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 conviction.

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 courtroom.)

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 them.

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 of rape.

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 affairs.

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 committed.

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 one aggrieved woman - in fact, a woman who was so drunk that she had no idea what had happened!

And there is just no way that 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 self-serving empires.

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 such thing.

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 - indirectly.

"We go after the easy pickings - the lowest apples on the tree," is what you will commonly hear police officers saying.

In other words, they forget about the real criminals and go after the 'soft' targets.

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 them.

Easy 'policing'.

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 Allegations

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 her work?

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 government departments.

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 others.

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 ambitions.

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.

Another False Accuser Caught

January 2013

Another False Accuser caught - but notice that no objective evidence was needed to take the man to trial. He said/She said is all that it takes to prosecute. Why? Because the officials hope that the men will be convicted if the jury happens to feel sympathetic towards the women.

This is yet another case to demonstrate that 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' does not apply when it comes to 'abuse' cases.

And when legal officials keep telling you otherwise, they are lying to you.

The Strange Case Of Drew Peterson

Drew Peterson

Interview with Drew Peterson - YouTube 8 min

Drew Peterson is a former Bolingbrook, Illinois police sergeant who has received nationwide attention in the United States for becoming a suspect in a police investigation following the death of his third wife and subsequent disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

Peterson has repeatedly denied involvement in both cases.

Drew Peterson is probably going to be charged with homicide in the near future - judging by the enormous amount of circumstantial evidence against him that seems to be accumulating. 

There's mountains of it.

And the other day I was recalling the recent trial in the UK of a group of Muslims who intended to cause bomb explosions in various cities.

The trial went on for weeks.

There was evidence from CCTV cameras, telephone conversations, clandestine meetings

There was evidence from CCTV cameras, telephone conversations, clandestine meetings, secret trips, photographs of bomb equipment and hidden documents.

There was testimony from police officers, MI5, forensics experts, bomb-making aficionados, relatives, neighbours, friends, witnesses to various events, and officials from an assortment of international agencies.

So, please tell me, Someone.

How is it that men are convicted of rape on the sole basis of the uncorroborated testimony of one aggrieved woman?

In other words, why does it take so much effort and so much evidence to prosecute successfully a murderer or a terrorist, whereas when it comes to rape, the uncorroborated testimony of just one woman will do?

Well, I'll tell you.

When it comes to relationship issues and the accusations of women, the justice system - and those working for it - are nowadays thoroughly corrupt.

Indeed, these officials should be prosecuted.

Furthermore, perhaps we should be able to prosecute them and to convict them without the need to produce any objective evidence against them.

Just the uncorroborated testimony of one aggrieved person should be good enough; an accuser who hides in anonymity behind a screen while they testify - just as they do in rape cases.

Because this is exactly what they would quite happily do to you.