The relentless war against men and boys presses on. Tried for a sex crime… because I brushed past a 60-something film star in rush-hour: Mark Pearson, artist, 51, accused of bizarre ‘hit and run’ assault on award-winning actress despite no evidence or witnesses – so why DID it come to trial?

[Note added 8.2.16: It has just been revealed that prosecutors slowed down the CCTV footage of Mark Pearson passing the 60-something actress, in an effort to make him appear ‘more guilty’ to the jury. Details here. There would seem to be no limits to which the criminal justice system will not go, in their objective of having innocent men convicted of rape.]

A small selection from our store of articles on false rape allegations and rape myths:

13 reasons women lie about being raped (Janet Bloomfield)

6 dangerous rape myths (Hannah Wallen)

10 reasons false rape allegations are common (Jonathan Taylor)

Gender disparities in treatment by the criminal justice system are just one of the 20 areas we covered in our 2015 general election manifesto (pp.49-51). The police / CPS are woefully negligent in prosecuting women for committing sexual offences, even when their victims are children. Those offences are far more common than is realised by the general public, partly on account of relentless government and mainstream media narratives of male perpetrators and female victims (pp.31-37). Similar narratives distort the public’s understanding of domestic violence (pp.26-30).

William Collins explained in a remarkable article that if male criminals were treated as leniently as female criminals in sentencing terms, five out of every six men in British prisons wouldn’t be there. The prison overcrowding crisis could be solved swiftly by introducing gender equality in prison sentencing. It will never happen, of course, because that would be totally the wrong sort of gender equality.

If you’re concerned by the many assaults on the human rights of men and boys, we invite you to join us at the second International Conference on Men’s Issues (ExCeL London, 8-10 July, 2016). So far we have speakers and/or delegates coming from 16 countries, from as far away as Australia. Five of the 20 speakers are women, including the keynote speaker, Erin Pizzey.

The state’s relentless war against men and boys continues. Our thanks to Francis for this. Excerpts from a lengthy piece:

Their paths crossed for precisely half a second during the evening rush hour at Waterloo Station. Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist, was on his way home from work, weaving through a thick tide of London commuters.

Walking towards him across the concourse came an award-winning star of film, TV, theatre and radio. She had just been to a yoga class and was heading to a rehearsal. Neither knew the other.

What happened next – or rather what didn’t happen – would cast Mr Pearson into what he calls a year-long ‘Kafkaesque nightmare’ from which he has only just escaped, and for which he squarely blames the Crown Prosecution Service.

It cannot be said with certainty that the artist and the actress made even fleeting physical contact. CCTV images showed only that they walked past each other. Yet the woman, who is in her 60s, claimed Mr Pearson sexually assaulted her – penetratively – for ‘two or three seconds’…

Over the past year and more, the CPS has been repeatedly stung by criticism of its decision-making in a series of high-profile sex cases. At the same time, it has sought to deal with concerns that many women are put off reporting rape and sexual assault because they lack faith in the justice system.

Mr Pearson wonders whether he is ‘a victim of the way the CPS is rigorously trying to redress the balance’. One of his supporters, author Erin Pizzey, the family care activist who founded the world’s first shelter for victims of domestic violence, certainly believes so.

‘The CPS have recently been wrongly targeting men and it has got to stop,’ she said. ‘The CPS had no business going after him [Mr Pearson] because there wasn’t a case there from the very beginning. At the moment, women seem above the law. They can do it in domestic violence cases – simply pick up the phone, no evidence required, and have a man removed from his family and his children – and they can do it with rape, too.’

The CPS said: ‘There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial. We respect the decision of the jury.’

Rubbish. There was never ‘sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial’. The CCTV evidence alone proved that what the actress claimed to have happened could not possibly have happened.

As for ‘We respect the decision of the jury’, does the CPS have an option to ‘disrespect’ it? Not yet, it doesn’t, but that day is coming. Let’s not forget that, having ‘educated’ judges involved in such cases, the CPS now plans to ‘educate’ juries before trials begin so that they no longer believe in ‘rape myths’ e.g. that women can lie about having been raped (and frequently do), in order to convict more innocent men.

