One thought on “Sean Bw Parker: “Charlotte Nichols MP and the Proudmanisation of Westminster.””

1. Yes indeed. The case a good example of the problem with the law. Concentrating on “consent” has a real problem for any Jury, Judge or any person. If three incidences of sex occur in one evening, the first consensual but the other two supposedly not and at the time the relationship appeared to be amicable from other evidence. It seems entirely reasonable to believe the man believed all were consensual. As the Jury did. Such points were even made by “Feminist” Barristers and even Germaine Greer during the debates 20 years ago at the time of the still current Sexual Offences Act . That in a ‘ liberated” society where sex is common and encouraged encounters that appear friendly, include alcohol on both part and are regretted later, these are not RAPE but unfortunate or even ungentlemanly and should not be punished as if “a fate worse than death” had occured. No one wants to say it but there really is a world of difference between drunken sexual encounters where both parties at the start at least are on friendly terms and the repeated forced sex by Grooming gang members or violent attacks in the street by stranger.

   The “myths” in Juries are that, just like Greer, most people can use common sense to see this, given their duty to establish guilt ” beyond reasonable doubt”. One can see how the Jury in this case had considerable doubts.

   In the particular case one can also see how the civil case Jury might conclude some rather reprehensible behaviour had occured, and because the man was not to be sent to gaol for many years and placed on a sex fiend register for life. Thought compensation might be due. Probably gynocentrism aka “benign sexism”.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply