The burden and standard of proof required for a conviction against American men is now uncertain

If the Democrats prevent Judge Kavanaugh's appointment from taking place in this round of Trump-bashing, it will be even more blurred and uncertain afterwards.

Men in particular should note this inevitability. Hey, how long is Bill Crosby going to be in prison? How long will you be in prison if a malicious and false accusation is believed by the judge and jury?

"We believe survivors!"

What is wrong with this sentence?

These women accusing Judge Kavanaugh are called "survivors". Once you call these possibly false and malicious accusers "survivors", you are assuming the guilt of Judge Kavanaugh.

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

— Confucius

Too bad with so many Jewish lawyers in America, not a single one of them has yet come forward to mention Deuteronomy 19:15

One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Perhaps all the Jews and gentiles of America have collectively lost their so-called Judeo-Christian heritage all at the same time. If so, they shouldn't be complaining about acquiring an Islamic one because they sure as hell need a religion that promotes patriarchal moral values to stop immoral women from taking over the ship of state and crashing Western civilisation on to the rocks, where all the men are lower than immoral women who can silence any man by accusing him of a historic sexual offence.

Is rape culture a feminist conspiracy to discourage men from going to university?

Is this to make them even lower in status to the promiscuous woman?

This will make them angry, bitter, violent and criminal. 

Feminists will use this fact to call for ever more repressive measures against men, causing them to become even more angry, bitter, violent and criminal and so the vicious circle will continue, until the parasites overwhelm the host and resort to cannibalism ... 

Notice how no feminist will discuss any of these issues or answer any questions you might reasonably ask?

Well, they already control the media. Even the men are feminazi appointees and already castrated, especially BBC male presenters with girly haircuts and glasses on Sunday who call themselves Nicky.  

You can fight back risking your liberty, or let the acid bath of feminism wash all over you and everything you hold dear. 

Time for Western men to realise that the burden of proof in a rape case is for the accused to prove his innocence ie a negative and the standard of proof required for the prosecution to convict the accused of rape is no longer the criminal standard of proof ie beyond reasonable doubt.

Why don't male criminal lawyers say something about this? Because they are already cucked and afraid of their female colleagues in the legal profession falsely accusing them of rape, probably. In Britain, the Director of Public Prosecutions is female, so male lawyers practising in the field of criminal law dare not even be seen to be discussing ideas with someone who uses the word "feminazi" ie me.

https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Antfem%20to%3ALukeSGittos1986&src=typd 
has my tweets to Luke Gittos. He has deleted all his tweets to me after blocking me, presumably for using the word "feminazi" in case any of his female colleagues report him to the Directrix of Public Prosecutions and ruin his career. 

Be afraid. Be very very afraid, not just for yourself, but for the future of your civilisation.

When men are so morally corrupt they let every principle slide for the sake of expediency because they no longer believe in God and no longer care to defend truth, logic and morality, you know your civilisation is fucked. Even the women know this intuitively. That is why they want migrant men to come to the West and prefer to be raped by them rather than breed with contemptible cucks who are so spineless they wouldn't know what a principle is, let alone what it is for, even when it comes up and kicks them in the place where their balls should be. 
 

A warning to men who are BMVOF*: things will get much worse very quickly if you continue to ignore the problem of feminism 

Our matriarchy does not care about BMVOF. Being a matriarchy, they will always prioritise the concerns of female voters whose support is crucial to winning any election.

The more men become BMVOF, the more feminists will use these men as evidence that men are inferior to women, and claim more privileges against men, creating even more BMVOF creating more evidence men are inferior to women, increasing the female demand for more privileges against men etc etc. Feminists don't care about male mental health. The more neurotic he is, the more vulnerable to feminine manipulation he is. Eventually the few men allowed to live will be drones for the purpose of mating with the queen and the only female allowed to mate is the queen. Male chicks and bulls are routinely destroyed, for obvious reasons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/hatched-discarded-gassed-what-happens-to-male-chicks-in-the-uk-10088509.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull

Other than the few bulls needed for breeding, the vast majority of male cattle are slaughtered for meat before the age of three years, except where they are needed (castrated) as work oxen for haulage.

Points to bear in mind about the imperative of defeating feminism:

1. Men who want legitimate male offspring must campaign ruthlessly to abolish no fault divorce to clear the decks for themselves, or else be financially ruined by the rules of no fault divorce which will in addition deprive of them of access to their children by their malicious and vengeful ex-wives.

2. Men who want to defeat feminism must not put the cart of sexual access before the horse of re-establishing the patriarchy.

