A piece published by the Mail online two hours ago. The start of the piece:
Scotland Yard is to review hundreds of rape, child abuse and sexual assault cases after a second prosecution collapsed in a week due to an evidence blunder.
Isaac Itiary, who was charged with the rape of a child under 16, was told he would face no further action yesterday after his case was reviewed in the wake of last week’s scandal.
Incredibly, his prosecution involved the same officer as the Liam Allan case, which collapsed last Thursday when it emerged he had failed to disclose thousands of damning text messages.
The detective constable in question, Mark Azariah, is still working at Scotland Yard’s sexual offences unit and has not been suspended. [J4MB: Why not? Because the victims of his incompetence and/or laziness will almost always be men?]
Last night, amid mounting calls for an independent inquiry, the Metropolitan Police announced that every live case being investigated by its Child Abuse and Sexual Offences squad was now being reviewed to ensure that all digital evidence has been properly examined, documented and shared.
The flawed prosecutions have prompted fears there have been miscarriages of justice [J4MB: Fears? Certainties, more like] – but also raise the prospect that rapists and child abusers could go free if they are able to challenge disclosure of evidence at their trial. [J4MB emphasis. Can someone explain the meaning of the highlighted words?]
Justice for Men & Boys 
I would guarantee that Mark Azariah was simply following the direction of his superiors. To “believe victims” is to ignore any suggestion of evidence that undermines that belief. I’m sure if things get “hot” he will be offered up as a scapegoat for what is policy and practice. Inherent in the VAWG strategy and its guidance and training programmes.
Of course the final line just point out the mountain that men climb seeking justice. For it is the “no smoke without fire” assumption; guilt simply because accused and the “rapists and child abusers” simply conjures the MSM’s most click bait demons. No doubt at some point there’ll be push back based around men “getting off on technicalities” and the notion that the crime is so heinous hat a few miscarriages of justice are a price worth paying to fight monsters.
LikeLike
The “believe the victim” – and the consequent belief that the accused is a rapist or abuser – approach was based on a misunderstanding by the police in the first case. The chairman of The Police Authority – I think that is the body – wrote to the police some time ago pointing out that he said they should do no such thing. He only said, in fact, that they should believe the victim only as far as starting an enquiry was concerned. From then on, they should simply look for evidence that a crime had been committed. The “believing”, or not, part of the process was entirely a duty of a court.
LikeLike
‘He only said, in fact, that they should believe the victim only as far as starting an enquiry was concerned.‘
He should not have said even that. They should approach an allegation or accusation with scepticism until the would be complainant has made a convincing case that an offence has been committed.
LikeLike
I bet 90% of the men are innocent, have been set up by vengeful ex girlfriends or scorned women. I just wonder why it took us so long to see through the dirty manipulations perpetrated by our confused, good for nothing women. When I look at The Saudis these days, I see them as more reasonable and pragmatic in terms of male/female relations than we are.
LikeLike
Quote:-
…..”rapists and child abusers could go free if they are able to challenge disclosure of evidence at their trial. [J4MB emphasis.
Can someone explain the meaning of the highlighted words?]”….
One can only imagine they must mean that the ‘downside’ of justice being done is that the men go free despite the inherent desirability of banging up men anyway, guilty or not.
As for Azariah, without scruples and focused only on promotion and self interest, he thinks he is doing what his superiors actually require him to do.
And he may well be right.
LikeLike
“Incredibly, his prosecution involved the same officer as the Liam Allan case, which collapsed last Thursday when it emerged he had failed to disclose thousands of damning text messages.”
Why is anyone suprised at this? The man was clearly negligent in one sex trial, why not another?
I will say that if this was an officer working on cases affecting women he’d have been booted already.
When are men going to start accepting that the state will automatically treat them as second class citizens in the provisions of its services?
LikeLike
“rapists and child abusers could go free if they are able to challenge disclosure of evidence at their trial. …”
1. There are moves in the US to ban all prior communications since these were not part of the offence that is being tried – i.e. in the case of rape, did she [actively/enthusiastically?] consent to having sex on the particular occasion(s) in question and consented at the time or, more precisely, can the defendant prove to the Police that he genuinely believed she had consented to the sex at the time and then, by a second and different test, prove to the court that the basis of his belief was a justifiable and reasonable belief. In Ched Evans’ case, the fact that she demanded cunnilingus and then demanded doggy style sex … calling out “harder”, “harder” … was not believed and Ched was convicted after she rang the police to report that she could not find her handbag (after a drunken / drugged up night out). After two years in jail, Ched was acquitted when it was proven that she had behaved in an almost identical way with another man shortly before Ched and with a different man shortly after Ched – thereby making it reasonable to assume that Ched’s consistent version of events – that she had, in fact, consented – a) was true and b) that basis of his belief that she had consented was reasonable. Revealing a complainant’s prior sexual behaviour and/or communications can support an accused man’s assertion that a) he did believe she had consented and b) the basis of that belief was reasonable. That is why disclosure of prior sexual behaviour is not permitted (it cost Ched’s family hundred’s of thousands pounds to establish the need for this disclosure) and the current cases are why prior communications will not be permitted in future – as the CPS will struggle to achieve the ever increasing rates of convictions for rape to which they aspire.
2 All men are rapists and child abusers and should be in jail anyway – especially white men.
No doubt my right hand will be able to convict me of rape in time to come and by then it is likely that it will be a hanging offence.
LikeLike
‘ … but also raise the prospect that rapists and child abusers could go free if they are able to challenge disclosure of evidence at their trial.‘
Prosecution evidence that can be challenged successfully is not evidence and so cannot be used to prove guilt, which is why so many convicted ‘killers’ have subsequently been found to be innocent and exonerated.
LikeLike
My gut feeling is that either most women can not understand themselves whether they consent or not or most of them simply make dishonest claims. One way or the other. In either case, it is pretty hard to take seriously.
LikeLike
I reviewed the mainstream media last night (BBC, channel 4, etc) and, sadly, not surprised to to discover that this story is being spun as ‘Tory funding cuts’ & ‘cuts to public sector’, which of course completely misses the point. Zero attempt on the part of the broadcasters to point to the fact that the police and the CPS have been purposefully directed to find innocent men guilty of sex crimes. Zero attempt to acknowledge the aim of Feminist government, which is to diminish and to degrade men.
LikeLike