Saturday, January 31, 2015

 

UK law on collision course with itself: The CPS openly inverts legal process in demanding the DEFENDENT must PROVE his INNOCENCE

 
Well there we have it. In plain record, the CPS is completely undermining its very legal basis of innocence until proven guilt.
     It has been very clear for a decade now that the rape law is a total inversion of the founding principle of law; ever since the Sex Offences Act of 2003, in which there is actually set out a list – though not an exhaustive one! – of the steps males supposedly should take to establish consent! [No mention, of course, of needing a degree in female psychology to work out when 'no' means 'yes' – this 'no' meaning 'yes' being the usual and often only form of consent females provide in the course of standard courtship behaviour.]
     The previous Director of Public Prosecutions, the idiot Kier Starmer, made it clear; and it's now even clearer with the statements from his replacement, the extreme-feminist, Alison Saunders. She was talking this week about 'date rape' but misleadingly elided it with 'stranger rape' when she cited the standard response by women in 'stranger rape' of 'freezing', as if this would be a usual or even a rare response in instances where the parties are so comfortable with each other as to be on a date, and where usually the worst of the matter is the sort of communication cross-wires that are the hallmark of interaction between the sexes. Saunders initially raised the context of drink – but anyway widened it to the extent that pretty well any sexual encounter would be encompassed – as if alcohol would not impair judgement by both parties and not just the woman. A man and woman drinking together are in effect a mutual conspiracy to bring about the prospect of sex by loosening courtship interaction, and this could be considered effectively entrapment of the man by the woman as much as if not more than the other way round. She cannot claim to offload all responsibility on to the male, so that only he can be deemed to be reckless and not her.
     Let's spell out what SHOULD and previously always was the case: that men 'must' in NO way establish that a woman consents to sex in order to avoid being found guilty of rape. It is entirely for the CROWN to PROVE, and to prove BEYOND DOUBT that consent was NOT given. That is a high bar, as it should be, in congruence with all other UK law – except that other arena where a woman is (supposedly, but – the research comprehensively reveals – actually in a minority of instances) a putative 'victim': domestic violence. Note that Saunders explicitly linked here.
     There is no debate on this issue. Either the founding principle of British law applies or it does not.
     The CPS has capitulated wholesale to 'identity politics' ideological hatred towards males, and it is now open to legal challenge.
This should get interesting.
     Even the media is starting to wake up. They have taken their time, but better late than never. The Telegraph led with the front page main headline: 'Men must prove a woman said yes'. The awakening media here surprisingly includes the dreaded Boob. A BBC Today presenter put to Saunders that she was in breach of the foundation of law. She pretended she was not, of course; but so thinly she didn't convince even her extreme-feminist woman interviewer.
     That Nutsville USA really has become Nutsbridge UK in the sex arena could not be better illustrated just this week, when a Sheffield man was given a four-year prison sentence for … outraging public decency! Four years?! So what was he doing: ejaculating on to seven-year-olds, or worse? Er, no. He was accused … and note, NOT found guilty … but merely accused of having sex. So who was it in front of? Well, actually nobody. Only in privacy?! Yes, indeed. What got the goat, as it were, of the (apparently insane) jury and the utterly witless judge was that the sexual partner – er, the ALLEGED sexual partner – was ….. a horse. The case was one of alleged bestiality. There was no evidence of any kind of harm to any horse: only to the apparent goat that got the jury and judge. The man in the dock was not inappropriately named Andrew Barnfield. [I am NOT making this up: check the news reports and the records of the Sheffield Crown Court.]
     Something is happening here, and we don't know … actually, we do know, very well … what it is. The times they are … well, soon will be … a changin'. Nutsville and Nutsbridge can last only so long.

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?