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

On the balance of probabilities, I would have convicted. For proof beyond reasonable doubt, I would have had to acquit.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT
Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division
and
LORD JUSTICE TREACY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

Regina
-and-
Stuart Robert John Kerner

Hearing dates: 8 & 9 March 2016

42. The applicant Stuart Kerner was tried on an indictment containing eight counts in the Crown Court at Inner London. On 5 December 2014 he was convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child whilst in a position of trust (counts 5 and 7). On counts 1 to 4 (inclusive), 6 and 8 he was acquitted. Those counts were allegations of either sexual activity with a child or sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust. The difference between those charges arose from the fact that sexual activity with a child was charged where the complainant was aged 15; sexual activity with a child in a position of trust was charged where the complainant had attained 16 years.

43. His application for leave to appeal has been referred to this court by the single judge.

The factual background
44. Kerner is a teacher with over 20 years’ experience with, inter alia, responsibility for ethics. The complainant, C, was a pupil at his school. It was acknowledged that she had behavioural problems and that she had told significant lies about herself and was an attention seeker. For example, she falsely claimed over a period of time to have been involved in a road traffic accident and that a heart defect had been discovered. She had obtained free school meals after falsely complaining that her mother had not provided food or money. There was evidence that C had formed an attraction towards the applicant and had engineered events so as to be close to him.

45. The eight counts on the indictment represented sexual activity which C said had taken place over a period between March 2011 and November 2012. Count 5 represented an incident at the end of February 2012 which C asserted was the first occasion upon which full vaginal intercourse had taken place. She also said that anal sex took place on that day. Count 7 represented events on 3 October 2012, an occasion when C said she had visited Kerner’s home for the first time and sexual relations took place.

46. The defence advanced was that no sexual activity had ever taken place between the pair.

The counts on the indictment which reflected matters recorded in C’s diary represented a fantasy on her part.

The summing up
47. The judge directed the jury to return separate verdicts in relation to each count having considered the evidence in relation to each count separately. If the jury was not sure on any count that Kerner had intentionally touched C as alleged, they should acquit. She went on to say that a central issue was whether C was a truthful and reliable witness. In the light of evidence which had been given about C’s character and honesty, the judgegave the following direction:

“It is open to you to find the defendant guilty even if you conclude that there is no corroboration or supporting evidence of C’s allegations if you are sure she is telling the truth and is a reliable witness. If, on the other hand, you retain some reservations as to whether C is a truthful and reliable witness, and therefore are not prepared to rely solely on her evidence, you will then want to look to see if there is any corroboration or supporting evidence which, despite any reservations you might have about C and the quality of her evidence, nevertheless drives you to the conclusion that you can be sure that the defendant is guilty.”

The issues on counts 5 and 7
48. Counts 5 and 7 were different from the remaining counts which depended solely on the word of C.

49. The events relating to count 5 were alleged to have taken place at the school during the school day at a time when C should have been in class. Examination of the electronically maintained school attendance records showed that there had been a suspicious alteration of the records as to C’s attendance for the material time. At the same time the applicant had free periods. Kerner and C were the only two realistic candidates for having altered the records. C would have needed to acquire a password in order to do so; Kerner had the password.

50. In relation to count 7 records showed that C and Kerner were away from school at the material time. C was able to give a detailed description of the layout of Kerner’s house which she said she had attended, contrary to Kerner’s denial. Cell site analysis of the applicant’s phone, of which C would have been unaware at the time she gave her account, showed a picture of movements of that phone consistent with C’s account of having been picked up by Kerner near the school and then driven some distance to his home where sexual activity took place, before being returned to the school.

51. The judge put the competing arguments as to the significance of the supporting evidence fully and fairly before the jury. Mr Ellis’ attempt on behalf of Kerner to portray that evidence as having been “neutralised” was wholly misconceived.

Our conclusion on the alleged inconsistency of the verdicts
52. The primary ground of appeal advanced on behalf of Kerner is that there is a logical inconsistency between the verdicts on counts 5 and 7 and the remaining counts.

53. Our conclusion is that no such inconsistency exists; the verdicts can stand together.

There is nothing unreasonable in the jury’s conclusion. As the judge foresaw in her direction to the jury, counts 5 and 7 might be viewed in a different light from the remaining counts which depended wholly on the word of C. In the case of counts 5 and 7, there was the supporting evidence which we have identified.

