"Slutwalks" in N. America

[Jessica23]

Harriet Harman was ordered to stop misleading the public about rape by an official inquiry report yesterday.

 

The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks.

 

The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only six per cent of complaints end in a conviction.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.html#ixzz1RnOfYKUU

 

Or read it in the Guardian instead and get a - quelle surprise! - almost wholly different take on the issue.

 

The report called for an end to the use by politicians and campaigners of the much-quoted 6% conviction rate, which represents the proportion of reported rapes that end in a conviction for rape itself. It was misleading and may be putting victims off reporting attacks, Stern said.

 

The suggestion is controversial, because campaigners say women who have been raped want to see their attacker convicted for rape, not a lesser offence that may carry different connotations. The 6% figure most accurately represented the situation women faced when reporting rape, Hall said. "To move away from that is to hide what women are really up against."

 

Story here.

[Streamline]

In brief; Harriet Harman has been told by Baroness Stern to stop misleading the public with her phony rape statistics.

 

The conviction rate for 'rape' is about 60% - not about 6%; which is what the lying Harriet Harman and her lying crony, Vera Baird, have kept saying over the years.

 

Baroness Stern's concern is that by telling the public that the conviction rate is only 6%, genuine victims of rape will be put off from going to the police - because they will believe that there is little chance of conviction.

 

And, of course, Baroness Stern is right.

 

And Harriet Harman is clearly well aware that her promulgation of the 6% conviction rate will discourage genuine rape victims from coming forward.

 

So, why has Harriet Harman been doing this? Surely, she is concerned to encourage genuine victims to come forward? Surely, she is also concerned to demonstrate that her government's courts are, in fact, doing quite well when it comes to convicting rapists who are actually brought before them?

 

why has Harriet Harman been deceiving the public for all these years?

 

 

It doesn't make sense, does it?

 

Oh yes it does - because, as I keep telling you, Harriet Harman has no concern for genuine rape victims. Her only concern is to garner the votes of women by stirring up hatred towards men. And by forever proclaiming that 95% of rapists get away with their crimes, she manages to stir up this hatred in millions of women.

 

Politicians and government officials like Harriet Harman believe (quite rightly) that they have more to gain by stirring up hatred towards men than they have by admitting that their conviction rate for rape is, in fact, quite good.

 

In Harriet Harman's case, the dishonesty surrounding this issue is also designed to outrage women sufficiently for them to support even further corruptions of the justice system when it comes to rape allegations and, of course, to give their votes and their support to her.

 

Finally, Baroness Stern's view that up to 10% of rape allegations might be false is nothing but baloney.

 

The false allegation figure is much closer to 90% than it is to 10%.

 

There is no valid evidence WHATSOEVER to suggest that the false allegation rate is close to 10%, but there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that it is close to 90%.

 

In the UK, women seem nowadays to allege rape at the drop of a hat - especially when drunk or stoned.

 

END NOTE: I have no idea how many women are raped in the UK, and I have no idea how many rape victims do not come forward. Nor has anybody else got any idea that is not based on pure speculation.

 

But when it comes to those women who turn up at the police station, the evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority are making false claims.

 

END NOTE 2: On Channel 4 TV this evening, a female police officer whose identity was kept hidden, and who proclaimed herself to be a feminist, said that she, herself, would think twice before going to the police to report a rape. I quote, ...

 

"I would have a lot of trouble reporting it [a rape] and I'm a serving police officer. I'm a feminist. I'm a blogger. I'm an independent-thinking woman. And I would be in two minds whether to report it [a rape] because of the grief it causes. And just the hassle of it, knowing the questions that are going to be put to you, and thinking, "Are you going to be getting anything out of it?" I've had seasoned detectives tell me that they think that the majority of allegations they've dealt with are false. And this is based on nothing more than the fact that they couldn't get enough evidence for a conviction."

 

So, there you have it.

 

Seasoned detectives believe that the majority of rape allegations are false.

