Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Profile for Mr A Baron > Reviews

Personal Profile

Content by Mr A Baron
Top Reviewer Ranking: 9,419,861
Helpful Votes: 39

Learn more about Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
Mr A Baron "a_baron" (England)

Show:  
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
pixel
Legendary Ted Nugent
Legendary Ted Nugent
by Professor Robert Holland
Edition: Paperback

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars The Legendary Ted Nugent, 15 Nov. 2015
This review is from: Legendary Ted Nugent (Paperback)
Was Ted Nugent a legend in 1982? He was certainly an energetic performer. Although this pamphlet was written relatively early on in Nugent's career, it is fair to say that he had already produced his finest work by then.

It gives the background and/or inspiration to a few of his songs, and includes an interview from the "High Times" five years earlier. There is also a fair amount of personal biography, including - of course - the Gonzo's opinions on various subjects. There is not a lot more to say about it, except that if you are offended by profanity, best read something else.


The Secret History of the Jesuits by Paris, Edmond (1986) Paperback
The Secret History of the Jesuits by Paris, Edmond (1986) Paperback

1.0 out of 5 stars The Secret History Of The Jesuits, 15 Nov. 2015
The following is a review of an undated paperback edition; as it includes a website address, I assume it was published well after 1986.

In 1614, the renegade Jesuit Heronym Zahorowski published a calumny on the order, the notorious "Monita Secreta". Edmond Paris was never a Jesuit himself, but he has gone one better and then some. Just because a book has footnotes doesn't mean it has any merit at all; what are we to make of the claim on page 168 that "Mein Kampf" was written not by Adolf Hitler but by the Jesuit priest Father Staempfle? Give the Führer some credit.

The Jesuits may not be angels, but neither are they the devils this book paints them as. For example, there is no mention of their academic work such as compiling dictionaries in Native American languages. Take this book with a pinch of salt, or a boulder.


No Further Action: The Darkest Year of My Life
No Further Action: The Darkest Year of My Life
by Jim Davidson
Edition: Paperback
Price: £8.99

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars No Further Action, 14 Oct. 2015
I'm not a fan of Jim Davidson, of the man or his humour, so I didn't pay too much attention to the flippant tone of this book, but I read it in one sitting, and it is clear from many of his interjections that Davidson was feeling anything but flippant when he assembled it. Although he has censored some names, and the verbatim text may not be entirely accurate, this is an account of an honest man. Sadly, honest is not a word that can be applied either to his myriad accusers or to the police, who not only took these demented whores and lying little tarts at face value but even coached at least one of them.

If you are not familiar with the background to this witch-hunt, you can refresh your memory by consulting reports about the posthumous lynching of Jimmy Savile and the scam that followed, "Operation Yewtree".

This is from pages 124-5: there were seven further allegations; the first was from a woman who had accused him of orally raping her in the presence of a doorman at the London Palladium. After being told there was no public access to the stage door and this scenario could not have happened, this woman changed the venue to a theatre in Slough.

Page 127: "All of these accusations sounded coached. The statements were obviously taken down by a policewoman or policeman who wrote them in their style, rather than in the voice of the complainant." This is not necessarily sinister in itself because police witness statements must include certain information, while other information must not be included, or may be excluded during later court proceedings, for example, hearsay or allegations against another person. Witness statements, including confessions, are most often written by investigating officers rather than the individual concerned; as long as this is made clear to all concerned, it is no big thing, but it is one thing to assist a bemused individual with grammar, style and technical matters, it is quite another to coach a witness. And it is another thing entirely to enter into a de facto conspiracy to pervert the course of justice that may destroy a totally innocent man.

Page 137: the police denied telling the accuser about the Palladium, but they would, wouldn't they?

Page 138: of the Slough Pavilion, Davidson told them: "I played it in the very early eighties and then got pissed and broke the dressing-room sink. I was banned and never played it again. Also, there's no stage door." His accuser had claimed this attack happened "In or around 1989".