54. We conclude that the jury’s verdicts represent close attention to the judge’s direction and that they were only prepared to find allegations against the applicant proved where there was supporting evidence. There is thus a clear distinction between counts 5 and 7 and the other counts which leads us to reject the main ground of appeal.

The other grounds of the application for leave to appeal
55. There are subsidiary grounds of appeal.

56. The first of these asserts that by reason of a failure by the school to retain full child protection records and a failure by the police to carry out a DNA sweep of Kerner’s car and home, the trial was rendered unfair. We reject that submission. The absence of some records was raised during the trial by the defence and the jury were reminded of the issue in summing up. In any event the jury were well aware of the issues surrounding C’s credibility. It is impossible to see how any additional records could have improved Kerner’s position further. Again the issue of a failure by the police to subject the applicant’s car and home to DNA analysis, sometime after the alleged events, was raised at the trial and commented on by the judge in summing up. Both of those were matters for the jury’s consideration in deciding whether it could be sure that guilt on any count was shown. No arguable unfairness arises. We note that there was no suggestion at the trial that it should be adjourned or halted by reason of the absence of this material.

57. A further ground submits that there must be a lurking doubt as to the safety of the convictions. In this context, matters going to the credibility of C were raised, and reliance was placed on comments made by the judge at the time of verdict and in passing sentence. We are not persuaded that there is any arguable ground. The evidence as to C’s credibility was fully before the jury, and the views of the trial judge are, with respect, irrelevant. The decision in the case was for the jury not for the judge.

58. We deprecate the use of the phrase “lurking doubt” as it represents an invitation to this court to substitute its view for that of the jury. The question for this court is whether by reason of the matters raised the convictions are unsafe. For the reasons given, we dismiss this application.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6986824/Teacher-who-had-sex-with-schoolgirl-launches-appeal-against-child-sex-convictions-after-judge-claims-she-groomed-HIM.html

 "They said CB had a vast amount of information about Mr Kerner's private life, details that nobody could have known unless they were in a relationship with him.

"They used evidence from a computerised register system which they said Mr Kerner altered to make it look like CB was in a class when she wasn't, and also relied on cell site evidence."


"Each of those grounds was subject to cross examination and found to be unreliable.


"It was found that CB could have learned the personal information by overhearing it or being told by other students.

"She stalked my client and found out a vast amount about his movements and personal life.

"As for the computer system, it transpired that anyone could have made the alterations as long as they had his password. Mr Kerner also gave evidence that he sometimes left his computer unlocked.

"And the cell site evidence was nullified when it was shown that it could support either side.

"The judge was clearly of the view that evidence was not sufficient for conviction, and this was reflected in her comments and the sentence she passed."

 

BRITISH JUSTICE: Family Court Judge declares man guilty of a crime WITHOUT A CRIMINAL TRIAL

Poppi Worthington's father found to have abused her before her death https://t.co/itbKT3NnpU via @MailOnline

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

https://t.co/itbKT3NnpU Man found guilty but will not be charged because of absence of evidence. How do you feel about British justice?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

https://t.co/itbKT3NnpU Man found guilty on the balance of probabilities. How does that make you feel about British justice?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@uk_criminal_law Isn't Justice Jackson's judgement ultra vires? A civil court finds a man guilty of an imprisonable offence.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@colin_star @BBCNews Isn't Justice Jackson's judgement ultra vires? A Family Court finds a father guilty of a crime.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@PaulSeery The item that has most caught my idea today is about the father who was convicted of a very serious crime in a family court.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@PaulSeery British justice these days means that a civil court can convict you of a crime. It has happened TWICE already.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@snooziflooze @DVATW Are you familiar with the concept of the standard of proof and aware that it is different in civil and criminal courts?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@snooziflooze @DVATW Do you think it is right a family court can find a man guilty of a very serious crime on the balance of probabilities?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@snooziflooze @DVATW Do you know that the standard of proof in a civil court is the balance of probabilities and higher in a criminal court?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@JMichaelOGarra This is 2nd time now in Britain that a civil court has found a man guilty of a CRIME. Why isn't the legal profession AGHAST?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@hanabusa_haru Are you familiar with the concept of STANDARD OF PROOF? Being Japanese, probably not.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

CPS shd review Poppi death to establish criminal liability -says former Justice minister Simon Hughes @BBCr4today

— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) January 20, 2016

@fabulousmrg @BBCNormanS @BBCr4today It seems I wait in vain for the legal profession to invoke the Latin phrase term ultra vires.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@LeonieThomas18 Ultra vires means beyond the power, in this case beyond the power of the body making the decision.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@LeonieThomas18 If you are a civil court, you do not have the power to find a party to litigation guilty of a crime, for example.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@LeonieThomas18 Another example is a magistrates court finding you guilty of a war crime. It just does not have the power to do so.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@LeonieThomas18 I am afraid these legal distinctions will be lost on the mob calling for Paul Worthington to be hung, drawn and quartered.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

Me & Sir Mark Potter on @BBCr4today at 8.10 re Poppi Worthington case & risks of 'ghost' miscarriages of justice https://t.co/3A1OmYs9Ev …

— Dr Hannah Quirk (@HannahQuirk1) January 20, 2016

Judge rules Poppi sexually assaulted by father. Awful case but worrying trend of guilt being decided outside trials? https://t.co/JXVemANkMu

— Dr Hannah Quirk (@HannahQuirk1) January 19, 2016

@GhandisOBlocked @HannahQuirk1 Yes, it is guilt ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@Sanchia7 Still no mention of ultra vires from the legal profession about Family Court finding man guilty of a CRIME.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@BarbaraHewson @HannahQuirk1 No way would that kind of evidence convict a defendant BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT but let's have a go anyway ...

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@BarbaraHewson @HannahQuirk1 @DM20120 No science training is necessary to use deductive reasoning about there being INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@BarbaraHewson @HannahQuirk1 @DM20120 Anyway, even if he Paul Worthington did kill his daughter what business is it of any of ours?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@BarbaraHewson @HannahQuirk1 @DM20120 If filicide were legalised, would all parents kill their children? I rather doubt it.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@BarbaraHewson @HannahQuirk1 @DM20120 Most parents love their children and want them to grow into adults without sexually abusing them.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@HannahQuirk1 @Barristerblog @BBCr4today Yes, you were much better than Sir Mark Potter who sounded like he was prevaricating on EVERYTHING.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@HannahQuirk1 @Barristerblog @JoshuaRozenberg @danbunting @JusticeGap British justice now infamous for saying one thing and doing another.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@HannahQuirk1 @Barristerblog @JoshuaRozenberg @danbunting @JusticeGap UK lawyers now infamous for forgetting fundamental legal principles.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@HannahQuirk1 @Barristerblog You made an intriguing point about Justice Jackson sitting in appeal against his own decision. Do elaborate.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@HannahQuirk1 @Barristerblog @JoshuaRozenberg @danbunting @JusticeGap Can you name anr case of a man found guilty of CRIME in a CIVIL court?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/in-defence-of-lutfur-rahman.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/lutfur-rahmans-grounds-for-appeal.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/conclusive-evidence-judgement-against_27.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/if-police-dont-find-sufficient-evidence.html

@HannahQuirk1 @Barristerblog Poppy Worthington story is much much worse n sinister than a father being found guilty of killing his daughter.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

This Poppy Worthington case is very disturbing ...there are so many questions #r4today

— Bob Hawkins (@salvatorRosa) January 20, 2016

@RichardADixon @fatherscontact Was Paul Worthington found guilty in a CRIMINAL court then? Was there a CRIMINAL trial?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@timmarshallking @fatherscontact @BBCNews Whoever heard of a Family Court Judge sitting as a Criminal Judge? Only in England, eh?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@Star_child2015 @fatherscontact @BBCNews You are sure Paul Worthington killed his daughter then? In which court was he convicted?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@debsknig @bigstace9 In which court was Paul Worthington found guilty of abusing his daughter?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@GhandisOBlocked @HannahQuirk1 You consider Paul Worthington an innocent man, do you? But he has been declared guilty by Justice Jackson.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@GhandisOBlocked @HannahQuirk1 How do you explain this report then?https://t.co/1zjvNMOgDQ

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@HannahQuirk1 @Barristerblog @JoshuaRozenberg @danbunting @JusticeGap Read paragraph 65 carefully at https://t.co/qIXbgA0eqI

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@HannahQuirk1 " ... nappy ... contained significant amounts of DNA from P *and a male other than the father* ... " https://t.co/qIXbgA0eqI