The CPS clearly resents the decision of the jury to not convict an innocent man, thereby ‘improving’ the rape conviction statistics.

There was a default presumption that a man was guilty of a sexual offence solely on the strength of a woman’s accusation, and he had to prove his innocence. This was just the latest vicious taxpayer-funded attack on an innocent man, a favoured tactic of the CPS under Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions.

Will the 60-something ‘award-winning star of film, TV, theatre and radio’ be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, or wasting police time? Hahahahahahahahaha. No. But why not, you might reasonably ask? Because, as always, vagina. Erin Pizzey is right. Women are above the law.

20 thoughts on “The relentless war against men and boys presses on. Tried for a sex crime… because I brushed past a 60-something film star in rush-hour: Mark Pearson, artist, 51, accused of bizarre ‘hit and run’ assault on award-winning actress despite no evidence or witnesses – so why DID it come to trial?

  1. As one of a team of Solicitor Advocates working in the Criminal Department I have the freedom of being hands on in the preparation of a clients case before the matter even gets to court and then conducting the advocacy at the trial. From this case, I wrote an article with the benefits of being represented by a Solicitor. You can find it here advocate

  2. Yep. And the CPS. And the police. But imagine how far he’d get before his finances ran out. The legal system is juked toward the state, always. Kinda like the house bias in a casino…

  3. In a word Walter, yes.
    The Surveillance State is being built by the day and computers have enabled it.
    Ever since the loathed I.D. card proposal ( sometimes referred to as “the plastic policeman in your pocket” ) was supposedly scrapped, surveillance by other means has been pursued vigorously.
    Take the written letter for example, fairly secure due the physical impossibility of just opening and reading all that stuff. You’d need half the country to do it, and then who would spy on the spys? Now we use email which can washed through a computer faster than you can even think about it.
    The internet itself – a blessing at first providing more information about anything you like than you could shake a mobile phone at – can now used to scan the contents of your local hard drive without one even knowing about it. Ever wondered why the govt. are so keen on transacting as much business on line as possible?
    It’s so you have to have a computer. At some stage it will likely become compulsory, not a matter if choice.
    Been doing any thing you shouldn’t lately?
    I don’t have an oyster card, but I know you have to set up an account to get one. You will be traceable by your email address, credit or debit card number, name or any other detail handed so trustingly over.
    Now let’s consider the ‘cashless society’. Without physical money in your pocket, your spending will be controlled by whoever controls the computer systems that implements it.
    That’ll be the state then, directly or indirectly.
    Want to buy some cigarettes?
    Too bad, they are an illegal drug now, and you are a criminal, guilty of health crime.
    Like a drop of whiskey?
    Tough, you’ve purchased your limit for that month.
    Chocoholic? Nope, not any more, that’s blocked.
    Lonely? Not been getting your oats lately and fancy buying a little fun and comfort somewhere?
    You must be joking – the ‘Swedish model’ is now law and what is FREE to GIVE AWAY is now ILLEGAL to buy.
    Attempts to do so will be detected by the VAWA filter and will attract a ‘ ‘ tarriff ‘ of ten years.
    So much for money buying anything.
    Transport then, what about that?
    Well ‘ speed ‘ and ANPR ( Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras )
    linked to a database already litter our roads, and records of all our all journeys are kept. They are supposed to be destroyed after so many years, but at least one force recently has been criticised for keeping them much longer, but nothing is done.
    Just round the corner now, are self driving cars, controlled by compu….
    you ‘re beginning to guess what I’m going to say now aren’t you?
    In later models, handcuffs will shootout from the seats clamping you in place .
    You think I am being facetious, or indulging my penchant for satire?
    Not a bit of it – draw line from where we are now to the realatively near future, and that’s where it leads.
    I may not see it, but anyone young today may care to bear all this in mind – even our private and personal medical records are being put into a database which will end up being visible to any petty official who cares to see them.
    And before you say ” that’ll never happen, the public won’t stand for it”. What – like the way they didn’t stand for banning ciggies in pubs, or didn’t stand for charging and trying
    Mr. Pearson in court ( Waterloo gate ? ) THAT sort of not standing for it?
    Oh right.

