wanted to write a poem, and I wanted to talk about the censorship at You Tube so you get this “thing”. I will probably do something more coherent soon….

If you read this and thought “what the fuck she writing about” that is probably because there are a lot of You Tube Channels referenced (that you never knew existed) that have been permanently removed, demonetised or throttled. The channels listed barely scratch the surface, Sargon and Dankula did not even make it into the poem but it is long as it is. I will put a list of links to bit chute accounts in here so if I have pricked you curiosity you can check out the free thinkers big tech have decided to digitally unperson.

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/1Oh7nMsWOnEe/

https://www.bitchute.com/profile/bBzmz0SCxhFG/

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/zzu2EIiIQMTZ/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXNNG0ej_6rU9SxCZ4dyq6w

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/QrnrCFgDoX51/

The Con

Screenshot 2019-08-04 at 21.56.54

In this age of information 

ignorance should be a choice 

but pray tell how one would know 

when they have found an honest voice 

media bias blatantly bubbles 

from any source of you choose 

the reality of your daily life  

is never depicted in the news 

 

You sat in class k through 12 

to gain an education 

then leave the childcare system 

to find it was all indoctrination 

when you take in your surroundings 

and begin to smell the stink 

there comes a sudden epiphany

that you have been taught not to think  

 

Every news item you consume 

is brought with a blatant spin 

truth is an early casualty 

when ideologue’s play to win 

academia politicians and media 

formed an unholily alliance 

with the politically correct brigade 

that now demand compliance 

 

This realisation brings a question 

of how far have we traveled on this course 

and can we trust the history 

we were taught by the same source ? 

Ii is time to look again 

at everything we know 

and not just blindly accept 

because society says its so 

 

By

Forty Two

© Forty Two 2019, all rights reserved

 

 

 

 

The End of the Line

Screenshot 2019-08-02 at 04.20.57

My grandfathers lifeless body 

arrived at the aid station 

on a dead stretcher 

 

One among thousands 

a soldier serendipitously realised

his body retained life 

 

Surgeons struggled with wounds 

his life in the balance 

destiny decided he would live

 

On the 1st July 1916 

he survived The Somme 

allowing his lineage to continue 

 

There is no way to know 

what tribulations 

his ancestors overcame 

 

From crafting tools of stone 

and gaining nourishment 

from a barren land 

 

To todays comfort 

generation after generation 

reproduced and overcame the odds 

 

All accumulated efforts 

to pass forward those genes 

have been rendered futile 

 

Deleted not by war, famine or disease 

but by my children 

who refuse to breed  

 

 

By

Forty Two

© Forty Two 2019, all rights reserved. 

 

Author Notes

A “Dead Stretcher” is a stretcher used to bring dead soldiers from the front line to the rear in order that they are buried. 

The western world is experiencing an unprecedented decline in birthrates. The population is increasing due to migration. These facts are undisputed. The obvious byproduct of this situation is that centuries of struggle by people in the western world that should have resulted in a boom for the children of our ancestors, and a pay off for their struggles in the form of peace, prosperity and happiness will not occur. This poem is attempting to explain to the childless generation that their legacy will be the untended graves of everyone that came before them. 

Quick Guide to Family Court

screen shot 2019-01-06 at 23.48.47

The Custody of Infants Act 1839 guaranteed custody of children to the mother of the child during the “tender years”. This term meant during the time the child was breastfeeding, typically until the age of four.

Almost 200 years later mothers are still handed custody and fathers the financial responsibility in cases where custody is disputed. When pressed on the issue the currant legal system will tell you the court works “In the best interest of the child”, however they can not give you a definition of what that means.

The term was first introduced into the legal system with the Custody of Infants Act 1873, this was an amendment of the original act that gave custody to the mother until the age of 16. The reasoning being that it was against the best interests of the child to hand a four year old to a father it had not seen in the previous four years.

It is absolute madness that we are still using a child custody system from the 1800’s. The consequences of this are that thousands of children are denied access to Fathers, Siblings, Aunts, Uncles and Grandparents.

In cases where fathers go to court and gain access to their children the mother still retains complete control. If the mother flouts the order and refuses to hand the child over for the court ordered access the only recourse the father has is to return to the self same court and apply for a enforcement order. However the mother can ignore that with the same impunity she ignored the original order. The courts are reluctant to plane any sanctions on the mother as they may have a negative impact on the child.

It should be noted that going into the family court system is not mandatory. The overwhelming majority of parents find arrangements that put the child first and work for both parties without government intervention.

It is common for the courts to be used as state sanctioned abuse that continues after the relationship has ended.

The effects of being removed from your child’s life are far reaching. It is akin to suffering a bereavement but being unable to mourn the passing as the child is still alive. Manny men suffer depression and financial ruin attempting to gain access to children while the mother is legally aided by the state. Some of these men inevitably kill themselves.

Changes to the Family Court would enable men trapped in abuse a better chance to escape. Manny male victims of domestic abuse stay in order to protect their children as they know abusive people will abuse whoever is available.

It is time for real change and creating a system where mothers and children are not seen as a package deal. Continuing to do so will mean children will continue to be seen as a tool, not a human being with a divine right to have both parents in their lives.

Mushrooms

Screen Shot 2018-12-31 at 01.41.56.png

On September 12th 2018 the European Union passed the Copyright Directive, Article 11 restricts the sharing of news articles on social media by placing a financial charge upon this activity. The predictable result of this is that the currant scant coverage of events the establishment want kept quiet will disappear and the approved propaganda will have a monopoly. The stories buried in the middle pages will remain there and the media will claim they reported on the events, and it is not their fault the general population did not read about it. 

In an increasingly global world, the events you are told about will become increasingly local, unless they support the the establishment narrative. 

While most people who gain their information from outside the approved matrix will know smoothing of the Yellow Vest movement in France and duplicate protests in Holland, Belgium and Germany their are currently events occurring in France that have been even less well covered. The French authorities have deployed an extra 120 Riot Police to the town of Calais in response to the entrance of the Eurotunnel being stormed by around 1500 migrants for the third night running. However the urgent security review ordered by the British Home Secretary was not the assault upon the access point to the UK but the death of one of those attempting breach the security system when he slipped trying to get underneath a train and was crushed by a lorry in the process. 

One has to ask if those trying to reach the UK were less reckless if the incessant attempts to breach border security if any review of security would have been deemed necessary. 

Simultaneously the self same news outlets that have minimised coverage of these violent attempts to breach border security have given headline news slots to a different concerted attempts to breach the United Kingdom’s border. However this blanket reporting has not provided real clarity. While the headline reports of small boats arriving on the English coast began in late December with at least 82 arriving since Christmas Day, the figures quoted are generally 220 since November. While this makes it clear the establishment is comfortable with reporting the fact that migrants are attempting to cross into the United Kingdom they are presenting them as vulnerable people in small boats at serious risk of drowning, not a violent mob breaking down barriers.  

However this is not the only subterfuge at work here. 

Reporting the figures of migrants arriving by boat from November, three weeks prior to the real spike enables the media to be both accurate and dishonest. I have noticed this media trick before and the selective choice of when to collect data from is generally a red flag that the game is being rigged. I believe in this case it is to take people away from the important date, which in this case is 10th December 2018. That is the date the United Nations Compact on Migration was adopted. This means that by showing their are people trying to migrate in an unsafe manner, the country those people were attempting move to are required to provide a safe method for those people to do so. I believe that this new reality has created a situation where problem, cause, action has been run in reverse. 

The establishment has looked for a preferred outcome, and created the situation that made it the only viable solution. 

I have seen similar media manipulation, be it the size and motivations behind the yellow vest movement, the working class’s clamour for real Britex, the fact men and women perpetrate domestic abuse in roughly equal numbers or the absence of reporting on the fact that NASSA Climate Scientists predicted that the Artic would be Ice Free by the time I post this. These repeated similar errors can not be coincidence. They are a reflection on the reality that a single group of elites are selling you multiple forms of snake oil. My best advice to you is question everything, and the whole inventory of a person before you blindly believe them. It could be they simply disagree with you on one issue, and that is fine, nobody signs up to blindly follow. However having a 360 degree look at a persons option could provide a short cut to exposing the red pill placebo you are being sold. Do your own research and form your own conclusions and refuse to bow to societal pressures. 

In other words refuse to be a mushroom, kept in the dark and fed bullshit ! 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/eu-smacks-internet-in-the-face-with-link-tax-and-upload-filter-laws/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3178274/ANOTHER-1-500-migrants-storm-Channel-Tunnel-including-one-dead-hit-truck-calls-ARMY-drafted-search-vehicles-stowaways.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/28/channel-migrant-crossings-who-is-coming-and-why

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46706381

https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/12/1028041

Screaming Quietly

Screen Shot 2018-12-24 at 00.26.33

I started writing about five years ago, I never had any organised schedule, I never attempted to build an audience, my only aim was to send forth my ideas into cyberspace and I believed it would always be possible to do so. However 2018 has caused a change. This is my third Sunday blog and I have decided to post every Sunday with intermittent extra posts as and when I can. This change is not driven by any change in my wish to builds an audience or my views, but my belief that the days when we have the ability to freely send unauthorised views onto the internet are numbered. 

On the 10th December 2018 the United Nations Compact on Global Migration was adopted. This means that the objectives contained within this document will become law across the globe. For those asking what exactly that has to do with putting your opinions on the internet I ask you to have a close look at Objective 17. I would also ask you to question why this docket has objectives as opposed to sections. An objective is something to be completed, and these objectives will be met one way or the other. 

OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration

This objective will criminalise having a negative view of migration and posting those views on the internet. It requires governments to Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants. While all of this is subjective previous experience shows us stating bringing millions of people from the third world who do not have skills or speak the language to Westernised countries is a bad idea is indeed discrimination and needs to be stamped out. 

In September the European Union Copyrite laws passed with Articles 11 and 13 intact. These laws will drastically change internet use, citizen reporting and the use of links to back up your argument impossible for someone like myself as I can not afford to pay to post a link. 

Yes, you will be required to pay to publicise the mass media. 

This is madness and a direct impudent to sending forth your views. It creates a situation where you must gain a licence from the content creator to publicise them while no facility to do so exists. It means if you bring any non mainstreamed opinion and people rightly demand evidence, it costs you money. The logical outcome from this system is the disappearance of unregulated views. 

On social media the 2017 addpocalypse has morphed on 2018. Alex Jones was digitally unreasoned when his content was simultaneously removed from several platforms in an effort to remove his ability to make a living. Sargon of Akkad was removed from Patreon and when he and others migrated to Subscribe Star that platform was attacked and Pay Pall pulled its services from the platform. 

I hear you say, these people were controversial, they have views beyond the pale and could be harmful. This censorship will not affect everyday people with everyday ideas. To this I have two responses, have a listen to Sargon and realise his views are in line with everyday people and Steph Curry. 

Steph Curry is a basketball Star who went on podcast and said he did not believe the moon landings happened. Ok, I get that its not mainstream idea, but the fact NASA have been saying their next goal is to escape lower earth orbit means the guy may well have valid reasons to doubt the mainstream narrative. The response was disproportionate and he was forced to apologise. My research is inconclusive, I do not believe we had the technology to get to the moon, but we went to the moon aliens were there and told us not to come back. The only thing I am sure of is the official narrative is smoke screen, for whatever reason. However it is becoming clear that their are certain views that are not only allowed but are also protected and can not be questioned. My response to this situation is predictable and outlined in the last paragraph. 

I will produce a post every Sunday until I am removed. I will question authority. I will ask award questions like “if carbon controls temperature where the fuck does the carbon go at night”. Global warming is a myth backed by faked science. I will make Statements like “The gendered wage gap does not exist”. When people say “Diversity is or strength” I will ask “How” ? I will swim against the currant and put out opinions that make people think and question the prevailing narrative. The one thing I will never do is conform, im just not cut out for that.  

Source :

https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0593

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/american-sports/steph-curry-forced-back-down-13747127

A Second Look at Divorce Law

Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 21.09.34.png

When we consider if divorce law is biased a casual look shows very disproportionate negative outcomes for men. We see men left destitute or at best struggling to get by while sending much needed funds to the woman they are no longer in a relationship with. The casual observer will therefore see divorcee law as the cause of the reality that in general women are winners in divorcee at the expense of men. However I believe this simplistic view misses the real causes and therefore impedes finding real world solutions. 

Under examination we find the words Husband and Wife are missing from divorce law. It speaks only of spouses. Therefore each person has equal legal and financial responsibilities placed upon them. We also find the reasons for the divorcee and the behaviour of each party play no part in the allocation of funds at the dissolution of a marriage. The aim is to equally split the available funds and allocate them in such a way each person has the same financial situation going forward. The spouse who earns more money will be subject to a spousal agreement or alimony payments to the spouse who earns less in order to equalise their disposable income. Where the spouse making payments is the husband and their are children involved he will invariably also be subject to child support. 

This situation has largely been blamed on the social norm of women engaging in hypergamy. So far the only solution men have found so far is within the MGTOW movement and a marriage strike by men that understand how the system works. This will save Individual men at the expense of 

peer-bonding. It also excludes these men from becoming good and involved fathers, and these are the group of men that are most aware of the need for good and involved fathers to improve the lives of the next generation of boys. This will both never provide a solution and ignores the actual cause.  

The problem with divorce law lies within the marriage contract. 

The part of the marriage contract that states each will look after the other “so long as ye both shall live” is where the problem begins. This means the divorce settlement must reflect that and allocate funds from the spouse that earns more to the spouse that earns less. While this might have have made sense in the 1800’s or even previous to the 1960’s when it was difficult for single mothers to work and earn a living, this is obviously not the case as we enter 2019. We are told single mothers can do it all, we are told they are capable and many laws have been introduced to insure they have the opportunity to do so. Therefore we must conclude it is time for marriage reform and that the contract no longer includes a life long commitment. I would also say their is a precedent of the marriage contract being changed in living memory. 

Women on mass decided they would remove the word “obey” from the legal contract. Removing the life long commitment should be a natural response. Being responsible for financial actions you have no legal right to control is akin to signing a blank cheque.   

This would remove the necessity for Spousal Agreements or Alimony payments. It would also create a more even relationship where the wife is no longer in the position where she can keep the financial benefits while ditching her responsibilities. This would equalise the consequences of divorce, and if it was coupled with reform in the family court it would reset the balance between the sexes and lead to a more harmonious society.