Good Chance Of Conviction?
Video Clears Man Of Rape Charge
A businessman was cleared of raping a university student today after
jurors were shown video footage of their sex session.
How many men have had the good fortune to have actually taken videos of
their sexual encounters with their false accusers, eh?
1 in 500, perhaps?
And such a low figure must give us all some idea of just how large is the
number of men who have been unjustifiably
convicted of rape.
No videos for them!
Notice also that the utterly contemptible officials working in the UK's
Crown Prosecution Service claim that they
only prosecute cases where there is a
'good chance' of conviction.
In other words, they are actually admitting quite
openly that even when - as in the above case - there is no evidence
whatsoever (apart from the word
of, what is clearly, an aggressing
woman) there is still a GOOD chance of
This must mean that men can be convicted without any objective evidence
that they have done anything wrong.
This is the kind of corrupt system of 'justice' that these people
actually admit to operating.
"Our 'justice' system is designed to ensure that we have a
good chance of conviction even when we have no
objective evidence whatsoever that
the defendant has done anything wrong."
Let me spell this out.
1. The officials in the Crown Prosecution Service are
forever claiming that they only send 'rape' cases to court
if there is a good chance of
conviction. (In fact, the conviction rate is around 50% once in the
2. But these officials are forever prosecuting cases in which the
only evidence comes from
one aggressing woman.
3. In other words, the
only evidence that they have
available in these cases comes from
one witness who is completely and
utterly biased and prejudiced against the defendant - in other words, an
extremely 'hostile' witness.
4. This means that the officials working in the Crown Prosecution Service (and our
politicians) are well aware that our
system of justice has a good chance
of having men convicted on the
sole basis of the testimony of
one hostile witness. And, as such,
they will continue to prosecute men
in such situations precisely because
- AND ONLY BECAUSE -
they have a good chance of convicting
This is a clear admission that justice has got nothing to do with it.
If she says that you raped her, then this is good enough!
"We have a good chance of conviction."
These people are not morally fit to work within any
system of justice.
Falsely Accused Man Cleared Of Rape
A man was today cleared of raping a lawyer who had claimed she was too
drunk to consent to sex.
He was 26. She was 45 - and a lawyer.
When he woke the next morning alongside her, Mr Bacon said he was
horrified at her demands to know if they had sex and then her accusations
He said: 'I was hung over, tired and shocked by the allegation she was
making. It was quite overwhelming. 'As far as I knew we had had a good
evening and I intended to have a nice morning, and then all of a sudden
she turned. It was completely unprovoked.'
Mr Bacon said his alleged victim told him: 'The law has been changed
for f*****s like you. If you're too drunk to give consent then it's rape.'
The fact that this lying manipulative female lawyer remains anonymous is
an outrage. And all men should be fighting against this appalling state of
What this disgusting woman was clearly trying to do, in my view, was to
claim falsely that she was 'too drunk' simply so that she would not have to give
any detailed evidence to the police or to the court.
"I can't remember. I can't remember. I can't remember."
And, on this basis, this
woman clearly expected to have this man imprisoned.
'A submission by the defence that there was no case to answer was
rejected by the judge, who allowed the case to be considered by the jury.'
But, of course, there was no case to answer, because there was no
objective evidence to support the
view that any crime had been
In other words, this was yet another example of a corrupt judge failing to
do what is supposed to be his duty -
to protect the defendant from suffering
injustice at the hands of the state.
Indeed, this is one of the main
functions of our judges.
They are supposed to protect defendants from injustice.
Let me spell out what is going on here and in similar situations.
This accusing woman, the judge, the Crown Prosecution service and the
police were all hoping to gain a
conviction against this man purely on
the sole basis of the
uncorroborated testimony of
aggrieved woman - in fact, a woman who was so drunk that she
had no idea what had happened!
And there is just no
any kind of legal system that attempts to
prosecute men caught up in such situations can
ever be called 'just'.
So, please get this into your heads. The judges, those working in the
Crown Prosecution Services and in the police are doing their very best to
get men convicted simply on the say-so of one aggrieved woman.
This is who these people really are.
And it is only thanks to the juries that these corrupt official are not getting
away every time with this utterly contemptible attempt to put many more innocent men
in prison - simply so that they can buttress and maintain their
The above officials are mostly connected with the UK's Home Office; and,
time and time again, in so many different areas, these officials have been
found to be thoroughly dishonest and corrupt.
They have been caught lying and deceiving when it comes to almost every
area where they operate.
Goodness knows how much dishonesty they keep getting away with.
So, please never kid yourselves that those working for the legal
departments in our governments are trying to create and maintain a system
of 'justice' when it comes to the criminal law - because they are doing no
What they are doing is trying to criminalise as many people as possible in
order to provide themselves with jobs, pensions etc etc.
The police even admit to this -
"We go after the easy pickings - the lowest apples on the tree," is what
you will commonly hear police
In other words, they forget about the real criminals and go after the
And in the 'rape' case above, what could be easier? - because no real evidence
was needed, and they did not need to catch anybody or to go chasing after
Perhaps one day we will be able to prosecute politicians for their sins on
a similar basis.
No evidence needed.
Just an accusation.
Tell me. What kind of government official can sleep comfortably with the
knowledge that they have spent much of their time at work trying to ruin
the lives of completely innocent others simply because a woman has made a
complaint about them - particularly when they
know that the majority of these complaints will turn out to be
bogus and fabricated - e.g. see
Flooded By False Rape
What kind of person does such a terrible thing to others
What kind of person does such a terrible thing to others as part of his or
Well. I can tell you at least four things about these people.
1. They are morally corrrupt - and they deserve to be exposed as such.
2. There are, literally, many thousands of them now working within
3. They certainly do not give a damn about you.
4. These are the last people on Earth to whom we should give any power.
We all know that in the olden days, thousands upon thousands of people
went to extraordinary lengths to create and maintain their power over
Whether it was the Romans or the Persians, the Russians or the Germans,
the Catholics or the Muslims - on and on it goes.
With battles and wars in which millions of people have been maimed and killed.
With institutionalised slavery of some form or other.
Over and over again. In every country. Throughout the whole of human time.
The whole of human history stands as a testament to how selfish and ruthless are
so many people when it comes to grabbing themselves some power.
It is quite clear that there are certain types of people who will do
almost anything in order to further their own
Well, these people are still with us.
Their genes have not evaporated into thin air.
They are still here.
And these are the kinds of people who are currently working in places like
the Home Office and within our so-called systems of justice.
They would have made great Nazis.
They would have operated the extermination camps with great enthusiasm.
After all, it could bring them promotion.