 

1. Seasoned detectives believe that the majority of rape allegations are false.

 

2. This anonymous feminist policewoman thinks that these seasoned detectives are basing their conclusions solely on the basis of the fact that they cannot find enough evidence for conviction; i.e. she believes that these seasoned detectives (which will consist of both men and women detectives) are too stupid to differentiate between 'not finding enough evidence for a conviction' and a false allegation.

 

But the main point to be made here is this.

 

The 'seasoned detectives' whom she criticises clearly agree with my point of view.

 

The false allegation rate is closer to 90% than it is to 10%.

 

END NOTE 3: Here are two posts by police officers on this policewoman's blog, ...

 

"A colleague of mine spent a weekend attached to a sexual offences unit, took three allegations, and was able to prove categorically in EVERY case that the victim was either lying or being seriously economical with the truth."

 

...

 

"Some of the greatest cynics I have spoken to are the SOLO officers [sexual Offences Liason Officers] that are the initial investigaters in these matters. These are nearly always female officers with many years experience. The reason is that the majority of allegations they deal with are fabrications and that they spend alot of time and effort for nothing."

 

Angryharry

[Frank Sidney]

Wrong wrong and wrong again. You have fallen in a classic trap here. Firstly, there are not 'numerous' false claims of rape at all, the number is negligible, however, as female sexuality is perceived so differently from that of our male counterparts, one or two high profile cases have completely distorted the entire picture to the extent where fools people like yourself now cite this is a factor.

 

It is quite simple, since the dawn of time women have been blamed and held accountable for men's sexual behaviour. Men apparently have uncontrollable sexual urges, and it is up to us not to put ourselves in any position or situation whatsoever where we are at risk of any form of sexual harassment/assault which is the very same thinking behind this idiot policeman's comments and so called 'advice' to women on what not to wear. That is why juries nearly always deliver not guilty verdicts in the tiny minority of rape cases which get to trial.

 

 

 

Er, that is subversion rather than pervertion. It's not the same either as there is very little, if indeed any, threat of sexual violence from women to men. It would only work on that level (ie the fear of sexual violence) if it were men looking at other men.

 

A typical example of sexist behaviour by a feminist. If you think that its only men who leer after the opposite sex then you're deluded.

 

Your made up logic about rape data is also misleading, you seem to blame men for everything. You forgot to mention that on the juries, in the police forces, in the legal profession and sitting on the benches there are large numbers of women....So if you're asserting that there are major flaws in these organisations that results in rape charges being thrown out then women are as responsible as men for this?

 

Some women do make up rape allegations and they must be held to account for this. I doubt if you will though. Once again if you think this is a handful of cases then you're deluded. There's loads of stuff available on it if you just google or read the press...

[Cyclone]

You've got an amazing knack there for taking any statement you agree with as a simple statement of truth, but completely dismissing any other statement (from the same person) which you happen to not agree with.

 

Even to the point where here

 

I've had seasoned detectives tell me that they think that the majority of allegations they've dealt with are false. And this is based on nothing more than the fact that they couldn't get enough evidence for a conviction.

You quote the 1st sentence as supporting you, but the 2nd sentence which is explaining the 1st you dismiss as being wrong because the 1st would no longer support your point then.

 

You've clearly got an opinion and aren't going to let any evidence to the contrary change it.

[Cyclone]

A typical example of sexist behaviour by a feminist. If you think that its only men who leer after the opposite sex then you're deluded.

 

Your made up logic about rape data is also misleading, you seem to blame men for everything.

Men are entirely to blame for rape.

You forgot to mention that on the juries, in the police forces, in the legal profession and sitting on the benches there are large numbers of women....

About equal on the jury, but less so in the police force and the legal profession, and massively less so on the bench.

So if you're asserting that there are major flaws in these organisations that results in rape charges being thrown out then women are as responsible as men for this?

 

Some women do make up rape allegations and they must be held to account for this. I doubt if you will though.

You doubt she will what? Personally hold them to account?

Once again if you think this is a handful of cases then you're deluded. There's loads of stuff available on it if you just google or read the press...

Falsely accusing someone of rape should be dealt with as severely as rape itself, it's a despicable thing to do. But I suspect that it's easier to prove that an allegation is false than to prove that a rape took place...