  4. Many more men will be exposed to more of these kinds of situations before anything is done to correct it. The GAE situation is similar. Women are becoming more and more “entitled”. A lot of them like it and will continue to use that “entitlement” until there is push back in the courts and society in general, and we all know that will not happen any time soon.

  5. I just Google’d it. The Oyster card has contact-less near field communications built into it. It communicates without you having to do anything. Basically if you have one on you “they” can track you if you go near one of their transceivers and I am sure that a transportation hub like Waterloo would have lots of transceivers. Big Brother is watching.

  6. Even more concerning is the way Mr. Pearson was identified – on the basis of his Oyster card. Does this follow you around like a bugging device? And how can an Oyster card, which you normally get through a slot machine, provide any personal details? Is the surveillance state even worse than we could imagine?

  7. I may be able to shed some light on the reasons for this woman’s actions Barry.
    Described as an “actress”, she would place much importance on her sex appeal, and it causes discomfort to feel that she has lost the source of her bloated ego AND her oversized pay cheques.
    What better way to establish in the minds of the paying public that she is still so hot that some chap was unable to resist the temptation.
    This claim of intimate interference was a BOAST in other words – as well as a studied and considered piece of P.R. – she was just awaiting the right circustance.
    It arrived in Waterloo Station that day and she seized it.
    As a woman ‘of a certain age’ as the French have it, she is very likely barking loopy as well.
    This used to be a well known characteristic for ladies such as her, but now seems to come into the category of ‘things-we-used-to know-but-have-since-forgotten.’
    Not that I consider that any excuse.

  8. Yet again an innocent man is named, the guilty person escapes being named and punished for wrongful accusations. She should be named, and she should get some help because she is living in a fantasy world. The CPS need to stop wasting money on ridiculous cases. Importantly though, a man’s life has been damaged by this ordeal and deserves justice, so how about fining the woman.

  9. SHE POSSESSES NO MORALS AND EMOTIONALLY DISGUSTING! That poor man didn’t deserve bullying actress to offload her bad day on him! Why? She is something because she is an award-winning actress?! No! She ought to be named and boycotted!

  10. REVEAL THE WICKED EVIL WOMAN! SHE POSSESSES NO MORALS AND EMOTIONALLY DISGUSTING! That poor man didn’t deserve bullying LOSER CHILD to offload her bad day on him! Why? She is something because she is an award-winning actress?! No! She ought to be named!

  11. sexually assaulting a 60+ woman ? which man in his right mind would feel any attraction or desire whatsoever towards an old, post menopausal woman? The case should be thrown out right after the man uttering this sentence. Only in western societies we pretend that women remain attractive in old age because somehow we feel we would be doing something wrong if we did not pretend.. Well, they are not, neither are they sexually stimulating. This just shows how very unrealistic, hypocritical and phony our society has become. But in order to prosper again, we need to become more open and realistic. All these niceties produce more harm than benefit to everyone. There is no need for it anyways. Just look what situations it is creating !

  12. We all know WHY this happened, as Mike Bucchanan suggests, the CPS has been grievously corrupted.
    All that is required now is for juries to be fixed, or more likely eliminated altogether from this kind of case – surely just a few pen strokes away – and that would be that. Conviction by accusation alone, a femarxist ideal.
    There will be few, if any more warnings before the final act of this obscene drama/farce.
    If not it means the trap is not quite ready to be sprung yet, that’s all.

  13. I hope the usual internet sleuths find out who this despicable actress is an reveal her name online. It shouldn’t be too hard. Compile a list of all British actresses born around 1955/1956 and narrow it down to whomever fits the description of “an award-winning star of film, TV, theatre and radio” as outlined in the article. She cannot seriously be allowed to remain anonymous after what she put this man through. I’m guessing that what probably happened is that the two brushed shoulders or he bumped into her heavily, she was angered by it and figured that she’d use her status as a woman to get her revenge on this man in the worst way possible. She should be named, shamed and boycotted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.