Translate

Showing posts with label Rolf Harris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rolf Harris. Show all posts

Monday, 7 July 2014

How Vanessa Feltz should have dealt with indecent assault while on air or Why didn't Rolf Harris didn't grope me?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vanessa-feltz-rolf-harris-assaulted-me-live-tv-1455473



"I found this hand on my person, and believe it to be yours", I would have said as I hand the hand of the groper back to its owner, in public.

I sometimes worry why I have never been groped by anyone at all. Was I too unattractive to be of interest to these alpha males?

I was once at a celebrity gathering and I did bump into Rolf Harris at the filming of the Dame Edna Celebrity Show.  We didn't speak but he did made framing gestures with his hands as if he were composing a painting and putting me in a frame.  I found this immensely flattering. I smiled vaguely at him and that was that.

Am I too late to sue him for not groping me and causing me hurt feelings and loss of self-esteem though? The more I think about it, the more hurt my feelings become and the more pronounced my sense of victimhood and worthlessness ...

If he had groped me I could have dined out on it, but he didn't, because he clearly did not find me attractive enough to pursue me more ardently, and now I am reduced to blogging about how I actually met him and having to confess that he never even deigned to grope me!
at No comments:
Labels: ,

Did the Crown Prosecution Service exceed its powers as John Humphrys was suggesting to Alison Saunders?

https://twitter.com/flutterbyfjl/status/485854220844019712

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/may/02/alison-saunders-director-public-prosecutions-interview

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/01/rolf-harris-victims-bravery-dpp

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-is-alison-saunders-of-gender.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b047z8ws From 150th minute

JH
Rolf Harris is by far the biggest scalp that has been claimed by the police in what they call Operation Yewtree in an attempt to bring to justice famous people who were guilty of using their positions to abuse young women.  It was a success.  He was convicted on all twelve counts of indecently assaulting girls, some as long as 50 years ago, but questions have been asked whether the police have cast their net too wide and have sought publicity by pursuing cases where the evidence doesn't justify it - in other words, a witch-hunt.  17 men have been arrested: 2 have been convicted.  But it's not the police who decide in important cases who will be prosecuted, it is the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales and its Director is Alison Saunders.  Your reaction first to the conviction of Rolf Harris?

AS
We are pleased that it was a success for the victims who have been very brave in coming forward and I think we should not triumphalise [?]in these instances because what it means is that abuse took place against young girls and women and therefore we ought to think about them first. [non sequitur]

JH
Is there a danger that you the Crown Prosecution Service can get caught up in - hysteria is probably too strong a word here  ...  It becomes almost a campaign.

AS
The reason why we are here is to make sure we don't do that, and we have very clear guidelines about when we will prosecute. We have to have enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and if we don't have that the prosecution doesn't go ahead no matter who or what we are looking at, and then we have to decide whether it is in the public interest, and only when we have satisfied those tests will we actually bring a prosecution.

[http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html It is clear that these rules have been breached.]

JH
But the first test is not the public interest one, is it? The first test is whether you have a strong enough case to prosecute.

AS
Absolutely. And we must have the evidence before we can get into the public interest. We quite often will not prosecute cases because we don't have sufficient evidence because that is what we are there for: to analyse it.

JH
But your critics have said you have gone further and you yourself have talked about "victims" when the accused has been acquitted.  They are not "victims", are they, if nobody has been found guilty?

[So, even when the accused was acquitted, the DPP still called the complainants victims - another show of biased man-hating.]

AS
They are complainants ...

JH
And that is the difference!

AS
They are saying that something has happened to them. What the jury has decided is whether or not there is sufficient evidence that an individual did it. It doesn't mean to say that the incident didn't happen; it's about whether that person did it.  And what you have to remember is that we get it right in 86% of cases. We get convictions in 86% of those cases that we take, so we are not risk averse and we have to be very careful that we don't get to a situation where we are only taking very sure cases. It is a matter for the criminal justice system and for the jury to decide whether they believe they are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt with the evidence that we put before them, and that is a very different test to the one that we take, which is: is there a realistic prospect of conviction.

JH
So what does that tell us about Operation Yewtree then? 17 men arrested: 2 convicted.

AH
I think we shouldn't just focus on Operation Yewtree because it is one specific bit ...

JH
Take that one first and then we'll  move on.

AS
That's been really because what it has shown is that nobody is above the law ...

JH
Only 2 convictions out of 17 arrests?

AH
Actually, when I think you look at the sort of over-arching sort of ... looking at everything in total, we prosecute lots of non-recent abuse cases across the country and we gain convictions every day.  In similar cases I think there is a particular issue with these because they are high profile cases but we look at them objectively.  We haven't prosecuted every case under Operation Yewtree that has come to us because we  have looked at the evidence , decided whether there is sufficient evidence to go forward and only  when we think there is do we go forward.

JH
What about other operations then? As you say, there are others as well as Yewtree. Operation Weeting: we saw the end last week of that big hacking trial.  One man was convicted, the others were acquitted.  One of your senior lawyers said "This has been a lengthy and complex trial which was required to explore a culture of invading privacy.  That's a campaigning statement, isn't it?

AS
What he meant by that was that we have looked again at the evidence and have decided that the evidence was there to prosecute. The trial was lengthy and complex and it was about the jury looking at all the evidence and deciding whether or not they thought the individuals had done the acts alleged.

JH
Indeed, but you are not there, are you, and Libby Purves made this point in The Times yesterday, to explore culture.  You are there, as you have made very very clear a moment ago, to prosecute people if there is evidence enough to prosecute.

AS
Absolutely. We are not there to campaign ...

[Oh, yeah?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jan/30/rape-victims-acquittals-chief-prosecutor
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/54258/who-alison-saunders-lawyer-announced-new-dpp
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/juries-need-to-be-taught-about-the-reality-of-rape-says-dpp-9324838.html
http://www.newsguardian.co.uk/news/north-east-news/commissioner-backs-rape-action-plan-1-6659281]

JH
Or to explore culture!

AS
We look at the evidence that is put before us and decide whether or not to take that to the court, whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is, we look at the public interest, and we do that in lots of cases ...

JH
So what is your man doing talking about "exploring culture" then?

AS
I think the context he was explaining ... or, I think it was slightly taken out of context from his statement ... I think what he was saying was "This was a matter for the court to decide. We've got the evidence that proves there is a realistic prospect of conviction, so we'll put it before the jury to decide whether or not it happened. The jury quite rightly considered all the evidence and came back with a verdict which we respect and which, you know,  absolutely is right.

JH
But you would accept that that is the wrong language because when one of your senior lawyers talks about "exploring culture" in that sense, it sounds as though what you are doing is kind of looking at a broad picture: you are saying society is wrong in this respect or in that respect; it's our job to help put it right, but it's not.

AS
No, we are there to look at the evidence, to decide objectively whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and then to look at the public interest and in that way it has to be evidence first and then public interest.

JH
And you are quite satisfied,  are you, that neither you nor  the people who work for you and obviously you make these decisions collectively - that you don't get caught up in this atmosphere - "Something's got to be done! We don't like phone hacking, we gotta do something about it"?

AS
No, absolutely not. You can see that from decisions we make both to prosecute and not to prosecute in both Yewtree and Weeting, so you can see that some we have decided to prosecute and some we have not.

JH
So will you perhaps be having a word with some of your staff about the language they use.

AS
We will always look at the language very carefully but I am satisfied that we make our decisions objectively and and in accordance with the Code.

JH
Alison Saunders, thank you very much.

