In Britain, this is now a radical idea:

Posted on February 10, 2015 by KG

‘Even Accused Rapists Must Be Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Barrister Blogs’

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to In Britain, this is now a radical idea:

  1. Wombat says:
    February 11, 2015 at 00:23

    F: “You raped me. I was drunk and could therefore not give lawful consent”.
    M: “But you admit that you gave consent in the heat of the moment.”
    F: “Yes.”
    M: “Now, prove you were drunk.”

    Guess I shoulda been a lawyer. :mrgreen:

  2. Ronbo says:
    February 11, 2015 at 00:33

    How about this:

    Woman: You raped me last night :!:

    Man: NO I DIDN’T :!: YOU WHERE PANTING LIKE A CAT IN HEAT :!: YOU WANTED IT :!: YOU TORE OFF MY SHIRT AND PANTS :!: YOU WERE ALL OVER ME LIKE PATTON ROLLED ALL OVER GERMANY IN 1945:!:

    Woman: Okay…PROVE YOU DIDN’T RAPE ME :!:

    http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif

  3. Darin says:
    February 11, 2015 at 02:49

    Another two way street.Quite a few times half drunk women,some I didn’t even know have started in on me expecting sex and have gotten mad when I didn’t.

    One girl at work got a little tipsy and started hugging and rubbing on me.So of course I switched on my cellphone to record her making a fool of herself and played it back to her the following day :mrgreen:

    • Ronbo says:
      February 11, 2015 at 02:52

      I bet you felt cheap and used the next day :!: :mrgreen:

      A good cry always helps :!: :mrgreen:

      • Darin says:
        February 11, 2015 at 06:30

        No,but I am a fairly private person and don’t go looking for trouble. ;-)

        Course it figures they would have to be drunk to be hitting on me,I don’t have the three things girls find most attractive these days.Earrings,tattoos and felony convictionshttp://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif

    • Wombat says:
      February 12, 2015 at 20:51

      And, uhh, just out of interest…

      …at what venue did this take place? :cool:

      • Darin says:
        February 13, 2015 at 01:41

        New Years party at work,boss’s step daughter,not a good idea even if I was willing to give in. :lol:

  4. Yokel says:
    February 11, 2015 at 02:52

    And for stating that one should be innocent until proven guilty, hasn’t he got some flack. But only from the Left and the Wimmin, so that proves he’s on the right track!

    This whole furore reminds me of what was once a joke, but now I’m not so sure. The date is shortly after it was made an offence to “go equipped” for burglary, so as to save the need for Plod to catch the villain in the act, or to find him after the thieving had occurred. Bloke was up before the Beak for “going equipped”, had been found guilty and was being sentenced. The severity of the offence was being explained, and how having the gear to go burgling was as bad as the thieving. At which point he piped up and asked for other offences to be taken into consideration. “What offences?” “Going equipped for rape!” “What?” says the Beak, “What do you mean?” “I was carrying the equipment when I was arrested!”

    OK I mucked up the retelling, but you get the gist of it.

    The whole of this “anti-rape” smack down for males is but just another step on the long march of the Frankfurt School/Gramsci/Fabians to destroy Western society.

  5. Ronbo says:
    February 11, 2015 at 02:58

    I thought the deal with the Feminist movement starting in the 1960s was that women could take the abuse without bitching about it, or run crying to the cops :?:

    You know, “I AM WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR :!: ”

    Leftist women like Leftist men have wimped out. :cry:

  6. countenance says:
    February 11, 2015 at 05:04

    Except if the rapists are Pakistanis, in which case they definitely didn’t do it, and that the “far right” is making it all up to win an election or two.

  7. Brown says:
    February 11, 2015 at 06:27

    I find drunk women particularly unappealing but this is what the feminazis want in NZ – automatic guilt of rape if the woman alleges it. Being faithful in a good marriage has much to commend it.

  8. Warren Tooley says:
    February 11, 2015 at 22:16

    All that’s going to happen, is men like me will just avoid unstable women, who change their mind all the time. If she changes her mind, the only thing to do is stay away from them. If men get together and start up this counter movement, then maybe these women will be a little more easy going about men.

    Honestly I’ve seen this happen over and over again, women who like you a little, not being sure of whether you are the person for them. And then the slightest thing will turn them completely off.

    I know this partly, because those who think I’m the person for them, can’t get enough of me. Meanwhile those who aren’t sure of a few things about me are constantly changing their minds. So I’m going to be starting this move very soon. And yes, it is a science involved. I’ve tested these ideas for years and years and years and years, and now an event like this, makes me feel like I’m behind on getting these ideas out. So watch out world.

  9. Phil Stephenson says:
    February 12, 2015 at 13:30

    I have read of this concept before, i.e. that sexual assault should be treated differently from other crimes, and the burden of proof reversed from the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, to a system where the presumption of guilt exists, until innocence is proven. I read the linked article and had a fresh look at a few other items on the net, about the same subject. It seems to me that those pushing for this crap have decided that because too few convictions are being recorded for sexual assault, we need to “fix” this problem by re-jgging our legal system so it’s far more difficult for an accused to be acquitted. Well, okay, as an ex-cop, I feel that WAY too many murderers, armed robbers, assailants and fraudsters are getting away with crimes that they committed, so let’s just do away with the presumption of innocence right across the board. Let’s do away with a couple of thousand years of civilisation and make it so if you are accused of ANY crime, you have to prove your own innocence. Maybe we could do away with that whole, messy, clumsy, time consuming, and of course, expensive business of court process at all, and just automatically convict anyone who is accused of a crime. That’ll fix that problem of not enough convictions being recorded, won’t it?
    Actuallly, on a serious note, here in Australia, sexual assault IS treated a little differently from other crimes, because it is one of the few categories of crime where hearsay evidence is admissible in court, but only to a limited extent. However, that’s not enough for the feminazis, they’re out for blood.

  10. Warren Tooley says:
    February 12, 2015 at 17:58

    Paul, there has to be a reason why. And here’s my guess. When two people get married, and they have a child someone needs to earn, and someone needs to look after the child. When their’s a split, absolutely nothing has changed, except 2 things 1: cost is now bigger, as no longer is it one family for the house. And secondly the man won’t get to look after the child at least not as often as he used to. Its called alimony, its called losing half of your wealth, and its called paying a certain amount of your income on top of it. And if that isn’t enough, DPB.

    How can this injustice continue. Well they have to make up a few things. Its no longer what the women wants its what the women needs. By getting people to believe the women is almost always mistreated they can continue to get away with this. But its all in a law dictionary. In old movies, it was I now pronounce you man and wife. Then it changed to husband and wife. What does husband mean, it means housebound, this means bound to the needs of those in the house. Before the White Ribbon Society, if a man split or was violent, then he didn’t lose anything, he took what was his. So the Society created the licence. Licence means permission to do something. And he went from being a free man, to being a husband, with permission granted by the state. So anytime their is a split, the husband needs to pay up, and husband means housebound to the needs of the house. The courts look at the paper that was signed, when they got married, and now they have jurisdiction over the husband and the property. Again to disguise this fact, they have to do a dog and pony show, about violence and everything.

    For one thing, their is a thing called pure trust organisations. This is the only way to protect your wealth. A prenup won’t, as soon as you have a child, prenup is null and void. Oh and look up van koten v van koten, you’ll see that even if the women says I don’t want to take anything, the state enforces that she will. Why because someone needs to look after the child.

    So that is my guess. The man has the wealth, he pays the fine.

  11. Warren Tooley says:
    February 12, 2015 at 18:51

    Oh Phil,

    sorry got your name wrong, my bad.