#r4today @AnthonyLarme @erinpfoundation @MikeBuchanan11 @Cernovich @StefanMolyneux This feminazi is predictably anti-Trump and pro-EU. https://t.co/vZTbO0G2rD— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
Can we please have Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, chair of the Bar, as Lord Chancellor. Or A-G. Sometime. Soon? https://t.co/oGF83c209q— Paul Magrath (@Maggotlaw) November 10, 2016
A training course is being launched today to ensure vulnerable witnesses, including children and people with learning difficulties, won’t be subjected to unnecessarily harsh questioning in court. Chantal Aimee Doerries QC is chairman of the Bar.
Giving evidence in court can be a traumatic experience especially if you've been sexually assaulted, even more so if you're a child, so traumatic it can affect the outcome of the case. This young woman was only a little girl when her stepfather began abusing her.
Child's voice [or was it the voice of an actress ?]:
"The police listened, but the barrister made it look like I was a liar as I couldn't remember dates. I was a child! No one stopped his barrister bullying me and making it look like I had instigated it."
[Why was no mention made of her age when she was allegedly sexually assaulted and her age when she decided to make the complaint? No mention was made as to whether she managed to convict her stepfather and whether he is still married to her mother.]
As from today child and other vulnerable witnesses will get help on how to prepare themselves [ie coached] the order from barristers - trained barristers free of charge. Chantal Doerries is a QC herself and chairs the Bar. What's the idea of this? Is it simply to prepare witnesses for what they can expect or does it go slightly further than that?
The training really focuses on the advoacy which barristers perform in court and over the last few years we have seen a sea change in the attitude of the courts both in terms of procedure and in terms of pilot schemes being run [such as?] as to how vulnerable witnesses are being treated in the court process the aim being obviously to ensure that those witnesses give the best evidence which they can, to ensure that in any court case justice is done so that witnesses understand the questions that they're asked and there is an early identification of the vulnerability of witnesses [eg mental health issues? common or garden feminine neurosis?]. This training is specifically focused on ensuring that advocates and in my case barristers understand the changes which have been implemented recently ..
So you're training the barristers as well as schooling the children? [He should have said coaching, shouldn't he? Barristers know that they are not supposed to do this, don't they? Does this feminazi know that? Is any male member of the legal profession challenging her on this? Or are they probably too pussywhipped by this very commanding bluestocking who went to Roedean, read History at Cambridge and whom they secretly fantasise about being their dominatrix?]
Our focus is on barristers. Our focus is on ensuring that those from the Bar who ask those questions in cases and our commitment is that barristers involved in serious sexual offence cases, publicly funded cases will by the end of 2018 will have undergone this training [She mean feminazi indoctrination, folks!], and the training focuses on ensuring that the skills are there to allow the type of questioning that is appropriate for vulnerable witnesses [treat them with kid's gloves and never challenge them in case they get upset and you get done for professional misconduct or some such crap like that when you're defending your client to the best of your ability by asking some obvious question] and so recognises the changes in the court process whereby vulnerabilities are recognised early on in a court case where you have a specific hearing which sets the ground rules which looks at the vulnerabilities in some cases there may be more than one vulnerability present in a witness [Don't these "vulnerabilities" go to the credibility of the witness?] and which sets ground rules as to how the question should be carried out.
Terribly difficult though, isn't it, to find that line between defending somebody who may well be innocent and protecting the witness?
You're absolutely right. [Don't you hate people who keep saying that to disarm us into thinking that they take on board our concerns or even agree with us? I think it was Cameron who started this crap and now it has been adopted by all the professionally glib.] That's what we see in our courts day in and day out. Barristers having to carry out that very careful exercise between ensuring that they are able to defend their client and that the defendant is able to ask the questions that are necessary to protect themselves from within that process and equally that witnesses are able to give the best evidence that they can, and I suppose one of the challenges is recognising that fine line and ensuring that judges who ultimately have control of the court process are also aware of the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of the witnesses.
Exactly, because if you push a child or a vulnerable person too far, presumably the judge will be able to draw the attention of the jury to that anyway in the summing up and you may be able to redress the balance. Can the judge redress the balance to some extent?
One of the shifts, I suppose, the greater awareness of the vulnerability of witnesses is that judges are of course able to involve themselves in the sense of stopping questioning that is inappropriate ...
