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 

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 ·  · Share

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation 

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