[Suffragette1]

Sounds like the words of a misandrist to me, what high level of rape cases, or do you mean allegations including the false ones?

 

So your still not happy when an impartial jury finds a defendent not guilty is that correct?

 

I see some of your sisters are campaigning for the release of a women who was imprisoned for two years for making false rape. I think she claimed she had been kidnapped on 3 separate occasions and raped and lots of other harassment claims all it appears directed at one man.

 

I haven't read the full story but it appears that on one of the days she said she was kidnapped by force from her house and then raped.

 

On the day she made this claim the Police had her under surveillance and filmed her leaving her house on her own.

 

Seems to me the real haters are those that try to make out this women is innocent.

Of course, to be pro-women and anti-patriarchy automatically makes me a misandrist, dear oh dear, any more cliches, myths and silly stereotypes you would like to label me with? And naturally, I would support any woman who committed any crime, by virture of the fact that we share the same sex.

 

I think that in cases where women have been proven beyond a resaonable doubt or confessed to having made a false rape claim, then the book should be thrown at them - it's a disgrace, does untold damage to all those genuine victims who are fighting a system weighted heavily in favour of the defendant, to get justice and undermines the credibility of all women.

 

 

Impartial juries frequently find defendants not guilty for a myriad of reasons, some being the way the victim is placed on trial and every possible tactic used to undermine her credibility, judges direct juries with some rather emotive language often referring to false allegations, many people have preconceived notions of female sexuality and 'appropriate behaviour' which they bring to bear in a trial, that is just for starters.

 

In brief; Harriet Harman has been told by Baroness Stern to stop misleading the public with her phony rape statistics.

 

The conviction rate for 'rape' is about 60% - not about 6%; which is what the lying Harriet Harman and her lying crony, Vera Baird, have kept saying over the years.

 

Baroness Stern's concern is that by telling the public that the conviction rate is only 6%, genuine victims of rape will be put off from going to the police - because they will believe that there is little chance of conviction.

 

And, of course, Baroness Stern is right.

 

And Harriet Harman is clearly well aware that her promulgation of the 6% conviction rate will discourage genuine rape victims from coming forward.

 

So, why has Harriet Harman been doing this? Surely, she is concerned to encourage genuine victims to come forward? Surely, she is also concerned to demonstrate that her government's courts are, in fact, doing quite well when it comes to convicting rapists who are actually brought before them?

 

why has Harriet Harman been deceiving the public for all these years?

 

 

It doesn't make sense, does it?

 

Oh yes it does - because, as I keep telling you, Harriet Harman has no concern for genuine rape victims. Her only concern is to garner the votes of women by stirring up hatred towards men. And by forever proclaiming that 95% of rapists get away with their crimes, she manages to stir up this hatred in millions of women.

 

Politicians and government officials like Harriet Harman believe (quite rightly) that they have more to gain by stirring up hatred towards men than they have by admitting that their conviction rate for rape is, in fact, quite good.

 

In Harriet Harman's case, the dishonesty surrounding this issue is also designed to outrage women sufficiently for them to support even further corruptions of the justice system when it comes to rape allegations and, of course, to give their votes and their support to her.

 

Finally, Baroness Stern's view that up to 10% of rape allegations might be false is nothing but baloney.

 

The false allegation figure is much closer to 90% than it is to 10%.

 

There is no valid evidence WHATSOEVER to suggest that the false allegation rate is close to 10%, but there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that it is close to 90%.

 

In the UK, women seem nowadays to allege rape at the drop of a hat - especially when drunk or stoned.

 

END NOTE: I have no idea how many women are raped in the UK, and I have no idea how many rape victims do not come forward. Nor has anybody else got any idea that is not based on pure speculation.

 

But when it comes to those women who turn up at the police station, the evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority are making false claims.

 

END NOTE 2: On Channel 4 TV this evening, a female police officer whose identity was kept hidden, and who proclaimed herself to be a feminist, said that she, herself, would think twice before going to the police to report a rape. I quote, ...

