Our thanks to Sean for this piece by a female journalist in The Independent. The inclusion of the word ‘unfairly’ in the headline is, of course, a lie. The only people quoted in the piece are vile feminists – Harriet Harman MP, Vera Baird QC and the Fawcett Society. An extract:
The Government reviewed Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 last year, finding that there is no questioning on sexual history in 92 per cent of cases and so the law does not need amending.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Disgusting. But I DO note that they refer to “complainants” instead of victim. Must have been a typo!
Sexual history was, of course, the thing that made a jury find Ched Evans not guilty of rape. A simple question to Harman, and the others, in this case, would be: “Don’t you want innocent men to be able to prove their innocence?”
LikeLike
And by “history” we were looking at incidents days before and after, not weeks or months.
LikeLike
I find this keenness to avoid dragging women’s sexual history into court a fascinating one, given that Alison Saunders (who, thank God, may finally be going down under the weight of revelations about her time at the CPS) is so sure its a good idea to use men’s own history of relationships (including one assumes, their sex life) against them as part of the prosecution. Of course, as everyone keeps telling me, we live in equal times now…
LikeLike
This is an attempt to save Alison Saunders by shifting focus on to complainants , moving us back to “victims” .
LikeLike
Harman, Baird and the Fawcett Society, talk about an unholy trinity of misandry. Any sane government would tell them exactly where they can shove their proposals, but not very confident ours will do so.
LikeLike
‘Any sane government would tell them exactly where … ‘
Our government is headed and controlled, even if disastrously, by women of their ilk, and the emasculated lickspittle men they appoint to serve them.
LikeLike
‘prejudicial’ here meaning, presumably, tending to an outcome other than that desired by the accuser and those in authority who collude with her. It is actually they whose intentions and actions are ‘prejudicial’.
LikeLike
This is the counter blast to the revelations about the Police and CPS concealing evidence from the defence. It is an attempt to shift the terms of debate , to create the impression that the men found innocent are not so, merely getting “off”.
A number of the cases that have already “collapsed” included the Police or CPS attempting to conceal evidence because its “embarrassing” to the complainant. “History” is used but the Ched Evans evidence was of incidents days apart from his encounter.
As it is the Judge rules, on the basis of whether the evidence is clearly related to the charge. This proposal from the feminists is to simply ban all possibility of introducing evidence even for the Judge to consider. In the Ched Evans case the incidents would not have been admissible but that they were “carbon copies”. As such clearly relevant to a disputed account.
So this is the forces of feminism regrouping for the counter attack before the reviews ordered by the Attorney General.
LikeLike
it’s like a driver who wrecks 10 cars under the influence is accusing another driver with clean record of reckless driving, after a fender bender but the cops can’t check the accuser’s driving history. What logic is that for heaven’s sake ? Women’s logic… Feminist logic…
LikeLike
The only way to end the scandal of miscarriages of justice is to return to the principle of open justice.
If the complainant were obliged to confront the harsh reality of open justice, then false allegations would become as unfashionable as they were prior to 1976, when anonymity was first introduced.
Sexual history is highly pertinent information and ought to be disclosed in all cases without exception. Why? Because nearly all of these cases are one party’s word against the other, i.e. zero forensic evidence.
Zero anonymity either for complainant or for defendant. This would strongly discourage any complainant from launching a lone false allegation and also effectively prevent any complainant from launching a long series of false allegations, as many have done.
Scrapping of the farcical 2003 Sexual Offences Act. Rape to return to its former definition as an act of violence only. No more absurdity of the complainant withdrawing consent retrospectively, because rape to be defined as act of violence once again, so consent issues are irrelevant.
LikeLike