If your son is a young man who is straight, then be afraid. The victimhood culture that is now driving institutional assumptions that it is always the woman who has been wronged, that it is always the man who must be lying in cases of rape and sexual assault is now quite a force for putting an innocent man behind bars for a long time. The ‘crime’? Having consensual sex with a woman he would have been better not to have set eyes on. In other words, a woman who is a liar.

It emerged last week that Liam Allan, 22, narrowly missed going to prison for ten years, possibly more, on a rape charge. His trial collapsed when it was revealed that police had withheld evidence which conclusively proved his innocence. Officers apparently believed that the woman’s 40,000 text and WhatsApp messages, hundreds of them discussing her fantasies about rape and violent sex, pestering Mr Allan for casual sex and telling friends she was devastated he did not want to meet her again, were of no interest to either the prosecution or Mr Allan’s lawyers. Just read those words again – ‘of no interest to either the prosecution or Mr Allan’s lawyers’. Chilling.

Prosecuting barrister Jerry Hayes said he had been told by police that the phone records contained on a disk were not disclosable because they contained ‘very personal material’. Mr Hayes added: ‘It appears the police officer in the case had not reviewed the disk, which is quite appalling.’

As a result of this failure, Mr Allan found himself in a Kafkaesque nightmare. He was identified in court proceedings (his accuser, of course, was not) and remained on bail for two years.

As if that were not bad enough, this week we heard that another rape case had collapsed on almost identical grounds. Isaac Itiary, 25, spent four months in jail awaiting trial. The girl involved was 14 and 15 at the time of the alleged offences, but Mr Itiary said that he believed she was 19. His defence asked for details of her text messages in September but only this week were they provided by the police – and they showed that she routinely posed as a 19-year-old. A couple of days ago an MP’s aide, 24-year-old Samuel Armstrong, was cleared of raping a Parliamentary worker in a Palace of Westminster office. Mr Armstrong’s lawyers accused the CPS of allowing the woman effectively to run the case, and of failing to hand over phone and medical records until days before the trial began.

The Met has now announced a review of all pending rape cases.

These are only the latest cases of young men being cleared of sex crimes. In September George Owen, 21, was found not guilty of forcing himself upon a 19-year-old woman after they left a bar together. The week before that, a couple of other cases fell apart. Bartolomeo Joly de Lotbiniere, 22, a York University student, found himself in court after his accuser saw him on University Challenge and decided it might be a bit of a lark (aided and abetted by social media trolls) to make a malicious rape claim against him, even though it was 14 months since they’d had sex. He was cleared. Joshua Lines, 23, was found not guilty after being accused by a fellow student who had invited him into her bed.

How have we got to this place? It is now practically an article of faith when it comes to allegations of sex crimes that women are always the victims, always the wronged party, always the truth tellers. This in turn means that the accused is automatically considered to be guilty until he can prove his innocence – a reversal of the principle of British justice that a defendant is innocent until proved guilty. Just take a look at TV and radio drama and see if you can find one about rape where it turns out the woman was the criminal, the perverter of justice, and not the man. We women, poor little things, just cannot look after ourselves. To make things better in our lives, to empower us properly, we need the authorities such as the police to turn a blind eye, get a bit confused and worn down by that whole wearying matter of ‘disclosure issues’, and sacrifice a few innocent men. It’s a shame, but it’s for the common good. We just have to think of these jailed innocent men as collateral damage in the battle of the sexes. I mean, women have been done down enough, haven’t they, since the beginning of time, and this is payback. Live with it. Live with the fact that the police and CPS may now be, in the words of Angela Rafferty, QC, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association, ‘unconsciously biased’.

There will be the usual investigations and urgent reviews, just as there are when a child dies at the hands of her drug-addled, violent parents. There’ll be handwringing that it’s all because of cuts to funding and lack of resources. Indeed there was a report in July by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate saying that police and CPS blamed ‘limited resources and lack of time’ for the inadequate disclosure of evidence. This was a failing that led to more than 50 cases being scrapped between 2013 and 2016. The inspectors added that such problems had been known about for many years and were pessimistic about improvement in procedures, warning that ‘the likelihood of a fair trial can be jeopardised’. Lessons seem rarely to be learned, unhappily.

Ms Rafferty says the Liam Allan case ‘happened because the police and CPS lack resources to check the “unused material” properly’. Yet it wouldn’t have taken that much time and money, surely, to have checked the plaintiff’s phone (bearing in mind that smartphones are indispensable to young people and almost certainly contain material shining light on their thought processes) and found the texts to exonerate Mr Allan.

Instead of that, public funds have been squandered, Liam Allan has spent two years on bail in anxiety and fear, and all for nothing.

A couple more thoughts, though. First, rape is a serious crime and therefore maliciously to accuse a person of rape is equally serious. The woman in the Liam Allan case now faces investigation for attempting to pervert the course of justice. If found guilty she ought to face a lengthy custodial sentence. One hopes also that she is so ashamed of what she did that she will try to make amends by involving herself in a campaign to bring in anonymity for rape suspects until found guilty. The current system with only the accuser (yes, sometimes a liar like her) having their identity protected is indefensible. It must change.

Second, sex is dangerous; some people even prefer it that way. It can bring physical and emotional harm. At the very least it may get you into a tricky situation. That’s why it’s not for children; it’s for grown-ups. A number of rape cases are always going to be problematic, simply because it’s one person’s word against another. Just because it’s problematic, however, is not a justification for bias in the accuser’s favour. In the fortunate event that there is material on the ubiquitous smartphone to prevent a miscarriage of justice, for crying out loud, can it please be passed on to the defence team? Is that too much to ask? Maybe it is, given that this latest scandal over non-disclosure is described as the ‘tip of the iceberg’.