 

"I would have a lot of trouble reporting it [a rape] and I'm a serving police officer. I'm a feminist. I'm a blogger. I'm an independent-thinking woman. And I would be in two minds whether to report it [a rape] because of the grief it causes. And just the hassle of it, knowing the questions that are going to be put to you, and thinking, "Are you going to be getting anything out of it?" I've had seasoned detectives tell me that they think that the majority of allegations they've dealt with are false. And this is based on nothing more than the fact that they couldn't get enough evidence for a conviction."

 

So, there you have it.

 

Seasoned detectives believe that the majority of rape allegations are false.

 

1. Seasoned detectives believe that the majority of rape allegations are false.

 

2. This anonymous feminist policewoman thinks that these seasoned detectives are basing their conclusions solely on the basis of the fact that they cannot find enough evidence for conviction; i.e. she believes that these seasoned detectives (which will consist of both men and women detectives) are too stupid to differentiate between 'not finding enough evidence for a conviction' and a false allegation.

 

But the main point to be made here is this.

 

The 'seasoned detectives' whom she criticises clearly agree with my point of view.

 

The false allegation rate is closer to 90% than it is to 10%.

 

END NOTE 3: Here are two posts by police officers on this policewoman's blog, ...

 

"A colleague of mine spent a weekend attached to a sexual offences unit, took three allegations, and was able to prove categorically in EVERY case that the victim was either lying or being seriously economical with the truth."

 

...

 

"Some of the greatest cynics I have spoken to are the SOLO officers [sexual Offences Liason Officers] that are the initial investigaters in these matters. These are nearly always female officers with many years experience. The reason is that the majority of allegations they deal with are fabrications and that they spend alot of time and effort for nothing."

 

Angryharry

 

There you have it, really? Evidence is often very difficult to quantify in rape cases as ultimately in the majority of cases it boils down to one person's word against the other, which is where gender politics enters the court room arena and men walk away scott free.

 

The fact that these seasoned detectives are less inclined to believe the female victims than the male perpetrators does not mean that the majority of cases reported are false at all, in fact it is more likley to mean that any woman not fitting the stereotypical timid victim who was beaten black and blue and stranger raped in a dark alley will be branded at worst liar or at best responsible if she knew the rapist, which is the case with the majority of rapes; all of this is indeed evidence of how perceptions of women shape the judicial process.

 

Three allegations being 'proven' to be false or exaggerated? If indeed this is the case, does that render the veracity of every genuine case dubious?

 

Try reading this.

 

In 1998, a headline appeared in the local Grimsby weekly: "Man faces rape charge". He had dragged a 15-year-old girl down an alley and assaulted her. The CPS decided not to pursue the case. That man was Ian Huntley. At the time, he was not seen as a danger to the public, and neither are the majority of other "opportunist" rapists who get away with it. The girl was probably lying, eh?

[Suffragette1]

A typical example of sexist behaviour by a feminist. If you think that its only men who leer after the opposite sex then you're deluded.

 

Your made up logic about rape data is also misleading, you seem to blame men for everything. You forgot to mention that on the juries, in the police forces, in the legal profession and sitting on the benches there are large numbers of women....So if you're asserting that there are major flaws in these organisations that results in rape charges being thrown out then women are as responsible as men for this?

 

Some women do make up rape allegations and they must be held to account for this. I doubt if you will though. Once again if you think this is a handful of cases then you're deluded. There's loads of stuff available on it if you just google or read the press...

 

Try reading what I said. I never claimed that it is only men who leer at the opposite sex, what I said was the underlying fear of sexual violence is seldom a factor with men when a woman looks/leers/jeers at them, whereas women have grown up with the fear of sexual violence from men and continue to live with it. I do not blame men for everything, I blame patriarchy, there is a huge difference.

[Jessica23]

I've just spent an not-very-edifying five minutes reading Angry Harry, and it beggars belief that anyone would cite him as a credible source in a discussion forum. He is quite obviously somewhat unhinged, his website is badly designed and very poorly-written and the vast majority of the tripe that he posts is a mishmash of hate-filled rhetoric and, frankly, nonsense.

 

There's no shortage of credible research out there on rape. Citing bloggers like him is counter-productive at best.

