[Note added 13.6.14: This article has just been published by A Voice for Men – here. 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.