3. Men who want to defeat feminism must not put the cart of marriage before the horse of abolishing no fault divorce.

4. Men unprepared to defend marriage who do not send the vile baggage of feminism packing really do not deserve to have offspring.

5. A nation that has no senior and honourable men prepared to acknowledge the need to re-establish patriarchy through uncompromisingly supporting marriage does not deserve to survive.

6. A nation whose senior male politicians are too morally degenerate and intellectually dishonest they cannot acknowledge that marriage is the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy does not deserve to survive.

7. A nation in which no  respectable or honourable men of talent or political ambition can publicly acknowledge that marriage is the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy does not deserve to survive.

8. A nation in which no men of talent or political ambition can acknowledge that nationhood cannot exist without the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy does not deserve to survive.

9. A nation in which no men of talent, leadership or political ambition can be bestir themselves to challenge and defeat the matriarchy because they are atheists and do not care what happens to their country after they are dead does not deserve to survive.

*BMVOF - Beta Male Victims of Feminism

How do you prove that you didn't have sex with a lying schoolgirl who said you did?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850960/RE-teacher-accused-18-month-affair-girl-pupil-claims-vain-stalker-teenager-up.html

She told jurors that Kerner took her virginity in one of the store cupboards, and claimed he had once taken her for a day-long sex session at his home while his wife at work.

How would you prove that you didn't take the virginity of a schoolgirl in a store cupboard, on a yoga mat, or that you didn't take her out for a day-long sex session in your home while your wife was at work?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teacher-stuart-kerner-who-took-4755793

The English tradition that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt has been suspended in the case of men accused of a historic sexual offence, but no English lawyer seems to have noticed this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Is it because they are mostly female these days?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/23/more-female-solicitors-than-men-scotland-law

The rate at which women are being appointed judges is gathering momentum in a “snowball effect”, ensuring gender equality on the bench is not that far away

Male students are outnumbered by females at most UK universities. 

the latest Law Society statistics show that that 62.4% of students accepted onto LLB courses in England and Wales in 2012 were women 

The Division is led by the Lord Chief Justice, currently Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, assisted by the Vice-President of the Criminal Division, currently Lady Justice Hallett.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Appeal_of_England_and_Wales#Criminal_Division

Lady Justice Hallett: 'Senior judge propositioned me after getting me promotion'

Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. If he did, perhaps he was joking. It is unlikely now that he will come forward and say he was only joking, is he? Feminazis complaining about sexism are infamous for their humourlessness. What if a male judge dissents from Lady Justice? It would be the easiest thing in the world for her to accuse him of a historic sexual offence to get him to toe the feminazi line. Just the mere hint of a threat would be enough. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8875040/Lady-Justice-Hallett-profile.html

Thomas is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration.

As for Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, it does sound like he will be voting to remain on 23 June 2016. This makes him a liberal, and we know what liberal judges do to the beta male victims of feminism, don't we?

@realkatykerner @ntfem @snook1111pie @Alvhun @prisonerben1 - Court of Criminal Appeal has a very poor reputation

— A woman writing (@BarbaraHewson) May 24, 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thomas,_Baron_Thomas_of_Cwmgiedd

Don't expect things to improve if Britain votes to remain in the EU. Expect it to get much much worse and be very very afraid, especially if you are a beta male victim of feminism. You have no one at all to represent your interests because all the leaders of all the political parties are chasing the female vote and are terrified of alienating their female voters.

If you are poor, old and ugly, you already fit the profile of the average paedophile perfectly.

If you are wealthy and successful, you will probably have a queue of lying sluts saying you sexually assaulted them decades ago.  YOUR WEALTH AND SOCIAL STATUS IS NO PROTECTION.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/why-alpha-male-no-longer-exists-in.html

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 [of established legal tradition ie the right of anyone accused of a crime to a fair trial to establish his guilt *beyond reasonable doubt*], the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3538907/The-feminising-justice-makes-hard-men-charged-rape-fair-trial-writes-human-rights-lawyer-BARBARA-HEWSON.html

By the way, Britain has no alpha male though the are men who have alpha (ie leadership) qualities. If you are a man and have not yet been a victim of feminism, it doesn't mean it won't happen to you, only that it hasn't happened yet.

Oh, and the Directrix of Public Prosecutions is female.

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

The head of the Crown Prosecution Service in London says that the demonization of young women in the media, especially those who’ve been out drinking, is contributing to the low conviction rate in rape cases.

