After watching this 39:55 minutes video I realised that when discussing accusations against Men that I/we need to be very specific. I recently had a discussion with a female family member and realise now that I threw myself under a bus because I didn't ask 'what type of violence are we talking about here, specifically?'. She was talking about an abusive Ex and in my head I'm thinking about 'presumption of innocence' and/or all the false accusations of violence or rape...
Have any politicians etc., actually talked to all these so called violent men to find out what went wrong in their lives that turned them into such violent perpetrators?
The hysteria, dishonesty and blatant lies about DV related homicides in recent days has been appalling.
It's clearly a coordinated and partisan effort by misandrist elite women across the Australian media and political spectrum, to smear and denigrate all men as potential killers, and to scare the hell out of girls and women.
You can see that homicides are broken into 4 different categories - 'Intimate partner', 'Family', 'Not DV', 'Other'. Check the definitions carefully.
When you drill down the stats overall and for different categories of homicide in this area, you'll see that the reality is very different to what's being portrayed - the numbers of intimate partner homicide, for example, are not very high at all.
The other huge takeaway is that in fact, these types of homicide are decreasing - the trend is a positive one, which is exactly the opposite of what is being peddled, and which they're suppressing.
A few other facts that the misandrists are suppressing :
- indigenous Australians have a massive overrepresentation in these homicides, both as perpetrators and as victims. The overrepresentation is even more significant given that indigenous Australians are avtony minority of Australia's overall population.
- indigenous women have a massive overrepresentation in female victims of these types of homicide. As I understand it, Australia wide it may be close to 50%.
- females constitute many of the perpetrators of child victims of domestic related homicides (infanticide).
- context: intimate partner homicides - the focus of recent hysteria - are a tiny fraction of all homicides.
- context: arguably, other homicide stats are more concerning in particular suicides of both men and women, although the suicide rates of men are at crisis levels.
- context: Australia's record when it comes to DV related homicide is as I understand it, better than most major G7/OECD nations.
I'm not interested in partisan fighting and the above isn't to downplay DV related homicides. Every death is a tragedy. However, we will get nowhere unless we base the discussion on reality and the real world.
What I find despicable about these misandrist elites is how they exploit aborigines, whom they regard as toys/pets that they own and can discard once no longer useful. As we saw in The Voice debate and in this one, they couldn't care less about aborigines at all and in particular, aboriginal women. If they did, they wouldn't be suppressing the truth. They'd be shining a cold, glaring light on what's happening in remote Aboriginal communities and they'd be demanding immediate and urgent action.
But of course, they don't. And why aborigines will continue to languish in misery in those hell holes for the foreseeable future.
The reality is that most of these elite partisan misandrists are frauds, shysters and con artists, grandiose narcissists, seeking to grift money, power, awards, and endlessly seeking narcissistic supply. Denigrating men and boys, scaring women, dividing men and women with lies, and exploiting the misfortune of others are just tools of their trade. It's shameful how weak politicians have allowed them to cause so much division, fear and trouble, and highly damaging to Australia.
Anyway, hope this helps. Pethaos other stats/data relevant to the discussion above could be added in replies.
A good idea to reschedule, Bettina. If Lehrmann appeals, which I believe he will, you may well be able to time the conference with the appeal judgement - which many lawyers think he will win.
Presumption of Innocence, wonder how Albanese feels now the media and the females have turned on him now with allegations which he denies. How does it feel, must be true what we hear about Karma.
My last post here was quite some angry ramblings, slightly incoherant, but that is what happens when a person becomes angry.
For two days in a row I have read the ABC news (if that's what it's called these days), and for both days there have been reports from the radicalised women's groups about how bad the situation is for them. One woman murdered every 4 days by an intimate partner. Actually this number was then said to be false with (real words here) only 49% of females killed by a male being by their intimate or past partner.
"Please stop killing us" was one of the placards, well, this is actually happening with the homicide rate falling over 50% over the past 30 years.
Then I read how a ten year old boy who was living with his violent mother who was facing over 50 criminal charges and whose father had died. Child services still put this ten year old boy with his mother. His life was so traumatic that he got on a train to the end of the line and camped out at social services center, which due to funding and laws couldn't help him. Three years later at the age of 13 he was involved in a murder. This young boy's life was ruined by the system. Is there any assistance for him, no.
A small but highly vocal part of our community just got over $50,000,000 in funding to prevent a situation that really just isn't anywhere as bad as they think it is, yet signs like "I'f rather live with a bear" are acceptable. Men need to step up. We now have to fight fire with fire. We must turn out in droves to protect our young men from this scurge of radicalisation that is infecting our women, sadly they are getting votes. We must turn this around.
Please, check the ABC News (kinda wrong name there) for the details mentioned above.
I posted this link in a previous comment but I find it so informative - rape case or not - that I want everyone to have a chance at reading the contents:
Rape acquittal — What went so badly wrong in the case of Liam Allan?
Our women are being radicalised, yes radicalised in probably the worst way. We are currently in this situation because of very small groups of women literally making mountains out of mole hills. Let me explain.
In the ABC news today (28/04/2024) there is a picture of a young woman holding up a sign saying "please stop killing us". How is a sign so radical so acceptable. This is a simple sign, but it is laying responsibility at the feet of every male in our country, she is effectively labelling every man as a murderer. I often get in trouble because I state that I am not responsible for what other men that I don't know do. These radical women simply won't stand for it when I say that I am not a perpertrator.
Based on "probability", all men are rapists or perpertrators of DV. Guys, lock yourselves up, or at least never ever get drunk again, never ever buy a woman a drink, possibly don't ever pay for her meal on a date, actually, probably best if you never ever date again. Women are dangerous. Yet, the next photo of one of these brave young girls growing up in what is possibly the safest generation ever, the sign states "Girls just want to (Have fun is crossed out replaced with) feel safe. The next sign reads "I'd feel safer with a bear".
What the fuck. All of these signs scream radicalisation at well over 120db. It is very likely that very few of these women have experienced DV or rape directly or indirectly, It is 100% that none of them actually understand what leads to DV because they are constantly being told that they are victims, that they deserve the right to go out and get as drunk as a skunk and be 100% safe. They are allowed to abuse their partners and their partners are then often held responsible, like I was!
The real problem is simple, if you back even the most placid dog into a corner and hurl legalised abuse at it, it, regardless of gender it will do one of two things. It will piss itself due to the stress and wish it was dead (read the male suicide rate of approximately 35 men per week, 7 per day, 2,455 per year that sadly very few people give a fuck about) or it will attack, (read the one female killed by a man known to them every four days).
Yes, what I just said is supposed to be as confronting as it is, it highlights a very well known aspect in psychology knows an the fight or flight response. In this case fighters become murderers and flighters just kill themselves.
Yes, we have a problem in our society, 35 fucking times bigger than these radicalised women and their hopeless supporters will ever realise, but they are so far down their path of radicalisation that they simply cannot understand the depths of position, a classic case of the Dunning Kruger affect.
How do we fix this? I really don't think it can be fixed under our current style of government. Small business is being screwed every day, yet is the biggest employer group out there. Big business makes decisions knowing how much their fines are and continue onwards regardless because it is profitable to pay the fines and do the crime anyway. Our government simply reacts in ways that don't really make sense. We have a whole generation of people who don't know what is real anymore, they are then told what to think. The next one deserves it's own catagory, alcohol.
Our alcohol laws desperatly need to be reviewed. If a person is pissed at a venue, the venue just removes them, then they are not the responsibility of the venue anymore, the patron walks the street, gets a taxi home or drives home. If they drive home, well drink driving is against the law and they might get caught, or they might have an accident and hurt someone in which case their insurance is also denied due to being drunk. Serious concequences for that. Accountability for one's own actions.
If a person walks the streets and get's into a fight, man on man, then they can get into trouble but they will claim deminished responsibility. Drunk people are forever vandalising our business, pissing and throwing up everywhere, breaking things and generally being a right pain in the ass. Do they get in trouble, no. Deminished accountability for one's own actions.
Sex while drunk. Fuck. Guys, don't do it, it's rape, but sadly it is often the girl who is drunk as well. No accountability for women, 100% accountability for men.
What is it when a person can claim deminished responsibility in some circumstances when drunk, but are held to full accountability in other situations? In my view, anything a person does when drunk, or anything that is done to them while in a state of intoxication, well they need to be responsible for both. Bad decisions are made when drunk, getting drunk is often a decision made by the intoxicated person, it then should be seen as anything that happens to and or what a drunk person does is in fact their responsibility.
Um, Bruce Lerhman is actually completely innocent. Um, the judge made a call on Schrodinger's cat without any undestanding that an observation is required to make any determinations as to the extance of the cat. In that room there were two people. Due to the sad fact that both Bruce and Brittany were unsatisfactory witnesses, there is only one true determination that could be made, that the court had insufficient evidence to make a judgement. I mean, whith what she said, that wasn't believed, when she stated that she felt the rape and was crying no, no, no, but then feels that a good sleep was in order directly after was the right thing to do. Then the wellfare check by the female security guard found that she was in such a situation that no special need was required also speaks to the probability that what happened in that room was not of a serious nature.
Back to the radicalisation of a very small part of our community. I believe that the judge is also part of this radical group, so are many of our politicians and all of our media, if they weren't then they would be standing up asking why the fuck are we ingoring the spiralling male suicide rate. Sadly, they simply don't care so be prepared for it to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
I must thank JayBee for showing an interest in the scandal that hit the UK 2017/18 following the "collapse" of a series of Rape trials and the re trial of Ched Evans. Amongst those critical of both the Police and Crown Prosecution Service was the Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Angela Rafferty. In response she pushed for a review of cases. She commissioned other research beyond the actions of the Police or CPS of holding evidence back from the court . In this, about the legal provision which prevents the defense presenting evidence of the complainants sexual behavior history, but does alow the prosecution to present evidence about the defendant, one finds the "smoking gun" that points to the CPS having internal guidance to prevent such evidence reach the court or if told to present it do so at the minimum. https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/s41report.pdf
The report is long and detailed but contains at 131 "The Northumberland
Report recommends that “[the] CPS ensure that prosecuting counsel robustly oppose all
applications for the admission of section 41 material and if an application succeeds, further
seek to limit the ambit and quantity of such material to the minimum” (emphasis
added). This is contrary to all of the ethical and constitutional obligations of prosecuting
counsel. Parliament in enacting section 41 did contemplate that sexual behaviour
evidence could be relevant, admissible and necessary for a safe verdict. If an application
is clearly warranted and admissible through one of the four gateways in section 41, then
it would be ethically wholly improper for prosecuting counsel to oppose the application"
In other words the CPS issued instructions based on a Report which is feminist "advocacy research" produced by the feminist pressure groups. By contrast the CBA research included the experience of male complainants (victims), of which there were in fact a substantial proportion. I bring this up because overall the Ministry of Justice and CBA estimated that 25% of convictions for such sexual assault crimes were "unsound" due to various shenanigans about evidence. Generally the public "culprit" was "lack of resources" but in reality the "believe" mantra and CPS policy combined with pressure to get the number of convictions up pushed this. Unsurprisingly in subsequent years the number of cases going to trial fell by .... you guessed it 25%. Which then fired a continuing clamor in Parliament and the media to get the figures up by........ you guessed it again fiddling with the evidence; this time making it much harder for the Police to obtain phone/social media evidence!
It is interesting the the CBA Barristers (who have prosecuted and defended) agreed that the existing law then was too restrictive for a fair trial and this had been slightly ameliorated by the Court (Judges) taking into account the Human Rights of the defendant for a fair trial.
Sorry, in the original email I wrote the name of the organisation Australians for Science and Freedom wrongly. Mental lapse. Amazing that got through, given that 4-5 people had checked it!!
A suggestion tina. Some people (the brightest and richest) refuse to use links on the internet to enter credit card details to make payments. I KNOW it is more labour intensive but a phone number (manned hoho) would allow people to pay by VOICE phone contact securely. Alternatively, an address where a personal cheque could be sent would do. those who have no money in the bank or actually think that a bank will repay what scammers steal from you would not understand of course (most of the sheep).
“As I have explained, right now 400 current sexual assault cases are being audited by NSW public prosecutors to determine whether, as 6 judges have claimed, such cases are being pushed through to trial with insufficient evidence.”
Is precisely the same issue that caused a furor here in the UK 2017/18 Where the Ministry of Justice, a whistle blowing Barrister acting for the CPS, the Criminal Bar Association and even a documentary by the BBC all agreed 25% of convictions in the previous 5 years were “unsound” because of the Police and CPS conspiring to conceal evidence from the Court (and thereby the defense) as they pushed through cases. Here, as in Australia the catalyst was Judges either halting trials or issuing scathing reprimands to the CPS and or the Police. Linked to the collapse of the “Nick” historical abuse investigations and “believe” there was an all to brief outbreak of principle in our system. What was generally dodged was the obvious fact that if the Police and CPS are given targets to increase cases going to court then they are under pressure to take cases, however flimsy, to court appearance. Of course this reestablishment of principals (due process, innocent until proven guilty, fair trial) immediately caused a feminist backlash to reinstate the idea of “believe” and a presumption of guilt. Very evident in the Westminster, Edinburgh and Welsh Parliaments as they brought in legislation to further limit the defense evidence that is allowed, prevent the Police looking at social media texts etc., get the “gendered definition” written into abuse and harassment legislation and actually abolish the right to trial by Jury in Scotland.
It is a “men’s rights” issue as these attacks of fundamental principles of justice affect males disproportionately but of course they are also attacks on fundamental rights for all. For in how many other things would it be more “convenient” if the Crown (state) didn’t have to bother and simply assured the conviction and imprisonment without a process that tested the case “beyond reasonable doubt”?
Perhaps some participants could familiarize themselves with the reports of the Criminal Bar Association in England and Wales and the more recent Scottish CBA reports and representations on the issue of Jury trials to add this into the debate in Australia.
Well done Bettina. You are a champion for justice. I cannot come but I will donate to support the conference and watch online. Thank you so much for your work.
After the collapse of his rape trial, Liam Allan wants to use his experience to change the way sexual offences are investigated.
https://news.sky.com/story/student-accused-of-rape-ive-spent-two-years-living-in-fear-11175185
thank you Justice for Mens & Boys and Professor Gerard Casey "Rape: A Presumption of Guilt" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB2802Bs4RI
A very clear presentation.
After watching this 39:55 minutes video I realised that when discussing accusations against Men that I/we need to be very specific. I recently had a discussion with a female family member and realise now that I threw myself under a bus because I didn't ask 'what type of violence are we talking about here, specifically?'. She was talking about an abusive Ex and in my head I'm thinking about 'presumption of innocence' and/or all the false accusations of violence or rape...
Have any politicians etc., actually talked to all these so called violent men to find out what went wrong in their lives that turned them into such violent perpetrators?
The hysteria, dishonesty and blatant lies about DV related homicides in recent days has been appalling.
It's clearly a coordinated and partisan effort by misandrist elite women across the Australian media and political spectrum, to smear and denigrate all men as potential killers, and to scare the hell out of girls and women.
They're lying and misrepresenting reality, of course, as these awful people always do. Everyone should arm themselves with the actual data. A good source for NSW is BOSCAR - https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_pages/Murder-NSW.aspx#Chart02
You can see that homicides are broken into 4 different categories - 'Intimate partner', 'Family', 'Not DV', 'Other'. Check the definitions carefully.
When you drill down the stats overall and for different categories of homicide in this area, you'll see that the reality is very different to what's being portrayed - the numbers of intimate partner homicide, for example, are not very high at all.
The other huge takeaway is that in fact, these types of homicide are decreasing - the trend is a positive one, which is exactly the opposite of what is being peddled, and which they're suppressing.
A few other facts that the misandrists are suppressing :
- indigenous Australians have a massive overrepresentation in these homicides, both as perpetrators and as victims. The overrepresentation is even more significant given that indigenous Australians are avtony minority of Australia's overall population.
- indigenous women have a massive overrepresentation in female victims of these types of homicide. As I understand it, Australia wide it may be close to 50%.
- females constitute many of the perpetrators of child victims of domestic related homicides (infanticide).
- context: intimate partner homicides - the focus of recent hysteria - are a tiny fraction of all homicides.
- context: arguably, other homicide stats are more concerning in particular suicides of both men and women, although the suicide rates of men are at crisis levels.
- context: Australia's record when it comes to DV related homicide is as I understand it, better than most major G7/OECD nations.
I'm not interested in partisan fighting and the above isn't to downplay DV related homicides. Every death is a tragedy. However, we will get nowhere unless we base the discussion on reality and the real world.
What I find despicable about these misandrist elites is how they exploit aborigines, whom they regard as toys/pets that they own and can discard once no longer useful. As we saw in The Voice debate and in this one, they couldn't care less about aborigines at all and in particular, aboriginal women. If they did, they wouldn't be suppressing the truth. They'd be shining a cold, glaring light on what's happening in remote Aboriginal communities and they'd be demanding immediate and urgent action.
But of course, they don't. And why aborigines will continue to languish in misery in those hell holes for the foreseeable future.
The reality is that most of these elite partisan misandrists are frauds, shysters and con artists, grandiose narcissists, seeking to grift money, power, awards, and endlessly seeking narcissistic supply. Denigrating men and boys, scaring women, dividing men and women with lies, and exploiting the misfortune of others are just tools of their trade. It's shameful how weak politicians have allowed them to cause so much division, fear and trouble, and highly damaging to Australia.
Anyway, hope this helps. Pethaos other stats/data relevant to the discussion above could be added in replies.
A good idea to reschedule, Bettina. If Lehrmann appeals, which I believe he will, you may well be able to time the conference with the appeal judgement - which many lawyers think he will win.
Presumption of Innocence, wonder how Albanese feels now the media and the females have turned on him now with allegations which he denies. How does it feel, must be true what we hear about Karma.
I just love it when I am right.
My last post here was quite some angry ramblings, slightly incoherant, but that is what happens when a person becomes angry.
For two days in a row I have read the ABC news (if that's what it's called these days), and for both days there have been reports from the radicalised women's groups about how bad the situation is for them. One woman murdered every 4 days by an intimate partner. Actually this number was then said to be false with (real words here) only 49% of females killed by a male being by their intimate or past partner.
"Please stop killing us" was one of the placards, well, this is actually happening with the homicide rate falling over 50% over the past 30 years.
Then I read how a ten year old boy who was living with his violent mother who was facing over 50 criminal charges and whose father had died. Child services still put this ten year old boy with his mother. His life was so traumatic that he got on a train to the end of the line and camped out at social services center, which due to funding and laws couldn't help him. Three years later at the age of 13 he was involved in a murder. This young boy's life was ruined by the system. Is there any assistance for him, no.
A small but highly vocal part of our community just got over $50,000,000 in funding to prevent a situation that really just isn't anywhere as bad as they think it is, yet signs like "I'f rather live with a bear" are acceptable. Men need to step up. We now have to fight fire with fire. We must turn out in droves to protect our young men from this scurge of radicalisation that is infecting our women, sadly they are getting votes. We must turn this around.
Please, check the ABC News (kinda wrong name there) for the details mentioned above.
in case this is of interest, I have written a journal paper explaining all the flaws with the research on 'rape myths'. This is a link https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13657127231217510
I posted this link in a previous comment but I find it so informative - rape case or not - that I want everyone to have a chance at reading the contents:
Rape acquittal — What went so badly wrong in the case of Liam Allan?
https://mosslaw.co.uk/rape-acquittal-what-went-so-badly-wrong-in-the-case-of-liam-allan/
Um, now some serious stuff.
Our women are being radicalised, yes radicalised in probably the worst way. We are currently in this situation because of very small groups of women literally making mountains out of mole hills. Let me explain.
In the ABC news today (28/04/2024) there is a picture of a young woman holding up a sign saying "please stop killing us". How is a sign so radical so acceptable. This is a simple sign, but it is laying responsibility at the feet of every male in our country, she is effectively labelling every man as a murderer. I often get in trouble because I state that I am not responsible for what other men that I don't know do. These radical women simply won't stand for it when I say that I am not a perpertrator.
Based on "probability", all men are rapists or perpertrators of DV. Guys, lock yourselves up, or at least never ever get drunk again, never ever buy a woman a drink, possibly don't ever pay for her meal on a date, actually, probably best if you never ever date again. Women are dangerous. Yet, the next photo of one of these brave young girls growing up in what is possibly the safest generation ever, the sign states "Girls just want to (Have fun is crossed out replaced with) feel safe. The next sign reads "I'd feel safer with a bear".
What the fuck. All of these signs scream radicalisation at well over 120db. It is very likely that very few of these women have experienced DV or rape directly or indirectly, It is 100% that none of them actually understand what leads to DV because they are constantly being told that they are victims, that they deserve the right to go out and get as drunk as a skunk and be 100% safe. They are allowed to abuse their partners and their partners are then often held responsible, like I was!
The real problem is simple, if you back even the most placid dog into a corner and hurl legalised abuse at it, it, regardless of gender it will do one of two things. It will piss itself due to the stress and wish it was dead (read the male suicide rate of approximately 35 men per week, 7 per day, 2,455 per year that sadly very few people give a fuck about) or it will attack, (read the one female killed by a man known to them every four days).
Yes, what I just said is supposed to be as confronting as it is, it highlights a very well known aspect in psychology knows an the fight or flight response. In this case fighters become murderers and flighters just kill themselves.
Yes, we have a problem in our society, 35 fucking times bigger than these radicalised women and their hopeless supporters will ever realise, but they are so far down their path of radicalisation that they simply cannot understand the depths of position, a classic case of the Dunning Kruger affect.
How do we fix this? I really don't think it can be fixed under our current style of government. Small business is being screwed every day, yet is the biggest employer group out there. Big business makes decisions knowing how much their fines are and continue onwards regardless because it is profitable to pay the fines and do the crime anyway. Our government simply reacts in ways that don't really make sense. We have a whole generation of people who don't know what is real anymore, they are then told what to think. The next one deserves it's own catagory, alcohol.
Our alcohol laws desperatly need to be reviewed. If a person is pissed at a venue, the venue just removes them, then they are not the responsibility of the venue anymore, the patron walks the street, gets a taxi home or drives home. If they drive home, well drink driving is against the law and they might get caught, or they might have an accident and hurt someone in which case their insurance is also denied due to being drunk. Serious concequences for that. Accountability for one's own actions.
If a person walks the streets and get's into a fight, man on man, then they can get into trouble but they will claim deminished responsibility. Drunk people are forever vandalising our business, pissing and throwing up everywhere, breaking things and generally being a right pain in the ass. Do they get in trouble, no. Deminished accountability for one's own actions.
Sex while drunk. Fuck. Guys, don't do it, it's rape, but sadly it is often the girl who is drunk as well. No accountability for women, 100% accountability for men.
What is it when a person can claim deminished responsibility in some circumstances when drunk, but are held to full accountability in other situations? In my view, anything a person does when drunk, or anything that is done to them while in a state of intoxication, well they need to be responsible for both. Bad decisions are made when drunk, getting drunk is often a decision made by the intoxicated person, it then should be seen as anything that happens to and or what a drunk person does is in fact their responsibility.
Um, Bruce Lerhman is actually completely innocent. Um, the judge made a call on Schrodinger's cat without any undestanding that an observation is required to make any determinations as to the extance of the cat. In that room there were two people. Due to the sad fact that both Bruce and Brittany were unsatisfactory witnesses, there is only one true determination that could be made, that the court had insufficient evidence to make a judgement. I mean, whith what she said, that wasn't believed, when she stated that she felt the rape and was crying no, no, no, but then feels that a good sleep was in order directly after was the right thing to do. Then the wellfare check by the female security guard found that she was in such a situation that no special need was required also speaks to the probability that what happened in that room was not of a serious nature.
Back to the radicalisation of a very small part of our community. I believe that the judge is also part of this radical group, so are many of our politicians and all of our media, if they weren't then they would be standing up asking why the fuck are we ingoring the spiralling male suicide rate. Sadly, they simply don't care so be prepared for it to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
I must thank JayBee for showing an interest in the scandal that hit the UK 2017/18 following the "collapse" of a series of Rape trials and the re trial of Ched Evans. Amongst those critical of both the Police and Crown Prosecution Service was the Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Angela Rafferty. In response she pushed for a review of cases. She commissioned other research beyond the actions of the Police or CPS of holding evidence back from the court . In this, about the legal provision which prevents the defense presenting evidence of the complainants sexual behavior history, but does alow the prosecution to present evidence about the defendant, one finds the "smoking gun" that points to the CPS having internal guidance to prevent such evidence reach the court or if told to present it do so at the minimum. https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/s41report.pdf
The report is long and detailed but contains at 131 "The Northumberland
Report recommends that “[the] CPS ensure that prosecuting counsel robustly oppose all
applications for the admission of section 41 material and if an application succeeds, further
seek to limit the ambit and quantity of such material to the minimum” (emphasis
added). This is contrary to all of the ethical and constitutional obligations of prosecuting
counsel. Parliament in enacting section 41 did contemplate that sexual behaviour
evidence could be relevant, admissible and necessary for a safe verdict. If an application
is clearly warranted and admissible through one of the four gateways in section 41, then
it would be ethically wholly improper for prosecuting counsel to oppose the application"
In other words the CPS issued instructions based on a Report which is feminist "advocacy research" produced by the feminist pressure groups. By contrast the CBA research included the experience of male complainants (victims), of which there were in fact a substantial proportion. I bring this up because overall the Ministry of Justice and CBA estimated that 25% of convictions for such sexual assault crimes were "unsound" due to various shenanigans about evidence. Generally the public "culprit" was "lack of resources" but in reality the "believe" mantra and CPS policy combined with pressure to get the number of convictions up pushed this. Unsurprisingly in subsequent years the number of cases going to trial fell by .... you guessed it 25%. Which then fired a continuing clamor in Parliament and the media to get the figures up by........ you guessed it again fiddling with the evidence; this time making it much harder for the Police to obtain phone/social media evidence!
It is interesting the the CBA Barristers (who have prosecuted and defended) agreed that the existing law then was too restrictive for a fair trial and this had been slightly ameliorated by the Court (Judges) taking into account the Human Rights of the defendant for a fair trial.
Sorry, in the original email I wrote the name of the organisation Australians for Science and Freedom wrongly. Mental lapse. Amazing that got through, given that 4-5 people had checked it!!
So glad it will be live streamed as it promises to be wonderful. Thank you to all speakers for having the courage to be heard.
A suggestion tina. Some people (the brightest and richest) refuse to use links on the internet to enter credit card details to make payments. I KNOW it is more labour intensive but a phone number (manned hoho) would allow people to pay by VOICE phone contact securely. Alternatively, an address where a personal cheque could be sent would do. those who have no money in the bank or actually think that a bank will repay what scammers steal from you would not understand of course (most of the sheep).
thanks again for your efforts.
“As I have explained, right now 400 current sexual assault cases are being audited by NSW public prosecutors to determine whether, as 6 judges have claimed, such cases are being pushed through to trial with insufficient evidence.”
Is precisely the same issue that caused a furor here in the UK 2017/18 Where the Ministry of Justice, a whistle blowing Barrister acting for the CPS, the Criminal Bar Association and even a documentary by the BBC all agreed 25% of convictions in the previous 5 years were “unsound” because of the Police and CPS conspiring to conceal evidence from the Court (and thereby the defense) as they pushed through cases. Here, as in Australia the catalyst was Judges either halting trials or issuing scathing reprimands to the CPS and or the Police. Linked to the collapse of the “Nick” historical abuse investigations and “believe” there was an all to brief outbreak of principle in our system. What was generally dodged was the obvious fact that if the Police and CPS are given targets to increase cases going to court then they are under pressure to take cases, however flimsy, to court appearance. Of course this reestablishment of principals (due process, innocent until proven guilty, fair trial) immediately caused a feminist backlash to reinstate the idea of “believe” and a presumption of guilt. Very evident in the Westminster, Edinburgh and Welsh Parliaments as they brought in legislation to further limit the defense evidence that is allowed, prevent the Police looking at social media texts etc., get the “gendered definition” written into abuse and harassment legislation and actually abolish the right to trial by Jury in Scotland.
It is a “men’s rights” issue as these attacks of fundamental principles of justice affect males disproportionately but of course they are also attacks on fundamental rights for all. For in how many other things would it be more “convenient” if the Crown (state) didn’t have to bother and simply assured the conviction and imprisonment without a process that tested the case “beyond reasonable doubt”?
Perhaps some participants could familiarize themselves with the reports of the Criminal Bar Association in England and Wales and the more recent Scottish CBA reports and representations on the issue of Jury trials to add this into the debate in Australia.
Well done Bettina. You are a champion for justice. I cannot come but I will donate to support the conference and watch online. Thank you so much for your work.
ANDREW MACLAINE-CROSS