Thursday, February 08, 2007

CPS Not Fit For Purpose

Dear CPS,

Can you confirm that Mr Warren Blackwell's name has now been removed from the Sex Offenders' Register?

Can you also explain your reasoning in deciding not to prosecute his accuser?

I look forward to your timely response.



Grace Ononiwu
Chief Crown Prosecutor

Northampton South
Level 3
Beaumont House
Northampton NN1 5BE

Switchboard Facsimile:
DX No: 01604 823600
01604 823611
DX No: 18512 Northampton
Direct Line: 01604 235817
Our Reference: LE/SJJ
Your Reference:

Mr H Liberal
email –

8 February 2007

Dear Mr Liberal


I am in receipt of your email correspondence of 23 January which has been passed to Northamptonshire CPS, as we were the area which dealt with Mr Blackwell’s case.

In responding to your complaint, it may assist if I explain the basis on which Prosecutors decide whether or not to bring a case against a suspect. There must be enough evidence to provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction against the defendant’. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury properly directed, according to the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts must apply - a jury should only convict a defendant if they are sure that he/she is guilty.

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used in Court and is reliable. This means that they must assess the quality of the evidence from all witnesses before reaching a decision.

If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction the case must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be. If there is a realistic prospect of conviction, the Prosecutor will then consider whether it is in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court.

There is no direct evidence that the complainant fabricated the allegation against Mr Blackwell. False allegations made by her after the conviction of Mr Blackwell subsequently cast doubt on the reliability of her evidence against him. Whilst it remains a clear possibility that she fabricated the allegation against Mr Blackwell, it is no more than that, and falls significantly short of the required evidential test as outlined above, in terms of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute her.

Mr Blackwell has been removed from the Sex Offenders Register

Yours sincerely

Lawrence English
Unit Head, South Team

This response from the CPS is a pathetic whitewash. There apparently isn't enough evidence against Taylor to secure a conviction! There is a mountain of evidence against her, enough to bring multiple charges.

The full story is here, but here are a few highlights:

  • She has a history of psychiatric problems, including allegations of sexual and physical abuse against a string of other men.
  • Detectives also knew she had used at least four aliases and had convictions for dishonesty.
  • In fact "She changed her name at least eight times and moved between addresses in three counties in an attempt to cover her tracks".
  • Taylor perjured herself in court. At one point she even fainted, which we now know was all an act.
  • She has a guilty demeanour. She "remained in the area for two weeks after the 'attack' - even going back to the social club one night for a game of bingo."
  • While Mr Blackwell was in prison she made another wild allegation of having been assaulted by another man, this time with a knife.
  • "She accused one of her own first boyfriends of rape; her father of sexual abuse; her own son of beating her up. At various other times over the past few years she claims to have been assaulted in toilets, punched in the face as she walked home and had a gun held to her head."
  • She has also claimed to be disabled, to have cancer and a brain tumour, so that she could illegally claim state benefits.
  • She left her second husband after five months, leaving him with thousands of pounds in debt after running up bills on his credit card.

The CPS say that they have no evidence against her! This is a joke!

This woman is a clear and present danger to the public, and needs to taken out of circulation. If they can't convict her for the Blackwell case, there is enough other material to keep a team of lawyers busy for a year.

There is a lot more evidence against Taylor than there ever was against Blackwell!

She accused Warren Blackwell of rape, and yet forensic tests showed that no rape had taken place. This evidence was withheld from the defence, and the charge changed to sexual assault!

His conviction rested solely on her picking him out at an ID parade which was carried out in breach of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) procedures. She didn't name Mr Blackwell until nineteen days after the attack, after having already named five other men!

Despite this clear miscarriage of justice against an innocent law-abiding father, the letter above continues to blacken Mr Blackwell's name. "There is no direct evidence that the complainant fabricated the allegation against Mr Blackwell."

So the CPS still thinks he did it! But here is the thing I don't understand: If they still think he did it, why have they removed him from the Sex Offenders' Register?

This would be a farce if it wasn't so serious. The fact is, the police and the CPS are desperate to convict men of sexual offences for purely political reasons, in order to please the feminists and make their statistics look good. Every conviction is treasured for its statistical value. It has nothing to do with serving justice or protecting the public.

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.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Backlash Starts Against Heretic

Check this out:

"The Holocaust Never Happened

And rape accounts are all lies made up by lying women.

So it seems…. From the winner of the longest, most idiotic tag line, Heretical Sex blog:

“Ideological movements are generally movements of the gullible led by the manipulative, and feminism is no exception. The feminist movement can be regarded as a taxpayer-funded religious social club run by lesbians, where women are encouraged to gather in secret for the purpose of hating men.”

