Are You Not Reassured?

Scotland’s most senior law officer has moved to reassure victims of sexual abuse that they will be protected after a supreme court ruling warned that Scottish laws designed to limit intrusive cross-examination could be breaching men’s right to a fair trial. In a strongly worded statement, the lord advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, said: “I would like to make clear that I understand sexual abuse inflicted upon women and children to be the single greatest challenge our justice system faces.

A justice system in a country still confused about what women actually are? WEll, good luck with that, dear!  

“It is unacceptable and victims should feel able to speak out without further fear,” she continued, before underlining: “The supreme court ruling does not alter the statutory protections for those giving evidence.”

Then why have a Supreme Court at all? if you're just going to ignore what they say because you think you know better  

Last Wednesday, the supreme court delivered its judgment in the case of two men appealing against rape convictions delivered in Scottish courts. Although both appeals were dismissed, the five judges ruled that Scotland’s courts needed to change their approach to the admission of evidence in such cases, warning its current process “is liable to result in violations of defendants’ rights to a fair trial under article 6 of the convention”.

So the lord advocate would rather not have fair trials under their jurisdiction? 

It’s Not ‘Unfair’ If They Committed The Crime

Survivors of domestic abuse are being criminalised and unfairly punished in the broken justice system, top lawyers, campaigners, and experts have said in a major call for government reform. Figures including Cherie Blair KC, former Victims Commissioner Dame Vera Baird KC, and campaigning lawyer Harriet Wistrich are among the signatories to a letter from the charity Women in Prison, calling for an end to “unfair criminalisation of women”.

Oh, go on. Give us an example of this 'unfairness', then.  

They say the signs of domestic abuse and its impact are not taken into proper account when a woman ends up being prosecuted for a crime.

A crime she's committed? How is that unfair? 

One survivor who went to prison said: “My boyfriend was a drug dealer who abused me financially, sexually, emotionally and physically.

“When we’d go out, he’d say ‘You’re carrying the drugs’. I was scared to say no.

“I was arrested and given a custodial sentence. I don’t ever want to see women going to prison after experiencing what I went through.”

Well, they won't if they choose better partners, and refuse to do anything illegal for them. But...you didn't, did you? You committed the crime. You are just proffering an excuse.  

At the Labour Party conference in September, Ms Mahmood said “for women, prison isn’t working” and announced the creation of a new body, the Women’s Justice Board, which aims to cut prison numbers.

“Rather than encouraging rehabilitation, prison forces women into a life of crime”, she said. “After leaving a short custodial sentence, a woman is significantly more likely to commit a further crime than one given a non-custodial sentence.”

So, the answer's obvious - give them longer sentences!  

The Dear Old Grauniad Starting 2025 Off As One Expects...

...with rampant misandry. Wonder what the stats are for men killed by other men? And by the way, it isn't even accurate (would anyone expect anything less?):

None of these incidents are linked in any way other than that a woman has been killed and a man charged in connection with her death.

So they stuck in that 'allegedly' but if he's acquitted, the number will come down, won't it? 

Let's Have More Female Judges!

To bring their 'unique perspective' to the justice system!

A drunk businesswoman who glassed a pub drinker after he wrongly guessed her age has been spared jail after a female judge said 'one person's banter may be insulting to others'.

So assault with a potentially deadly weapon can be excused? Really?

Mother-of-one Joanne Dodd, 39, flew into a rage and attacked Carl Cooper after he suggested she was 43 in the beer garden of the Unicorn pub in Manchester city centre on September 9 last year. Mr Cooper fled to the toilet in a bid to get away from the heated situation, but when he came out Dodd ran towards him and twice shoved her wine glass in his face.

Not even in the heat of the moment, then? 

At Manchester Crown Court, Dodd, who is from Swinton in Salford, faced up to three years in jail under sentencing guidelines after she admitted inflicting grievous bodily harm. However, she was spared jail and handed a suspended sentence after Judge Elizabeth Nicholls said she was a 'dedicated, hardworking woman' who posed no risk to the public.

Contrast this with her words to a male offender:  

“You are not a teenager, you are 35 and mature enough to understand that you should stop and face the consequences.”

No such consequences for the 'fairer sex', eh, Lizzie? You were pretty lenient with a schoolboy who stabbed his teacher in the face with sissors too, though. And came down pretty harshly on pedophile hunters rather than pedophile victims, it has to be said.

The judge told Dodd: 'It is obvious that you had been drinking heavily and there was undoubtedly some verbal exchange between you and the other group.

'You did not appreciate the comments made by Mr Cooper and one person's banter may be insulting to other people but that did not justify what you then went on to do.'

Why are you trying so hard to justify it for her, then? 

'Your conduct was incomprehensible.

'The only explanation that can really be put forward is that you were under the influence of drink, which does you no credit.

I though judges had to know Latin? Like, in vino veritas?  

'It was no doubt traumatic for Mr Cooper and it would have had an impact on him. Fortunately he seems to have made a good recovery. 'I have seen the photo where the scar is barely noticeable but to him it will be a constant reminder of your conduct on that night. There was a very unpleasant injury, it is a grave injury, but fortunately there is no permanent disfigurement.'

If he has a visible scar, that's permanent disfigurement, no matter the size or hidability.  

'There is no doubt that this offence is so serious that it crosses the custody threshold. The issue is whether the sentence is immediate or can be suspended.'

'Perhaps more importantly you are a mother of a young child. Although, no doubt, the child would be taken care of, an immediate term of imprisonment would have a devastating effect on your child. It would be disproportionate to the sentence that needs to be imposed.'

Ah. So women can be spared the consequences of their actions (by another woman, no less!) provided they've reproduced. That's not even a unique perspective, it seems to be shared by far too many of her male colleagues. 

Yes, That's Now Highly Inappropriate, Bill...

Haven't you realised you can't disagree with a member of a protected class?

'As of now we are talking and we are trying to make peace with each other,' Murray said. 'We are both professionals, we like each others' work, we like each other I think and if we can't really get along and trust each other there's no point in going further working together or making the movie as well. It's been quite an education for me.'

And don't forget, they have long memories... 

This is not the first incident Murray has encountered on a film set. On the set of the 2000 action-comedy 'Charlie's Angels,' actress Lucy Liu reportedly confronted Murray for 'hurling insults' at her following a rewrite of a scene without his knowledge, Variety reported.

Liu addressed the incident for the first time last year. She called Murray's behavior 'inexcusable and unacceptable.'

Just like elephants, they never forget! 

She Left The Reservation! Stone Her! STONE HER!

Poor Davina McCall is the latest celebrity to advance a perfectly reasonable opinion and immediately face the wrath of the social media mob:

Who was it called us 'the fairer sex'..? Must have been referring to complexion, or something... 

And notice - because I certainly did - how the Twitterbio images of those spewing bile at the temerity of someone daring to hold a different opinion are all somehow rather similar in nature?

Caroline Hirons replied: 'When a woman is murdered at the hands of a man every 2.5 days it is not the time to pacify a fragile male ego. This is not a good message Davina. We all know it’s not ALL men. But it IS men.'

Doesn't sound like it's the male egos that are fragile, does it? They aren't the ones demanding that anyone who doesn't sing from the same hymn sheet be regarded as a traitor to their sex, and that collective punishment of an entire group is suddenly fine and dandy...

When Is It OK To Condemn All Members Of A Group For The Actions Of One?

The answer appears to be 'when that group is 'men'..':

The responses to this were...predictable. No-one seemed to want to point out the obvious. 

Except me, of course.

Let's Hear It For Personal Responsibility!

Barbara Ellen opines on the Ched Evans debacle:

Legality aside, what Evans might find himself dealing with from now on is the wider public response to the sickening, self-justifying culture he’s come to represent and the importance of personal responsibility.

Hurrah! Quite right, Barbara! So, we'll be suggesting that young women don't get lagered up and throw themselves at footballers (and their friends), will we?

Despite all the money sloshing around, football has miraculously remained one of the few areas of public life where those at the top tend to come from working-class backgrounds, which is something to be proud of.

