'Still Getting Away with Rape' (Ch 4)
The programme tonight was another of
those organised by the feminist lobby desperate to lock up more men for
the crime of rape. I needn't bore you with all the details but the programme
was typical. For example, the defending barristers, white males, were
mostly portrayed as arrogant, uncaring cads and, of course, there was no
mention at all of the fact that there is evidence showing that the
number of false allegations of sexual assault is rising at an alarming
rate - which is not surprising given the constant media lobbying of women to
accuse men of all sorts of things.
The programme started with a collection of sob stories
The programme started with a
collection of sob stories from women who alleged that they had been
raped and who had also failed to get a conviction in the courts. In
these cases, the alleged rapist was known to the 'victims', and Professor
Jennifer Temkin from the University of Sussex, upon whose 'research'
much of the programme seemed to be centred, basically complained that not
enough men were being convicted for the crime.
The programme was, as expected, one
sided and highly prejudicial against men. Nothing new there. But despite
its carefully polished production, there were 'a few rats to be
1. According to the programme's
presenter, "Professor Temkin is an expert on how the law deals with
rape. Recently she interviewed ten very senior barristers. She promised
not to identify them so that they would be very honest. They disclosed their
usual defence strategies to her."
I really wanted to know why 'an expert on how the
law deals with rape' would even need to ask ten barristers what their
defence strategies were.
I found this very interesting because
I really wanted to know why 'an expert on how the law deals with rape'
would even need to ask ten barristers what their defence strategies
Didn't she already know? Surely an expert would already know this.
Doesn't Professor Temkin attend the courts and hear the defence strategies herself?
Doesn't she read the transcripts? If not, what kind of expert is she?
Hmm. My suspicions were aroused. But
then they always are when I hear about feminists such as Professor
Temkin doing 'research'.
And, of course, much of
the feminist-inspired 'research' into areas of 'abuse' involves placing
the cloak anonymity over all those who (allegedly) responded to their
How convenient, eh?
At the start of the programme,
Professor Temkin showed her disgust at some of the tactics
that these ten defence barristers supposedly claimed to use, and she quoted what some of these
tactics were. She appeared to get quite angry at the callous manner in
which these barristers undermined the credibility of the 'victims' as a
Professor Temkin could claim all sorts of things
from this 'research' in order to inflame more anger against males
The problem for me was this. What objective evidence, apart
from Professor Temkin's word, can we, the disbelievers gain from this?
None. Because it was all 'anonymous'. In other words, Professor Temkin
could claim all sorts of things from this 'research' in order to inflame
more anger against males, and, though I'm not suggesting that she did
this, well, this is exactly what feminists and feminist researchers tend
In summary, I didn't find Professor
Temkin to be very credible.
2. Many of the programme's 'victims',
echoing the usual feminist propaganda, stated that being raped by
someone who is known to them is as bad as being raped by a stranger. My
question, however, is this. How do they know?
Have these women been raped by strangers as well?
How can they possibly know
that being raped by a complete stranger is as bad as being raped by
someone that you know? Have these women been raped by strangers as well?
If they haven't, then what kind of nonsense 'research' is this? How can
anyone make the claim that one thing is worse than another if their
experience is limited to only one of the things?
3. One of the 'victims' claimed that
in court the defence barrister was, "... blackening my character
and that was like being raped all over again'.
Aha! So that's how bad her 'rape'
really was. Surely this gives us an insight into the mentality of women
today. The victim-indoctrinated women of our times. You see, being asked difficult questions about her character is like being
Was there the same fear that after
the trial the woman would be infected with some disease? Would she then have to
face telling her friends about the incident for the first time? Would she
receive any scratches and bruises during the court hearing? Would she have any
tearing of tissue? Would she then feel his hands upon her? Would she fear
that tomorrow she might wake up pregnant with the accused's baby? Would she have
the accused's unwelcome bodily smells all over her after the trial? Would she
fear that the accused might pull out a knife if she 'resisted' while in the
Would she, that night, have to go to a police station for a medical
No. None of these things would she go
through during the trial.
the judge, should get the same sentence as a
If standing in a court and answering
questions is equivalent to the event itself, then the event wasn't that bad. Or,
if it was, then, presumably, the person responsible, the judge, should get the
same sentence as a convicted rapist.
No. No. This will not do. It cannot be
that an accuser in a rape trial goes through the same experience as a woman who
is genuinely being raped.
So, I am drawn to three possible conclusions from
this woman saying that being questioned in court 'was like being raped all over again'..
a. Her 'rape' experience really wasn't
that bad ... or ...
b. This woman has a tendency to
exaggerate ... and, in either case, ...
c. I am not surprised that the
defendant was acquitted.
4. According to the programme, most
top barristers only defend in rape cases. And rarely are they up against
equally qualified prosecution barristers. According to Ann Mallalieu QC,
"Increasingly, relatively junior and inexperienced barristers are
used by the Crown Prosecution Service in these
According to Mrs Justice Rafferty,
"the fact of the matter is that defence counsel in serious sexual
offence cases are more experienced than the prosecuting barristers, and
this will have its effects (i.e. the defendant is more likely to be
acquitted) There comes a point where the barrister for the prosecution
is going to be outgunned and outclassed by the more seasoned defence
barrister. ... If you're not prepared to pay for better prosecution
barristers then you are going to get this effect."
Isn't this horrendous? This is a frank
admission by two very senior female lawyers that justice and truth in
rape trials in the UK have
very little to do with the outcomes. It is all to do with money.
getting more convictions can simply be achieved by
In other words, getting more
convictions can simply be achieved by paying more to the barristers who
prosecute. And, of course, the state has infinite resources.
And this is British justice?
But now we really see why politicians
and influential media people don't care about the changes to the rape
laws. It won't affect them. They can afford the very best barristers.
So, only those without sufficient funds can 'rape' in our system. The
wealthy need have no fear. And two senior lawyers admit this.
Yep: This is British justice.
5. Needless to say, the women in the
programme were all portrayed as terrified victims, and they kept their
faces in the dark. They were covered up and had squeaky, tearful voices,
and they milked as much sympathy from the viewers as they possibly
virtually all these women had histories of
But it was interesting to note that
virtually all these women had histories of psychological disorder,
loosely described as attention seeking or self-mutilatory. And there was
plenty of evidence to suggest to me that these women were highly prone
to exaggeration and distortion of the truth.
How come Dispatches could not find
'victims' who did not have such a history of disturbance? Does
Dispatches truly believe that men should be sent down solely on the
evidence of women who, for example, cut themselves and seek attention
through self-injury and hysteria?
Now, one certainly has sympathy for
these poor women, but, despite the terrible tales of violence and abuse
against them (and in some cases claiming to have actual physical
evidence of violence against them) the juries simply did not believe
And neither did I.
You see, I've grown up.
I've seen and learned too much to be fooled
There was a time where I would have
been filled with rage at the men portrayed as rapists in these programmes. But I've
seen and learned too much to be fooled anymore.
Too many programmes like this
Dispatches programme are carefully manufactured and polished to send a vindictive
feminist message. They are not real and untainted. They are biased and
prejudiced, with one aim in mind. To damage and to debase the men in our
society and to appease the emotionally-deficient feminist
propagandists who would really like to castrate them.
And the same appears
to be true for most of the
feminist 'research' from our Universities - such as that produced by
Now, I don't know whether any of the
women in this programme were truly raped as they claimed, and nor do any
of the other viewers. And this is a problem that feminist lies and
feminist hysteria have created. Like the viewers, juries are finding that women are not
believable anymore. And this means that the true victims of rape are
buried within the gushing stream of false allegations, whether from
disturbed, deluded women, or from those hateful ones who simply lie in
order to hurt the men who have 'offended' them in some way.
One notes, for example, that Professor
Temkin's 'research' is also reported in the newspapers to have found one
female barrister who said that, "There are lots of women who make
complaints of rape who would sleep with the local donkey."
Now, where was this
sort of thing mentioned in the
Dispatches programme? Of course, it wasn't mentioned at all.
6. Anger was expressed by the
Dispatches presenter because, in the UK, only 30% of rape cases that go
to court end up with convictions, whereas in the USA they achieve a 70%
conviction rate. It was, of course, suggested that this demonstrated how
our courts were failing victims.
