False Rape Claims

A regular reader would know that this is a bit of a theme on my blog.

This is because I’m constantly aghast at how the perverse state and its enforcers take the word of women as gospel on account of their feminist-inculcated infallibility, and take the word of men as intrinsically faulty, on account of the feminist-enforced idea of universally brutal men.

This blog is awash with examples not just of women who have falsely cried rape, but of those who have been violent, abusive or evil in other ways. Not because I’m a misogynist, because I’m not, but because the reality is that some women and some men are capable of evil deeds or words. Just a little balance, you see.

So I was particularly interested in the article tweeted by the splendid @AbsolutLaudanum this afternoon.


Read the whole thing, but to abridge massively…

Lots of falsely accused men are dragged out of their places of employment in full view of their bosses and colleagues, no doubt giving their false accusers that extra sexual thrill of knowing they’ve thoroughly stripped their prey of the last vestiges of their dignity.  Some young men are dragged from their bedrooms in their parents’ homes half dressed, carted away without any explanation to their terrified parents. 

Once the innocents are hauled to the police station, the fun really begins. They are subjected to grueling questioning on and off over the course of hours or days, often by surly law enforcement personnel who couldn’t care less that the men or boys they are berating are human beings.  They are looking for evidence of a conviction, and if they can convince the male to confess, that makes their jobs all that much easier. Their attitude is often to treat the presumptively innocent male as a vile rapist.

And then there’s the physical examination.  If an innocent woman or girl were subjected to something akin to the following, do you suppose there’d be an outcry about it? "I was taken to a doctor’s waiting room, I was told to completely strip naked. While I was naked the CID agent took pictures of every part of me. The doctor then swabbed my penis 2-3 times, then pulled hair from every part of my body."  That was from a first person account on this blog of a soldier recounting his false rape nightmare. It is typical of many stories we’ve run. 

Once locked up, the men or boys too often are subjected to cruel and offensive batteries and verbal assaults by jail personnel and other prisoners.

And, yes, dear readers, sometimes men and boys are wrongly convicted of rapes they didn’t commit. The young ones, who have no experience in the prison system, are too often routinely victimized by the same crime they were wrongly convicted of. Sometimes, they serve decades in prison before they are released. The news is filled with men who’ve served many years before their innocence can be proven. Think how many others rot away in prison today because the evidence of their innocence was long ago destroyed.

Too often, the awful consequences of a false rape claim are even less predictable.

Remember this story we wrote about at Glenn Sacks’ blog?  Two young lives destroyed — one of the boys was killed — because of a girl’s rape lie. She, of course, served no jail time.  Go read it. It will make you sick.

Or how about this story — I’ll reprint our opening paragraph: "Clifford Martin, 19, is heading to prison for accepting the word of two teenage girls that one of them had been sexually assaulted by another 19-year-old man named Cory Headen. Mr. Martin broke into Mr. Headen’s home and beat him to death while he was sleeping."

Remember the serial rape liar whose lie caused one of her young victims to kill himself?  Despite that, she was allowed to falsely accuse another young men — and he was forced to undergo a grueling trial before he was acquitted.  The liar?  She retains her anonymity, of course.

Or how about mentally unstable man who was charged with rape, then took his own life after the police delayed in telling him he had been falsely accused?

Or the innocent man who suffered months of abuse in his community after being falsely accused of being a paedophile before his heart couldn’t take any more?

Or the falsely accused young men who were attacked by thirty inmates?  Or the man who was brutally attacked and suffered devastating brain injuries when he was falsely accused or rape?  Or the man who was beaten because he was mistaken for a rapist?

The only thing in which one can take heart is that while the USA apparently persists in allowing these false accusers to remain free and anonymous, we have at least recently started to prosecute them in the UK, strip them of their anonymity and jail them. This is in spite of hateful Hattie’s shenanigans.

It’s scant consolation, though, because as the article above shows, once the genie is out of the bottle, the damage is done for the men involved, no matter how demonstrably false the claims they have endured.

We must hope that, as we trudge backwards from collective enlightenment, the UK does not end up where the US is. I do wonder, though, whether it’s the insane and terrifying US feminists, or insane and terrifying US religionists that keep America in the dark ages on this matter of fundamental injustice.



On not giving a flying fuck

ITV’s London Tonight – a TV programme, apparently – thinks we could give a shit what some overpaid kickyball douchebag thinks about likely cuts to police budgets.

By referral, so does the Tellygiraffe.


Could anyone who thinks Rio Ferdinand has an opinion worthy of merit, regarding anything more important than football, please report to your nearest suicide booth?

I’m not going to bother dissecting Ferdinand’s opinion. I shall simply despair that anyone thought it worthy of an airing.


Paul Chambers #twitterjoketrial update – half time at the appeal court

Friday saw the opening of Paul Chambers’ appeal against his conviction under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which he was adorned with after sending a silly, but harmless and hyperbolic, tweet relating to an airport.

