The Abolition Of Justice In The UK…

At the police and the Crown Prosecution Service’s first joint initiative on rape, prosecutors said they had established an emerging pattern of behaviour where rapists constructed “false narratives” after the crime.

One technique described involved rapists contacting victims the next day, sometimes by text or social media, thanking them for a sexual encounter. Defendants can try to rely on such messages should there be a trial.

So, chaps, did you send her flowers the next day? Well, I hope you didn’t pick a nutter, because that’s no longer a romantic gesture, it’s now ‘covering your tracks’…

Police and prosecutors at the event examined a hypothetical case where an 18-year-old student went to a freshers’ party with a more mature student in her first week at university, drank too much, took drugs then woke up to find he had come into her room.

Despite repeated requests for him to go away, he continued to take off her clothes. When it became clear he was going to rape her, she gave him a condom to give herself some protection.

Asked whether they would prosecute the man for rape, an overwhelming number of hands in the room went up; not everyone at the conference was a prosecutor.

Ask a jury the same thing – a jury that is considering whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, with the presumption of innocence rather than guilt on the part of the defendant – and you’ll possibly get a different story.

The conference was shown moving video interviews with survivors of rape, one sequence ending with the repeated refrain that: “I want to be believed.”

One woman said: “I was the victim of a drug rape. I want the police to believe me and not to be blamed for drinking too much.”

The first one sounds a lot like brainwashing.

And as for the second…well, I want my car burglary to be believed and not to be blamed for having a satnav on display in the car!

Saunders said: …“We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue: how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?

How about a pre-sexual intercourse contract, Alison? It could be part of Anne Summers’ new range.

23 comments for “The Abolition Of Justice In The UK…

  1. Robert the Biker
    January 30, 2015 at 9:52 am

    So, my lovely snuggle-bunny, before we begin could you just tick the relevant boxes 1 through 17, sign here, here, here and um, here and just initial in these three places….. 🙄
    Doubtless the femiwonks will accuse me of trivialising the issue, but methinks that that is what they are doing.

    • Radical Rodent
      January 30, 2015 at 8:41 pm

      1 TO 17 (unless you are going through 17 to get to, say, 18…)

      Speak English, please, not yankinese (sheesh! Next you’ll be saying “gotten”!).

  2. Brightside Bob
    January 30, 2015 at 10:21 am

    “…woke up to find he had come into her room…”

    Is that the new definition of rape?

    I’ll get my coat.

    • Furor Teutonicus
      January 31, 2015 at 10:18 am

      Typical media spelling mistake, it should have read “Come into her womb.” But the reporter had a speech impediment.

      • Brightside Bob
        January 31, 2015 at 1:29 pm

        😀

  3. Crazed Weevil
    January 30, 2015 at 1:49 pm

    And yet women are starting to notice men don’t want to talk to them, or to touch them, or love them, or marry them, and yet have nary a clue as to the why. All the while they are being deafened by the screams of ‘feminists’ who profess to speak for all women.

    • February 8, 2015 at 8:45 am

      Can anyone blame them? These feminists give the rest of us a bad name!

  4. Voice of Reason
    January 30, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Except that the argument is that even consent before the fact is null and void if there has been any drinking. I know young men in college who are paralyzed by that.

    • Errol
      January 30, 2015 at 6:03 pm

      Why? A signal between my partner and I was a bottle of red. We drank it together, made love, I walked her home.

      It was her choice to drink. Flipping heck, at some point people really must take responsibility for their lives.

    • Bunny
      January 30, 2015 at 6:50 pm

      The case law is drunken consent is still consent, it is only not consent if the accused deliberately sets out to get the woman paralytic and she cannot consent

      • February 8, 2015 at 8:46 am

        I suspect Saunders will get to work on ‘fixing’ that, once she’s licked her wounds from the failed FGM prosecution…

  5. January 30, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    Well said Julia an much more eloquently that I tried to do yesterday.

    • February 8, 2015 at 8:46 am

      Thank
      you! 😉

  6. mikebravo
    January 30, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    When they have managed to have all men convicted as rapists it will be true that all men are rapists.

  7. Errol
    January 30, 2015 at 6:00 pm

    I carried a girl home once. She was very drunk. She did take her clothes off and I put her to bed. Not only was I with someone else, I didn’t want to take advantage of her. To the security men I passed on my way back they were very surprised to see me.

    I must be strange.

  8. January 31, 2015 at 1:17 am

    All are equal before the law. Remember that old mantra. I guess it is past its use-by date. So a man’s consent is no longer sought, needed or at issue. His state of inebriation or simple alcohol lubrication has no bearing on his ability to consent. Even ‘call me tomorrow’ is now entrapment.

  9. Hereward unbowed.
    January 31, 2015 at 1:42 am

    Lord, watch any sort of soap on the telly these days and it is all about women getting pissed and going out on the pull – social engineering has reversed “caveman want woman” – hunter and prey. And it was all deliberately fashioned. It is, classic Frankfurt School stratagem.
    Real men have all but gone to ground, the towns are are full of rampantly sozzled girls and lads running away from them……………………RAPE – you havin’ a larf Alison Saunders DPP, or is it just an attempt to make a name for yourself?

    There again, I am maybe being a bit old fashioned, but in my fathers’ day it really wasn’t the done thing to take advantage of a girl who had a dram too many. Having said that, the incidences of any woman being ‘off her head’ were virtually non existent.

    Back in the day came women’s lib, it was the thing once?

    When the ‘pill’ was freely available and abortion on demand – wowee girls could fuck anyone and all day and night, anywhere, anytime, anyhow – GREAT!

    But it wasn’t enough, it never is, is it, so it goes, after women on top – and went into the noughties….. “it’s my body and you are not having it!”
    And now, “all men are rapists! [I want a GAY man?]!”

    Paradoxically [ain’t it alus the way?]….. those other pesky precepts of Frankfurt School doctrine. Damn it, they interfere with a woman’s ‘right’ to utterly crush manhood [NUTS] and machismo ‘battle axes of the sexes’. Because you see it’s either, it’s free love or, no love.

    “I’ve got a headache and anyway: you are pissed love” – said the boy.

  10. January 31, 2015 at 10:03 am

    Major issue, Julia.

  11. Furor Teutonicus
    January 31, 2015 at 10:22 am

    I have sais this, or similar, on other blogs that have reported on rape cases recently.

    These women who are wanting this “a man must prove that she said “yes,” rule used, are the very same women who are strangely quiet when asked about a certain hobby group that insist a woman needs 4 male witnesses to prove she said “No.”

    Are we, men, now expected to drag along a defence lawyer, a contracts lawyer, a notary public and an independent witness on every date?

    • February 8, 2015 at 8:46 am

      Only if they don’t participate… 😈

  12. Will jones
    January 31, 2015 at 9:07 pm

    I’m drunk. She’s drunk. We fuck. We wake up both think what the hell did I do. Who raped whom?

    • February 8, 2015 at 8:47 am

      It’s ALWAYS the possessor of the penis.

Comments are closed.