Translate

Showing posts with label Barbara Hewson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barbara Hewson. Show all posts

Friday, 16 January 2015

Why do criminal lawyers *pretend* not to notice that the requirement for the criminal standard of proof to be convicted of rape has been dispensed with?



What the wrongful conviction of Ched Evans means for the criminal standard of proof that protects our liberties
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 1 July 2014

Is the Telegraph gloating that Rolf Harris could die in jail?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10936968/Rolf-Harris-entertainer-artist-and-sex-abuser-could-die-in-jail.html

I would have asked, as a member of the jury:

"I think he probably did do it, on the balance of probabilities, but my understanding of the law is that I have to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt, and I am not sure beyond all reasonable doubt. What, therefore, should I do?"

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/in-defence-of-rolf-harris-even-if-he.html

Is any male lawyer protesting about this blatant and insidious change to the burden of proof when you are accused of the worst crime you can possibly be accused of?  Nope, these emasculated jerks are leaving it all to Barbara Hewson, who has blocked me on Twitter, for some reason.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/why-if-english-are-to-remain-true-to.html

Tweeter who gloated over guilty verdict of Rolf Harris.





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415122/Twitter-troll-unmasked-Father-Britains-vilest-internet-trolls-exposed-posting-sick-jokes-Hillsborough-disaster.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 13 May 2014

The criminal standard of proof has been lowered for the worst crime you can be accused of

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27371573

Poor old Rolf Harris. Things aren't looking too good for him.  The verisimilitude with which the complainant paints such a sordid and detailed picture of what she claimed he did to her makes us see it all in our mind's eye, as if we were a fly on the wall.

It used to be the case that the accused was given the benefit of the doubt in cases when it is clear that the evidence cannot, logically speaking, be more than one person's word against another's.  In such cases, the matter would never reach trial because the Prosecutor would know that uncorroborated evidence can never by itself satisfy the standard of proof required to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubt.

By making admissible the uncorroborated testimony of alleged offences committed decades ago, the court is in fact inviting the jury to decide who is speaking the truth ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES.

Readers are asked to note that if proving a case beyond reasonable doubt is 75+%, then proving a case on the balance of probabilities - the civil standard of proof - is only 50+%.

The powers that be have unilaterally decided to make it easier to convict you if you have been accused of the worst crime there is - paedophilia.

Only the intellectually degenerate do not understand this.  That would appear to be all of the legal profession apart from Barbara Hewson.

And only the morally degenerate look the other way and pretend they do not understand this.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cliffords-sentencing-has-little-to-do-with-justice/14981#.U3FZnvldVqU

In a case called DPP v Boardman in 1975, the House of Lords acknowledged that offences could ordinarily only be tried together if the offender’s modus operandi showed a ‘strikingly similar’ method, such as a rapist who always wore a Batman costume. This enabled the defence to keep out evidence that might be prejudicial, such as cases where witnesses have colluded to give false evidence, or cases where one witness has simply been influenced by contact with another witness.

Unfortunately, in 1991 and 1995, the Lords took a different approach, and relaxed this rule. That has led to the current practice of ‘bundling’ of multiple sex allegations in the same trial. It’s called ‘corroboration by volume’, or ‘no smoke without fire’. And it is hugely effective, which is why it has become the prosecution’s favourite tactic.

This development coincided with the practice of police ‘trawling’ for complainants, which unfolded as a result of the ‘paedophile ring’ theory of abuse that police and social workers were following when investigating children’s care homes in the 1990s. The consequences for our justice system have been very serious. Time after time, juries are faced with extremely grave accusations of an historic nature, where there is no supporting independent evidence (such as medical evidence), but which turn simply on one person’s word against another’s.

As the historian Richard Webster pointed out in his Memorandum of Evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, which examined this problem in 2002: ‘When defendants are compelled to face large numbers of allegations of sexual abuse made by different complainants in a single trial, the presumption of innocence is almost inevitably destroyed.’