But how is it possible to be “proud” of a grubby, self-gratifying world where, in too many cases, the personal nightlife “perks” have revolved around budget hotel rooms, crude phone footage and impressionable, outnumbered women?

So it'd have been OK if she invited friends too? Bit hard to see where you're going with this one, love...

This has become about everyone, but mainly a certain breed of calculating men, taking absolute responsibility for their sexual conduct.

Ah. My mistake. It's going exactly where these columns in the MSM always seem to go. As Tim Worstall points out, it's the usual double standards.

Men! Been Accused Of Rape? Believe The Accusation Is False?

Well, just shut up and take it, you penis-owning bastards…

A young woman who said she had been raped went on to kill herself after the Crown Prosecution Service put her on trial for making up the allegation in a case originally instigated by her alleged attacker.

The woman’s father is calling on the CPS to explain why they pursued a charge of perverting the course of justice against Eleanor de Freitas, 23, despite being told by police that there was no evidence she had lied, and in the knowledge that she was suffering from a psychiatric illness.

It is indeed a curious case, as the CPS is notoriously reluctant to take such action.

And I can understand the father’s grief about her suicide, and even understand why he takes her side in this (what father would do otherwise?), but he’s wrong, very wrong indeed, to demand that men should be stripped of their right to defend their name in court:

David de Freitas, her father, said: “Eleanor was a vulnerable young woman, diagnosed with bipolar, who made a complaint of rape as a result of which she herself became the subject of legal proceedings. This was despite the fact the police did not believe there to be a case against her.

“There are very serious implications for the reporting of rape cases if victims fear that they may themselves end up the subject of a prosecution if their evidence is in any way inconsistent. It is of the utmost importance that the CPS consider very carefully whether such cases are in the public interest.”

The CPS appear to have overtaken the original private prosecution (and remember, that would have a far lower balance of probabilities than a criminal case) so is he suggesting that this too should not have been allowed to proceed?

He added: “I feel that the system of fairness in this country has let me down terribly, and something needs to be done so that this can never happen again.”

I’ve no doubt he does feel that way, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, but maybe the accused also feels that he has been wronged - by the accusation.

Should he be denied the opportunity to challenge this slur on his name in court, as he would be allowed to do had she accused him of any other slander, such as cheating at cards? Where’s the ‘fairness’ in that?

Of course, the usual suspects have mounted their High Horses Of Righteousness and are in full gallop:

Adam Pemberton, assistant chief executive of the charity Victim Support, said the “tragic and troubling case” raised broader concerns about the use of private prosecutions against rape complainants.

“We are concerned in principle about someone who has been accused of rape being able to bring a private prosecution against the complainant because this allows that individual to use the law to do something guaranteed to intimidate their accuser,” he said.

You may indeed look at it like that. It’s a bit worrying that you do, though.

Because perhaps you’d like to consider the dictionary definition of ‘victim support’ and whether someone falsely accused might also fit that definition, and so be deserving of support and the backing of the legal system to redress that wrong.

Whether they have ovaries or testicles. It shouldn’t matter.

Update: Heresy Corner advises that the private prosecution would NOT have been to a lower balance of probabilities than the criminal case.

Oh, Jog On, Love!

Sarah Ditum on the awful experience that is, umm, jogging:

I took up running in part because I was anxious about the way I looked.

Which is, apparently, all society’s fault.

… with the timorous demeanour of the non-sporty person attempting something sporty, I headed out of my door and down the street at an unthreatening clip. Fortunately, my neighbours must have sensed my self-consciousness and come out to defuse it, because here was the man from the corner off-licence, standing in his doorway and shouting: "You look great!" And here was a man waiting for a bus, hollering: "Keep it up, love!"

Cheered by such support, I churned out several more laps and entered the next available half marathon. Except – oh, haha, no I didn't. I stumbled home miserably, scorching with humiliation, feeling like a tubby gobbet of flesh bound in elastic fibres. I threw my trainers in the bottom of the wardrobe and didn't get them out again for several years.

Oh, well, here’s a jogging outfit for you, Sarah:

Then all you need worry about is bumping into lampposts...