Unbelievable. "

Holocaust? HELLO? Did you read my post UpAgainstTheWall? Obviously not.

The thing to note about these people is that they do not engage with any of your arguments. They have not cited any evidence, or criticised any of my content. That is because they are not able to.

What is the connection between the Warren Blackwell case and the Holocaust? Nothing.

Did I ever say that "rape accounts are all lies made up by lying women." No. Nowhere.

The thing these people haven't seemed to grasp, is that false rape allegations harm genuine rape victims. If they have no regard for Warren Blackwell's human rights, then surely they should at least be concerned about that.

As far as I am concerned, if I am annoying the feminist movement so much that it bothers to take notice, then I must be doing something right.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."

They don't like my tag-line. Oh dear.

So there you have it folks. I'm a Nazi. Pathetic. If that's the best they can do, I have nothing to worry about.

I am not going to engage any further with these people. They are simply not worth my time and effort. It has been a lesson to us all - a real-life demonstration of feminism in action. The rampant authoritarianism, screaming verbal abuse, ruthless suppression of dissent, and systematic lying. That is what the feminist movement is.

I will give them enough rope and let them hang themselves. It will be amusing to check back every so often and witness the invective unfolding.

Thanks to all you guys who expressed support.

Bindel Joins the Lynch-mob Against Blackwell

The problem with radical lesbian feminist views of heterosexuality is that there is literally nothing which does not count as rape.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon

"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic"Judith Levine

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." Andrea Dworkin

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference." Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist". Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86).

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." Sheila Jeffrys.

This is one of my particular favourites:

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.

Perhaps she ought to try telling that to Warren Blackwell.

This is the school of thought which informs feminist thinking - and now, government thinking - about rape. These people simply don't like the idea of men and women having sex.

The logic is simple but poisonous. They are members of the gay community. They notice that they are in the minority. They believe strongly in the social construction of human sexuality, along with everything else in human psychology; people are not straight or gay because of biology (Get thee behind me, Darwin!). They are straight or gay because of their cultural environment. Therefore, as most people are heterosexual, it must be due to the fact that we live in a 'heterosexual dictatorship'. The existence of a heterosexual majority can only be the result of political oppression against gays. They have made it their mission to undermine that dictatorship. This is a dogma of the 1970s Left, one which has remained substantially unchallenged.

The tactics used to undermine the heterosexual dictatorship are basically, to undermine what they see as ‘the institutions of the heterosexual dictatorship’, most notably marriage and the family.

In characterising all heterosexual sex as rape, insisting on ever-harsher punishments based on ever-flimsier evidential criteria, and condoning false accusations, they seek to undermine the - as they see it - oppressive political regime. It is not rape that these feminists are trying to eliminate; it is heterosexuality itself, along with men and the family. Yes, people do actually believe this stuff. It is, arguably, bordering on the clinically psychotic.

In zoological terms it could be regarded as a mating strategy based upon the elimination of competition. A female friend of mine was told by a male admirer "You shouldn't trust those other men - they only want to use you. I'm the only one you can trust". When lesbians tell women that all men are rapists and abusers, exactly the same thing is going on. By undermining the competition, one can attempt to maximise one’s pool of potential mates.

The radical lesbian feminist Julie Bindel is a regular contributor to the Guardian, and she can be virtually guaranteed to argue a puritanical, heterophobic and misandrist position on every issue. Her latest article on rape is no exception.

She cites the kind of spurious, inflated figures beloved of feminists everywhere. "Research published yesterday by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Home Office Inspectorates estimates that of the 50,000 rapes thought to occur each year, between 75% and 95% are never reported".

The number 50,000 is an extrapolation based on the number of actual reports plus the assumption that between 75% and 95% are never reported. How can anyone possibly know that? Is this another one of those feminist advocacy 'studies' in which most of the supposed 'victims' don't even realise they've been 'raped' until the feminist researcher informs them of it?

There is evidence that rape has substantially diminished since the 1970s, but some people see little to gain from acknowledging the truth.

“And despite changes to both legislation and court conduct over the past 30 years, conviction rates continue to plummet. How can that be? …What is going wrong? …Despite feminists heaping praise on the police since they improved their approach to victims from the bad old days of the 70s and 80s, response to rape is still patchy and, at times, unacceptable.”

The conundrum that Bindel and her associates find themselves faced with is this: In the late 1970s, the conviction rate for rape stood at around 33%. Feminists insisted that rape complainants should be treated much more sympathetically by the police and judicial system. Thirty years later, the number of rape complaints has massively increased, but the conviction rate has dropped to around 5%. What has happened?

The answer seems obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology. As women realise that no stigma attaches to making a rape complaint, as they learn that that, even if they lie, nothing will happen to them, they feel much more prepared to make false accusations, and as a result, the huge spate of false accusations has skewed the statistics. The courts apply more or less the same standards of evidence as they always have, but the number of false accusations has increased while the number of genuine rapes has decreased. Hey presto! A lower conviction rate.

Instead of exploring this obvious possibility, the radical feminist lobby sticks to its ideological mission. Women are not capable of telling lies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a misogynist. The conviction rate is too low, so men must be getting away with rape on a daily basis. Therefore the conviction rate must be artificially raised. This can be done by biasing the court system against men, lowering the required evidential criteria, and placing the onus of proof on the defence rather than the prosecution. In other words, the courts should just bang men up on a feminist’s say-so.

This is cynical and vindictive in the extreme, but also profoundly destructive, not only of the lives of the men directly affected, but of the wider society too. The onus of proof has historically been given to the prosecution for a reason – to prevent miscarriages of justice. Attempting to reverse this principle is certainly audacious, even arrogant, but it is also deeply destructive of legal structures developed through centuries of testing. What the feminist lobby is demanding is profound cultural vandalism. However, that is a good thing from their point of view; the hetero-patriarchal-capitalist system must be destroyed to make way for a bright new feminist utopia. The radical feminist lobby is the last unchallenged bastion of Twentieth century totalitarianism. It is high time we challenged it.

“Police deal with rape within a culture of suspicion”, intones Bindel. This is because front-line police know the truth. They are faced with false accusations of rape every day, and recognise them for what they are. Click here to read one policeman’s experience.

Bindel continues to deny the scientific evidence about false rape accusations. Of course, it simply doesn’t suit the feminist political agenda to acknowledge it. She propagates the usual myths: “the most up-to-date research on this shows that false rape allegations are no higher than in any other crime, and stand at around 3%, although police officers questioned in the same report assumed 23% were false. One academic who has written extensively about false allegations of rape says his students believe that half of all rape complaints are false”. We are encouraged to assume that this academic, or more especially his na├»ve little ‘students’ must be wrong, but she does not give us his name, so we cannot check.

She works the crowd by feeding them a string of Patriarchal atrocities against wimmin: “Some women who report rape can end up in the dock”. They do not end up in the dock for complaining about being raped; they end up in the dock for lying, wasting police time and perverting the course of justice. There is an important difference. And the fact is, most false accusers do not end up in the dock, even when there is clear evidence of their criminal behaviour. Shannon Taylor is a good example. Maria Marchese only ended up in the dock after she started threatening a woman, and a CPS lawyer at that. If she had stuck to terrorising men, she would in all probability still be doing it now, just as Taylor is. Feminists want to make sure that women like Marchese and Taylor are allowed to continue their activities without restraint. They are seen as storm-troopers in the war against men.

She disingenuously refers to the Blackwell case. “Last year a Labour Peer, Lord Campbell-Savours, used parliamentary privilege to name a woman during a debate on rape legislation, calling her "a serial and repeated liar" after a man found guilty of raping her had his conviction overturned. The woman neither admitted nor was charged with making a false allegation.”
What she neglects to mention is that the man’s conviction was overturned because there was not a shred of evidence against him – his appeal was not even contested by the CPS - and the police and CPS had withheld the facts from the defence in order to secure a conviction. Lord Campbell-Savours only took this extraordinary step in view of the seriousness of the case, and its implications for the public interest. Moreover, having previously argued that rape complainants should never face criminal charges, she then offers the fact that Taylor was not charged as evidence of her innocence!

I’m sure that Bindel is familiar with the facts of the Blackwell case, and knows perfectly well that Taylor is a mentally ill serial false accuser, and that Blackwell was innocent. The fact is, she simply doesn't care.

Bindel and her associates want to make sure that the world remains a safe place for false accusers. False accusers are very good at destroying men and demonising heterosexuality. That is the real radical feminist agenda.

In my view, Warren Blackwell has been through enough already. Let us not forget that he is the victim in this case, not Taylor. The fact that the feminist movement continues to hound him is an absolute disgrace.

Then comes the stunning conclusion:
“One victim of rape, the feminist writer Andrea Dworkin, once said that women and children were not protected by the law as it stood from "men who rape, rape, rape", and would have to take the law into their own hands if justice was ever to be done. "Women should get guns and should be allowed to use them to defend themselves," she said. If women continue to be denied justice, there will be many who agree with her.”

Firstly, Dworkin was never a victim of rape. She was in fact a false accuser. Feminists like Dworkin and Bindel regard false rape accusations as a perfectly legitimate weapon in the war against men, and there is authority to be gained within the feminist movement by being able to claim to be a victim of 'male violence'. Besides, Dworkin believed that all heterosexual sex is rape. As such, as she clearly had no meaningful or plausible understanding of the concept of rape, it is difficult to take any allegation of rape seriously without corroborating evidence.

“Dworkin alleges that, last year, at the age of 52, she was drugged and raped in a hotel room by two men, whom she believes - no, knows - to have been the hotel's bartender and a serving boy.
In the New Statesman she was precise about the town, a European city, and the date (although to be pedantic, the date she supplied did not, as she said, fall on a Wednesday). All the police need, then, is the name of the hotel and the men can be questioned. But Dworkin has not been to the police. She came round from the assault to find a "big, strange bruise" on one breast and "huge deep gashes" on one leg which would not stop bleeding.
For some reason she did not call a doctor to staunch the bleeding; neither did she call hotel security nor the police.”

However, the truth of her rape or otherwise is irrelevant. It is Bindel’s reference to Dworkin’s (undeniably American) view of the gun which is interesting here. Dworkin lived in a land full of gun nuts, and her statement must be seen in context. Bindel does not. To advocate that women should carry guns is risible, verging on incitement to murder.

Feminist Smear Campaign Against Blackwell

Following an appearance by Warren Blackwell on Radio 4, Women Against Rape wrote to Radio 4 to complain that his case had been given too much coverage, and that the media had taken his case too seriously. I have posted first their letter, and then below, Warren Blackwell's reply.

Letters sent to Radio 4 "Today" program from Women Against Rape
and a woman in our network

Ceri Thomas, Editor
Today Programme
BBC Radio 4
Room G630, Stage 6
Television Centre
Wood Lane
London W12 7RJ

January 2007

Dear Ceri Thomas

We were glad to have been in the programme with Warren Blackwell on 13 January. Giving the subject further thought, there is an important point that is being overlooked in the media coverage of his case and the debate on the law on anonymity. It has been assumed that Ms A who accused Warren Blackwell made previous false allegations of sexual violence. As far as we can gather (not having been allowed to see the evidence at Mr Blackwell’s appeal), his conviction was declared unsafe on the basis that the CPS did not disclose this information at the original trial.

Who had decided her previous allegations were false? They never were tested in court. We don’t know what the evidence was in each of those cases or even whether they were properly investigated. But we have interviewed Ms A and are aware that she has accused several men in the past of violence. This does not prove that, in John Humphrys’ words, she "has a history of . . . lying". Of the thousands of victims of rape who have contacted us, many have suffered violence previously, in some cases several times. This is backed up in Home Office research which confirms our experience that these women often face additional prejudice and suspicion when they report. [1] Does this mean that if you report rape more than once in your life you must be a liar?

There is no evidence that false allegations of rape are widespread. Home Office research verifies that only 3% of reported rapes are false, a similar number to those in other crimes. Only one in 20 men accused of rape are found guilty. Of those, many get completely inappropriate sentences. A few, very few, women lie, but thousands of women (an estimated 85%) don’t report sexual violence they have suffered. Why is there no media outcry about this?

With a conviction rate for reported rape of 5.3% at their hands, neither the police nor the CPS can be relied on for a balanced judgement. Again and again we have seen women’s cases dismissed as untrue on the basis of careless and prejudiced investigations, refusal to gather evidence including to interview witnesses, or misinterpreting evidence which is gathered. At this moment, when rapists are given just a caution by the police, can we have more balance about who is assumed to be lying about rape?

Furthermore, Judge Gerald Butler said on your programme that you can’t rely on judges to determine whether the jury found a woman lied and made a false allegation or that there was simply not enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. He said ‘Trial judges sometimes get it wrong.’ Too true, and it is refreshing to hear even this understatement from the judge’s mouth.

We understand that once a person has been cleared of any crime by the court of appeal, he must be treated as innocent, and the media should generally reflect this and not perpetuate suspicion. We also understand that men and women, including broadcasters, will naturally be sympathetic to anyone they think has been falsely accused of rape. However, this sympathy does not mean the woman should be assumed to be guilty. Warren Blackwell seems to be encouraged to make a public campaign to vilify the woman who accused him. By affording him the status and power of authoring his own item, supporting his point of view on the Today programme, and making his "speaking out" a news item, the BBC has contributed to a miscarriage of justice.

Whatever else may have happened, "Ms A" was found unconscious and bleeding. If the man accused must be treated as innocent until proven guilty, then surely the same should apply to the woman who accused him.

Please take this point into account in any future programmes and please ask that others in the BBC also take it into consideration.

Yours sincerely

Ruth Hall & Lisa Longstaff
Cc Gaetan Portal

Dear Ruth,
I read your letter to the BBC. You are commenting on a case you know absolutely nothing about. It was apparent very early on when you first began to comment on my case you had made contact with Shannon , and it is equally apparent you have been totally sucked in by her lies.

Fact – her previous allegations have been fully and properly investigated by independent police forces. I have seen all of the evidence, bar the medical material, and so have my legal team, the prosecution and the judges in the appeal court. I am not about to copy those extensive papers to you here or any other format. The fact is you could see as much evidence as you like but you will never change your opinion.

You accept that ‘some’ women do make false allegations but for you this is acceptable given the ‘wider picture.’ I find it absolutely incredible you are actually prepared to accept it is fine for the ‘odd innocent man’ to go to prison for a crime he did not commit. NO innocent person should ever lose their liberty, male or female – no matter what the alleged crime.

You wrote “We understand that once a person has been cleared of any crime by the court of appeal, he must be treated as innocent, and the media should generally reflect this and not perpetuate suspicion. We also understand that men and women, including broadcasters, will naturally be sympathetic to anyone they think has been falsely accused of rape. However, this sympathy does not mean the woman should be assumed to be guilty. Warren Blackwell seems to be encouraged to make a public campaign to vilify the woman who accused him. By affording him the status and power of authoring his own item, supporting his point of view on the Today programme, and making his "speaking out" a news item, the BBC has contributed to a miscarriage of justice.”

I will ask you please, how has this contributed to a miscarriage of justice? What exactly do you mean by that, what ‘miscarriage?’ What is clear is you are totally jealous about the media interest in my case. Don’t blame me, blame Shannon Taylor for making a false allegation against me. How you expect me not to feel any animosity towards her is beyond me – how dare you suggest I should not make any sort of derogatory remark about the woman that saw me imprisoned for a crime that did not even happen, a woman that ruined my family’s life!

You also wrote “Whatever else may have happened, "Ms A" was found unconscious and bleeding. If the man accused must be treated as innocent until proven guilty, then surely the same should apply to the woman who accused him.” Firstly, she was found bleeding and in and out of consciousness and it has now been accepted she caused the injuries to herself. I’m sorry, but wake up Ruth – there are women that self harm, a lot of the time quite seriously.

What you are suggesting here also, is because Shannon Taylor has not been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice then the ‘crime’ has not been disproved. What a load of rubbish, but I welcome your support in trying to see Shannon Taylor prosecuted. Perhaps you would like to challenge the CPS in that respect as they are the ones who have cited her mental background as a barrier in any prosecution against her. You see, it is not that they don’t want to, they have considered it – but clearly feel any defence lawyer would simply say she is not fit to stand trial because of her mental state.

Again I reiterate, you are talking about a case you know nothing about and only have Shannon ’s word. I would thank you kindly to refrain in future from again insinuating I am a rapist that ‘got off.’ I look forward to the next opportunity I have to speak out in the media so I can tell all about your disgust at the Crown failing to prosecute Shannon Taylor for perverting the course of justice.


Warren Blackwell

PS – you are so quick to attack me but equally as quick to accept my money. Check your accounts – I’m sure the media would be interested in that too don’t you?

Heretic adds:
This statement amazed me:
"By affording him the status and power of authoring his own item, supporting his point of view on the Today programme, and making his "speaking out" a news item, the BBC has contributed to a miscarriage of justice."

Firstly we see the feminist obsession with 'status and power', which after all, is the only things that feminists are really interested in. The authors do not want Warren Blackwell to be accorded any 'status', not to have the power to speak for himself. They are obviously offended by the use of the term "speaking out"; if there is any "speaking out" against injustice to be done, they insist on maintaining a monopoly on it for themselves. They seem to be ignoring the fundamental point of this case; Warren Blackwell was innocent, and was imprisoned for a crime that never happened as the result of lies by a mad woman.

The authors explicitly criticise the BBC for supporting Warren Blackwell, and then try to dictate the BBC's editorial policy! The audacity of it is stunning. No doubt the authors would have expected similar editorial autonomy for a woman, but not for a man. Instead, they expect the item to be 'managed' out of the way by a politically-corrected BBC apparatchik. Not to do so constitutes a 'miscarriage of justice'! Unbelievable. This is a flagrant attempt by Women Against Rape to exert political control over BBC editorial policy. These people simply have no concept of, nor interest in, justice. This is how the Lace Curtain operates. Make no mistake. These people fight dirty.

I suggest that everyone should write to the BBC at the above address and reply to Women Against Rape's travesty of a letter.