The emotional impact on a jury of a whole sequence of tearful complainants speaking of sexual violation cannot be underestimated. The obscenity and, sometimes, violence involved makes their stories extremely powerful, even where the vague nature of historic allegations (usually without any specific dates) make them well-nigh impossible to rebut convincingly, unless by chance some contemporaneous document is unearthed, which gives the accused a convincing alibi.

To make matters more complicated, it is now received wisdom among the victim/ survivor movement and the therapy industry that rape and other forms of sexual assault invariably scar victims for life, causing them years of torment. This reflects decades of feminist campaigning.

But the standard use of the ‘trauma model’ is problematic in some ways. It means that such offences are seen as uniquely heinous, because they involve a kind of ‘murder of the soul’. So both lawyers, and the public, feel honour-bound to demand that the accused be dealt with very severely indeed.

The jury will convict Rolf Harris under these conditions and the nasty, stupid and brutish will cheer and jeer, always delighted to spit on and kick at someone lower than they are if they can find him.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, 12 May 2014

A Khaw-Coulter Alliance is currently being contemplated ...

Ann Coulter - the woman conveniently single whom Claire Khaw would like to marry.


I keep being asked whom I would like to marry. I have decided I would like to marry Ann Coulter.

If we marry, our babies will have the surname of Khaw-Coulter ....

If there were a man like him I would marry him, but there isn't. Ann is also single, and it would suit me to stay over in her house in Palm Beach, her condominium in Manhattan and her apartment in LA when I visit her.

She is much taller than me, but I don't mind having someone I can look up to.

Katharina Khaw-Coulter will be the name of our first baby together ....

Our second child together will be called Kanye Khaw-Coulter, as in Kanye West ... If she prefers she can call him Kingsley, I am not going to be too prescriptive about these things when me and my honeybunch start living happily ever after together in London, LA, Palm Beach and New York.

I urge Fox News to send Ann over to London so we can meet Barbara Hewson together and discuss the horrors of living in a degenerate matriarchy suffering from dementia that the West currently is and bounce ideas off each other about how to solve the malaise of the West.  If Ann won't marry me perhaps Barbara will be my consolation prize though she has blocked me on Twitter, rather unaccountably, I might add. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/mysadcat-barbarahewson-is-it-obvious-to.html

Our pillow talk will, apart from sweet nothings praising each other's beauty and passion, include discussions on how best to introduce Secular Koranism into the legal system of the West. Being a lawyer she will of course have heard of Donoghue v Stevenson ....

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html


I am trying to get Nick Ryan at http://about.me/ryanscribe to make a documentary about anti-feminist women and the sacrifices they make to serve the greater good. We are not all vaccilating, irrational and immoral sluts with no principles, you know!

http://www.vice.com/read/which-type-of-mangina-are-you

"[Claire Khaw] makes Ann Coulter look like a member of The Dirty Girls."
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, 11 May 2014

Barbara Hewson has blocked me on Twitter. What did I say to upset her?


Or this at http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/113426525313?




I suddenly fight the idea of shacking up with two blond anti-feminist lawyers deliciously exciting.  I know I been rather disapproving of gay marriage and civil partnerships and have vowed to abolish them when I come to power, but I cannot help but think this is a scenario that is just the stuff of a US sitcom in the style of The Golden Girls, but set in London ...  

I just have a horrible feeling that if I invited Ann Coulter to visit Barbara and me in London to stay with us in our little shack-up she might be sent right back home across the herring pond under an exclusion order drawn up by the Home Secretary herself.

Poor Barbara, she probably had the frighteners put on her because I was tweeting at her so much she felt had to block me because certain threats have been made about her future at her chambers or her future in her profession or something, if she did not do something to show her disapproval of me and my views. But stick with me, babe, I will work something out in the end.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Defend English legal tradition: find Rolf Harris and Max Clifford not guilty (even if they really did do it)

"I see nothing wrong with giving fuckable women the benefit of the doubt because they have at least given me the pleasure of thinking about fucking them while finding men more successful than me to be guilty with whatever offence they are charged with because I like doing down people more successful than me."


  • Agree
  • Disagree


The more disgraceful and serious the crime you are being accused of, eg paedophilia, sex with the under-aged, the LESS you will be deemed to need the protection of the law that requires an accused to be treated as innocent till found guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT after a fair trial.


  • Agree
  • Disagree


Should the requirement to prove the guilt of an accused BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT be dispensed with, especially if he is being accused of a sexual offence?


  • Yes
  • No


Should the requirement to prove the guilt of an accused BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT be dispensed with?


  • Yes
  • No

What is making the uncorroborated testimony of those complaining about sexual assaults that took place decades ago admissible but the dispensing of this requirement?

Why should the criminal justice system give men like Rolf Harris the benefit of the doubt rather than the kind of women who accuse him?

FB Person 1
Why are you so determined to defend old pervs?

FB Person 2
They should not give anybody the benefit of doubt. If there is evidence, let a trial follow; if there is no evidence, throw out the accusations immediately.

Claire Khaw
It is this idea of the burden of proof in criminal cases. Why do you think such cases would have been thrown out in pre-feminist days?

The "evidence" to which you refer to is nothing more than the dubious testimony of slags who are angling for a bit of compo.

Wow, they have changed the burden of proof in criminal trials and the fucking thickos don't even get it.

Some of these fuckers are even law students!

Yep, I can imagine all these degenerate thicko fuckers looking at the slags in court and thinking "I'd fuck her" and find in her favour, and looking at the accused and thinking "I have always hated him" and finding him guilty.

In a CRIMINAL TRIAL you should be given the benefit of the doubt if you the prosecution cannot satisfy the legal requirement to prove his or her allegations BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Are you too degenerate to even get that now?

If you are going to make admissible the UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY of slags angling for a bit of compo then you are in effect dispensing with the requirement of the prosecution to prove its allegations BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Screwy degenerates seem to think defending a legal principle is "defending old pervs". That is cos he can see what he thinks is an old perv but he cannot see a legal principle or hold it in his hand. Degenerates find it difficult to understand abstract ideas.

If they can't fuck or eat it or hold it in their hands then abstract ideas such as legal principles are USELESS, right?

FB Person 3
All men are presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty ~ Article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789. This principle is the backbone to all modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ["the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies"]

"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it." ~ Genesis 18:23-32.


Talking about the English legal system, do you think the leader of the English Democrats, Robin Tillbrook, who is in fact a solicitor, understands or cares to defends the principles of the English legal tradition?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN8AFwaN0rk&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW8vrbbwR2o&feature=youtu.be are examples of 21st century Englishness as represented by the English Democrats. If that is what passes for Englishness these days, I would rather be a Welsh rarebit.

This dishonest man opposes Sharia Law.  He does not know that Sharia Law exists because English Law allows Sharia Law to be applied by arbitrators, and that parties to a dispute are at liberty to appoint arbitrators to settle their disputes, and so bypass the English courts.  Anyone who has heard of the Arbitration Act 1996 would know this. If he does not know this, then one must wonder at his professional competence.

If he has heard of it and is campaigning against Sharia Law, then this would suggest that he means to deprive Muslims of the ability to settle their disputes with other Muslims through the process of arbitration, which I would have thought is a fundamental human right.

Perhaps he does know all this but thinks so little of the intelligence and education of the members of his party that he cannot be bothered to explain all this to them.

This woolly bland man - the perfect example of a charisma-free zone - thinks English nationalism can ape Scottish nationalism by being centre left and following in the wake of Alex Salmond.  He, like Shrek, seeks the break-up of the Union.  Shrek has the possibility of becoming King of Scotland, while Robin Tillbrook does not even have the hope of getting more votes than the now hopelessly eclipsed BNP.

Tillbrook has the prospects of the slug aspiring to run a marathon, and perfectly represents the masculinity and Englishness of the degenerate 21st century English politician.