Feminazis hate footballers

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/calling-out-false-abuse-allegations/18349

One defence lawyer has said that 70 per cent of cases in Crown Courts now are sex cases. The CPS (65 per cent of whose workforce is female) evidently has no concept of age discrimination. It zealously prosecutes offenders ranging in age from 12 to 101.

The more promiscuous the women, the higher the number of rape complaints.

Sweden has the highest rate of reported rape in Europe – about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants. 

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/DP_Supply%20and%20Desire_61_amended_web.pdf

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/379367/Are-some-people-just-too-stupid-to-serve-on-a-jury

Stuart Kerner - another miscarriage of justice by the feminazi legal establishment?

Why is BBC News still referring to teacher Stuart Kerner's "affair" when convicted of child sexual abuse? http://t.co/WTqPaclrVs @BBCNews
— John Devaney (@JDev65) January 15, 2015

@ntfem @cumiskey @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 @BBCNews Well you'd be justified in doing so, this man was falsely accused, no offence committed
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@ntfem @cumiskey @DuncanSlamm Yes Claire he is innocent, he never laid a finger on her, she's a dangerous fantasist and liar
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 @BBCNews If you were familiar with court case you would know he maintains innocence, verdict was
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 @BBCNews Huge shock given the evidence, or rather absence of evidence. This is a miscarriage of justic
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 You are obviously unfamiliar with how police courts operate. It is very easy for any man
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 To be convicted of a sexual offence on he said/she said evidence and nothing more
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 Police build cases they do not investigate or follow evidence that suggests the accused is innocent
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 Police cps are chasing conviction targets, they don't care whether innocent men are behind bars
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@ntfem @cumiskey @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 http://t.co/0rRhsyATja here's a starting point . I know this case and this couple, he is innocent
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm Lets hope it never happens to you , all it needs is a an allegation from a bitter ex , vengeful family member
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 Yes the police are so honest and upstanding , I am a woman not a man, my husband was falsely accused
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 As I said before I hope you never have the misfortune to find out. The police are not what you think
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@FAccused @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 was your husband sent to the slamer?
— Adam Cumiskey (@cumiskey) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem pic.twitter.com/gWc14l0RiN
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @FAccused It was a slut schoolgirl known to be a liar whose word was taken at face value against two figures of authority.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @FAccused Again, I ask: was the word of a known liar taken at face value and Kerner found guilty on that basis alone?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem No case dropped before trial when police/cps finally looked at evidence we had disproving, but lot of damage already done
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem Cost us £20k in legal fees and other costs, he wasn't allowed home for over a year. Have since met many others in same boat
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem I never said that everyone is innocent, but a number of accused are innocent this includes Stuart kerner
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 How can cps make valid decision when police refuse to investigate impartially only building prosecutio
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 You can't get a fag paper between police and cps they are both in the business of increasing
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem @DuncanSlamm @JDev65 Convictions regardless of the evidence, guilt or innocence
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem how is it demolished, we were only lucky as we paid to instruct experienced defence team
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem being evicted from your own home with an hours notice, having your children;s school informed that you are a suspected
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

@cumiskey @ntfem paedophile and they are as a result bullied , And the false accuser walks away unpunished
— falsely accused (@FAccused) January 21, 2015

Word of a schoolgirl known to be a liar given more weight than two adults in position of authority.

This is the SHIT of living in a matriarchy run by feminazis.

Who is a feminazi? The Director of Public Prosecutions for a start.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Feminazi Agenda of Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions

Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women:

"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."

Teacher, 44, who escaped jail for sex with 16-year-old virgin pupil launches appeal against CONVICTION

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

The grounds on which Max Clifford should appeal

William Blackstone:

"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer."

The reason for this suddenly became clear to me after Max Clifford was found guilty.  While I think he probably did do it, I also wanted him to be found not guilty because I do not believe that any evidence adduced after such a lapse of time can ever be reliable enough to satisfy a criminal standard of proof.

While it is true that Clifford was arrogant and mocked his accusers playing the fool mimicking a television journalist behind his back, what he did does not call for an eight year sentence for a 71 year old man.  The term "cruel and unusual punishment" comes to mind.

If Clifford had been less arrogant or even obviously submissive, he might have got off.  So there we are: the British are now a people reduced to thinking it is all right only to give justice only to people they like, screw procedural fairness and the burden of proof. Nationalists gloating that a Labour supporter such as Clifford has now got his comeuppance should reflect on how popular nationalists and nationalism are to the average juror.

