Our thanks to David and others for this. Extracts:
The fact is that our criminal justice system is supposed to be founded on two critical principles. First, the presumption of innocence. Second, due process: the belief that criminal accusations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, by fair procedures.
However, when it comes to sexual assault, decades of campaigning by feminists [my emphasis] and more strident members of the victim lobby have browbeaten judges and policy-makers into a change of approach.
The prevailing attitude seems to be that it is unfair to anyone claiming to have been the victim of a sexual attack that they should have to accept that their alleged attacker is ‘innocent until proved guilty’ and that the case has to operate under due process. As a result, the system has been re-engineered to make it more difficult for the accused to defend himself…
I am aware of many sex attack cases in which defendants and their lawyers have complained that when they provided the police with evidence suggesting that a complaint of sexual assault was false, the police simply ignored it. [my emphasis]
“The problem is not so much with the courts, where it still seems to be accepted that an accused is innocent unless proven guilty”
No read the article again. It clearly says the law has changed to make the courts view a man as guilty until proven innocent:
“Even the definition of rape has been changed. Previously, it was a defence for a man to show that he honestly believed the woman was consenting.
But the Sexual Offences Act 2003 — passed by the Labour government — introduced a so-called test of reasonable belief in consent. This means that the accused has to show he took reasonable steps to ensure that the woman consented to sex.
This has led to the ridiculous situation whereby some students demand ‘affirmative consent’. This means that consent has to be sought and given at every stage of any sexual encounter.”
And what Hewson is saying there is just the tip of the iceberg. There’s been a range of other changes to the law. Such as removal of the “similar fact” rule that previously prevented lumping lots of spurious allegations together in one trial (as happened in yewtree). Also there are now limitations in the ability of the defence to cross-examine witnesses. The courts also allow the CPS to do things like claim an offence occurred on a certain date, if the defendent then proves that it couldn’t have possibly occurred on that date then the CPS can simply change the date to one the defendent can’t prove his innocence of! This happened in the trials of both Rolf Harris and Jonathan King – both were found guilty and both are likely innocent.
There is no justice in British Justice anymore. The whole criminal justice system is a twisted farce of feminazi bullying and violence.
The comments beneath the article, as for all such articles, whether in the Mail or the Guardian are condemning. The ‘People’ never asked for this, it was foisted upon us from above, but unless folks start translating their anger, over institutionalised feminism, into their voting choices, it’s going to be really hard to make headway. When I was out leafleting before the last general election, I spoke with many who were sympathetic to the plight of alienated fathers, and other men’s issues, but were still going to vote Lab/Lib/Con anyway. We need more like Philip Davies (and I’m not even a natural conservative, being more ‘Green’ but Natalie Bennett killed that one dead).
‘Has it ever occurred to our men that … ‘
Probably. However, two conditions obtain:
1) Women have the ear and sympathy of authority and always have done.
2) Most men tend to function better in groups led by a charismatic figure possessing natural authority and particular ability, and while such groups are emerging, men of that ilk tend not to be the norm, making the process a slow one. Dissent is coalescing, though, even if slowly.
‘ … it highlights the gynocentric phenomenon that men tend to not defend themselves even when under offical attack carrying the weight of law.‘
I don’t think that’s the case. I think it more likely that men who write on such matters are simply not given page space and so, because they must earn a crust by scribbling, they write about things they know will be published.
It also seems to be the case that only those with protected characteristics (blacks, Jews, women, LGBTGTDXYZ&W&c) are allowed to comment on the failings of their particular group.
The problem is not so much with the courts, where it still seems to be accepted that an accused is innocent unless proven guilty, but ‘The Police’ and the CPS both of which are pushing cases that are demonstrably false through the system. One danger that others seem not to have commented upon, is that as the number of failed prosecutions rises, because there is no case to answer, so the misandrous fanatics who have perverted the course of justice in England will scream even more loudly that despite all that has been done, the system is still failing women and demand even more draconian measures with an even lower standard of proof.
There is a glimmer of hope for a return to sanity however. Grooovey Dave is now less popular than ever and with Brexit looking ever more likely is unlikely to last as PM for very much longer. A new leader just may decide that the Sistas aren’t doing as well as was hoped and replace some of them.
Has it ever occurred to any man out there, who’s fed up with all this anti-men and anti-boys bias, that it could be all caused by men’s passive acceptance of nonsensical ,illogical and anti-democratic feminist whining? Has it ever occurred to our men that our polite tolerance of all this nonsense is the very cause of it getting worse and worse? Perhaps too much decency and classy manners is a signal to women that they have a green light to push further and further. As long as men feel, or have been taught not to directly challenge women ,on grounds of being gentlemen, then this injustice will be going on. Please, do not mistake being a gentleman with being a fool and do not let women exploit your decent upbringing into their advantage and your disadvantage.
That’s not what being a gentleman is all about. At least it should not be !
P.S.
So Keir Starmer is not only an
M.P. but also a ‘Sir’ now is he?
Oh for friends in high places!
That this item can, and has appeared in a mainstream paper, is in itself clearly a good sign.
My hope therefore is that this serious problem won’t take equivalent decades to put right.
I notice though, that once more it is writen by a woman – not a problem in it’s own right, but it highlights the gynocentric phenomenon that men tend to not defend themselves even when under offical attack carrying the weight of law.
This is terrible, how as it come to this? our blatantly biased UK court system is now so anti men, and it is not even discussed in the public arena, its like men are now guilty until proven innocent, Where is the feminist outrage? Where are all the journalists standing up for a fair justice? and where are all our politicians? All cowering and cringing behind the PC progressive couches afraid to speak out in defence of men, its utterly disgraceful.