Poor old Tillbrook, who seems unaware that the political concept of Britain was always an English project, and does not care to defend the English legal traditions that protect the rights of the accused, probably because he fears that he may be accused of being a defender of paedophiles, as Barbara Hewson and I have been.

The ability to articulate and defend a principle is a badge I wear with pride, even if this concept is lost to the degenerates in high places and low that now populate this country.

The Englishman prepared to lower the burden of proof at the behest of slags angling for a bit of compo against men they envy because they are more successful than they are is truly beyond contempt.

Envy is of course one of the Deadly Sins.  All the Seven Deadly Sins have the effect of making a society less cohesive than it otherwise would be, but most Englishmen these days have dispensed with God because they are now "good liberals" under the impression that liberalism is the most culturally and racially superior ideology in the world. We know how corrupt these liberals are when they can no longer defend what is really a liberal Western tradition - that of treating an accused as innocent till he is found guilty after a fair trial.

The Bhagavad Gita:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil." 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, 10 May 2014

If women are not morally responsible for anything, should they even have the vote?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483390/Barbara-Hewson-Rape-victims-morally-responsible-ordeal-says-woman-barrister.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10418682/Rape-victims-should-have-moral-responsibility.html

If as feminists claim that rape victims have no moral responsibility then it means women have no moral responsibility. If women have no moral responsibility then this means they are not responsible for anything they do, like children or lunatics, in which case the franchise should be withdrawn from them.

DEMOCRATS' IDEAL VOTER: ILLEGAL ALIEN, SINGLE MOTHER, CONVICTED FELON
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-18.html

http://genprogress.org/voices/2012/03/09/17660/ann-coulter-im-ok-with-revoking-womens-young-americans-right-to-vote/

[Ann Coulter] said that women were one group she believed should have their right to vote taken away. When pressed by O’Donnell, Coulter stood by her comments, arguing that every election since 1950, aside from the 1964 Barry Goldwater election, would have been won by Republicans had it not been for the woman vote. Using her typical logic, Coulter said this presents enough reason to disenfranchise women.

O’Donnell pushed further, asking Coulter how she would feel personally if she couldn’t vote. She responded: “If my entire gender loses it too, then I’m OK with it.”

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/case-for-disenfranchsing-women-or-why.html
How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties

"We wonder if it is the case that you can trace inflation in the West back to universal suffrage. Politicians promise what they think voters will want and women voters, being society's main carers, are most likely to be promised the things that most expand the state.  Historically, it has mattered more - or been perceived by politicians to  matter more - to women that they get help looking after the young, the sick and disabled, than it is has to the men who don't do so much of this work.

So what do you do to get the female vote?  You promise more schools and hospitals.  Then you  promise universal tertiary education, tax credits for everyone, free bus passes for the over-60s and subsidised nursery care.  And  the more unaffordable the state promises, the more likely it is to have to print money to pay for it - and the more likely inflation becomes.

So there is more a horrible possibility that, while it doesn't make it their fault (it remains the fault of over-promising, power-hungry politicians.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 6 May 2014

Claire Khaw on the Peter Levy Show

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01y3rpr

From the 24th minute talking about http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-grounds-on-which-max-clifford.html which Christine Hamilton had read before coming on air. She said said I was being rude about the intelligence and education of the average juror.  Fortunately, she had not read http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/is-average-juror-capable-of.html in which I was even ruder.

Peter Levy

Christine Hamilton

Max Clifford

PL:

Tabloid publicist Max Clifford was jailed on Friday for a total of 8 years for a string of indecent assaults against girls and young women and was found guilty of 8 counts of indecent assault, 4 of those counts were against one woman who was 15 when he first assaulted her.  The judge said that Clifford had groomed and degraded his victims and ruled he should his 8 sentences of between 6 and 24 months consecutively and not concurrently.  Joining me now is political commentator Claire Khaw who has written a blog in which she says that she doesn't believe any evidence so old can ever be reliable enough to satisfy a criminal standard of proof and that it doesn't call for an 8 year sentence for a 71 year old man. Claire's joining me now on the line, Claire good afternoon to you.