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@MollyLou01 @XenoPoesis @GhandisOBlocked @HannahQuirk1 Was it wrong to report that Justice Jackson had declared Paul Worthington guilty?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@HannahQuirk1 @Barristerblog @JoshuaRozenberg @danbunting @JusticeGap I also draw your attention to para 137 at https://t.co/qIXbgA0eqI

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

DNA - not Paul Worthington's - was found in the nappy of Poppy Worthington. How cd Justice Jackson have missed this? https://t.co/5pErIsc4zB

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@ntfem @XenoPoesis @HannahQuirk1 @MollyLou01 pic.twitter.com/OhOyWe1pRX

— GhandiOBlocked (@GhandisOBlocked) January 20, 2016

@ntfem @XenoPoesis @HannahQuirk1 @MollyLou01 pic.twitter.com/7fjIlHqOi9

— GhandiOBlocked (@GhandisOBlocked) January 20, 2016

@GhandisOBlocked Changing ur toddler's nappy in a way Justice Jackson disapproves of can make u guilty of sexually abusing her. Para 141-52

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@HannahQuirk1 @MollyLou01 @XenoPoesis @GhandisOBlocked Yes, Justice Jackson became momentarily aware that he was not a criminal judge.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@MollyLou01 The judiciary seems to be suffering from some form of dementia having become unable to remember fundamental legal principles.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

@MollyLou01 https://t.co/EOn9OJK5d1 The Rule Of Law No Longer Exists In Western Civilization by @PCraigRoberts

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

Justice Jackson - not a criminal judge sitting in criminal court - off his own bat decided that Worthington is guilty, and that the Worthingtons' five surviving children should *not* return to them. 

I invite you to consider the injustice of this assuming just for a moment that Paul Worthington is entirely innocent.

What punishment does Justice Jackson deserve for forgetting fundamental legal principles and obviously having it in for Paul Worthington?


Why do we even need social workers anyway? If parents want to kill their children then they don't deserve any children, do they? Problem solved. These useless women cannot prevent children from being killed by their parent(s) and when they try they always end up committing a gross injustice such as the "satanic panic" children in the 1990s. 

In 1990, families on a council estate in north Manchester woke up to every parent's worst nightmare. With no warning, police and social workers had come to take their children.

Sixteen youngsters from the Langley estate near Rochdale were taken in to care - for what was to be a total of 34 years and four months. It was alleged they had been forced into devil worship and sexually abused.

At the time, there was a steady stream of newspaper stories based on rumours of secret satanic abuse taking place in Britain. But, after a year long investigation, the Rochdale parents were proved to be completely innocent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4602302.stm

Allegations ranged from the sacrifice of human babies and robed devil worship to locking the children in cages and caves. None of the claims were ever proved.

It was Britain's Salem Witch Hunt.

This programme reveals the real story of how, at the end of the 20th Century, hysteria swept through our social services.

This was a total failure of "due process" and common sense with horrific results.
Sixteen children were kept in care without any contact with their parents for months and it took 10 years before the last child was released from care back to his family.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4595158.stm

Was Justice Jackson gallantly trying to protect these women by sacrificing the family life of the Worthingtons - who have five surviving children - for the sake of Social Services, better known as the SS?

141. This is a more than usually troubling case. I have given anxious consideration to the question of whether the court's inquiry has been so degraded by the deficiencies in the initial investigation as to make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions. In the end, I have concluded that this is not the case in relation to the anal injuries. Unlike the position in relation to the broken leg, there is still a mass of contemporaneous information about the events of the night on which P died, even though procedures fell far short of good practice.

142. Shorn to its essentials, the situation is one in which a healthy child with no medical condition or illness was put to bed by her mother one evening and brought downstairs eight hours later by her father in a lifeless state and with troubling injuries, most obviously significant bleeding from the anus. Careful assessment of the meticulous pathological and paediatric evidence has clearly established that the injuries were the result of trauma from outside the body.