Intervene early, yes, so it need not be addressed at a later stage [Ah yes. Prevent the obvious question from being asked at all so he can never even make that point in the first place, so the jury are just left to focus on the fact that the defendant is a man and must therefore be guilty because he is a man. Got it!] the same way that the Bar and the judges are undergoing training on focusing on the vulnerability of witnesses. But, ultimately, the most important aspect for us is ensuring that the court process allows, as you said earlier, that careful line to be drawn, ensuring that witnesses understand the questions, are able to truthfully answer the questions. Those are issues specifically to with vulnerable witnesses - real challenges around that - and also at the same time making sure that the defendant is able to properly defend himself and put his case. That is after all the heart of our justice system.
And it's being done for free?
Indeed! Pro bono. [Actually, funded by the taxpayer - the male taxpayer.]
If they don't put you in jail on the word of a child whose testimony your defence counsel is not allowed to robustly challenge, they will get you convicted of domestic abuse which doesn't even have to involve force the way these feminazis interpret these words.
Time to go gay and die of chem sex than marry or shack up with these bitches and become their slaves, eh? It's either that or commit an act of terrorism to make your point because, as I have already demonstrated, the process has already been rigged against you by the feminazis.
What is going to happen now? Do you think the feminazis will invite me on TV or radio to discuss this or challenge any of the points I have made? Will they, hell! They'll just continue to ignore me and stay in denial until it blows up in their faces. Denial is after all a feminine vice. The feminazi libtards at The New York Times stayed in denial till they could no longer deny that Trump won the election.
Did you know that one of the feminazis - a brunette - at The Today Programme actually blocked me from following them on Twitter as a way of showing her disapproval as well as deleting all my comments on their Facebook page? There is no point in complaining because I have tried. They just laugh at you and spit in your face.
Will one of these feminazis sue me for defamation? Hope so!
Will one of these feminazis call the cops and prosecute me for hate speech? Hope so!
I invite them to do so.
Conference on Coercive Control 2017— Coercive Control (@CCCBuryStEd) September 15, 2016
Tickets available now. Please click below. https://t.co/A6zJhdoP1o pic.twitter.com/QqRCVQ7aMv
Look at these feminazis and their running dog: thinking of new ways to rig the system against the men while whingeing about the patriarchy.
Feminazi proposes coaching child witnesses accusing men of sexual offences and ground rules to prevent defendant from defending himself. https://t.co/L0PpdUUBZc— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
FEMINAZI ALERT! FEMINAZI ALERT! FEMINAZI ALERT! FEMINAZI ALERT! FEMINAZI ALERT! FEMINAZI ALERT! FEMINAZI ALERT! FEMINAZI ALERT! https://t.co/ke90AFymgL— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
This woman wants legal profession to coach child witnesses accusing usually male adults of sexual offences FOR FREE using taxpayers' money. https://t.co/ke90AFgLpd— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
Libtard mangina wants feminazi in our stinking matriarchy to become even more powerful to rig the rules against men accused of sex crimes. https://t.co/ke90AFgLpd— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that feminazis have take over the UK legal profession: https://t.co/Lehp0kjT2V— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
"Lord" Chancellor: Liz Truss, Chair"man" of the Bar: Chantal Aimee Doerries QC, Directrix of Public Prosecutions: Alison Saunders. #feminazi— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
|Feminazi Directrix of Public Prosecutions - Alison Saunders|
|Feminazi Our Lady Chancellor Liz|
|Feminazi Madam Chairman of the Bar Council: Chantal Aimee Doerries|
|Feminazi Prime Minister May and her male minions who still don't get it about Trump|
Britain is a matriarchy fucked by feminism. Key govt posts now controlled by feminazis who are now busily rigging the rules against men. https://t.co/55BZUuPOJq— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
If you want to know why men in the legal profession won't speak out against the feminazis commanding key posts in law, here's the reason. https://t.co/RPTMOlGAGg— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
When libtards hear of a child being sexually abused, do they ever ask themselves the question "Where was the mother and what was she doing?"— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
How long will it be before the word "feminazi" is banned by the stinking matriarchy of Britain if they are allowed to go unchecked?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 14, 2016
|Can it unfuck itself, ever?|
|Trump and Farage - working together to unfuck Western civilisation|