CK:
Good afternoon.

PL:
Do you have doubts about the evidence after such a long time?  Is that what worries you?

CK:

It went back 30 to 37 years, didn't they, all these charges and I wonder what kind of justice you can get if somebody can say that you assaulted them 30 to 37 years ago and they are not required to furnish any DNA evidence.  We may not like Max Clifford and he may have ruined lots of people's lives but what happens if other people are accused on the basis of this kind thing?

PL:

Well he has been found guilty by a jury.  Are you saying just because he is 71 one he doesn't deserve 8 years in prison?

CK:

I don't think I am the only one who considers this sort of thing excessive.

PL:

You are in the minority.

CK:

I am aware that I and a barrister called Barbara Hewson are in the minority here but certain legal principles do need to be defended.  Just because we hate Max Clifford doesn't mean that the rules which convicted him cannot be used to convict other people.

PL:

Barbara Hewson is a barrister and she has written that is loaded against defendants. Do you agree with that and why?

CK:

Just because of how it happened.  I know that Dave Lee Travis and the other nicer guys got off because they showed appropriate humility and refrained from showing the arrogance that Max Clifford did, and perhaps that was why he was convicted, because no one liked him and because he ruined many peoples' lives, but he was on trial for being accused of what he had done, not the fact that he ...

PL:

I don't think many would actually understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that because he is 71 he shouldn't have had such a long sentence and he didn't come across very well in the trial, rather than the crimes he committed and the awful things he has done to people?

CK:

It was indecent assault and it was a long time ago and there was this suggestion that these women were there hoping that something would come out of, well, putting up with these sexual assaults, I suppose.

PL:

Well, that's a terrible thing to say! I don't think many people will have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying.

CK:

I am quite aware of this.  There is this recent Mail story about ...

PL:

Be careful what you say.

CK:

I am, but it's in the Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620150/Max-Clifford-sex-daughters-disabled-toilet-Mayfair-office-unofficial-casting-couch.html and there was this woman who said she had sex with him in the toilet of his daughter at his offices.  She said she didn't like it, she didn't want it and nothing came of it, but there was no suggestion that he dragged her there and made her do all those terrible things she did.  There is that element to be considered, really.

PL:
So, if you could sum up what you were saying in a sentence, what would it be?

CK:

I would say that these accusations should be treated with a great deal of care because in my opinion they should have been tried separately.  All these accusations should have been tried separately rather than bundled together making the jury think that by the sheer number of accusations they were more likely to be true than not.




What should be the punishment for what happened in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620150/Max-Clifford-sex-daughters-disabled-toilet-Mayfair-office-unofficial-casting-couch.html?

100 lashes for Sarah Symonds and a 100 lashes for Max.

http://quran.com/24/2

The Koran really has all the answers! 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, 4 May 2014

Some views on the conviction of Max Clifford

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf

"You took an 18 year old on as your receptionist. You asked her to masturbate you on two or three occasions and SHE FELT THAT SHE HAD NO CHOICE TO COMPLY [emphasis is mine]. You ejaculated into her hand and tissues. You fondled her breasts. You asked her to give you oral sex in exchange for being taken to meet David Bowie.”

CHOOSING to comply, even if you find this unpleasant, is implicit consent. We can infer this from the woman's actions and failure to resist or communicate her lack of consent. The issue of consent is now dangerously reduced to a matter of internal emotion, regardless of expressing verbally and behaviourally this lack of consent.

What if Clifford actually thought she was accepting and wanted to do it purely because she did not resist?

Do you mean to tell me Leon that Clifford asked these women to do things and they did them?

They may have lost their job if they refused.

But in no way has it been proven that he threatened them with physical harm or put them in danger.
He didn't threaten their life or their families?

Is this true?

