Would YOU trust a judge to be impartial?

Posted on August 13, 2016 by KG

New Zealand:
‘Rape trials could be heard before a judge alone – not a jury – under radical proposals before the Government.’
Given the abysmal performances of so many judges in this country in recent years, I wouldn’t. They’ve repeatedly demonstrated that they are unable to separate facts from emotions, that they exist as parrots for government policies, that they follow their own ideological leanings rather than impartially administer the law.
Trial by a jury of our peers is a fundamental right, and a government prepared to abandon that is a government with no respect for liberty – a government that cannot be trusted.
This outrage is driven entirely by feminist ideology. If rape justifies “trial” without jury, then why not child abuse and murder? Is rape somehow worse than that?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Would YOU trust a judge to be impartial?

  1. Darin says:
    August 13, 2016 at 12:13

    Absolutely not! Most are corrupt in the fact they are buddies with every lawyer in town.Cases are decided over lunch or at the golf club,it’s the worst of the “good ole boys” network.http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_negative.gif

  2. KG says:
    August 13, 2016 at 12:24

    “it’s the worst of the “good ole boys” network”
    Damn right it is.

  3. .Alan says:
    August 13, 2016 at 13:04

    This has been going on since the 1960’s, its an old boys club, Did a lot of prosecuting in my time, and it was evident way back.

  4. MacDoctor says:
    August 13, 2016 at 13:20

    Given the disgraceful way John Banks was treated over a relatively minor crime, why would we even begin to consider this?

  5. Phil Stephenson says:
    August 13, 2016 at 16:39

    Of course, a female judge would never have an agenda, would she?

    A few years ago I visited a feminist website where slags were calling for the burden of proof to be moved to the accused in rape cases, and when I added my opinion in the comments one of the harpies suggested that I may have a sexual assault in my past and I am scared it may come back to haunt me. After all the things I have seen in court rooms over the years I would be very concerned about any changes to the system like this.

    • KG says:
      August 13, 2016 at 16:42

      You’ve seen a lot of this in action, Phil, so you know what the deal is. What’s worrying is that the changes would mean almost nothing to most people, who will just shrug and decide it’s not important.
      And a lot of men are silent because they don’t fancy being tagged with the “rapist sympathiser” label, an accusation which will certainly be used by the feminazis.

      • Cadwallader says:
        August 15, 2016 at 09:33

        Well I am not silent on this. If a judge alone (female) is the sole arbiter then a male accused is dead in the water, if a judge alone (male) is the sole arbiter then the chances of acquittal improve ever so slightly. The jury system won’t necessarily work as the defence challenge all jury members on their expectation of attitude. Female defence lawyers will ferret out any male jury member who might, just might, behave rationally. Unless a false complaint is recanted a wrongfully accused is more or less stuffed.

        • KG says:
          August 15, 2016 at 15:51

          “Unless a false complaint is recanted a wrongfully accused is more or less stuffed.”
          Indeed he is. And there have been more than a few of those.

          • Warren Tooley says:
            August 15, 2016 at 16:18

            Like Joseph, when working for Potiphar. Remember Potiphar’s wife?

          • Cadwallader says:
            August 16, 2016 at 09:12

            The woman who makes the false complaint rarely receives anything more severe than a conviction for wasting police time. This, despite the life of the male she has wrecked, his relationships, his career, his soul! As far as the Family Court is concerned the prospects of male success are also negligible.

            • Warren Tooley says:
              August 16, 2016 at 10:29

              Cadwallader, its even worse with Family Court. The care of children’s act says the needs of the child come first, and calls the parents guardians. While the government is happy with you, no problems. If they aren’t then section 97 of the care of children’s act says, the custodian is the person providing the day to day care of the child. In other words, children first, mother’s 2nd, and if you split, we’ll take what we can from the man to pay for it.

  6. mawm says:
    August 13, 2016 at 17:43

    The inequity of the Family Courts will be matched or even exceeded by these. Dark days lie ahead for men if these proposals come to be.

  7. Ronbo says:
    August 13, 2016 at 21:58

    I predict soon – if we don’t shoot the powers-that-be and throw their bodies to the dogs – a day will come when all trials will be held before a Government judge – or perhaps a three judge panel, as was the case in the old Soviet Union.

    We The People simply cannot be programmed to always deliver the verdict the Government wants…

  8. Ronbo says:
    August 14, 2016 at 03:25

    Have some fun, fellow Crusaders!

    Call the private cellphones numbers of Congressional Democrats!

    I made several Congressional Democrats calls this morning and got one callback from Congresswoman Waters’ – she who thought the Mars Lander had landed on the moon – and left a message on the her voicemail to ask if was true her I.Q. was 75 like Forest Gump – a borderline moron.

    The dear Democrap Congresswoman was not to happy on the return call.http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

    So have fun today – apparently they haven’t had time to change the numbers or email boxes.

    Details:

    https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/guccifer-2-0-hacked-dccc/

  9. KG says:
    August 14, 2016 at 16:34

    O/T pot, meet kettle! 8O
    In the NZ Herald:
    ‘Olympic sour grapes: Australia blast ref, police after loss’
    Only yesterday the Kiwis were whining about the ref, the weather, the water and sheer bad luck causing their rugby 7’s team to lose! http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif
    Hypocritical bastards.

  10. Warren Tooley says:
    August 15, 2016 at 13:08

    Its not that bad, its much, much worse. This is what my Butterworth’s law dictionary says. Judge: 1. To adjudicate, try to pass sentence. 2: A person invested with authority to determine matters requiring the application of a legal remedy.

    So their you have it, the judge says you pay, or this is your sentence, that’s his role. His role isn’t to weigh up the facts.