#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?

stockhausen said:
Should this dictum not apply to 55 year old Bonker Boris and 31 year old Carrie Symonds, the one-time PR guru for the Tory Party with whom he allegedly had a blazing row recently to which the Boys in Blue were invited :confused:
Click to expand...

Are MPs forbidden to have sex with all people who at any time did any work for the party the MP is a member of?
 
I notice that a big story today is of a man who knew a man who gave evidence that caused a rape trial to collapse.

Apparently, giving evidence that doesn't support the alledged victim's case is now so politically incorrect, that not only the witness but also his associates and friends must be punished for it.

They may as well just prime the witnesses and tell them what to say. Oh wait, they did. The judge actually described the witness's testimony as "off-script". Nice. I'm glad to see our justice system in action, stopping evidence from being submitted that doesn't support the victim's case.
 
FoxEye said:
I notice that a big story today is of a man who knew a man who gave evidence that caused a rape trial to collapse.

Apparently, giving evidence that doesn't support the alledged victim's case is now so politically incorrect, that not only the witness but also his associates and friends must be punished for it.

They may as well just prime the witnesses and tell them what to say. Oh wait, they did. The judge actually described the witness's testimony as "off-script". Nice. I'm glad to see our justice system in action, stopping evidence from being submitted that doesn't support the victim's case.
Click to expand...

I know you are a mysoginist, but you realise the guy was found guilty of rape after the first trial collapsed, right?

And if the victims account is to be believed, Alun Cairns made up some false story about having casual sex with her, to cast doubts on her and help his (rapist) mate out.
 
VincentHanna said:
And if the victims account is to be believed, Alun Cairns made up some false story about having casual sex with her, to cast doubts on her and help his (rapist) mate out.
Click to expand...
You've got your story completely twisted. That never happened.

Yeah the second trial succeeded after the judge ruled all the dissenting evidence about her prior sexual exploits was inadmissible.

You can call me a misogynist (actually I'm more a misanthrope, I think both sexes of humans are a disease which needs wiping out). And in response to that I will say that you are a one of the rad-fems "useful idiots", who will blindly follow the new feminist narrative until all men are by default dangerous predators to be locked up.
 
FoxEye said:
I notice that a big story today is of a man who knew a man who gave evidence that caused a rape trial to collapse.

Apparently, giving evidence that doesn't support the alledged victim's case is now so politically incorrect, that not only the witness but also his associates and friends must be punished for it.

They may as well just prime the witnesses and tell them what to say. Oh wait, they did. The judge actually described the witness's testimony as "off-script". Nice. I'm glad to see our justice system in action, stopping evidence from being submitted that doesn't support the victim's case.
Click to expand...

Just knowing Ross England isn't the issue, Alan Cairns is accused of lying about his knowledge of the accusation made against England by the judge in the original trial.

The judge told him [England], "You have managed, singlehandedly, and I have no doubt it was deliberate on your part, to sabotage this trial"

The accused was then found guilty at retrial.

If there's injustice, unfairness or any kind of bias here then I'm not seeing it. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Courts are under pressure to convict more people for it. So people dont trust the verdict so much. We've already seen some dodgy convictions being overturned and evidence being withheld from cases etc.
 
Nasher said:
Courts are under pressure to convict more people for it. So people don't trust the verdict so much. We've already seen some dodgy convictions being overturned and evidence being withheld from cases etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah in and in this case the judge ruled the the 'victim's' entire history was inadmissible as evidence, as it painted a picture they didn't want the jury to see.
 
String said:
Just knowing Ross England isn't the issue, Alan Cairns is accused of lying about his knowledge of the accusation made against England by the judge in the original trial.

The judge told him [England], "You have managed, singlehandedly, and I have no doubt it was deliberate on your part, to sabotage this trial"

The accused was then found guilty at retrial.

If there's injustice, unfairness or any kind of bias here then I'm not seeing it. :confused:
Click to expand...

The reporting on this story doesn’t seem to give much detail.

For example it states that the judge had ruled that information about the victim’s past was inadmissible but doesn’t make clear when and whether the witness was aware.

It doesn’t give us the question he was asked or his actual answer but just tells us about his answer.

There isn’t really much context here - we do get a quote from the judge and we get that the witness apparently thinks he was just answering the question.

And apparently because some Tory MP was made aware in an e-mail that this guy was a witness in this trial and it collapsed (albeit it isn’t clear how much detail he was given or what specifically he was made aware of) then he shouldn’t have recommended him as a candidate for the welsh assembly?

And it seems all the news links about the story are copying from the same sorce and/or each other.

Not sure how anyone is genuinely supposed to form an opinion on this other than just basing one on their own preconceptions/bias.
 
FoxEye said:
Yeah in and in this case the judge ruled the the 'victim's' entire history was inadmissible as evidence, as it painted a picture they didn't want the jury to see.
Click to expand...

That isn't unusual, sexual history is never relevant in rape cases and nor should it be. This case has no ambiguity as far as I can see, I'm not sure why you've decided to focus on it.
 
I'm not knowledgeable on how legal cases work, do we not take into account the character of victims and criminals in making judgement on other types of cases? I.e. This man is a 60 year old Priest and is therefore unlikely to have assaulted someone at 2am on a Friday night? It would seem reasonable to say that a 16 year old virgin would be less likely to lie about being raped when in fact it was consensual than someone who gets wasted every weekend and sleeps around. Is this like where advising women that they are less likely to be sexually harassed if they don't walk around half naked is considered victim blaming by radical feminists?
 
Roar87 said:
I'm not knowledgeable on how legal cases work, do we not take into account the character of victims and criminals in making judgement on other types of cases? I.e. This man is a 60 year old Priest and is therefore unlikely to have assaulted someone at 2am on a Friday night? It would seem reasonable to say that a 16 year old virgin would be less likely to lie about being raped when in fact it was consensual than someone who gets wasted every weekend and sleeps around. Is this like where advising women that they are less likely to be sexually harassed if they don't walk around half naked is considered victim blaming by radical feminists?
Click to expand...

No, that kind of prejudice is exactly why sexual history is not permissible.
 
VincentHanna said:
Why does her sexual history matter?

If she was a porn star and had 500 partners it still wouldn't matter, because she was raped.

I'm guessing that's your assumption?
Click to expand...

A persons sexual history may be relevant to the case, we cannot say it never matters, because it can help explain their motives and behaviours. And that applies to both alleged victim and perpetrator. But this is why we have judges, to decide if it's relevant or not.
 
The goals of feminism are to weaken society by destroying the family, and by emasculating men so that they won't defend it.
The result is government running roughshod over the people, as we see now.

Not a great deal that an individual can do about it, except to not vote LibLabConGreenSNPPlaid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom