Interesting. The man who was the victim of a false allegation is named, the woman who made the false allegation isn’t. An extract:
“The Hilton Hotel also provided a written description of the CCTV footage covering the accessible toilet, which states: “According to CCTV it seems consensual from both sides. Female A initiates a hug, Male A honours this. They are hugging for quite a while then start kissing and Male A gently directs towards the disabled toilet while hugging. Female A does not resist, no force was used at all.”
Despite the inconsistencies, the judge found it “entirely odd” that the firm’s investigative partner chose to question only Rustambekov about the description of the CCTV footage and did not question Colleague 1.
The investigative partner [J4MB: a woman, Ramatu Banga, what are the chances?] told the tribunal that she concluded Colleague 1 had given “false” evidence regarding the events immediately before entering the accessible toilet, though she did not believe it was done deliberately. [J4MB emphasis. Obviously, no woman would lie ‘deliberately’. Perish the thought.]
“I find there is no other way to put this. Colleague 1’s version of events immediately before the accessible toilet incident is wholly unsupported by the CCTV footage description and wholly incredible,” the judge said. “However, the issue is whether she deliberately gave false evidence. Having given careful consideration to all of the documentary and oral evidence, I can find no basis to underpin [the partner’s] reasoning that Colleague 1 did not deliberately give false evidence.” [J4MB emphasis.]
This, the judge added, “severely damages her credibility as a witness of fact”.
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
The very sad story about the suicide of Alexander Rogers https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cancel-culture-death-oxford-university-b2643626.html This seems to be the most complete report as a some seemed very coy about why he had been ostracised, it turns out to be an accusation made by an ex girlfriend. Its curious that the discussion is about “cancelling” (usually taken to be about expressing the “wrong” views) when what we have is the classic response to an accusation against a man by a woman of a “sexual” nature, he is guilty should be punished without any delay and certainly without any evidence beyond accusation.
LikeLike
The Telegraph again conflates “cancel culture” with the story of Alexander Rogers. Even though they actually get close to connecting this case to the supposed “Rape Culture” and “me too” moral panics which spawned the kangaroo courts in US Universities and lots of “helplines” etc. How Oxbridge’s ‘self-appointed morality crusades’ took cancel culture too far It seems they’re remarkably reluctant to call Mr. Roger’s case what it was, a malicious accusation intended to hurt him by insinuation. The resultant shunning being the objective of the accuser. The situation being enabled by the University by the mandatory “consent” classes and publicity and materials supporting women to report anything that makes them “uncomfortable”. It is simply an example of “believing women” no matter how malicious.
LikeLike