Initial expectations were that the hearing would be wrapped up on the day, with a verdict either in favour of common sense and reason, or in favour of the cruel and arbitrary whims of the state.

However, not only has this not come to pass – the hearing was adjourned late on Friday afternoon – but the matter is likely not to be resolved this side of November. So Paul Chambers, and his nearest and dearest, are to be left in further agonising suspense by a callous, arbitrary and inhuman system.

All the coverage you need on the current state of play is provided by the distinctly uneffable @DavidAllenGreen.

 Click to read on

.. And from @flayman, the guy widely credited with bringing Paul’s case to the attention of the Internet at large, a very insightful post about the state of play.


I’m writing this new post because Paul’s appeal was heard and then adjourned yesterday in Doncaster Crown Court and because the prosecution has, in my opinion, not only failed to strengthen its case since May but has offered evidence that actually weakens it to a never before seen level of farce.

Click to read on

Matt (@flayman) highlights a telling account of one of the CPS’s arguments, as relayed by the Guardian.

Caroline Wiggin, for the prosecution, said Chambers had earlier sent direct messages to the woman in Northern Ireland as it appeared possible that the airport might close. In one he wrote: “I was thinking if it does I have decided to resort to terrorism.” She argued that the context provided by such messages strengthened the case that Chambers intended to cause menace. “If a man in prison were to send a message to his wife that he was going to come and beat her up, the court might consider that were menacing, albeit the man himself may have difficulty in putting it into effect,” she said.

He does a simply masterful job of demonstrating the monumental incoherence of the argument put forward by Caroline Wiggin, which you should read.

What really irked me about it, though, and what Matt does not address, is the implied gender politics informing the CPS’ argument.

It’s like something from chapter one of the “Harriet Harman Manual of Righteous Misandry” and my piss has been gently simmering ever since I read it yesterday.

Look at it again.

In one he wrote: “I was thinking if it does I have decided to resort to terrorism.” She argued that the context provided by such messages strengthened the case that Chambers intended to cause menace.

ORLY? How so? After all, this is a chap messaging the girly he’s on his way to see. Part of a running gag, perhaps?

Anyway, what possible motive, in the minds of the righteous, could a horny, hairy Yorkshire MAN have to make such a journey?

“If a man in prison were to send a message to his wife that he was going to come and beat her up, the court might consider that were menacing, albeit the man himself may have difficulty in putting it into effect,” she said.

O. Kay.

So, err… once more for the cameras…

If a man in prison were to send a message to his wife that he was going to come and beat her up

Permit  me to pose a question. Do you think, for one minute, that if it were Paul’s young lady in the dock for her part in the same series of messages, Ms Wiggin would have posited that…

“If a woman in prison were to send a message to her husband that she was going to come and beat him up, the court might consider that were menacing, albeit the woman herself may have difficulty in putting it into effect,”

Well, do you?

There are plenty enough objective, rational reasons why Caroline Wiggin’s argument is fatuous, non-sensical, prejudiced and fallacious.

But none of these approaches, as effectively as they make this woman look like a fool, satisfies my ire.

The implied, and lazy, feminist premise that all men are brutes and all women are victims, which seems to underpin this argument is breathtaking.

Matt, though – a man who is reasonable to the point of being fucking infuriating sometimes – insisted that Ms Wiggin was only putting forward the arguments cooked up by the CPS, and that it was unfair of me to level accusations of stupidity at her.

If anything, Matt’s assertion makes things look even worse.

In the conclusion I’d provisionally drawn, perhaps one of shooting the messenger, what we had was one woman who could be dismissed as a lazy, spiteful, man-hating, feminist idiot.

In Matt’s scenario though, the only conclusion we can draw is that the CPS is, institutionally, running a prosecutorial policy of lazy, spiteful, feminist, man-hating idiocy.

I was happier when I was just pinning the blame on Caroline Wiggin.

Now the whole house of cunts has to fall. Kier Starmer’s head needs to be on a platter by Christmas if Chambers is not cleared.


UPDATE: Matt has now gone one better and garnered the opinion of a linguistics expert, who has deconstructed the tweet that got Paul into so much bother. Must read blogging.

All hail the new #Labour overlord


Now the games can really get underway.


UPDATE: Secret cameras captured Sunday lunch at Chez Miliband last weekend.


Another story where everyone is an arsehole

This is our free country:


The men, all but one of them members of the far-right English Defence League, set fire to what appears to be the Muslim holy books on the anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities in the United States.

They say they carried out the “private joke” as a riposte to historical images of Muslim extremists burning American flags and effigies of western leaders.

Now, I shouldn’t need to state that I think it’s sick and absurd that people in a country such as ours can be charged with a criminal offence for burning a book, or for posting a very ludicrous and moronic video of the occasion on YouTube. Although, the latter is apparently not even the case.

Four more men were arrested and bailed on Wednesday pending further inquiries, Northumbria Police said.

“The arrests followed the burning of what are believed to have been two Korans in Gateshead on September 11,” a spokesman said.

