16/3/00

Dispatches '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 smelled'.

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 were.

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 various surveys.

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 tactic. 

 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 to do.

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 raped! 

Was it?

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 courtroom? Would she, that night, have to go to a police station for a medical examination? 

No. None of these things would she go through during the trial.

 the judge, should get the same sentence as a convicted rapist

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 (sexual assault) cases."

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 paying more

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 could. 

virtually all these women had histories of psychological disorder

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 these women! 

And neither did I.

You see, I've grown up. 

 I've seen and learned too much to be fooled anymore.

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 Professor Temkin. 

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 families. 

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.

More 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 of us.

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.  

Whatever 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 and Signing the Sex Consent Document.)