***************************************


  1. What would be the public interest in sentencing an 84 year old man to nearly 6 years in prison? 
  2. How would it be in the public interest to start a feeding frenzy of indecent assault accusations that are impossible to refute? http://www.barristermagazine.com/archive-articles/issue-54/the-cult-of-victimhood-and-the-limits-of-the-law-part-1.html
  3. How would it be in the public interest to give the impression that retired entertainers of Britain who used to be lionised are mostly paedophiles?
  4. How would it be in the public interest to leave men of property vulnerable to blackmail? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-27746374
  5. How would it be in the public interest to give other nations the idea that most men in Britain are sex offenders?
  6. How would it be in the public interest to give other nations the idea that most men in Britain must be terrified of their women because of how easily any malicious woman could ruin the life of an innocent man? 
  7. How would it be in the public interest to encourage women to make malicious accusations against their ex-lovers?
  8. How would it be in the public interest to have unilaterally lowered the criminal standard of proof that was established for the purpose of protecting the accused? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law  http://www.richardwebster.net/similarfactevidence.html
  9. How would it be in the public interest to make it official that the alleged emotional distress of a probably malicious woman over being groped is worth as much as the pain of a man being stabbed, cut or glassed? http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-sentencing-of-rolf-harris-means.html
  10. How would it be in the public interest to further demoralise the already emasculated and effeminate men of Britain who are either too stupid or fearful to protest against the blatant gender favouritism and feminazism of the DPP? This woman doesn't even bother to hide it. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-is-alison-saunders-of-gender.html
  11. How is it in the public interest to encourage women to make rape accusations and make it easier for men to be convicted when we already know most women in Britain are fornicating sluts who don't know their own minds and are not beneath making the occasional false rape accusation for really quite trivial reasons? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10741867/Trainee-barrister-cried-rape-11-times-to-avoid-taking-exams-court-told.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150576/Brian-Banks-Football-star-jailed-falsely-rape-wants-219k-compensation.html  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358759/Leanne-Black-finally-jailed-FIVE-false-rape-allegations-ex-boyfriends-years.html
  12. How is it in the public interest for the world to know that UK law is an ass because a feminazi DPP is on a mission to persecute men and make a point about how precious and inviolate is a woman's body is in Britain when the rest of the world knows British women are mostly sluts? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/lifestyle/big-issue/blow-jobs-for-taxi-fares The more promiscuous the woman the more likely she is to get raped and the more promiscuous she is the less one would expect her to mind. 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 6 July 2014

Confused Rolf Harris jury wrongly thought finding him guilty on one count making him guilty of all the others


at 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 4 July 2014

What the sentencing of Rolf Harris means: a woman's emotional distress is worth much much more than a man being cut, stabbed or glassed

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/07/04/rolf-harris-sentenced-5-years-9-months/

Count 1: Indecent assault between 1/1/68 and 1/1/70 on a girl A, aged 7-8
Sentence : 9 months

Details :A was queuing for Mr Harris’s autograph. “When she reached the front of the queue, Harris “twice put his hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing“. She said she had initially thought it might have been an accident but then he touched her again.”

What crime might you get 9 months for?


http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php

Count 2: Indecent assault on a girl B, 14, between 1/1/75 and 1/1/76
Sentence : 6 months (consecutive)

Details:B was working as a waitress at a charity event when Mr Harris put his arm around her and down her back and over her bottom. “squeezing her left buttock a number of times“.

What crime might you get 6 months for?


3 – digital penetration of C’s vagina by spitting on his finger and putting it under her jeans for a minute – 15 months consecutive
4 – digital penetration of C’s vagina by spitting on his finger and putting it under her dungarees for a minute and a half - 15 months concurrent
5 – digital penetration of C’s vagina whilst C was staying with Mr Harris daughter (whilst she had left the room) - 15 months concurrent
6 - oral penetration of C’s vagina on the same occasion as Count 5 - 12 months concurrent
7 - digital penetration of C’s vagina whilst C was staying with Mr Harris daughter whilst she was asleep in the same room - 15 months consecutive
8- oral penetration of C’s vagina on the same occasion as Count 7 - 12 months concurrent
9 – digital penetration of C’s vagina whilst she was in Mr Harris swimming pool - 12 months consecutive
The news reports indicate that C was aged between 13 and 15 at the time of the offences. Some of this (seemingly the earlier parts) was behaviour that was alleged to have occurred outside of England and Wales, and so cannot be tried in this country. We don’t know if the jury accepted that evidence or not, and so Mr Harris should not be sentenced on the basis that the abuse started when C was 13.

The total sentence for offences relating to C is 42 months

What crime might you get nearly 4 years for?



Count 10: Indecent assault on 31/5/86 on girl D, aged 14
Count 11: Indecent assault on D on same day
Count 12: Indecent assault on D on same day
Details:

10 - putting his hand on her thigh over tights and knickers whilst she was sitting on his lap in public - 9 months concurrent
11 – putting D in a ‘forceful bear hug‘ and putting his hand down her top into her bra and playing with her breasts for 30 seconds - 9 months concurrent
12 digital penetration - 12 months consecutive
Sentence : Unclear



Unlawful wounding Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.20 - 5 years

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.47 - 5 years

Violent disorder Public Order Act 1986 s.2 - 5 years

Would you rather be groped than stabbed, glassed or cut?

