Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Some More Good News

Judges try to block rape trial reforms

The government's plans to convict more men on trumped up charges of rape are in danger of being thwarted by the judiciary. "The Council of Circuit Judges, the influential body representing all 637 circuit judges in England and Wales, has dismissed all the proposals".

The Guardian piously informs us, "The plans are the latest attempt to reverse a plummeting conviction rate for rape that has dropped from 33% of reported cases in 1977 to just 5.29% in 2004".

I believe that that the reason the conviction rate has apparently 'dropped' is simply that the definition of what constitutes 'rape' has become so general as to be virtually meaningless.

As Melanie Phillips points out: "After all, the vast majority of rape allegations are made not as a result of attacks by strangers, which have been dwindling, but against lovers or casual partners. And these situations are highly ambiguous.

That is undoubtedly why the number of rape convictions has been declining in recent years, as juries arrive at the eminently reasonable conclusion that they cannot find a defendant guilty where the issue of consent to sexual intercourse, or whether the man was given to understand that such consent was at least implied, is impossible for anyone else to judge.

In other words, it is the rise in casual sexual relations that is the prime cause of the drop in rape convictions. But to gender warriors such as Ms Harman, this cannot be the explanation — because it is a cardinal tenet of extreme feminism that women are never at fault, men are intrinsically violent, and women are always the victims in sexual encounters.

As a result, prosecution policy on rape is turning into something straight out of Kafka".


It is not just this shift in definition which is the problem. We are also now living in a culture in which false, spurious and malicious allegations are almost endemic. As Neil Hamilton said "There's gold in them there lies!"

Why doesn't the government do something about false accusations? Shannon Taylor, the woman who put Warren Blackwell in prison for over three years for a rape that never happened, continues to walk the streets, protected by legal anonymity.

Why doesn't the government suggest a 'Warren's Law' to warn people if a known false accuser is living in the area? Why doesn't it take up the suggestion by a English judge, that we need a 'False Accusers' Register', similar to the Sex Offenders' Register. Personally, I would put women like Shannon Taylor on the Sex Offenders' Register; making false allegations of rape is a serious sexual offence. The penalty for it should be the same as the penalty for the crime alleged. Taylor would think twice about making up stories if she knew she was likely to get seven to ten years for it.

Why doesn't the government suggest lifting anonymity for liars like Taylor? It is in the public interest to know who these women are, and as she was never a rape victim, she has no moral right to the protection afforded to a rape victim. While women can continue to lie with impunity, false accusations will continue, innocent men will go to prison, public money will be wasted, and justice will not be served. We need laws which provide incentives not to lie. At the moment, the law gives women incentives to lie, and it should not come as any surprise to find that some of them do so.

Yet, none of these things are even considered by politicians. Thus is the power of the radical feminist lobby within the government and civil service.

The real agenda is not to protect women. There is evidence that rape has been falling steadily since the 1970s. The real agenda is to destroy something called 'The Patriarchy'. Feminist hysteria over rape is all about demonising men and destroying families and heterosexual relationships. Nothing more.

The present law on rape works pretty well, at least as well as any other law. Why would anyone think that this law is special, this law doesn't work as well as all the others? Feminists want to use the issue of rape as an instrument to destroy men. It's as simple as that.

We can thank our judges for their clear-thinking, wisdom and common sense.

"Overall, the judges believe that the proposed measures are too complex and are urging ministers to have more faith in the common sense of jurors. "The law shouldn't be complicated. It should be something that everybody understands," one circuit judge said.

Their response has left the reforms in limbo. When they were first announced last March, ministers said they hoped to have them in place within 12 months. But no date has been set for publication of the government's final proposals."


Let's hope the general election comes before Labour manages to salvage this dishonest mess, and the voters kick them out of office. For once, though, men might have something to smile about.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Even Channel 4 are at it now.The other night a court drama was shown where the jury rightly ,on the evidence acquitted a man of rape.
At the end of the drama the scene flashback showed the man holding the woman down thus asking the audience if all these not guilty verdicts are trustworthy,more or less goading a jury into finding more defendants guilty opposing the evidence presented,ie;taking the feminist government stance.

Warren Blackwell said...

I watched that drama from when the jury were diliberating, and what I saw made me feel sick. One female juror admitted having been in a similar situation - she should have been removed from the jury. Another was surmising that the defendant would have had bruising on his chest had the woman put her knees up against him - what authority did he have to make such suggestions, he wasn't a medical expert. Another woman made it perfectly clear she came straight out the office of some feminist group, such was her conviction that the defendant was guilty.

And as anonymous has pointed out - having been acquitted on the evidence produced at court, Channel 4 saw fit to end the program by showing the man clearly forcing the woman to have sex against her will.

So well done Channel 4 - future jurors who have seen that program will now have it in mind that perhaps they should convict "just in case" and let the Appeal Court deal with it if they were wrong!!

BrusselsLout said...

Channel 4 have now sweepingly defamed all men accused of rape. And they've used slick media techniques to achieve it.

I'm not a legal expert, but it looks to me that any man falsely accused of rape could now sue Channel 4 for defamation. A win might impact any future criminal trial and secure an acquittal.

thirtyplus said...

The false rape charges have got to stop. I talk about them pretty frequently on my blog, www.realitymethod.com (drop a comment or some feedback if you like).

Most recently here http://realitymethod.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/backwards-rationalization-and-the-feminine-mind/

A lot of false rape accusations come about because of this psychological structure, 'backwards rationalization'...