That is true. Additionally, I remain completely unconvinced that any force was involved. He was a bit lecherous and asked them to perform obscene acts on him, which they didn't really want to do, BUT DID ANYWAY. At no point did he pin them down to disable them and molest them. At no point did they fight him off, therefore resisting their consent.

It seems that ‘rape’ and ‘assault’ in this country can now mean “I did it, but I found it unpleasant and went along with it, saying nothing and choosing not to resist”.

No proof at all of him threatening them with weapons and violence?

No physical assault, in terms of holding them down or having others hold them down?

Nothing like that at all?

Nothing whatsoever. And none of the convictions involve vaginal penetration by his penis.

So Clifford asked his secretaries and assistants etc to toss him off and finger themselves.

They agreed to do this even though they might not have enjoyed it.

Decades later they run to the law accusing him of assault and rape?

Seriously, is this what has happened?

Yes, this is what has happened. We are going the way of ultra-feminist, dementia-ridden Sweden, where a woman can decide a man has raped her after RETROSPECTIVELY withdrawing her consent, i.e. she can decide she did not consent AFTER having sex.

I'm fucking stunned.

I honestly didn't realise that these were the events.

here was an accusation that he assaulted a 12-year-old in Spain, but this was thrown out because at the time it allegedly happened, British courts could not convict people for crimes committed abroad.

Nonetheless, this same alleged accuser was brought in as a witness to testify against Clifford's character, even though her supposed assault had nothing to do with the ones Clifford was standing trial for, and despite the fact Clifford has never faced trial or been convicted of assaulting her.

In other words, she testified against his character based on what she claims to have experienced in Spain aged 12, and this was treated by the prosecution as true despite there being no proof and no past conviction for this.

He was acquitted of some of the alleged incidents with minors (15 years of age), but the ones he was convicted of involved young women over the age of consent.

This is extremely dangerous.

His legal team have done an awful job.

He should sack his team and hire Barbara Hewson.

I believe he was convicted for several offenses involving minors

Were these other offenses proven in a court of law?

I could be mistaken, but I believe all his convictions involved girls over the age of consent at the time. Regardless, he has been convicted IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

One of the girls he was convicted of molesting was 15

Is that true? Was one of the girls 15?

He was convicted - he is guilty. It is perverse having a problem accepting this. Many people are rightly convicted without physical evidence.

Many people in.his position - who I presume to be innocent - are not found guilty in. Most have been in fact.
I rejoice in the vile Clifford's guilt.

Check the reports of his conviction - they are online

I have just checked. Yes, one of the convictions was against a girl who was 15 at the time. She allegedly sucked him off, tossed him off, and he fingered her. He was convicted, I repeat, IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. It was her word against his.

All the other convictions were for acts with girls over the age of consent. He was cleared of all the other convictions involving minors.

It's still a very shaky conviction.

Only reason it stuck is because he has pissed off the wrong people and because when a number of alleged victims make accusations at the same time, it looks bad whether true or false.

 The whole thing stinks. I think it is because Operation Yewtree has been a complete failure. They didn't manage to secure a single conviction until Clifford (on very, very flimsy ‘evidence’ and in a sham trial that barrister Barbara Hewson explained in her Spiked article).
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cliffords-sentencing-has-little-to-do-with-justice/14981#.U2awdPldVqU
The powers that be had to make sure Yewtree secured convictions.

Are you suggesting the powers that be nobbled the jury or the judge to get poor innocent Max Clifford banged up to justify Operation Yewtree? What nonsense.

It has already been established by people who WERE in court that there was no physical evidence. If there is no evidence, it was his word against theirs.

Once upon a time, this shite would have been thrown out of court.
Are you willing to accept that Clifford-hater's points are valid and perhaps this conviction of Clifford is more solid than you originally thought?

No, I don't accept Clifford-hater's assertions at all. Plebs want to think Clifford is guilty regardless of procedural fairness. This is because they like to concentrate their anger on scapegoats. Clifford is a Yewtree scapegoat -- a scapegoat for Savile's crimes, even though he was never linked to Savile.

at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...