Do you, a man, think a woman's emotional distress at being groped is worth so much more than a man being stabbed, glassed or cut? If so, may I say what a pussy-worshiping jerk I think you are.

As for the digital penetration that she said she suffered, you should bear in mind that she didn't object to it and went back for more.

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

Wednesday, 2 July 2014

An unsuccessful attempt to explain to a pleb the burden of proof

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts

Facebook friend
Poor Rolf.


Claire Khaw
You wouldn't like to be his daughter and watch your inheritance being swallowed up by greedy malicious lying sluts.

 Former Facebook Friend
You lot for real? HE IS GUILTY AS HELL!

Claire Khaw
Is he?

At the most he is guilty only on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof.

But that is not the criminal standard of proof, is it?

Guilty on the balance of probabilities can be expressed numerically as any number over 50 in 100.

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt should perhaps be expressed numerically as any number over 75 in 100.

Do you really think the jury understood the difference?

I rather doubt it was even put to them, and if it had been most layman are not capable of such nuanced thinking.

Most people prefer to think he is guilty just to sleep easy at night.

I am saying it should never have come to trial.

I am saying it is a LOGICAL error. A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

1 x 0 = 0

999,999 x 0 = 0

Even if there are many accusations, that in itself does not amount to evidence of the veracity of those accusations.

Probably, if you tried all those accusations SEPARATELY, they would not amount to proof BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

If they fail individually, then they cannot be bundled up together. The law used to give the accused such protection, but no longer. Because of this paedo hysteria, it was adjudged "compassionate" to make it easier for the complainant to succeed, presumably because the victim could only be an alpha male that the matriarchy wanted to be revenged upon.

The floodgates of witch-hunting have been opened. Who else will be next? Rupert Murdoch?

http://www.barristermagazine.com/article-listing/current-issue/the-cult-of-victimhood-and-the-limits-of-the-law-part-1.html

Facebook Friend
"A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt." That's right. Has Rolf been convicted of actual rape? If not then surely the judge must give him a non-custodial sentence - he's 84 for crying out loud.

Former Facebook Friend
No he never raped anybody, but he touched them in intimate places? hes been noted for doing this for decades? He is a dirty old man. Id say 12 month jail myself, and a big fine, to compensate the girls.

Claire Khaw
I am saying that logically none of the accusations made against him could amount to proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It is just his accusers' word against his.

If you are happy for any man with a bit of fame and wealth to be found guilty on the word of an immoral attention-seeking woman then you are entitled to your preference, but I prefer a different kind of society.

If you were his son you wouldn't like to have these immoral attention-seeking sluts seizing your inheritance and you would definitely be taking a different tone.

Former Facebook Friend
He was convicted by a Jury for god sake? The evidence was over whelming? The man is a sex pest!

Guilty on ALL charges too! You must be the only person in Britain who thinks he is innocent! Get real!

Claire Khaw
I am saying that the UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY of attention-seeking sluts who have messed up their lives is not evidence of his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Are you aware of the difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard of proof?

Which do you think is higher?

Former Facebook Friend
His daughters friend was only 13 FFS! He groomed her for ages them Molested her! Get lost madam, your off your head!

Claire Khaw
Are you aware of the difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard of proof?

Which do you think is higher?

Do you know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY?

Former Facebook Friend
I like rest of Britain feel cheated, Because I enjoyed this mans talent as a child.

Claire Khaw
It is a shame most people really cannot get what I am saying, or don't think it matters.

Former Facebook Friend
I know little of the Law? But I know that a JURY unaminously convicted Harris! Hes as guilty as hell! Hes been know as "Occtopus Harris in Australia for decades? Get real Clair?

Claire Khaw
Do you know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY?

You don't know and you don't care?

Former Facebook Friend
Yeah!

Claire Khaw
Plebs don't care and cannot be made to understand these things, I guess.

Former Facebook Friend
And im not spending all nite talking to you about a bloody Paedo!

Claire Khaw 
I am not talking about Harris, I am asking if you know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY. You are too lazy to even look it up.

