Tuesday, 8 July 2014

MY rules for reporting sexual offences: uncorroborated testimony inadmissible and strict operation of limitation period

I would make it a rule that UNCORROBORATED testimony is never admissible, no matter how many complainants there are.

This means if it is just one person's word against another, forget it, unless the alleged offence was reported within 4 weeks of the commission of the alleged offence to the police.

I think 4 weeks is time enough. If it was really serious you would report it immediately without passing go and without collecting £200. If you took 4 weeks to think about it and then decided not to, then you weren't obviously that bothered about it.

If you are out of time then it is too bad and you have to just get on with your life: this has the advantage of helping the victim achieve closure. If you are really that bothered about it, you can do stuff to the perpetrator for revenge and take your chances with the law if what you do to the perpetrator breaks the law.

Or you may just end up like Frances Andrade.

Extensions are only permitted if you were kidnapped, imprisoned and kept as a sex slave, obviously. Then time would start to run the moment you were in a position to report the sexual abuse you suffered.

If the victim is a child then time runs from the time the parent/guardian/carer knew of the alleged abuse.

I think that is nice and clear, don't you?

What about the MPaedophile scandal, you scream?

These rules would also apply to MPaedophiles. The paper trail should be quite easy to follow. They will choose who they will throw to the wolves in the next 10 weeks and the "real" findings will not be made public till after the next General Election according to

It was perhaps a delicious revenge for Dickens who was by all accounts a bit of a clown to have given it to Brittan himself who is said to have been implicated at the link that is now removed from He may have been implicitly saying "I know it was you, and you will try to cover it up, but you will get found out, maybe not even until after I am dead, but you will get found out, and a tsunami of shit will hit you and those who helped you cover it up, Anyway, here it is. Do what you like with it."


Perfectchild said...

'Voice of Reason' implies you would be balanced and reasonable here. So when you accused Jenevora Williams of being culpable in her friend's suicide, I imagined you were using Occam's razor to fine-tune down to the reality of 'supporting the individual' over 'supporting the State;' that is, Jenevora's replacement of loyalty towards her friend to that of the loyalty to the diktats of the Collective.

Because a real friend would have had empathy for the pain of the trauma of being raped as a child, and not assumed she could face being cross-examined in court. It was like a parallel world where another Jenevora in an Islamic Country, being told by her Musselma friend that an Uncle of hers had blasphemed The Pedophile Prophet - and she advised her in no uncertain terms that she must go to the police. Under severe cross examination with the uncle later tortured, sodomized and killed; she killed herself.

That, I assumed, was to getting to the nub of an argument: that we citizens are being socialized into Jenevoras. ...but we didn't get anywhere near there. Like a big clang to the ground of getting a paralyzed arm to catch a ball.

Your views are biased because you see women who have casual-sex as whores; that the Nature of the Bitch has filled them with a pride and a chip on their shoulder that all men should be despised: because if they can get men to behave as dogs and service them, then all men are dogs. And that screwed mind of the intellectualized female - who has seared insight from her brain to remove 'her father's voice' - which makes them insipid and crude company - has made them rely only on their feminine-intuitions. And it gets your gall, because it is destroying the kids into pop-tarts and the society as a whole; that it makes the Koran suddenly look masculine, (when it is not - only a projection of from a femaled-male of what life ought to be, by the use of religion and rote, that sucks off an Alpha Male God to turn them into men when it does the opposite and turns them, so obviously evident, into gangstas).

The court-case therefore, is like watching a scene from the movie Idiocracy.

You perceive very clearly, sharply, pin-point, like an idiot-savant, but conclusions so unholistic and poorly conceived. Jenevora is guilty of absolutely nothing but her ignorance - and her decision may have prevented future crimes being done the perp. What she lacked was judgement, that her 'tools of assessment' were only those handed over to her by The State - by the very same femininazis you identify clearly as half-thinking morons. She was a programmed-conformist. She should have trusted her own human instincts, her whole brain, and not the ideological-committee propaganda spoon fed to her and her vagina. She knew 'in her heart of hearts' and agonized over it, and the Angel Gabriel won out, to put herself to one side with her clever Thinking Hat on. And now she will have to live with that for the rest of her life or else set up a Charity ...or religion in order to justify and not face herself. Who would ever want to be her friend and tell her anything in confidence?

So how to unhypnotize the hypnotized?

Now, back to your legal framework of 4-weeks cut off time in child abuse.

The psychological inhibitions placed upon a child, by themselves, are immense. They fear abandonment and rejection. Suppressed and buried traumas that last many years and may only surface when they have children of their own to gain a perspective on the matter, a revelation that suddenly makes them aghast because now they see from the other side.

Your argument of 'beyond reasonable doubt' for Rolf Harris brought me here regarding imprisoning this kiddy-fiddler.
I too didn't think the evidence in court was enough to convict him.

For Justice to work as a consent to rule over the population, it has to be impartial.

Rational discussion is what I enjoy. So if you can limp with the ball, no matter how weakly, I will gladly play with you.

Claire Khaw said...

You really shouldn't concern yourself with what you think I think about this and that but what I in fact propose, which is Secular Koranism.

Secular Koranism is not Islam as it is currently practised, but a set of laws and rules I propose to introduce. No one will be forced to convert to Islam nor will there be a corrupt priesthood of any kind. The judiciary as it currently stands will be called upon to interpret and apply the principles of Secular Koranism.

Please understand that Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism.

Think of Islam as "Judaism Lite" and Secular Koranism as "Islam Lite".

Perfectchild said...

Thank you Claire for moving the discussion on.

"Please understand that Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism."

This is an absurdity.

Christianity has its roots in the a Jesus character dealing with the tyranny of Judaism - and by his 'everyman' stance - soon began to take over the awakening of the minds of others in despotic states. This was rectified by turning him into a Pagan Cult. The Jews were not happy with their Torah being hijacked to prop up this idolatry, (who had in turn plagiarized Babylonian and Zoroastrian myths). Similarly Mohammad ran a similar fraud and cast Moses and Jesus as Musselmen; and much later Joseph Smith for the Mormons had his twist.

Intimidating gullible people to hold a religion on their sleeves in return for their unswerving loyalty on pain of excommunication and death. Now there's something they had in common.

Think of Islam as "Judaism Lite" and Secular Koranism as "Islam Lite".

No, I was thinking of Kool Aid Lite.

Claire Khaw said...

Secular Koranism does not require belief in God, merely the agreement and intention to implement the law of God as it is stated in the Koran.

You obviously don't like it because you are one of those atheists who think you know so much better than anyone else. What is your solution then?