#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
0725
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b082961n
John Humphrys:
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.]
John Humphrys:
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?
Feminazi :
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 ..
John Humphrys:
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?]
Feminazi:
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.
John Humphrys:
Terribly difficult though, isn't it, to find that line between defending somebody who may well be innocent and protecting the witness?
Feminazi:
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.
John Humphrys:
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?
Feminazi:
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 ...
John Humphrys:
Intervene early?
Feminazi:
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.
John Humphrys:
And it's being done for free?
Feminazi:
Indeed! Pro bono. [Actually, funded by the taxpayer - the male taxpayer.]
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/14/new-guidelines-issued-on-questioning-of-vulnerable-witnesses-in-court?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
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.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/482528/Controlling_or_coercive_behaviour_-_statutory_guidance.pdf
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 http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/is-crown-prosecution-service-exceeding.html |
 |
| 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 |
37 comments:
I've watched this " coaching " happen with the full support of the court who use Women's Aid with full knowledge of their agenda of teaching " the vulnerable" to lie with impunity under oath. The Judiciary has no respect anymore. Populism isn't the problem. They brought it upon themselves by using the power of the law against innocents ( almost always, males). Let them now reap what they sow.
I am very uncomfortable about feminists dealing with child abuse. I am even more uncomfortable about paedophiles getting away with it. What is the solution then? These children really do need help. I do know someone whom you would describe as a feminazi. She was working with abused children and adults. I have to say she was deeply caring and helped a lot of people. I don't have instant solutions for such difficult subjects.
If there is no evidence or insufficient evidence, you will have to accept it, not rig the system or tie one of the hands of the defendant behind his back.
Is this fair enough?
NO. Paedophiles are very clever and very devious. Most children are not lying about being abused. Child abuse is rife. The child has to be believed until all avenues are exhausted. The conviction rate for paedos is dismally awful as it is. Over 80% get away with it to do the very same thing again to someone else.
Fine, just assume all men accused are already guilty.
They usually are. I have worked professionally with victims of child abuse. I really do know what I am talking about.
You never thought to ask yourself what the mothers of these victims were doing when they were being abused or where they were?
I have an idea. Every time a journalist reports on the stabbing of an adolescent male, what should also be reported is if the perpetrator is the bastard of a Slut Single Mother.
Every time a child complains about sexual abuse, the marital status of its mother should be verified and reported.
That would be a start.
How about it?
Sometimes, the mothers knew, and pretended it was not happening, preferring to sacrifice their daughters.
No I do not like your starting premise. It is harder to be a single parent and therefore to monitor what is happening to a child. Two parents are more often better than one. There are single parents who are not single through choice. Like I said, paedophiles are clever bastards and often make single parents their targets
To condemn a child because of its parents is not a way forward at all
So the mothers of bastards are never to blame?
Why wouldn't slut-shaming be the way forward?
It would prevent women from being fornicating sluts.
It would prevent fornicating sluts from getting knocked up.
It would stop knocked up fornicating sluts from going on to have their bastards at taxpayers' expense.
It would prevent the next generation of women from becoming Slut Single Mothers.
It would prevent the next generation of child sex abuse victims from being born.
Your derogatory language and hatred of women discredits any arguments you have Claire. You really need to stop hating on women.
My arguments remain valid, however much you dislike the idea of slut-shaming.
I see no harm in using certain terms to describe behaviour that I disapprove of. Am I not even allowed to do this?
Will you be answering my question or will you be pleading offence to end the discussion?
When I was at school, there were two girls I knew who got pregnant. They really did suffer. It was not socially acceptable back then. Shit does happen sometimes.
Shit happens = sluts get knocked up and have bastards
But you don't want to do anything to prevent this?
You are content just to wring your hands?
Neither of the girls I have mentioned were sluts. I happen to know that these were their first boyfriends. You are way too harsh in your judgements and you will and do alienate people who might otherwise give attention to your ideas. You just come across as so hateful.
A slut is any woman who has sex with a man not her husband.
This is because in theory you can go from being virgin to a Slut Single Mother in just one fuck.
Even if I put it nicely you would still ignore me.
In fact, all you want me to do is join a coffee morning of hand-wringers. No thanks.
Your world is way, way too harsh for me to even contemplate. You go beyond conservative values into your narcissistic hatred. You honestly have to deal with this Claire. There is something very wrong with your attitude.