There is a lot more of this. To date, not one of these false accusers or proven liars has faced prosecution, including the six (a man and five women) who tried to frame Jimmy Tarbuck. It is amazing that Davidson has taken this whole nightmare in such good spirits; if he can continue to laugh about it, it's time someone in high places started taking it seriously and said enough is enough.


Shares Game
Shares Game
by Tony Levene
Edition: Paperback

5.0 out of 5 stars The Shares Game, 23 July 2015
This review is from: Shares Game (Paperback)
I read this book shortly after it was published in 1987; recently I looked it over again, and it has lost none of its lustre. The author has published many books since, none of which I have read, but I haven't missed anything because it would be nigh on impossible to improve on this.

In addition to explaining all about how investment works, Tony Levene explodes one of the greatest myths of our time, that professional investors (so-called) know what they are doing, that somehow they benefit us and the economy. The reality is they benefit no one but themselves.

Page 131: "Professional fund managers now acknowledge — but only in private — that pursuing the 'right' company to invest in is fruitless."

This is so because: "For every correct decision made in the stockmarket, there has to be a wrong one." (Page 53). Splendidly simple! But wait, there is more.

Page 54: "Over a long period, the best that anyone with a portfolio can hope for is to do a little better than the average shown by an accepted index...Most professional fund managers do worse than the average. In fact they are bound to do so...As most share trading is carried out by professionals, it folllows that they determine the price of each share in the index."

Get that too? So apart from getting lucky, what is the best thing to do? He advises buy some blue chip shares, perhaps in a dozen or maybe more companies depending on the depth of your pockets, and hold onto them. Back to page 53: "The random walk theory suggests that if you buy a portfolio and hold it for a long time, you will do better than most professionals who constantly buy and sell. They could never justify their fees if they adopted a strategy based on passive buying and holding".

Twenty-two years on, the author's theory was vindicated in spectacular fashion by an experiment in South Korea. Ten humans and a parrot were enrolled in a competition to make the most money playing the stock market over a six week period. The parrot came third! The reason appears to be the parrot traded rather infrequently. If you "invest" in a unit trust or through some other "professional" outfit, that is one thing you can be certain will not happen.

This book is breezily written, another of the myths he demolishes is that of penny shares. Before you make any investment decisions at all, read "The Shares Game"; it may have been written before the Internet age, but some truths are eternal.


HANRATTY: THE DNA TRAVESTY: Did the DNA really prove his guilt?
HANRATTY: THE DNA TRAVESTY: Did the DNA really prove his guilt?
Price: £2.16

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Hanratty: The DNA Travesty, 13 Dec. 2014
One of the marvels of the Internet is that it has allowed ordinary people to sell their music, peddled their wares or simply rant at the world as much as the mainstream media, the privileged, the well-connected and the rich. The downside is that it gives the same platform to idiots, and the author of this book is an idiot par excellence.

Where to begin? Although "Hanratty: The DNA Travesty" has an impressive title, and the author has letters after his name, one is entitled to ask has he done any proper research at all? Thus we are told that "innocent" Timothy Evans was hanged for the murder of his wife and child. Whether or not Evans was innocent - which is extremely doubtful - he was tried only for the murder of baby Geraldine, the same way Hanratty was tried only for the murder of Michael Gregsten, and for the same non-mysterious reason - that is the way things were done at that time.

He goes on to attempt to argue that "mens rea" was lacking for murder and that whoever pulled the trigger (twice) did not necessarily intend to murder Gregsten. One wonders if he has ever heard the term depraved indifference. Of Valerie Storie he says she had most of the public sympathy "in spite of her status as a mistress". This beggars belief. This was a woman who had seen her lover murdered before her very eyes, was then raped by the murderer, shot multiple times and left for dead. And she has "most of the public sympathy". Get real, dude.

He goes on to discuss Hanratty's Liverpool alibi; does not a man who changes his alibi in the middle of a trial lose what little credibility he may have?

Regarding the DNA evidence itself, while it is true there can be problems with DNA, especially when very small quantities are involved, it should never be forgotten that the case against Hanratty was proved in 1962, and there was plenty of hard evidence. Miss Storie may have picked out the wrong man on the first ID parade, but at the time she was very weak and was recovering - as best she could - from a terrible ordeal. The things Hanratty told her pointed to him and him alone. Among other things he had used the phrase "done the lot" - prison slang. Only five men in the country had recently done the lot.

One other point about the DNA evidence, the CCRC took up this case under pressure from the Hanratty family, their lawyers and campaigners, including Paul Foot. When the case was referred back to the Court of Appeal, Hanratty's brother Michael said it was like winning the lottery. Then, because they didn't get the verdict they wanted, the same people began questioning the veracity of the DNA testing.

The only people who today believe in Hanratty's innocence are those with a vested interest in doing so. And idiots like Rob Harriman. Wake up and smell the coffee.


Michelle Remembers
Michelle Remembers
by Michelle Smith
Edition: Paperback

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Michelle Remembers, 25 Nov. 2014
This review is from: Michelle Remembers (Paperback)
This is a review of the 1982 reprint, which contains a note of endorsement from the American publisher. "Michelle Remembers" is written in the third person; clearly Michelle had an unhappy childhood including losing her mother to cancer; there is a lot of verbatim dialogue in this book, including tape recorded sessions; the whole book is talk. And talk is cheap, even if it does make a packet for the talker.

A quote on page 163 sums it up: "Well, of course, I completely agree with you. It's clear that Michelle is totally genuine. As to the truth of her story - whether or not her dreadful memories are accurate - I'm in no position to say".

All the claims in this book have now been thoroughly discredited and debunked. Broadly speaking, reviewers fall into two camps, the true believers who give it 5 stars, and the rest of us who recognise it for the croc it is.


Feminist Perspectives on Evidence
Feminist Perspectives on Evidence
by Mary Childs
Edition: Paperback
Price: £41.99

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Feminist Perspectives On Evidence, 25 Nov. 2014
Feminism and evidence are two words that do not in general belong in the same sentence. As might be expected, this book has more than its fair share on that perennial feminist obsession, rape. Thus in the essay by Susan Easton on the use of sexual history in rape trials, the reader is told this "causes distress to complainants, can affect the outcome of the case and contributes to the low conviction rate for this offence", and can deter them from reporting.

One must bear in mind that the rule of law in the UK has been seriously eroded since this book was published, but leaving that aside, this statement is at best half true. The sexual history of a complainant may indeed be relevant, what for example if she has accused a man of rape before and has been shown to have lied? But this cuts both ways, the sexual history of a defendant can likewise be used against him if he impugns the character of his accuser - and after the grotesque Max Clifford and Rolf Harris trials this year, even men of impeccable character are fair game not only for traducing but for the most outrageous slanders.

For a defendant who is "obviously guilty", attacking the complainant can be a disaster. Both Ralston Edwards and Milton Brown conducted their own defences at their trials for rape - something that is no longer permitted. Both were convicted and received heavy sentences, though perhaps not heavy enough in Brown's case; he was reported to have been paroled in early 2012.

Back to the essay, we are told that at common law, sexual activity with other men was seen as relevant to consent if the woman was a prostitute or notoriously immoral. Are we really supposed to treat the evidence of a common prostitute with the same reverence as that of a schoolgirl or a nun? Having sex with the accused before was also seen as a credibility and consent issue. Again, how is this not so?

This essay alludes too to the 6% of cases initially reported as rape leading to convictions - 483 cases in 1996. Yawn.

Earlier, Fiona E. Raitt contributes a chapter on what is claimed to be gender bias in the hearsay rule. Feminists have long argued that men and women are essentially the same; here the author appears to be implying that women think differently, and even suggests that this should be admitted because to assume otherwise prevents effective cross-examination. They really do want to have their cake and eat it.

She also suggests that for women "survivors" of childhood sexual abuse who disclose (ie claim) they were abused to a meeting of one of these groups - this disclosure years after the event should be counted as evidence, ie people she told should be allowed to testify as to the truth of the claim - this is what she appears to be claiming.

Rosemary Hunter contributes an essay on what is called evidentiary harassment in the application of the rules of evidence in tribunals - re sexual harassment, etc. In one Australian case, counsel for the respondent "paid scant attention" to the complaint itself and "focused his questioning almost entirely on the attempt to establish that the complainant's motive for bringing the complaint was to obtain money to pay off extensive gambling debts". That was the motive, clearly the case was both the opportunity, and the method.

There is also a chapter on women who kill, including their syndromes and disorders - ie battered wife syndrome. Does this even exist? The case of Ahluwalia is said to be the standard - ie medical evidence re a claim of diminished responsibility. Likewise, Sara Thornton is also mentioned; she is said to have killer "her violent husband".

Sara Thornton's victim has been married twice before, and both his ex-wives spoke well of him; she had previously been married and was a head case - the Court of Appeal said as much in its usual temperate language. As for Kiranjit Ahluwalia, there is no doubt that her husband physically abused and humiliated her, but she was an intelligent, capable woman, a graduate, and could have left him. Instead, after 2 suicide attempts and two injunctions against him, she bought a can of petrol, poured 2 pints of it into a bucket, threw it over him as he lay sleeping at 2.30am, and lit it. He died a horrible, lingering death.

Leaving this aside, why was she living with a man against whom she had not one but two injunctions?

The feminist perspective on evidence may be quaint, but the feminist perspective on justice is non-existent, ditto this whole book.


[( Calling for Change: Women, Law, and the Legal Profession )] [by: Elizabeth Sheehy] [Jul-2006]
[( Calling for Change: Women, Law, and the Legal Profession )] [by: Elizabeth Sheehy] [Jul-2006]
by Elizabeth Sheehy
Edition: Paperback

1.0 out of 5 stars Calling For Change: WOMEN, LAW, AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION, 25 Nov. 2014
This is typical politically correct rubbish. What exactly are "women of color", for example? If there is one thing feminists like better than whining about the evils of rape it is playing stupid games with statistics to show how prevalent it is. There is though one half-interesting chapter, by "Jane Doe".

She was the plaintiff in Jane Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police. In 1986, she was raped at knifepoint by serial rapist Paul Callow - who was released after serving a 20 year sentence.

The judgment in this case is absolutely incredible - the female judge - who was later appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal - appears to have swallowed whole rape myths masquerading as expert evidence.

It remains to be seen how much the police were at fault in this case, but they did eventually catch Callow, the so-called Balcony Rapist.

According to Miss Doe herself, her lawsuit was successful because of "the expert testimony we developed and then led at trial to reset the stage for judges to understand rape in a feminist context and culture, and, as an equality issue". Rape is an equality issue? And there we were thinking it was a legal issue.

"I suggested that the mandatory curriculum in law schools must redefine rape and the nature of its harm from a feminist position to enable our courts to better address crimes of male violence against women". Hmm, like it's rape if you regret it the morning after. Wait, hasn't that already been done on the American campus?

There are chapters in French, but if you don't read French, don't worry, garbage is garbage in every language. Or as they say en francais, merde!


Falsely Accused: Mike Tyson and the Rape Trial that Destroyed a Champion
Falsely Accused: Mike Tyson and the Rape Trial that Destroyed a Champion
Price: £2.26

1.0 out of 5 stars Falsely Accused, 4 Nov. 2014
Is this guy a total jerk? Can he really be an attorney? If you read the preview of this book, don't bother forking out for even the paltry kindle fee. "Falsely Accused?" is said to be an update of the 1993 book "Down For The Count"; has the author learned nothing in the meantime? He begins with some background, not a bad start provided it is relevant, but how is the Clarence Thomas case relevant, or the Rodney King outrage, among others? And what has the Ku Klux Klan to do with it? The implication is this was some kind of fit-up in accord with a racial agenda. Of course, if Tyson had been acquitted there would have been a gaggle of demented feminazis coming at it from the other direction claiming that the white male dominated criminal justice system doesn't care about black rape victims. Fortunately that didn't happen, and the jury returned the right verdict, one that was upheld on appeal.

It may be true that Tyson did not have the best possible defence, but he was an extremely wealthy man, so if that is not the case he has only himself to blame for not finding the ultra-best. The truth is he had a far better defence than almost anyone - black or white - what let him down was not his lawyers, not the criminal justice system, not his advisers. What let Mike Tyson down was his own actions in that hotel room that night. To this day Tyson protests his innocence, and if he reads this polemical hogwash he will take comfort from the fact that there is at least one other person on this planet dumb enough to absolve him of all blame.


Pornography: Men Possessing Women
Pornography: Men Possessing Women
by Andrea Dworkin
Edition: Paperback

2 of 11 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Pornography: Men Possessing Women, 10 Oct. 2014
The title of this book says it all, the entire work can be summed up in two words: false narrative. Or if that is too prolix, one: lies.

In the "Preface", pornography is defined as involving dominance and violence as distinct from erotica which is simply "high-class pornography". This is complete rubbish, of course, as is her reference on page 13 to a "male-supremacist ideology".

Pornography is an enormous subject, and is not one that can be addressed with twee questions like is it harmful, yes or no? By way of analogy, when asked if crime is desirable, most people will answer no, but serial murder is crime, so is two foreigners drinking home brewed beer in Saudi Arabia. When asked about the desirability or otherwise of crime, most people think of neither, instead they are more likely to think about having their cars or houses broken into, or being robbed on their way home at night.

Similarly, pornography includes paintings, drawings, dirty jokes and a whole lot more. Some people of a sensitive disposition would regard the language Dworkin uses in this book as pornographic, in particular her repeated use of the dreaded F word. And is this really all about male supremacism? What about queer porn? Heck, what about lesbian porn? Perhaps the latter counts only when men view girl-on-girl action and not when "wimmin" do?

Dworkin give the rules of male power in this book - read her rules of male power. She makes a big thing out of a cartoon called BEAVER-HUNTERS which she says is a celebration of male power. Or couldn't it simply be a terrible pun?

She has a chapter on the Marquis de Sade: "In his life he tortured and raped women. He was a batterer, rapist, kidnapper, and child abuser".

Sade was indeed a horrible person; he also spent over three decades of his 74 years deprived of his freedom, which does tend to suggest that some men disapproved of his actions. On page 76, Dworkin points out that his wife participated in some of his sadistic acts. Was she too a male supremacist? Did she not have free will?

Then on page 103 we have what "feminists" love most, contrived statistics: "Using FBI statistics, feminists calculate that in the United States one woman is raped every three minutes, one wife battered every eighteen seconds". She puts the number of battered wives in the US at 28 million.

Does FBI stand for Federal Bureau of Investigation, or could it be in this case Feminist Bullshit ad Infinitum? Let's take a look at this. One rape every three minutes equals 175,200 rapes every year. That is regular years, not leap years. Does that sound credible to you? If it does not, loony "feminist" Kat Banyard claims there are currently at least 100,000 women raped in the UK every year - not rapes but victims. The UK has a much smaller population than the US, of course.

As for 28 million battered wives. In 1981 - when this book was published - the US population was around 230 million, which means if one accepts that figure, around 1 person in 8 in the US was "battered". Bearing in mind females make up around half the population, and that married women make up an even smaller percentage, almost every married woman in the US would be a battered wife. Does this sound plausible? And this relates to pornography how precisely?

Andrea Dworkin was a physically repulsive woman, gratuitously so, but even if she'd had the body of an angel, she would have been no less unattractive. How could anyone have ever taken this garbage seriously?


Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6