So much for due process.
English law states that a person is “innocent until proven guilty.Why am I not surprised?
Now, maybe it’s because I can be so incredibly cynical about things, but I just can’t bring myself to agree with that.
But, actually, it has a lot to do with my feminism.Yes, it actually does have a lot to do with her feminism. At least a feminist has finally stopped lying bout how they really feel about western systems of justice, which is actually pretty frightening, come to think of it.
Given that the national average conviction rate in England and Wales is a paltry 5.3%, that would seem to suggest that - according to English law - there only 1 in 20 men who are reported to be rapists, are guilty of rape. Personally, I think that’s a load of bollocks; especially when you take into consideration the fact that about 75-95% of rape victims do not report to the police, which therefore means there are a ot more guilty rapists out there.Same old femcunt whinging. What is unique in this case is that this idiot thinks that she knows how to run a justice system. She begins with the wrong assumptions, and when they don’t pan out, presumes on the guilt of the defendant. With judges like this bitch wants, is there any hope for real justice?
I happened to mention the other day that, as far as I - an individual - were concerned, in cases of rape, sexual assault etc, the perpetrator was - in my eyes, at least - guilty until proven innocent (and, even then, I am not convinced by lack of conviction or justice). As I have mentioned, this is largely due to a complete and utter disillusionment and disgust at a system which convicts only 5.3% of alleged rapists. (emphasis added) I know I go on about this a lot, but that’s because it is an issue I am hugely concerned about. However, this guy took exception to this, because - and I guess this is, in part, his Christian beliefs coming through - shouldn’t see people in such a negative light, and that - anyway - some women do not say “no” explicitly enough.Did everybody catch that? The crux of her entire argument is that the system simply doesn’t throw enough men in jail. And femcunts claim that they don’t really hate men?
You know, I guess that last part is what is called a “grey area” technically, but when a woman does not say “no” explicitly, it is essentially because - I believe - women are not exactly socialised to be assertive. But this could potentially lead to something else I have been musing about recently - that is, the idea which seems to be commonly held, that sex is inevitable. I will rant on about that in a little while, but I don’t want to digress too much.So women can’t stand up for themselves now? I thought that women were supposed to be “liberated” and “strong,” and “independent.” These adjectives are starting to seem more and more like non-sense words and less like actual qualities every time a femcunt mentions them.
However, this view - that some women do not say “no” explicitly enough - is essentially victim-blaming, and it is assuming that the vast majority of cases reported to the police are those of women who didn’t say anything at the time, but then regretted it, and so tell the police it’s rape - I think that’s largely a myth.The thing is, I believe that an alleged rapist has more of a vested interest to lie than the victim. The thing is, I believe that the judicial system is weighted against rape victims. The thing is, I have to beg the question - how, if I am really, truly to believe that in such cases that someone is “innocent, until proven guilty”, when only 5.3% of reported rapes end in conviction?”So. A rape accusation should be enough to throw a person in jail? I have an idea! Let’s accuse all feminists of rape! That would work right?
It does NOT add up.
Shit like this makes me want to be in favor of eugenics.