Former Facebook Friend
Don't know which third World shithole you come from, but in ENGLAND we have a Jury system a thousand years old! IT WORKS!

Claire Khaw
I am not saying we should abolish the jury system.

Former Facebook Friend
YAWN!

Claire Khaw 
If you don't know what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY, just say so. Ignorant and arrogant, eh?

Former Facebook Friend
Claire! HARRIS convicted himself out of his own mouth? He wrote to his daughters friends Father in 1998, begging forgivness for molesting the child for godsake? Im a man who hates injustice too? That's why im a Nationalist? But Harris is guilty as hell!

I know what it is you argumentive asshol! NOW F-OFF!

Claire Khaw 
Yeah, he said he only had sex with her when she was over the age of consent.

Do you think you might die if you suddenly discovered what I mean by UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY? You seem to want to avoid even discussing it. It is a very English concept, I do assure you.

You might even learn something of your legal traditions if you asked yourself why I am going on about UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY.

I am not even saying Harris is definitely not guilty. In fact, I am saying he is probably guilty ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES.

But, hey, did you know that to be convicted of a CRIMINAL OFFENCE in this country, your legal tradition requires that you be found guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT?

It is such a shame that with plebs you cannot even discuss ideas with them without them getting upset with you.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

The more promiscuous the female, the more unreliable her grasp of truth and reality

She was an alcoholic.  

Was this point taken?

If the complainant is alleging that she only became an alcoholic because of the sex she had with Rolf Harris, one must wonder at the kind of parenting she received.

Did this complainant go on to become sexually promiscuous after the alleged sexual contact with Rolf Harris? Did her parents not notice, warn or advise her against such a lifestyle choice?

Is it just possible that she would have become sexually promiscuous anyway, even if she had never met Rolf Harris?

Her parents could have been cross-examined on what she was like as a daughter and when they noticed she was going wrong.

Is it possible that Rolf Harris would not have sexually abused her as she alleged if she had in some way suggested directly or indirectly that she welcomed his attentions?

Was Harris asked the occasion of his first sexual contact with her and asked to give all the gory details? Doing so would be necessary to establish the time of that first sexual encounter and also her age, as well as her demeanour.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-trial-five-key-3531845

She could have complained to Bindi if she really was such a close friend or told her parents or just not gone to his house any more, but she clearly preferred to continue going to his house and continuing to have sexual encounters to him. By going to the place of alleged abuse, she must be deemed to have consented and invited it. If she invited it, then it was not abuse.

  ******************************
Any wealthy British man is now vulnerable to these accusations and British men will be held in hatred, ridicule and contempt by men of other races and nations. Not only are they potential sex offenders, they are also afraid of their women, who are mostly sluts and feminazis. Only Islam will protect these men from their fearsome women now, it seems.

The feminazis have no idea what the damage they are doing to themselves even as they gloat that any retired alpha male can be punished by them on a whim.

I know at least two women who told me they had lost their viriginity  when they were 13. These days we all know that most liberally-parented 13 year old schoolgirls will think nothing of having sex and it would probably be difficult to find one who is still a virgin. So why all this hypocritical fuss over stale evidence?

I am surprised that Harris’ lawyer did not take the point about the bad character of his daughter’s friend who is now an alcoholic, and possibly the characters of the other complainants. The more promiscuous the female, the more unreliable her grasp of truth and reality.

(I am not sure why this is. Perhaps a promiscuous female just lies more because she has to, in order to make men find her attractive? And perhaps she lies to herself to tell her that it is OK to do what she does.)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201302/certain-aspects-promiscuity
Are promiscuous women by definition stupid, weak and defective in character?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201307/why-does-morality-focus-so-much-sex
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/how-marriage-worked-to-improve-quality.html

If they had not taken that point he should bloody well refuse to pay their fees.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_character_evidence/

Bad Character of Non-Defendants

"Non-defendants" are not defined in the Act but the term should include victims, whether or not they give evidence, the deceased in cases of homicide, witnesses, police officers who have been involved in the case, third parties who are not witnesses in the case and defence witnesses.