[Frank Sidney]

Try reading what I said. I never claimed that it is only men who leer at the opposite sex, what I said was the underlying fear of sexual violence is seldom a factor with men when a woman looks/leers/jeers at them, whereas women have grown up with the fear of sexual violence from men and continue to live with it. I do not blame men for everything, I blame patriarchy, there is a huge difference.

 

Ok darling, sorry xx

[Suffragette1]

I've just spent an not-very-edifying five minutes reading Angry Harry, and it beggars belief that anyone would cite him as a credible source in a discussion forum. He is quite obviously somewhat unhinged, his website is badly designed and very poorly-written and the vast majority of the tripe that he posts is a mishmash of hate-filled rhetoric and, frankly, nonsense.

 

There's no shortage of credible research out there on rape. Citing bloggers like him is counter-productive at best.

 

Well said, Jess (lovely to be posting with you again after such a hiatus ), Liz Kelly is a good place to start on research in rape, as is Sue Lees who is sadly no longer with us, but she did some fantastic research in the 90s which is a little out of date now. Angry Harry is my kind of fella, I want to marry him and have his babies:D:

 

Feminists in the media and in politics are, by and large, an extremely nasty bunch.

 

And please never forget that many of them collude with each other quite consciously - and explicitly among themselves - to "stir up hatred towards men".

 

This is not me exaggerating, or stretching my imagination in order to demonise them more than they deserve.

 

They really do consciously and explicitly set out to stir up such hatred.

 

When I first started out exploring feminists, I believed that, basically, they were simply supporting a flawed and self-serving ideology that stirred up hatred towards men as a by-product.

 

Not so.

 

For many of them, stirring up hatred towards men is the main purpose of their activities (e.g. see Spin Sisters and Slap That Face) - often, the very reason that they support feminism.

 

And, for example, unlike the general public, UK politicians such as Harriet Harman and Vera Baird know full well that thousands of innocent men are treated appallingly by the justice system when it comes to allegations of sex-assault, domestic violence etc etc - with some of these men even committing suicide - but they do not care.

 

And the reason that these revolting women do not care is because they hate men. They really and truly do hate men.

 

And if you look closely at what they say and do, you cannot come to any conclusion other than that their primary motivation is to fuel this hatred in the population.

 

Furthermore, sites like this one often get criticised for being 'misogynistic' and, to some extent, I accept that there is some truth to this; mostly because MRA sites are biased.

 

Men are angels. Women are demons.

 

But there is nothing hidden about this.

 

There is no pretence that these sites are even-handed when it comes to gender issues.

 

But, for example, you will not find me taking any pleasure in seeing women being hurt or killed, or falsely accused or wrongly convicted and imprisoned, etc etc.

 

And, to be fair, the same kind of thing is also true for most women who see themselves as feminists.

 

But if you look closely at most of the leading feminists in the media, in politics and in academia, it is not possible to come to any conclusion other than that their primary aim is to fuel hatred towards men.

 

Why?

 

Because they really and truly do hate men.

 

They want to hurt them.

 

Hurting them is what gives them pleasure.

 

Hurting them is what turns them on.

 

And hurting them is their aim.

 

Indeed, I suspect that it is this seething, deep-seated, ongoing hatred of men that has given them the energy to reach and to maintain their lofty status - lofty in the eyes of most other feminists; and particularly lofty in the eyes of women who hate men.

 

And while it is true that some MRAs appear to be just as hateful towards women as are these feminists towards men, there is a huge difference between the two.

 

Firstly, most of these MRAs are reacting to the appalling misandry that is being generated by these revolting wimmin and, basically, they are just trying to fight fire with fire.

 

Secondly, these MRAs are fully aware that their vitriol has a very small impact on the population - unlike the foul machinations of these leading feminists.

 

Thirdly, these MRAs are not actually responsible for creating any laws that treat women badly. But these feminists have continually and successfully caused laws to be implemented that are positively outrageous, sexist, bigoted and thoroughly hateful - with thousands of men every year being treated appallingly; and with all men being regarded if they were nothing but dirt.

 

Finally, when ...

 

Kia Abdullah tweeted that she had 'smiled' when she heard the news that students Max Boomgaarden-Cook, 20, Bruno Melling-Firth and Conrad Quashie, both 19, had died in a coach crash in Thailand

 

... you can be 90% sure that she really did take pleasure in their deaths.

 

Furthermore, her clear intention was to encourage other women to feel the same way.

 

And if the editor of the Guardian had any decency, he would kick her off his newspaper.

 

He would certainly do this if a male journalist had revelled in the deaths of women.

 

 

 

On Thomas James Ball He doused himself in gasoline then self immolated on the steps of a family courthouse in New Hampshire. Mr. Ball chose to use his own agonizing death to focus public attention on the corruption of the family courts.

 

A truly terrible tragedy - a tragedy that much of the mainstream media refuses to report on.

 

----------

 

To me, this is yet another example demonstrating that men are often more governed by their emotions than is often purported to be the case.

 

Indeed, is it not men, rather than women, who do the craziest things in certain circumstances?

 

For example, it is men who are crazy enough to die for their countries or their rulers.

 

It is men who end up the most passionate about their religion.

 

It is men who seek the thrills from sports and taking risks and sex.

 

True. Men seem to be endowed with greater skills than women when it comes to logical analysis, mathematics, space and time, and more able to detach themselves from emotions, but it does not follow from this that men are, in general, less emotionally driven than are women.

 

Does it?

 

Perhaps men are more driven by emotions than are women, whereas women are more confused by emotions than are men.

 

Or maybe it's the other way round.

 

Or, maybe, men are more driven and more confused by emotions than are women.

 

Or, then again, maybe it's the other way round.

 

But - whichever way you look at it - all women are evil.

 

And that's a scientific fact!

 

And, surely, if men were as rational and as emotionless as they are often proclaimed to be, then why have they not enslaved women?

 

After all, it would certainly make good rational sense to do so.

 

Think of the benefits!

 

And who could stop them?

 

Oftentimes I wonder if men have been sold a lemon when we are led to believe that women are more emotional than men.

 

Maybe it's just a ruse - an excuse - for their miserable behaviours.

 

An act.

 

A ploy.

 

A deception of the most heinous kind.

 

A bit like childbirth being hugely painful.

 

After all, how do we men know that childbirth is hugely painful, eh?

 

Maybe it's just a scam by women to wheedle some extra sympathy out of everybody - and to get time off work.

 

We only have their word for it.

 

But we don't actually know, do we?

 

(e.g. see Is Everybody Conscious?)

 

And we know how prone are our women to exaggerating their various woes.

 

(e.g. see Depressed Females)

 

Remember: Women are the masters of deceit. They were born that way.

 

(e.g. see Women and Chimps)

 

How else to survive amongst their brothers when they are children, or amongst the men when they are adults?

 

And then they learn how to manipulate their very own children, by lying to them all the time and saying that the spinach with some sugar on it is a new kind of chocolate that tastes great, and that if you do your homework you can watch the TV for five whole minutes.

 

But it's all a scam.

 

The chocolate spinach tastes like old underwear, and you don't actually have a TV.

 

But she doesn't care.

 

So long as she got you to eat the spinach and do your homework, she's won!

 

And that's all that matters to that no-good hussy.

 

Her whole life is engaged in developing the art of manipulating others to do her will.

 

That Jezebel!

 

(e.g. see Women Manipulate Men)

 

And what about chivalry and honour? - manly qualities for the most part.

 

Qualities that require sacrifice of some sort.

 

Is there much that is 'logical' or 'rational' about men seeking to possess qualities such as chivalry and honour?

 

Surely, in most cases, the drive to possess such qualities and to exhibit them - genuinely so - is much more based on emotion than on reason?

 

And who are the greatest and most popular artists, musicians, composers, poets, writers, sculptors, song-writers and playwrights etc etc.

 

Not women.

 

So where, exactly, lies the evidence to suggest that women are more emotionally driven than are men?

 

Beats me.

 

And there was me thinking that us wimmin had the monopoly on anti-opposite sex hate fuelled rants.