With a series of reforms being pushed through that include ‘being given written instructions to “dispel myths” about victims‘ and allowing video ‘testimony’ and hearsay ‘evidence’ in court. And in case you have any doubts about what the aim of this is, the next quote from the Daily Mail article states it, clear as day.
The advice will be handed out as part of a series of reforms designed to increase the number of men convicted of rape.
This is disgusting. That line does not say ‘increase the ability of a court to prove or disprove a man’s innocence.’ It says, ‘convict more men of rape.’ That is why they are allowing hearsay as evidence. The violation of ‘innocent till proven guilty’ is obvious.
The plans were attacked by legal experts, who warned that allowing hearsay evidence to be used in trials would “offer the opportunity for fabrication and evidence creation”.
As already happens. This will just make it easier for a woman to destroy your life with false claims.
Ministers have already shied away from attempts to introduce a “sex breathalyser”, which would set a legal alcohol limit for a woman’s capacity to consent to sex.
ANYTHING to take responsibility away from women. This attempt by definition, portray women as inferior to men. Somewhat contradictory to the feminist mantra of ‘women are equal to men in every way’ isn’t it?
The reforms, which were set out by the Government yesterday, come after figures showed only 6 per cent of rape complaints end in a conviction – down from 33 per cent in 1977.
Vera Baird, the Solicitor General, said a panel of experts, including academics, doctors and judges, would meet next month to discuss how to tackle “myths” about rape in an “even-handed and non-partisan” way.
But she admitted judges and lawyers were “less persuaded” by the plans than victim pressure groups.
Victim pressure groups? Well I wonder what their motives are…
Speaking to BBC Radio Four’s Today programme, she said juries should instead be reminded “of the importance of being fair and dispassionate and objective, and of not leaping to conclusions”.
Another concern was that judges are still dismissing rape cases on the grounds of consent – especially when the victim had been drinking or taking drugs.
The Court of Appeal ruled in March that a person may be capable of consenting to sex even when drunk.
The case involved Benjamin Bree, a 25-year-old computer engineer who had been convicted of rape and jailed for five years after an evening with a drunken student.
He was cleared by three judges after serving nearly five months of his sentence.
That’s the risk involved, men.
Miss Baird said she is to ask the Judicial Studies Board, the body responsible for judges’ training, to tell them a woman may not be capable of giving consent if she is drunk.
Poor defenseless little things, how convenient to portray women as weak and helpless when it serves their interests. I’m sure plenty of women don’t agree with this bullshit either. It is a typical example of the communist government attempting to regulate relationships between men and women by assuming to know it all.
When they don’t know shit.
Earlier this year former judge Martin Bowley QC praised juries for refusing to convict in date-rape cases.
He said Government use of rape statistics was “selective” and pointed out that four out of ten rape cases which reach court end in convictions.
Thank you Martin Bowley QC for some sense. Most cases won’t reach court because 1) the woman will retract her claim, 2) there is no evidence at all to support her claim.
Remember. The government, feminists etc are using women as pawns, setting them in opposition to whatever group they want to attack. Portraying women as equal to men in order to force businesses to employ them (Equal Opportunities Act – women couldn’t possibly not be as good as men at ANYTHING), while on the other hand portraying them as weaker than men by attempting to tell women they can’t give consent while drunk (but men can.)
Divide and conquer my friends, divide and conquer. This is the modus operandi of totalitarianism. Create social chaos, then ‘solve’ it by passing more laws to regulate (control) it.
No matter who loses, the government wins, because it gains more powers over the population.