Evidence of bad character of non -defendants is admissible only through one of the three gateways in section 100 Criminal Justice Act 2003:

It is important explanatory evidence i.e. without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case; and its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial (section 100(2) CJA 2003);

It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is both in issue in the proceedings and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. In assessing this value the court must have regard to the following factors: The nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;

When those things or events are alleged to have happened or existed;

The nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct where the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct and it is suggested by the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct;

The extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time where the evidence is evidence of a persons misconduct and it is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged and the identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed;

Any other factors the court considers relevant;
All parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible. Prosecutors should only agree to admitting evidence of the bad character of a prosecution witness when one or both of the other gateways are satisfied or it is in the interests of justice to do so.

NB: The judge has no residual discretion to exclude evidence of a non-defendant's bad character once it is admissible.


http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/nigella-lawson-not-a-victim-of-the-criminal-justice-system/

Admissibility is governed by s 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

                        (1) In criminal proceedings evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant is admissible if and only if-

                                (a) it is important explanatory evidence,

                                (b) it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which-

                                          (i) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and

                                          (ii) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole; or

                                (c) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible.

Gateway (a) – important explanatory evidence

What might be important in this context is further defined in s 100(2) as follows:

                        (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) evidence is important explanatory evidence if-

                               (a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and

                                (b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

This allows for the admission of background evidence to put the circumstances in context. Such evidence can become admissible either as going to the facts of the case or as the bad character of the witness (as well as the defendant).

Gateway (b) – substantial probative value

The factors which might indicate probative value are generally those which indicate similarity of conduct and are set out in s 100(3) as follows:

                       (3) In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers                                                          relevant)-

                              (a) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;

                               (b) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;

                               (c) where-

                                          (i) the evidence is evidence of a person’s misconduct, and

                                         (ii) it is suggested that the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct,

                               the nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct;

                                (d) where-

                                      (i) the evidence is evidence of a person’s misconduct,

                                      (ii) it is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged,  and

                                     (iii) the identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed,

                                           the extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time.




What would I do if I were Rolf himself? Fight this to the bitter end. There is nothing left for him to do now anyway. Either die in disgrace or fight to the bitter end.

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

Idea for a TV show to prove that any man is now fair game by malicious lying sluts who want a piece of your fortune

Choose a man - any man - who will admit to having any kind of a heterosexual sex life in his youth.

Give him lots of publicity and say he has come into a great fortune.

Wait for the false rape and indecent assault claims to come rolling in.

Of course, the feminazi-controlled media wouldn't let such an idea fly.

It could be the 21st century equivalent of SMILE: YOU ARE ON CANDID CAMERA.

I suggest we call it MALICIOUS LYING ATTENTION-SEEKING SLUTS.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts
at 3 comments:
Labels: , ,

Evidence that jury were hopelessly confused by judge's directions and grounds for appeal, I would have thought

'We would like some clarification,' the note began, before going on to query if they could discuss the legal directions they'd been given 'as there seems some confusion'.
The note raised five points, including whether the jury was 'to judge each count independently'.

Harris is charged with 12 counts of indecent assault against four girls in the UK between 1968 and 1986.

The Australian's main accuser is a childhood friend of his daughter Bindi.

She claims Harris abused her from the age of 13 but he insists the pair had a 10-year consensual affair that started after she turned 18.

Jurors on Thursday asked: 'Is it allowed to stereotype what the victim should have done prior to an alleged offence taking place in more than one count or using it against them?'

Justice Sweeney responded by reminding the six men and six women of the lengthy legal directions he'd given them both in court and in writing.

They could, if they decided to, consider evidence from other complainants or witnesses when deciding each indecent assault charge, he said.

The judge also reiterated there was no classic or typical response to abuse.

'A late complaint does not necessarily signal a false complaint any more than an immediate complaint demonstrates it's true,' he said.

Justice Sweeney reminded jurors there was no stereotype for a sexual offence, a sex offender or a victim of sexual abuse.

- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/europe/2014/06/27/harris-jury-seeks-clarification.html#sthash.Z76aaB5m.dpuf

Are you any the wiser after reading this? If you think you are clear, then write me a point by point explanation of all the questions the jury asked and what you thought Justice Sweeney's directions were. Go on, I dare you.

This should be next year's exam question for law students.  Wouldn't this be fun? NOT.