Am I the only one who thinks eight years for what he was alleged to have done so many years ago by so many women who wanted to get into showbiz (and we know what kind of women these tend to be) just a little excessive?

Also, it occurs to me that the sheer number of these allegations was reason enough to have these charges tried separately, or the barely schooled plebs on the jury would soon think in their barely schooled plebeian way that the number of these allegations was evidence itself of their veracity. Not everyone can be as consistently impartial and logical like me, after all. Not even my detractors would deny that I would probably be a senior member of the judiciary by now if I had taken all the necessary career turnings, and then be out on my ear like poor old Sir Paul Coleridge who dared to defend the only institution that would protect and maintain the patriarchy - marriage. That was why the matriarchy made him resign for daring to be so controversial as to promote - SHOCK HORROR - marriage. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526180/Anger-judge-forced-resign-championing-marriage-Sir-Paul-Coleridge.html

In a matriarchy, the right to have extramarital sex is sacred while speaking in defence of marriage these days is concerned career-threatening blasphemy. This is the kind of country Britain has now become, suffering from homosexuality, gay marriage and dementia, as Robert Mugabe so delicately put it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-i-brokered-a-peace-deal-with-robert-mugabe-roy-agyemang-reveals-the-delicate-diplomacy-needed-to-get-zimbabwes-president-to-sit-down-with-the-bbc-9268511.html

While it would have been obviously cheaper to throw all the charges at Clifford all at the same time, it is quite obvious that in a case like this, where the evidence can be so easily made up, and the number of women probably doing it for revenge and gain reckless with the truth these days so high, it is not safe for all the charges to be made one after another at the same trial, because it gives such a bad impression of the accused, especially when it is just one person's word against another.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious that the interests of justice would have required a separate trial for each allegation, especially allegations of this nature.

The way the judge went on about unproven allegations and treated them as if they had been was quite unpardonable.

Pertinent to count 3-6 is the evidence of what you did to a 12 year old girl
whilst she was on holiday in Puerto Cabopino. I am satisfied so that I am sure
on the evidence which the jury heard that this amounted to another sexual
offence against a young child. Had the offence not taken place abroad and at a
time when it was not justiciable here you would have been charged with
indecent assault in relation to it. 

23. This girl became a holiday friend of your daughter. Having groomed her by
playing a tickling game with her in the swimming pool, you got her parents’
permission to take her to a Jacuzzi in the hotel complex. 

24. Whilst your daughter was absent and you were in the Jacuzzi with the 12 year
old you put your hand down her bikini and onto her pubic mound and asked if
she was ticklish there. You then got hold of her hand and moved it onto your
erect penis and started moving her hand up and down quite slowly. You
stopped when your daughter came to the Jacuzzi

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

Interestingly, nowhere has it been said that Clifford has been found guilty of this.

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/05/02/max-clifford-sentenced/

Mr Clifford was sentenced as follows (date and age of victim in brackets) :

Count 3 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 12 months
Count 4 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 18 months, consecutive
Count 5 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 24 months, consecutive
Count 6 – (aged 15, in 1977/78) – 24 months, concurrent
Count 8 – (aged 19, in 1981/82) – 6 months, consecutive
Count 9 – (aged 16 or 17, in 1980′s) – 6 months, concurrent
Count 10 – (aged 16 or 17, in 1980′s) – 21 months, consecutive
Count 11 – (aged 18, in 1984/85) – 15 months, consecutive

The individual sentences are not far off what we had predicted, but the total is, as we said, double what we had predicted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2618575/Victims-fury-stars-backed-untouchable-Clifford-predator-jailed-eight-years.html#ixzz30r5y8g3s

The judge also said he believed the accounts of six women whom Clifford was not charged over but who were prosecution supporting witnesses at his trial.

Their ‘compelling evidence’ included how Clifford sexually abused a 12-year-old girl in a Jacuzzi during a family holiday in Spain in 1983.

Note that Clifford has not been found guilty of sexually abusing the 12 year old girl.  Yet this "evidence" was deemed to be "compelling" enough to convict him of the other charges.

Surely shome mistake?  It really does sound like Judge Leonard has got his judicial knickers in a twist over that.

It is to be hoped that what I have said will furnish grounds for appeal for poor old Maxie, but if not I shall be happy to visit him in prison to cheer him up and give him opportunities of proposing to me.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/some-views-on-conviction-of-max-clifford.html

He may want a new wife soon and I think I could deal with a husband who is mostly away with no danger of unreasonable sexual demands being made upon me.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/why-would-any-englishman-want-to-marry.html