Our thanks to Francis for this. Extracts:

Led by former interim Labour leader Harriet Harman and prominent feminist campaigner Jess Phillips, the MPs write:

‘The verdict and events in this case sets a dangerous precedent that how a victim of rape, usually a woman, has behaved in the past can be taken as evidence of the way she behaved at the time of the alleged rape.

‘This will deter victims from disclosing their abuse and will reduce the number of victims presenting their cases to the police for fear of having their private lives investigated and scrutinised.’…

In April Mr Evans had his rape conviction quashed after his lawyers won a High Court appeal allowing fresh evidence of his accuser’s sexual history to be used as evidence.

The defence argued that accounts they from two men who said they had similar encounters with the woman around the time of the rape allegation proved that Mr Evans was right in saying the sex was consensual.

It was a rare example [my emphasis] of the alleged victim’s sexual past being allowed to be aired in court.

Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 says it must only be used in exceptional circumstances [my emphasis] but High Court judges ruled that the case involving Mr Evans was a ‘rare case’ and it would be appropriate to allow ‘forensic examination’ of the complainant’s past sexual behaviour.

The Crown Prosecution Service pressed ahead with a retrial, but on October 14 a jury at Cardiff Crown Court unanimously found Mr Evans not guilty of rape.

It hardly needs stressing that if these feminist MPs have their way, in cases such as Ched Evans’s innocent men would face a Herculean task to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt. This would inevitably lead to yet more innocent heterosexual men in prison, every feminist’s dream.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Please join me in signing this. Thanks.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Excellent, as always (video, 14:22).

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

We recently published a blog piece about a major YouTube channel, Epic Feminist Fails. An extract from one of my London Live interviews had attracted 450,000+ hits in the past four months. The channel has been closed down.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to John for this. The start of the piece:

A minister is to “positively discriminate” in favour of women who apply for State boards on the grounds that they “tend to be more questioning”.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

We recently celebrated a story about an Israeli man running away with his baby son just before he was due to be circumcised. So we were horrified to read this. An extract:

In the end, after he was told the circumcision (brit) would happen with or without him, the father agreed to circumcise his son that day or on a subsequent day. In the end, the circumcision took place as planned.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

With less than three hours to go before my discussion with a woman from ‘Women Against Rape’ on BBC 3 Counties radio, I thought this as good a time as any to put links to three of the most-read pieces on rape myths and false rape allegations we’ve linked to. All were first published by A Voice for Men:

13 reasons women lie about being raped (Janet Bloomfield)

10 reasons false rape allegations are common (Jonathan Taylor)

6 dangerous rape myths (Hannah Wallen)

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Wonderful news.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Yesterday we posted a piece about a document published by Women Against Rape (WAR). It clearly encouraged women to try to pervert the court of justice, a criminal offence.

Tonight at 9pm I’ll be having a discussion with a woman working for WAR, on The Edward Adoo Show on BBC Three Counties Radio (Beds, Herts & Bucks). You’ll be able to listen to the programme live online.

Following Ched Evans’s acquittal, the question being discussed will be:

Is it right to use sexual history as evidence in court?

I’m told the discussion will last until 9:15, then the lines opened for a phone-in until 9:30. It would be good to have J4MB supporters phone in. Thank you.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

[Note added 23.10.16: We’re delighted to observe that the ‘hits’ on this blog piece have gone through the roof today. We recommmend that new visitors to this site check out a blog piece we posted today, Rape Myths and False Rape Allegations. Excellent articles by Janet Bloomfield, Hannah Wallen, and Jonathan Taylor.]

At 9pm tomorrow evening I shall be involved in a radio discussion with a woman representing the British organisation Women Against Rape – WAR – which was founded in 1976. The discussion will be in connection with the Ched Evans case, and whether it was appropriate for the court to allow evidence of the woman’s sexual history to be presented to the jury. I plan to publish a blog post tomorrow afternoon informing followers of this blog what the show is, along with a phone number so they can contribute to the phone-in (21:15 – 21:30).

My preparations so far have included WAR’s 60-page-long Self-Help Guide for survivors of rape & sexual assault & their supporters. Turning to the section on ‘Consent, Drink & Drugs’, on p.31 we find this:

If you are sure you didn’t consent but are unable to remember clearly what happened before you went to sleep, make clear that, at the time when the man penetrated you, you were asleep or unconscious and unable to consent. [WAR’s emphasis]

The first section, up to ‘went to sleep’, begs the question of how a woman can be ‘sure’ she didn’t give consent to sex, when she cannot remember clearly what happened. But the begged question underpins WAR’s ensuing recommendation to women that they pervert the course of justice, a criminal offence.

WAR are encouraging  women to ‘make clear’ – to the police, presumably – they were asleep or unconscious when they were penetrated, and therefore they were ‘unable to consent’, although they are ‘unable to remember clearly what happened’. In plain English, women are being encouraged by WAR to lie in order to ensure that the man in question will be charged with rape, and if convicted – a strong possibility – serve a lengthy prison sentence.

How many innocent men are languishing in British prisons today, as a result of WAR’s advice? How many have languished there in the past? How many have been unable to secure paid employment after release, become homeless, committed suicide?

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.