In 2014 I wrote an article on how Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was following feminist guidance on how to deal with sexual offence cases.
We all know how that’s worked out, including the recent case of a a 51-year-old man charged with raping a 60-something actress in the middle of a busy London train station, with CCTV cameras all around. CCTV footage showed the two of them walking in opposite directions, and the man not breaking his stride. He was holding onto a shoulder bag with one hand, and a newspaper with the other. There is no evidence the two of them even touched physically. These are all trifling irrelevances for a feminist-minded prosecutor, obviously.
Our thanks to Mike for this. The start of the article:
Police officers must be ‘good investigators’ when presented with allegations of sexual abuse and not simply believe them, the Met Commissioner has said.
Amid a firestorm over controversial investigations into public figures including the war hero Lord Bramall, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said there was a ‘great danger’ in allegations being believed from the outset.
The embattled police commissioner has repeatedly refused to apologise for investigations into historic claims against Lord Bramall and the former Tory home secretary Lord Brittan, who died before it was concluded he had no case to answer.
But he has launched a judge-led inquiry to look into how the Metropolitan Police handled the accusations and today questioned guidance on how allegations are treated.
Sir Bernard told the BBC: ‘I think we have really got hung up on this word belief, it’s confused officers, and my point would be we of course have to be empathetic, we want people to believe we are going to listen to them.
‘We want to be open minded about what they tell us and then what the suspects tell us.
‘And then we have got to test all that evidence.
‘There is a great danger at the moment with the advice that is around that perhaps there is a tendency to think we will always believe any complaint that is made.
‘That’s not wise for any good investigator.’
‘That’s not wise for any good investigator’. As one of my children used to say frequently as a teenager, many years ago, ‘No shit, Sherlock!’
Some characteristic idiocy from the NSPCC:
An NSPCC spokesman said warned the new policy would be a ‘serious bar’ to victims coming forward to the police.
He said: ‘At a time when people have at long last found the confidence and courage to report these crimes, it would be a tragedy to bring this progress to a juddering halt.
‘Victims of sexual abuse have the right to be believed just as much as anyone reporting a burglary or physical assault. Police officers should have an open mind and execute the normal tests and investigations to verify the veracity of what is being alleged.
‘Telling those who have been sexually abused they will no longer be automatically believed seems to be a panic measure which could have an adverse effect on a crime the Government has classified as a ‘national threat’.’
How, precisely, are the police expected to differentiate immediately after a rape report is made, between a person who was genuinely abused, and one who is making a false allegation? Surely the result of ‘automatic belief’ can only increase the frequency of false rape allegations, for which the CPS seldom brings prosecutions after being asked to make a charging decision by the police – and it beggars believe that the police would seek a charging decision unless they were confident of a conviction. Even when women are found guilty of making false allegations, they can expect a suspended sentence i.e. no punishment. They retain their anonymity, while the identities of the men whose lives they have sought to ruin – some of whom commit suicide – are publicised in the mainstream media.
The people doing the most to deter women reporting sexual abuse to the police are the feminists employed in the huge and lucrative rape industry. They maintain a constant narrative of women not being believed by police, and courts failing to convict rapists. They thereby achieve at least five objectives:
Our thanks to David for this. Well, that’s a novel way to bring a long dull meeting to a close… what will men do, to achieve the same objective?
Our thanks to Keith for this. An extract:
A troubled binge-drinking mum has been banned from all pubs after she attacked two women at Teesside bars. Michelle Mackenzie, 41, could not remember breaking a woman’s jaw with one punch after drinking almost a litre of vodka.
Teesside’s top judge did not jail her yesterday, not wanting to punish her three children for her crimes.
The real culprit behind this story is, predictably, a man. Another extract:
Despite knowing what she was capable of, he (the male judge) said, she did not learn her lesson and did exactly the same thing weeks later.
He added: “I’ve taken into account that I’m told, and accept, that for many years you’ve been the subject of domestic violence.
“That of course explains a lot.
It would be interesting to know if the judge had the slightest evidence to believe what he’d been ‘told’. For all we know from this article, she could have been primarily a perpetrator of domestic violence, who sometimes came off worse in fights with her partner.
If the charged party had been a man, who’d been the victim of domestic violence over many years at the hands of a woman, would a judge have said, ‘That of course explains a lot’, and handed him a suspended sentence? Ha.
In declaring he didn’t want to punish the woman’s children for her crimes, the judge essentially told her what she probably already knew – what all women in the UK must know, by now – that she wouldn’t serve an appropriate punishment for her crimes (in this case, a prison sentence).
Our thanks to Mark for this (video, 4:24).
Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, failed to respond by the required deadline to our FOI request asking for minutes of meetings she’s had since she took on her role, with organizations advocating for victims of domestic and/or sexual abuse. Her response is now 16 weeks overdue.
Our letter to Ms Saunders is here. We’ll publish a post each week on the delay, and email the Crown Prosecution Service each time, until we get a response.
Do the people behind Woman Sour, and those presenting the programme, feel utterly mortified about the trash they’ve forced British people to listen to, decade after decade? You have to hope so, with such execrable nonsense as this, insulting unfortunate listeners earlier today, many of whom have paid a licence fee to hear this garbage.
Enjoy – both the article and the comments stream, in particular the contributions to the latter by Liberal_Elite, a particularly loopy feminist who’s previously been banned from TCW comment streams after employing other aliases. We can but hope she suffers the same fate again, soon.
Media representatives are required to pay for conference tickets on the same terms as delegates, but a decision has been taken to offer complimentary passes to media representatives for the press conference only, which will be held on the morning of Friday, 8 July.
Further details are in section 6 of the revised Booking Terms, accessible after clicking on the ‘Book here’ tab at the top of the page of the conference website.
Sophie Walker has already won a LFOTM award, while her sidekick Sandi Toxic, the party’s spokeswoman, won two of them in the space of just three months. We knew it couldn’t be long before Ms Walker won another, and she’s done it by making a claim in a Guardian article which is essentially the same lie as the one which led to Toxic’s second award. These women are gifts who keep on giving.
Details of why Ms Walker won her latest award are on her award certificate:
Justice for Men & Boys 