2 thoughts on “Bettina Arndt: “Restoring the Presumption of Innocence Conference – livestream video””

1. Again, thank you for sharing this. So good it went ahead, some really important content. It put me in mind of the name of this site. It is clear that gynocentricism (chivalry or whatever you want to call it) effectively means there is little mileage in appearing to attack women. After all feminists’ two key weapons are sexual crimes and domestic violence (VAWG), the issues that repeatedly get used to leverage all manner of policies that in fact are remarkably unlikely to be linked (are more female non executive directors of FTSE corporations really connected to preventing domestic abuse?). And we know men are more drawn to abstract ideas such as justice, fairness, “playing the game by the rules” etc.

   Taking these points I do think it’s really important to focus on the injustices meted out to males. Particulaly as so much of this is deliberately obscured. In my experience acquaintances and friends are genuinely surprised when they become enmeshed in divorce and custody proceedings and their own counsel points out the unlikelihood of them getting fair treatment let alone justice. There are understandings that “bubble under” as men have a general feeling they are discriminated against, but at the same time are unaware that this is widespread and systemic.

   Mr Collins’s excellent books lay much of this bare, the important detail makes them an important read but one requiring effort. Yet there are simple facts that need to be repeated often and as widely as possible to solidify the unease into a recognition that men are treated unfairly. The family courts are a good example. When legal aid was withdrawn for any cases without an accusation of domestic abuse the expected savings did not materialise. So a couple of years later the MoJ investigated why the savings had not materialised. Their findings were that it was because the proportion of cases where domestic abuse was alleged had risen dramatically (doubled in the first year of the new rules) wiping out any savings. Even more damning they found that this rise was not evenly spread but was disproportionately massive in a number of regions, suggesting the MoJ specific legal firms were advising clients to make such accusations as part of a “business model” to obtain funding. As is so often the case such empirical evidence slips quickly from public view. And it is important that it doesn’t.

   Personally I believe the way forward is to focus on men and the areas of greatest injustice against them, “it could be you” rather than seeming to attack women (which immediately turns men against men). And to be honest the perpetrators of the injustices are just as likely to be men as women. Highlight repeatedly the injustices in criminal justice, family courts, educational access and attainment, recruitment and promotions, police behaviour (e.g. non-crime hate incidents).

   The war between TERFs and Trans is doing a fine job of exposing feminism’s contention that biology is irrelevant and physiology unimportant while simultaneously looking idiotic discussing multiple genders and “pronouns”. As the saying goes, don’t disturb your enemy while they’re making mistakes.

   With a Labour government we can expect the “Cabal of Karens” (nice one, Carl Benjamin) to want to end jury trials for sex offences, shovel even more money at the DV industry, muck about with rules of evidence and instruct the police to use even more civil “orders”. In short explicitly traduce rights long enshrined in our society. What men need to be shown is that these changes in the “rules” contravene fairness and basic rights and they too can find themselves hit.

   LikeLike

   Reply

2. One of the speakers makes a good point about things “left out” by both media and courts. There is a prime example of this just this last week here. Mason Greenwood Man U player transferred to Marseilles. Readers may remember the case of him being accused of domestic abuse and attempted rape, following his girlfriend publishing comments and audio on social media. The case was dropped by the police shortly after. Harriet Robson, his girlfriend, dropped the case, has continued to live with him and they now have a daughter. Who is Mason Greenwood’s girlfriend Harriet Robson? | The Sun

   The revealing thing is the way the MSM has reported his move. From the Telegraph to the Mirror they all say the that the case against Mason Greenwood was ended, really leaving an impression that it was a little mysterious, as part of comments that he should not have a career in first class football (he has been very successful in Spain and now in France having been sent into exile by the inevitable pile on). My point is that in fact the whole thing is not mysterious at all a quick google will give anyone the publicly available information on what happened, who was involved and the inconvenient fact that his accuser, the mother of his child now, still lives with him and has done so as he has lived in Spain and now France. So there is no mystery at all. But of course that would cast some doubt on their “verdict” that Greenwood somehow “got away with it” and deserves to be punished. The other interesting bit is of course they don’t mention that Man U also investigated and concluded there was no reason to sack him, even though inevitably the case brought heaps of bad publicity to their door (think of the past ocassions how quickly sportsmen are dropped in the face of such campaigns). Because its a local story with lots of details of the saga reported in local media I know what’s been missed out to create a “narrative”. The case referred to at the conference was that of Craig McLachlan, actor, who was charged and acquitted, in the case of Greenwood the investigation was dropped. Yet still for both leaving out the facts, in McLachlan’s case from the public trial and Greenwood’s case well reported from those involved, enables doubts to be cast on them.

   LikeLike

   Reply