He added that the men were not arrested for watching or distributing the video, but on suspicion of burning the Koran.

And I needn’t point out that police, in fact, provided protection in London to a group of radical Islamists who made a public show of burning a US flag, on 11th September, in front of the US embassy in London.

Now, these EDL guys are clearly pretty dim.

The clip, recorded in the back yard of a public house in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, has been broadly condemned by other YouTube users, some of whom have expressed concern that British soldiers in Afghanistan could be targeted as a direct result.

They were marshalled by a man wearing a jacket bearing the logo: “English Defence League, Gateshead Division”.

The group admit to having been drinking at The Bugle in Felling, Gateshead, ahead of a Newcastle United match.

“It wasn’t anyone’s idea as such,” said the spokesman, who agreed to speak only on condition that all six remained anonymous.

But not so dim that they couldn’t speak truth to power.

“People are sick of British soldiers being killed out in Afghanistan and then being spat at and called baby killers when they come home.”

And that’s true enough. Some of the Islamist provocation surrounding Wootton Bassett etc has been truly disgusting.

But if that bunch of nutters have the right to act in a sick, deluded and provocative way (and so far as I’m concerned, they do), then how have a handful of daft Geordies burning two copies of the Quran in their back yard ended up having their collars felt?

Double standards? Thought police?

The Islamists have won? It really does seem that way, doesn’t it?


Brutal truth

This amused me.


I’ll spare you the photo – you can see it a the Telegraph’s site if you so wish. But I warn you: What has been seen cannot be unseen.

Hayley O’Neil, 23, – who also has 20 body piercings – says was also advised to ”stand behind a wall” when she asked a job centre official what post she could apply for.

She eventually left the Job Centre Plus centre in Blackburn Lancs in tears without any interviews lined up after the advisor concluded: ”Who would hire you looking like that?”

Miss O’Neil, who got her first tattoo from her mother as an 18th birthday present said: ”I just felt so humiliated. I couldn’t believe what this guy was saying.

”I said I could take the piercings out but they look a lot worse when they are out."

"The guy said: ‘on first impressions do you think anyone would hire you?’ He said: ‘look at it this way if you were to stand behind a wall – or put a paper bag over your face do you think you would have a better chance?’

I think it’s logically fallacious to suggest that I wouldn’t hire her because of her piercings or tattoos. The reason I wouldn’t hire her is the same reason that she has the piercings in her face: Because she’s a fucking moron.

People. We’re paying for her. And if she doesn’t get a job, it won’t be long before she concludes that her path to security is having some babies. Which we shall also be expected to pay for.

How much longer must we go on like this before the cost/benefit analysis of eugenics becomes too compelling to ignore?


Community Policing: Ur doin it wrong.

The timing couldn’t be more perfect.

It’s like South Yorkshire police have a sixth sense about when best to unleash their lunacy on an unsuspecting public.



Police have broken their ‘psychological contract’ with the public to keep the streets clear of anti-social behaviour, the country’s most senior officer admitted yesterday.

Scotland Yard chief Sir Paul Stephenson accepted beat patrols had been neglected and officers left behind desks, in cars or left doing ‘social work’.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner supported the call for the public to join the fight against yobs, saying they should be confident officers will back them.

I think when they say ‘yobs’, they must mean parents dropping their disabled kids off at school.


Police have been accused of being ‘heavy-handed’ after sending a riot van to hand out parking tickets at a disabled school.

Parents were stunned when the vehicle pulled up as they were helping the children in wheelchairs from the school to their cars.

Officers were accused of being ‘rude’ for dishing out on the spot penalties as they waited at Hilltop Special School in Maltby near Rotherham.

One of the victims Dave Phillips was handed a £30 fixed penalty when he stopped for five minutes to pick up his wheelchair bound son Matthew, aged 16.

He had driven 15 miles from his home in Retford, Nottinghamshire, and parked outside the school before being confronted by a police woman.

He said : ‘The police response has been heavy handed – and it’s the kids they are penalising not us. The police behaviour was unpleasant and completely unnecessary.

‘Nine officers and a police van created an intimidating atmosphere around the school.
I was approached by a young policewoman who told me to "move" – not "excuse me sir" — it was just a total ignorant attitude .

‘I explained to the officer I was going to park here for five minutes to get my son. I said ‘He’s a wheelchair user and we have got a side loading lift’, – "not my problem" was the reply, "move it" so I said "no, I’m stopping here I’m going to put my son in."

South Yorkshire police said tackling ‘inconsiderate parking’ in the area was now a priority.

And they wonder why an increasing proportion of the public think that the police can go fuck themselves.

This is the same South Yorkshire Police, we should remember, who arrested and charged Paul Chambers for sending a joke tweet about an airport, which resulted in his conviction. His appeal is ongoing.

Oh and it could well be that there’s something in the police’s assertion that these parents were parking inconsiderately, but the police are supposed to treat members of the public with respect, and they fail on that count, time after time.

A disgrace to the nation, and another legacy of Labour.


%d bloggers like this: