JULIE BINDEL: Why will I, a committed anti-rape campaigner, now advise victims to think twice before going to court? Because the Ched Evans judges have created a rapists’ charter

Our thanks to Chloe for this. The reason Bindel wants to deter alleged rape victims from seeking legal redress is obvious. It will make those women angry at ‘the system’, and angry at men and therefore hateful towards them, making them ready recruits to her evil ideology, and supporters of professional feminists such as herself.

Chloe writes:

Similar fact evidence, which this was, is very rarely admitted in a criminal trial. The similarities must be so obvious and so striking as to have a probative value of themselves , as they did in this case. I have put this in a reader comment which I very much doubt will be published.

Nor should Mr Evans be expected to apologise to this very dangerous young woman, and those feminists who expect him to do so are totally deluded. Nor should her father be rushing to her defence.

The reality is that predators like this – and they can be both male and female, as witness “Nick” who made allegations against MacAlpine and others – should be named and identified as a way of managing the risk they pose. They are as dangerous as child molesters, who can now be identified to the communities in which they propose to live.

If I was to give one piece of advice to this young woman, it would be to totally abstain from alcohol for the rest of her life. Because of her uncontrolled behaviour while under the influence one man has spent two years in prison and lost a lucrative career. One hopes she will reflect on this, but as a member of Generation Snowflake all she is doing is whining at the behaviour of the Internet users who have found her out.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Good comments below the article, a lot of people disagreed with that Julie Bindel psychopath.

    I should note though that actually ‘similar fact evidence’ is very commonly admitted to a trial, albeit usually in favor of the prosecution. This is because feminazis abolished the ‘similar fact’ rule so now they can bundle unrelated rubbish into one case and win a conviction through an onslaught of man-hating allegations.

  • epistemol

    Mike Buchanan’s assessment of Bindel’s motive is spot on.

    Her ATTEMPTED deceit is breathtaking in it’s manipulative contempt as she seeks to damage other’s lives, and corrupt and mislead them into being agents of harm for her own malodorous purposes.

  • cheannaich

    Bindel loses the plot with issue of consent. Basically, If one person is under the influence then consent cannot be obtained. Why does that not apply to males as well i.e being unfit to give or judge issues of consent and maybe actually being used as a sex object by a ravenous female? The other thing that must go against the grain is the constant referral to victims. The female in question seems to be able to act without any regard to morality, whereas the male is a low life. Since Evans is innocent and no crime was committed, why has the female not been named. Answer: feminism.
    Even more pertinent is the possibility that the female might not actually have been in the cop shop complaining of rape, rather that agents of the State may have been pursuing the feminist agenda and thereby forced the case to trial.
    Men and boys, your country despises you. It wants you to slave and pay taxes but other than that you are serfs to it.

  • The lack of concern for men, if not outrIght contempt is evident from the direction of the article. A man is unjustly jailed for two years, his promising career destroyed and her concern is not to prevent further injustices but to eliminate the legal route through which justice was belatedly achieved.

    The real questions which I have not seen asked in any of the many stories on this case are:
    How was a man convicted of rape when two men of good character gave evidence of consent and there was no evidence to the contrary?

    Why does it need exceptional permission to explore a women’s history of drink, sex and consent when a case hinges on exactly these things? It is tbe most pertinent evidence imaginable yet men are normally forbidden from exploring it. This can can only increase the chance of injustice.

    Will the women concerned be investigated for perjury after testifying that she frequently drank but never had blackouts or lost her memory? This testimony for which there is evidence of falsehood put an innocent man in jail. If as certainly seems possible it turns out she had frequently experienced memory loss then prosecution seem appropriate.

    Why was the case against ched evans prosecuted in the first place? There was no complaint the evidence was overwhelmingly of his innocence.

    • All very pertinent questions. The fact that humans are creatures of habit, repeating behaviours over many years, is actually crucial to detection in most forms of crime. the “MO” is central to policing. It is thus ridiculous that this evidence is not allowed as a matter of course in such cases, for the defence. I would also observe this was also a case which shows the importance of naming complainant as well as defendant in such cases to allow for the possibility of witnesses coming forward. I know that many here support the reverse. But for both the right convictions (where a defendant can be shown to behave in a way repeatedly) or acquittals(as in this case where part of the defence was a pattern of behaviours) I think Justice has to be seen so that witnesses can come forward. I think naming even as late as trial would allow justice to be seen. Constantly it appears to be forgotten that these are serious crimes for which a conviction will mean losing liberty. Incarceration is too serious for rules more appropriate to misdemeanours in civil courts to be applied.