The truth, however, is that the US courts are
bogged down with false allegations of rape and they achieve such high
conviction rates because feminists generate even more hysteria and
anti-male propaganda over there than they manage to do over here.
And those of you who are old enough
might well remember the farcical US feminist claim that, when a woman has
been drinking, then, any sexual act by a man should be considered as a
sexual assault. The argument was that even mildly inebriated women could
not possibly give legitimate consent.
Further, their hysterical 'rape'
figures were inflated by some 50% by including within them acts which
the 'victims' themselves did not consider as rape.
there is an ever-growing pustulating core of feminist
nastiness within our midst
And until we all recognise that there is
an ever-growing pustulating core of feminist nastiness within our midst
that has managed to infiltrate the highest positions within our society,
we will never be at peace with each other. And selfish, self-centred
feminists have to recognise that half this country is made up of men,
whether they like it or not.
The government is already putting in
measures to allow the 'victim' to testify behind screens or through
video links to shield her from the defendant. And it is also preventing
the jury from accessing the whole truth by playing games with regard to
what questions can be asked of the 'victim', and who can ask them.
We seem to be using procedures practised by the Nazis
and other totalitarian states
We seem to be using procedures
practised by the Nazis and other totalitarian states where accusers do
not have to face the people whom they are accusing, and where accusers do not
even need to answer questions that they claim cause them discomfort!
They remain anonymous and in the dark, for they claim that questioning
them is as bad as rape itself.
And why did Dispatches keep these
women's faces in the dark, or have their faces blurred out? Why do women
who say 'rape' need to hide? There is no shame in being raped, robbed,
abused or murdered. So, why do they hide?
They hide from the cameras, they hide
behind a veil of anonymity in the courts, and now they are to hide from
the defendants themselves. What are they hiding from?
n my experience, most people who feel the need to hide
are the ones who fear the truth coming out.
In my experience, most people who feel the need to
hide are the ones who fear the truth coming out. And, in a significant
number of cases, we know that the women who are hiding, are hiding
because they've made the same accusations before; against other men.
But innocent men have their names
paraded before the public when charged with sexual assaults. They are
put on pedestals to provide target practice for the media, and they are
paraded about so that other women from their pasts can assuage their anger.
They are also made very vulnerable to blackmail from women who will lie to gain
financial reward, through compensation or through media payments for
their stories. And they are likely to lose their jobs, their friends, their
Innocent men. Remember this. They
have not been found guilty of anything.
And this is called justice in the UK.
But the women remain anonymous. And
they are encouraged every single day by feminist vindictiveness to 'get
even'. They are indoctrinated daily to feel abused and offended and to
'phone this number'. These instructions pour out of almost every media orifice
in the land.
And as these hateful feminists push the
boundaries of what is called 'rape' further and further away from the
conventional notion of rape, so it is that the accusing women will have
to hide deeper and deeper in the dark, and more and more will the law have to be
corrupted so that more men can be convicted.
relationships will be damaged and broken as men become less trustful of women because of the potential harm that
they can do to them.
And more men will learn that the
closer they 'attach' to women, the
more dangerous they become. This is the complete opposite of what
relationships should be about.
But this is where feminism leads. It
is a vindictive, spiteful, discriminatory ideology that leads to more disharmony and less attachment. This is not good for any
Finally, we must always remember that, whether or not
the accuser is truly a victim, she is never an impartial,
independent witness. She is only there in the courtroom to get that man locked up.
happened, if anything, she is there to get him locked up. She is,
therefore, almost bound to exaggerate.
This is what people do when they have
sufficient hatred to want someone locked up.
They do not even necessarily make a
purposeful effort to exaggerate, though certainly many of them do, but
human memory is a funny thing. And we all know that it exaggerates in
situations such as these.
The accusing woman is not an objective, independent witness.
The accusing woman is not an objective,
independent witness. In fact, she is a very hostile, and, therefore, very
biased witness, or she wouldn't be there. And so, if anything, she should be
subject to the utmost scrutiny.
Instead, however, she is to be
hidden, and certain questions must not be put to her.
(Also see AH's Rape Baloney
the Sex Consent Document.)