What solutions have you?
You think it is enough to wring your hands, do you? Well, I don't.
NO. Here you go again. Insulting me as a woman as wringing my hands. I stick my neck above the parapet way more than most women I know do. Your kind of hate and psychological issues that you have not worked through are rather repellant to me at times. You should be grateful that I don't dismiss you as readily as you dismiss me.
What do you suggest then?
I suggest that you digest. Think about it and stop playing pingpong with people
I already know that you have no solutions, and dislike mine. So we do nothing then? That is your "solution" and "proposal"?
What better way of showing how evil men are and how useful you are when you protect children and women from these monsters at taxpayers' expense in your role as Social Worker?
All these violent and abusive men who are also fathers and husbands and all those women to rescue!
What better way of making yourself feel good, useful and needed about "saving" children that you will never have as a spinster by removing them from their parents?
Of course, it would be in your interests to pretend all men are guilty and evil. In this way do you make yourself more important to the more gullible members of the public.
Of course you will never support laws that prevent women from having sex with men not their husbands because if all women made sensible choices about their sex partner who must also be their husband, you'd be out of a job!
That is why no social worker will support slut-shaming.
I was not a social worker, but had to work closely with them. I don't have much respect for them. The good ones burned out fast and the bad ones got promoted.
I am still waiting for your proposals and your solutions, other than telling me to shut up.
Claire, quite honestly, I think you are more interested in your own rantings than in offering any credible solutions. I wish I could help you see how you are repelling people. Sadly, I can see why they label you as a troll. You need to stop being so obnoxious and reveal your own hurts. I can see you have been very hurt,. I really wish I could help you
You could help me by telling me what solutions and proposals you have since you reject mine.
No. You reject the Nanny State and so do I. I do not believe that you want help at all. Tell me Claire. Why do so many people regard you as a troll?
No, you have no answers?
Yes, we have no bananas?
People regard me as a troll because a troll is someone who says things they don't like. I have clearly said things you don't like, and that's why you are calling me a troll.
Claire needs to connect with her feelings.
No one has any proposals, not even stupid unworkable ones?
Why are you asking me to "connect with my feelings"? Whatever my feelings, a spade is still a spade and a slut a slut.
A badly-parented criminal bastard would still be a badly-parented criminal bastard and a sexually abused child would still be a sexually abused child, whatever the state of my feelings.
How did you arrive at those conclusions Claire?
Through submitting to the truth and the exercise of logic. It is only common sense after all. I think it is time you lost your connection with denial, hypocrisy and cowardice and reconnected with truth, morality and common sense.
I am not hopeful though. There is a certain arrogance about you and mulishness too. You won't change your mind just by accepting logic because you think you can avoid the consequences of conclusions you'd rather ignore.
I can accept the arrogance and the mullishness, but what is the purpose of truth, and being right, without love? I don't mean mushy love, but a love that propels one to reach out to humanity? Logic and truth on their own are rather dry subjects don't you think?
Are you absoluely certain that there is only one truth?
Who do you want me to love? Those sluts with pump out bastards and badly parent them so they turn into criminals when they are adult?
The social workers and related services who defend them using a false message of compassion to shame me for not feeling it because they know on which side their bread is buttered, like you?
Exactly who am I expected to love to propose a solution to the problem?
Of course there is only one truth. Someone either wants to solve the problem or is just wringing her hands to show her compassion and her love as a display of femininity.
I am not interested in displaying my femininity, because I am not interested in appearing to be attractive to men. Men like kind and stupid women, don't they?
Not asking you to love individuals, but to show some compassion for fellow human beings who screw up? Have you never made mistakes? Are you so perfect that even your logic cannot be faulted?
You don't have to have perfect morals to see that bastard-bearing sluts are a cancer of society and cause degeneracy and the weakening of your nation.
Still, in your circles it is more acceptable to make pointless displays of compassion rather than propose practical solutions that would work.
You are not in politics, will never be in politics, and do not have the potential to become a successful politician because all you are interested in is displaying your compassion to affirm your femininity rather than solving the problem.
You have no solutions, so why do you insist you are the better woman?
I am not competing with you to be more womanly.
I am challenging you to submit a better proposal since you dislike mine, but you have nothing more up your sleeve other than a pointless display of compassion to affirm that you are more feminine than me.
Post a Comment