Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, will follow feminists’ guidance on how to deal with sexual offence cases

[Note added 13.6.14: This article has just been published by A Voice for Menhere. The comments sections on AVfM are always worth reading.]

There are few things that make us more incensed than when senior men in public life follow the lead of feminist ideologues such as the man-hating Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is often referred to as the country’s most senior police officer, responsible for law and order in a city with over seven million inhabitants. This piece on the BBC website really brought the red mist down. An early extract:

Officers are not always “sensitive and empathetic to the rape victim’s account”, Met Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has said. At the launch of an independent review of the investigation of rape, Sir Bernard said the force needed to “drastically improve” how it handled rape cases. More than 80% of sexual offences victims do not come forward, he added. The review, part of a national action plan, will be led by ex-Lord Advocate of Scotland Dame Elish Angiolini. The outcome will be published in February.

How can anyone know how many sexual offences victims don’t come forward? Surely a ridiculous ‘factoid’ invented by feminists, which he’s swallowed hook, line, and sinker. The article continues:

Sir Bernard said: “For a while, I’ve been concerned about how we, the police, approach and deal with sexual offences. “This is our brave attempt to try to resolve it,” he added.
He said people did not seem to “trust the criminal justice system to give them the assistance they need” and about 80% of those who come forward to report were “vulnerable” through drink, drugs or psychiatric illness. “My concern has been whether or not the investigators are always as sensitive and empathetic to the victim’s account, as they should be.”

‘People’ did not seem to ‘trust the justice system’. In this context we can safely replace ‘people’ with ‘women’. 80% of the ‘people’ coming forward were ‘vulnerable’. What proportion of this 80% had ingested alcohol or drugs voluntarily? What proportion of them had consensual sex, but later regretted it, turning a consensual act into a criminal offence? If a woman who’s not ‘vulnerable’ through drink or drugs has consensual sex with a man who is, and the man later regrets his decision, are we to say she raped him? Surely either, or neither, must be true. Later in the article:

Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, said: “We have seen an increase in the last few months of referrals coming through, but we need to improve the court process once the victim has decided to engage.”
Ms Saunders said she would be in favour of judges warning jurors about the dangers of them having an unconscious bias at the start of a trial rather than at the end.

Ah, that useful feminist trump card, ‘unconscious bias’. By definition, you can’t deny you have it. So as a juror you’re supposed to set aside all you’ve learned in your life, and all you’ve learned from others, about how men and women in the real world interact with each other, and fill the void with feminist narratives designed to ensure conviction rates are increased. It’s a cynical corruption of the jury system, and if all this has anything to do with justice, I’m a Koi carp.

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.
  • Awesome article. And one that makes me recoil in disgust thinking what this preposterous lie has come up to, nowadays. I am astounded at the blindfolded ways of the BBC and the media. Reality out there screams one thing, and the state funded trumpets an opposite one. I am particularly worried – in this case – about the presumably subtle, devious ways in which the concept of “empathy” is being inserted, here. As if being empathetic was what the law should be about. How about “just” , first, and objective? And as detachedly close to objectivity as possible? And THEN empathetic? If I remember correctly, that’s how I was thought the Justice system has to operate, in a functional society? Imagine a state where regardless of which kind of crime was being dealt with, the jurors and judges were above all “empathetic” to the presumed guilty? A state I am fed up to be part of, and one of the reason I have been considering leaving this rotten country. But I’ll wait til your party gets elected, first. Cause it will. Especially if things carry on like this. Thanks so much for your precious work. Best, Laura.

  • Angiolini has real “previous” in Scotland.
    She was no supporter of corroboration and seemed intent in driving the prosecutions for rape complaints up during her reign in Scotland.
    It is widely acknowledged that COPFS in Scotland is a feminist fortress.
    Now we have the legal equivalent of “French and Saunders”.
    The more “people” that make rape complaints, that come forward, the more that can be prosecuted. Its a numbers game.
    Shouldn’t they be more concerned that the majority of – eventual – releases of innocent men in our prisons were originally incarcerated for rape and sexual offences?
    Also, bear in mind that these innocent men would never be eligible for early release because they did not accept their trumped-up conviction, and that as innocent men their lives in those jails would have been made hell by both staff and inmates alike?
    Not a problem for the female accusers or their female persecutors is it, as they are men so what the hell..
    And who cares if 80% are false accusers (MY interpretation of his remarks) when NO action is taken against these false accusers because they too are “victims” of their psychological issues.
    When ARE we going to start prosecuting the large section of that 80% that can’t prove they have good reason to make false rape reports?

  • Mmm . . . if you’re a feminist, is the only true ‘consensual sex’ that which takes place between two women? Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:22:17 +0000 To:

  • Alison Saunders’ announcement last week was probably one of the most dangerous and far-reaching acts of misuse of power imaginable by an officer of the state prosecution apparatus. The stench of feminism is all over this.

    What is really going on here is the rolling-out of the latest feminist party line on rape, driven by Alison Saunders (and indeed, her predecessor, Keir Starmer – currently advising the Labour Party about this, and soon to be a Labour MP, it seems – quelle surprise!) of overcoming the so-called ‘Rape Myths’ that juries allegedly hold, and which, allegedly, cause them not to weigh the evidence before them in a balanced way.

    In simple terms, these alleged myths fall into three categories: ‘Real Rape’ is where a woman violently resists a man who takes her by force, otherwise it is questionable; that ‘Women Cry Rape’ when they regret a sexual encounter or are caught out being unfaithful and claim rape as their excuse; and that ‘Coffee is consent’ when a woman who invites a man in for coffee after a night out is signalling her willingness to have sex. Feminists, in their ideologically-driven world, deny that these are allowable ideas, and Saunders and her like are engaged in a naked attempt to condition public opinion to this feminist narrative.

    Whether you believe the so-called rape myths or not. Whether you believe they even exist, has nothing to do with it. Saunders and her ilk are intent on disabusing those who would be jurors of these alleged myths because THEY believe they are wrong and THEY believe people should not think as the do. Theirs is the purest form of feminst totalitarian elitism there is. Baruch Spinosa’s assertion that a man should be able to think what he likes, and say what he thinks has no place in their world.

    However, there is a Home Office study, which points out that one of the biggest risk factors now for women who are assaulted is going to a nightclub once a week, and everybody really knows that what you do, and the situations in which you put yourslef, undoubtedly increase your vulnerability to certain types of crime. The man and woman in the street (and in the jury rooom) knows this.

    He or she also knows that if you get yourself drunk you are far more likely to have accidents, and you put yourself at increased risk because your judgement is impaired and you can’t see danger as well as you can when you are sober. Ordinary men and women who become jurors instinctively realise that if you fall off a bar stool and hit your head and have a serious brain injury because you are drunk, you chose to get drunk. They know this because they may have even done something similar themselves and have kicked themselves afterwards for being so stupid.

    Judges factor these sort of things into their awards for damages. It is called sontribuutory negligence but feminists deny that women can be contributorially negligent. For them, the woman is eternally the victim. She posesses no moral agency, and no responsibiity for her own self-protection and safety. All that has to lie with the man, especially in sexual encounters.

    But this is too sanitory an argument. Apart from the fact that women are often as sexually predatory as men, the ordinary man and woman knows that you cannot separate legal responsibility from moral responsibility, especially moral responsibility for one’s own wellbeing and safety, but that is what feminists like Saunders do.

    Saunders is part of a campaign that is wilfully seeking to influence what goes on behind the doors of the jury room by changing public opinion about this on the basis of utterly simplistic, feminist-driven arguments. It’s as simple as that. She is seeking to extend her influence beyond the locked door of the jury room in order to get conviction rates up. This has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with dogma, ideology, and the numbers game. (Perhaps she has longer term aspirations to be a darling of the left in politics? The proof of that pudding might yet to be in the eating.)

    Saunders is seeking to desecrate the jury room, which must be kept sacrosanct. Trial by one’s peers who reflect the views and mores of the common man, in the context of the times in which they and the accused live, isn’t a perfect system – far from it, but it is the best we’ve got. It has been the defence of the common man against abuse of power since Henry II created it in the twelfth century, and no holder of high office in our land today should even dare to interfere with it. Yet Saunders is doing just that.

    The jury in a rape trial is a man’s last defence against the witch hunt in which the authorities are undoubtedly engaged – let’s face it and say it out loud – against men. Interfering with the jury is all part of the current rape culture whipped up by feminist ideologues intent on to de-stabilising society by creating a toxic climate of fear in women, so as to belittle men, and bring them under feminist control. And all becauase of their blind and unwavering belief that patriarchy has allegedly disadvantaged women for centuries. (it is all nonsense of course, but a lie told often enough becomes the truth.)

    The head of the Crown Prosecution Service in a civilised nation like Britain, a bastion of freedom against tyranny and totalitarianism, must be – and must be seen to be, utterly impartial in the exercise of this vitally important role. But no. Alison Suanders is politicised. She is campaigning to end alleged rape myths by seeking to influence juries (and police officers too, it seems from Sir Bernard Hogan Howe’s utterances) and, therefore, she cannot be impartial. This should scare all of us.

    I’m not saying that Sir Bernard Hogan Howe is part of the feminist cadre who are driving this agenda. He may, of course, just be playing a longer game, saying the right words, keeping his job (because he’d soon lose it if he spoke out against this) whilst maintaining a more even-handed approach in practice. I’d like to think so. I’d like to think that he remembers the oath he himself would have taken on first becoming a constable: to exercise his duty ‘without fear or favour’. We’ll see.

    For me, the jury’s out on him.

  • looks like men have been too nice to women for too long. Not only is treating women in this fashion undeserved at this point in time,it perverts justice and negates democratic values. Time to smart up boys and start treeating women in a fashion they now deserve.No perks,no privileges,no nothing.
    And you will see how quickly things will get corrected. Continue playing ‘the gentleman’,and there will be no end to this.