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