Even better, why don't we get all the judges of Criminal Appeal to do this too and fucking PUBLISH WHAT THEY MAKE OF IT ONLINE, in terms a lay jury can understand?

Then we can get all the academic lawyers and philosophers to write papers on what they make of the crap they are bound to read.

What were those lengthy legal directions Justice Sweeney gave the jury? Therein will lie the grounds for appeal.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 1 July 2014

Rolf Harris is not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt

Is he?

At the most he is guilty only on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof.

But that is not the criminal standard of proof, is it?

Guilty on the balance of probabilities can be expressed numerically as any number over 50 in 100.

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt should perhaps be expressed numerically as any number over 75 in 100.
Do you really think the jury understood the difference?

I rather doubt it was even put to them, and if it had been most layman are not capable of such nuanced thinking.

Most people prefer to think he is guilty just to sleep easy at night.

I am saying it should never have come to trial.

I am saying it is a LOGICAL error. A complainant's uncorroborated testimony cannot amount to to proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

1 x 0 = 0

999,999 x 0 = 0

Even if there are many accusations, that in itself does not amount to evidence of the veracity of those accusations.

Probably, if you tried all those accusations SEPARATELY, they would not amount to proof BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

If they fail individually, then they cannot be bundled up together. The law used to give the accused such protection, but no longer. Because of this paedo hysteria, it was adjudged "compassionate" to make it easier for the complainant to succeed, presumably because the victim could only be an alpha male that the matriarchy wanted to be revenged upon.

The floodgates of witch-hunting have been opened. Who else will be next? Rupert Murdoch?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-not-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627
at 12 comments:
Labels: , , ,

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: , , , , , ,

Sunday, 11 May 2014

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

In the interests of justice Rolf Harris should be found not guilty even if he was

Even if he was guilty, I want him to get off because it sickens and disgusts me that such stale accusations that cannot be independently corroborated can even make it to court.


Against the persecution of men by the matriarchy
Should men like Rolf Harris be given the benefit of the doubt by the law, or should women who accuse men like Rolf Harris?
Please give reasons for your answer.
Like ·  · 




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624114/Rolf-Harris-trial-hears-confession-letter-alleged-victims-father.html

In the days before PC Libtardism and Feminism had complete matriarchal hegemony, if the Prosecution didn't think the evidence would stand up in trial, they wouldn't pursue it. They would never allow uncorroborated testimony to go to trial. Now of course they are obliged to take any stale accusation by any slag seriously, so it is only one person's word against another.

Who will the jury favour?

They will favour whoever they like most, of course.

How many unschooled plebs will allow themselves to think Harris probably did it after reading http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/rolf-harris-groped-eight-year-old-at-portsmouth-community-centre-1-6050507#.U24wTQ1_I8M.twitter? People like that don't care about principle, do they? People like that love sticking the knife into anyone who has had more success in life than they have, just cos they can.

An arrogant shit like Max Clifford never stood a chance.

Obviously, quite a few people are happy with a legal system in which only the popular get justice, but then people do get the government they deserve, don't they?

Most people are dumb plebs and don't get how being OK about this sort of accusation makes them vulnerable to accusations like this too.

A lot of it is just envy and the schandenfreude that lowly men get out of seeing the rich and famous brought low.

I would even go so far as to say that even if Rolf Harris and Max Clifford were in fact guilty I want them both to get off, because if they were found guilty on with this kind of evidence, innocent people will also in future be easily convicted on this kind of "evidence" too. One of these days these innocent people will be people known to us who are family, neighbours and friends or even - SHOCK HORROR - ourselves.


"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

It is worthwhile to note that the actual numbers are not generally seen as important, so much as the idea that the State should not cause undue or mistaken harm "just in case". Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.


Obviously, these people who gloat and say "no smoke without fire" think it will never happen to them, particularly if they are female. But you could be female and still be the victim of this sort of thing if your father were accused and had to pay compo to these false accusers out of what you would have inherited, like Louise Clifford, or if you are the wife of a man falsely accused.

I certainly don't want some alcoholic slag who fucked up her life to ruin my childhood memory of Rolf Harris because she couldn't bring herself to say no, or her mother never thought to tell her to say no, or if her liberal parents were just too dumb and negligent to issue all the proper warnings an adolescent female would need to be issued with to see that she is not sexually exploited and abused by any passing sex predator.

