What to do with women convicted of making false rape accusations

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661586/Oxford-Union-president-wont-charged-rape-claims-two-undergraduate-students-police-no-action.html

I bet Alison Saunders feminazi DPP is very disappointed and will be shortly issuing a statement declaring this very soon, just as she did when John Terry was acquitted at http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/07/john-terry-acquitted.html

What should happen to women who falsely accuse men of rape?

The Koran treats extramarital sex between a man and a woman the same: 100 lashes. Extramarital sex can be both fornication and adultery. I am sure most reasonable people would agree with me that a rapist should be punished more than a mere adulterer/fornicator, say 200 lashes minimum.

In the Koran, a person who falsely accused someone of adultery attracts the punishment of 80 lashes. So, under this principle, if the accused would have been convicted of 200 lashes if convicted of rape, her false accuser would receive 80% of this sentence if she is convicted of making a false accusation ie 160 lashes in this instance.

Or perhaps the false accuser should be made to give free sex to a man nominated by the court from range of applicants. These applicants would come from a group of men known to be beta-omega males who are clearly unmarriageable and are regular clients of the local brothel.

This session of free sex would take place under the supervised conditions of the brothel. The brothel supervising this could offer a raffle for this opportunity to get sex free from this woman if customers use their services for a defined period of time. There are all sorts of marketing possibilities for this sort of thing, really. If she wished to get out of giving this nominated beta-omega male free sex, she could pay the cost for hiring the services of a prostitute on this man's behalf.

I am really not interested in spending taxpayers' money accommodating these neurotic women for two years, as Eddy Butler proposes. He wants them jailed for that time, and prisons are expensive. Public punishment for such offences would be the quickest way of effecting punishment while instructing the public about what they can and cannot do.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/a-philosophical-question-on-how-one.html

Feminazis silencing free speech
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/19/backlash-against-george-wills-offensive-rape-co/199797

Simon Sheppard arrested and now in Northallerton Prison for his leaflet which caused offence to two librarians

Statement by Kevin Watmough on 27 January 2013:

"Simon Sheppard was arrested on 25 January 2013 for 'poor conduct' which constitutes a breach of his licence conditions.  He handed copies of his latest article entitled 'Spree Killers

 http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/marginalisation-of-beta-male-more-cause.html to two workers in a public library who claimed to find his comment about the public attitude to mixed-race couples 'offensive'.  However, the article had already been seen by police and probation workers who made no objection.  He is currently waiting in a police cell for transport to Hull Prison, but is delayed by an extreme snowfall."

A further statement on 1 February 2013:

"Things are still getting worse for Simon Sheppard. He has been told that he will not be eligible of release after 28 days inside for his breach of the licence due to the ‘gravity of the offence’, so he will definitely stay in prison until 16th April when the licence expires. Also he is bailed to appear back at York police station on 7th March to see if he will be prosecuted under section 19, 1986 Public Order Act (the northern part of CPS HQ is also at York). They have now started saying that his article on ‘Spree Killers’ glorifies violence - which is nonsense."

Public Order Act 1986

S 19.-(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material Publishing or which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence distributing if- written
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or material.
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is
likely to be stirred up thereby.

Simon Sheppard has to intend to stir up racial hatred to be guilty of the offence, for one thing.

Who were the complainants?

Both of them were the same race as Simon Sheppard, I have been told.

Simon Sheppard, Political Prisoner, feeding a horse in York - September 2011

This section was intended to give the police a certain amount of discretion to move people along by arresting a few of them during demonstrations that looked as if they were about to turn nasty.

It was not intended to be abused by anyone claiming to have been offended in order to maliciously deprive him of his liberty.

It is clear from the facts given above that there was no danger at all of Simon Sheppard posing a threat to public order in the sense of waving a placard intended to be offensive to a group (eg "Behead all who insult Islam") also present in a public place who might be provoked into violence and disorder, no danger at all.


The CPS could issue guidelines stating that this law can only be used by a police officer in a situation where public order was in danger of being disrupted, eg at a demonstration.

But it chooses not to.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is a Labour supporter Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer, the Labour-supporting Director of Public Prosecutions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/01/humanrights.law
Someone should certainly be questioning his motives.

The contact details of Simon Sheppard, Political Prisoner, can be found at http://efp.org.uk/englands-political-police-strike-again/

Hull Prison where Simon Sheppard, Political Prisoner, is currently being held  for distributing a leaflet found to be offensive by two librarians in PC Britain.  He would probably be allowed to say this sort of thing in China.

Simon Sheppard A8042AA
A Wing
HM Prison Northallerton
15A East Road
Northallerton
DL6 1NW

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=simon+sheppard

How to Safeguard Human Rights without the Human Rights Act

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/22/keir-starmer-tories-human-rights

The Director of Public Prosecutions seems to think that the way to safeguard human rights is to protect the Human Rights Act from repeal by the wicked Tories.

I would suggest otherwise: the creation of a single political party where

1. members' rights are not easily set aside by the leader and his cronies
2. expulsion of a member cannot be effected until the majority of the party have had a chance to vote on it after a proper hearing
3. the constitution can be changed by the majority of its members

At the moment it is quite clear that Tory MPs are demoted and expelled by Cameron for saying anything he dislikes or thinks the public will dislike.

Patrick Mercer, Nigel Hastilow and Alan Duncan are the most revealing examples.

The way the LibLabCon party leaders have hung their members out to dry over expenses after denying them an opportunity to vote on their own pay rise is even more dishonourable than the attempt to milk the system for as much as they could.

Why a one-party state?

Because that is the only way to allow all members to have a free vote and to abolish the whipping system. It would at least put MPs in touch with their consciences, convictions and principles, were they to by any chance recognise such concepts after such a long separation.

It would also make them keener to consult and represent the people and act without fear or favour.

http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107

Draft party constitution for a one-party state

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00n7ml8

John Strafford of Campaign for Conservative Democracy makes some very good points. Start listening on the 46th minute.

http://www.copov.org.uk/