143. While, as already stated, the father is not called upon to prove anything, I cannot accept his evidence about the events surrounding P's collapse. I was not impressed by his account. His description of being woken by a cry and then removing P from her cot in a most unusual condition (clenched teeth, rigid body) before loosening her nappy and leaving her on the bed was puzzling. It is hard to understand why he should have loosened her nappy or why, having gone downstairs to get another nappy, he should have begun to go back to sleep without changing P while leaving her on the bed. There is also no explanation as to why he would then have reached out to touch P, when his whole object would on his account have been to keep her asleep as long as possible. Moreover, in the overall circumstances, the fact that this was the only occasion (according to the father) when he and P were in the bed together raises concern when taken together with the fact that P suffered injury on that very occasion. Overall, the sequence of events that the father describes is unconvincing as an account of a parent comforting a distressed child in normal circumstances.

144. I have observed the father, not only in the witness box but in the courtroom. In contrast to the mother, who became emotional at understandable points during the hearing, the father's presentation was unusual. He spent large parts of each day in tears and took every opportunity to make eye contact with me from the back of the court as a way of emphasising his predicament. I do not attach much significance to this behaviour during an undoubtedly emotional hearing, but it was nonetheless unusual in my experience.

145. It is not possible to reconstruct the exact sequence of events that led to P's collapse without a truthful account from the father. All that can be said is that at some point after 2 am he removed P from her cot and took off her pyjama bottoms and her nappy. He then inserted his penis or another object into her anus, causing her injury. He probably replaced the nappy, which P filled with faeces at some point before or at the time that she collapsed. The father then realised what he had done and sought help.

146. While it is true that what has happened in this case is extremely unlikely, the position is not to be compared with cases of sudden infant death that occur without any clear signs of abuse. As has been said elsewhere, there is no logical or necessary connection between seriousness and probability. The improbability of the father assaulting P in this way must give way to the evidence that establishes that she was in fact assaulted. As to the argument that this was a crowded house, the fact remains that the father had the clear opportunity to carry out the assault, however risky it might have been. On his own account, the presence of two very young sleeping children in his own bedroom did not stop him from watching pornography.

147. Nor am I influenced by the mother's description of hearing the father going to P. In the circumstances, this is the only normal interpretation that would be likely to occur to her. The most that I gather from the mother's evidence is that the father was moving about. Further to this, I think it likely that the father did experience P going rigid and gritting her teeth, but sadly this will have been in the context of an assault upon her.

148. The father's arguments about the absence of evidence deserve serious consideration. In fairness to him, I approach matters on the broad working assumption that any inquiry that should have been carried out, but was not, would have produced a negative result. For example, that nothing concerning would have been found on his laptop, that his DNA would not have been found in the last nappy, and that other items were properly preserved and tested with negative results. In the circumstances, he is entitled to these assumptions. Likewise, there is a credible innocent explanation for the presence of DNA on the shaft of his penis.

149. Nevertheless, even though Mr Scarborough would have expected further positive results following an act of anal rape, the forensic evidence does not exonerate the father in the manner claimed. Rather, it affects the probabilities and has to be set against all the other evidence.

150. With regard to the absence of P's DNA from the tip of the father's penis, this does not negate penetration by the penis as any DNA may have been lost by washing or ordinary movement; nor of course does it negate penetration by other means. The non-production of sperm that may have followed the father's vasectomy could reduce the likelihood of seminal fluid being detected, particularly as five days had passed before the swabs were taken in a suboptimal way. The absence of any report of P's blood in the bedroom or living room would seem at first sight to be highly significant, but has to be taken along with the evidence that clearly establishes that she was bleeding in the ambulance moments later.

151. These matters weigh heavily in the father's favour, but I find that, when placed in the balance, they are ultimately outweighed by the fact that P suffered injuries causing substantial bleeding from the anus and that she collapsed for no plausible reason. The only explanation for those stubborn facts is that she suffered anal penetration and the only person who could realistically have done this to her was her father.

152. I find that the father perpetrated a penetrative anal assault on P, either using his penis or some other unidentified object.

Is Justice Jackson some sort of legal authority on the correct way of changing nappies?

Is this what passes for "the rule of law" in Britain?

Is "the British rule of law" changing the rules while the game is still being played?

What is the most important rule of law that you can think of?

Surely it must be the right to be treated as innocent till found guilty after a fair trial?

Shall we allow members of the judiciary who seem to know more than they should about changing nappies than is thought proper for a High Court judge who forgets which court he is sitting in to ignore long-standing English legal traditions such as a trial by jury and the criminal standard of proof to convict a man of a crime?

@PrisonUK @TimesLaw "You've already been accused, people are disgusted by this crime so we might as well find you guilty."

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 20, 2016

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