Monday, February 05, 2007

The Invisible Empire

I received this email today.

...feminist groups such as Ruth Hall's pernicious "Women Against Rape" have a hot line straight to Harriet Harman, Solicitor-General, and Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General who we now know, if we didn't already suspect, after his 'independent' legal advice to justify going to war in Iraq, is a government poodle.

Whenever another poor bloke gets sentenced (one of the apparently disgracefully low 5% of successful Rape/IA convictions) an automatic trigger is fired in the Women's Groups to lobby their pals as above to have the sentence reviewed i.e. increased.

Applications by the Attorney-General to the Court of Appeal are supposed to be independent. Ha ha.


I only have this person's word for it, but if this is true, then it constitutes political interference in the judiciary, and corruption at the highest levels. Men like Warren Blackwell are the ones who pay the price.

1 comment:

sisyphus said...

First, apologies for a factual error, I must have been out of the mainstream for too long. The fragrant Harriet Harman is no longer Solicitor-General, that poisoned chalice has passed to loyal warmonger Michael O'Brien. I've no idea what Ms Harman does now apart from suck up to whichever courtier is closest to power and influence.

Second, I first came across the Women Against Rape tactics in connection with the Michael Barrett case in September 2004. Remember him? The immature 18 yr old from Bristol who 'met' a 12 yr old girl in an online chatroom, they met up in London, then with her parents' approval she invited him to stay at the family home in Greater Manchester. Guess what happened? And he went back to stay another time, same again.

He attended the local nick voluntarily, made a full confession, and was charged with Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. Although the Sexual Offences Act 2003 now classifies penetrative sex with a child under 13 as rape, the Act is not retrospective and did not apply to the time/date of the activity. A humane judge (i.e. soft/mad/senile to the WAR brigade) gave him a two-year conditional discharge (!) and he was put on the Register for two years. Judge Roach said in court that the girl was "a willing participant".

At this point, enter stage left those fearless campaigners for justice (for women only, of course) who launched a petition and published standard letters on their website exhorting their feminazi supporters to bombard Ms Harman and the A-G to seek leave to appeal to have Michael Barratt's sentence increased on the grounds that it was unduly lenient. For such righters of wrongs there was clearly only one suitable punishment for this naive young man: a long stretch in chokey, surrounded by society's finest, to ensure that on release he would have turned into a genuine criminal. He had the last laugh: although the A-G did indeed petition the Court of Appeal to have the sentence increased, it was thrown out on the grounds that the application was procedurally incorrect i.e. the A-G's legal judgement had been mesmerised by the WAR brigade, he forgot to check his law books before signing the forms.