I know even saying this sort of thing leaves you vulnerable to accusations of being a "paedo supporter", but at least I am not the kind of paedo supporter that Harriet Harman is.

It is time British parents were taught how to properly parent and for sex and relationship education to be properly taught since most of them these days are dumb degenerate liberal parents who no longer know how to parent their adolescent daughters.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/sex-and-relationship-education.html

I know of an Asian parent who refuses to let her daughter go on any sleep-overs unless she has spoken to her parents. Interestingly, she has not expressed the slightest interest in learning any English.  She probably knows about the English to be aware that the average British mother has a 50/50 chance of being an SSM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html who probably has some paedo shacked up with her or a queue of unsuitable men waiting outside her bedroom door hoping to bang her or her daughter, or her daughter's friends, preferably all at the same time.

"If paedophiles are mosquitoes, then SSMs are stagnant pools of water."  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1299400/Fathers-sleazy-mothers-lazy-What-au-pair-REALLY-thinks-you.html

The worst example of a British parent not taking responsibility can be found in the infamous and embarrassing story of Fiona McKeown.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/minister-says-dead-girls-mother-was-irresponsible-794456.html At least, I was embarrassed enough to suggest that the police charge her with aiding and abetting the commission of a sexual offence against her own daughter by allowing the holiday guide to have sex with her under-aged daughter, but I already know that the average liberal parent feels no shame and takes no responsibility, and will be very angry with me indeed for pointing this out.

I welcome their hatred.

Remember, gentlemen, that the modus operandi of the matriarchy is to tempt men into having sex with sluts and then use this against them later. The solution for men is to admit that they need protection from sluts and admit that they are the weaker sex as far as saying no to no-strings sex is concerned.  To give men sex is as easy as giving someone who is permanently hungry a free meal.  To get a woman to give you sex is like getting a woman to cook you a meal, and nothing feminists can think of will gainsay this fact of life and human nature.

Who will be next if Rolf Harris falls?  Walt Disney?



How many elderly and dead white males will these DISGUSTING feminists and slags out for a bit of compo have in their sights?  

I may not be white and I may not be male, but I want it on record that someone - even if it was only me - protested at this evil and insanity while the degenerate beta males living in a matriarchy joined in the denunciation of paedos, gloated as the formerly alpha males they envied for their success fell into disgrace, or cowered or pretended not to notice. You all know who you are.  

Solution: NO MORE FUCKING SLEEP-OVERS.  Most of us already know - like that Asian parent who refuses to learn English obviously does - that that is when most teens in the West get together to watch porn, have under-aged sex, get knocked up, take drugs and get drunk, don't we?    

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

I suppose in view of the above there is a reason why 2:282 seems to suggest that that one man's testimony is to be treated as equivalent to two women's.  http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php  The Koran also warns men about their wives at http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=64&verse=14


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 23 January 2014

A statute of limitations on sexual assault

http://teenadvice.about.com/od/sexuallyactive/a/statutoryrape1.htm

What is the statute of limitations on statutory rape? 

The statute of limitations on statutory rape varies from state to state and depends on whether the crime is prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony. A misdemeanor is considered less serious than a felony and in most states it carries a shorter statute of limitations. Whether an incident of statutory rape is prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony often depends on the age difference between the two parties. For example, in California the statute of limitations on misdemeanor statutory rape is one year and is charged when the two people involved are less than three years apart in age at the time of the crime, if the two people are more than three years apart at the time of the crime the charge become a felony and the statute of limitations increases to three years. To find out more about the differences between misdemeanor and felony statutory rape, including the statutes of limitations on each, contact your state Attorney Generals Office.

I rather think Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, the late Jimmy Savile, DLT, Lord Rennard et al and other men who might be looking over their shoulder now might just be supportive of my proposal.

If I were leader of a political party, this is what I would propose, though I imagine not even Nick Griffin (and most certainly not Nigel Farage who is such a moral coward that he refuses to contemplate proposing the repeal of the Equality Act 2010 even when the constitution of UKIP would certainly support his doing so) would touch this with a barge-pole, such is the cowardice of effeminate British male politicians these days.

at No 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...