  1. The Police has been involved in activitely losing, destroying or supressing evidence now for some time which does not support them getting a criminal conviction for r*pe or se*ual assault.

    This is because they have targets to meet from arrests to convictions and converting arrests to convictions. Such targets are clearly not fit for purpose and need to be got rid of. The pressure for such targets comes from the feminist industry, which is run by cultural marxists and lesbians.

    Also its clear that women should not have anonymity in accusations, and there should be criminal convictions against those who make false claims. Who can forget the recent case of the very unattractive lesbian who made 15 false claims against men she was in no contact with other than knowing or seeing at a party. These laws are being exploited by women because its gone too far the other way.

    If women want men to stop going MGTOW and avoiding them in increasing numbers, these laws need to be changed and the way the police operates needs to change. Men now are taking a risk even by talking to women, and revealing their identity, in the current environment. That is actually chilling to consider, if we want an increase in the birth rate and more traditional families.

    • Well said, the question must be asked as to how this situation came to pass without any popular public support? How the views of a tiny minority become predominant amongst politicians?

      • People seem to take Twitter seriously: where either a single person with lots of aliases or a small group of people can foment all manner of mischief.

    • Misandry is a real evil in our society but is the evil that dare not speak its name. Instead of being called out for what it is it gets away with being called “feminism” and the hate peddlers are feted rather than condemned.

  2. The Police said the records were not disclosable because they contained ‘very personal information’.The Police could not have known this unless they had first read them. So, unless the Police are lying, they read the records and then decided not to make the records available to the defence.

    Of course the attitude that all women making an allegation must be believed and all male defendants disbelieved comes from the top of the CPS. It could not thrive otherwise. We should all note that the head of the CPS is keeping an uncharacteristically low profile at the moment. Perhaps she will do the decent thing but I wouldn’t bank on it.

    • I think it’s time to treat sex the same as having a parcel delivery. ( in Some ways its very similar)
      You have to sign to get it.
      A simple app for a smart phone could cover that.

    • Personally, I think it’s time to get rid of the silly label ‘hate crime.’ It’s either a crime or it’s not.

  3. On a similar type subject, I noticed that an Emily Lindin, a Teen Vogue columnist, tweeted that she was not concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false allegations of sexual assault or harassment! Someone to steer clear of if you are a male?

    • She should have been referred to the CPS for encouraging a crime (Perverting the Course of Justice) under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 which replaced the old common law offence of incitement. That would have been no more fatuous than some of the Twitter cases being brought by the police.

  4. Making a false rape accusation appears to be the only crime – and it is a serious one – in which the perpetrator receives not only anonymity for life, but has the active support of the police both during and after the fact.

    So is it any wonder that such crimes keep occurring?

  5. Well done again for highlighting this unacceptable state of affairs! “Sex is dangerous…it’s not for children”.

    I would add sex is a God-given blessing… it is dangerous when removed from it’s proper context of marriage!

    • The problem mainly started when sex was reclassified as sport or a recreational activity and women were encouraged to act like men.
      One minute it’s great fun and everyone’s at it like rabbits, and the next minute it’s a heinous crime and you’re up before a judge looking at a long prison stretch.

        • Perhaps instead of trying to force all children in the land to undergo “progressive” sexual ethics indoctrination at school, we should be warning children about the lies, dangers and false promises of the morally bankrupt pseudo-religion known as “progressivism”!

      • In today’s climate, I imagine the dating scene is a pretty precarious place to be.

        You see a girl in a bar, you like her. She looks over at you, you smile – are you ‘stareraping’ her? She gives you a signal, permission to go and speak to her so off you go. You saunter up to the bar and ask her name – you swap names and begin to talk. As the attraction is obvious, your conversation gets more intimate – is it bordering on harrassment? No, she reciprocates. As the conversation becomes more provocative, you find yourself wanting to touch her, whether it’s a leg or a knee or a hand. Do you risk being accused of sexual assault? No matter as she touches your hand and you stroke her fingers with your own.
        She suggests going back to yours or hers, which ever one is closest. Despite the sexual tension and the wanting, the longing for both of you, do you judge how intoxicated she may be before leaving? Though it may cause the moment to slip, you don’t want to be trapped or caught in a net which you’ll be unable to escape. Silly thing, you’re not even thinking about it. She wants you and you want her so you leave and end up in bed, at yours or hers.
        You wake up, dress, probably arrange to meet. Some do, some don’t.
        What you probably don’t expect is a phone call later in the day from the police stating that you have been accused of rape. The girl you met was apparently too intoxicated to make a decision. The sex you thought was consensual was, it turns out, a heinous act of coercion.

        Like I said, the dating scene must be a horrible place – for men and for women.

          • That’s what I’d call casual sex which many people partake in. Not dating just an odd night’s fun. Regardless of whether it’s casual sex or dating, the expectation and wonder are still the same. All I can say is I’m glad I don’t have to partake in any of that anymore.

  6. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.co.uk/p/prevalence-of-false-rape-claims.html

    This is a website operated by Pierce Harlan. It appears to be inactive now, but for many years it documented false rape cases. Mostly from America. There were almost too many to record, and Pierce had his work cut out just trying to keep up with the tide of examples, week in and week out. For a couple of years, I fed him cases from the UK press. I did so because I have personal experience of being sexually abused by females, and I was appalled at some of the cases that were happening; and equally appalled at how they were either being ignored, glossed over or simply denied, despite the clear evidence that these crimes were real, and so were their victims. But the concept that women could do anything malicious seemed to be a taboo subject. Even to the police, who it appeared could not care less about them, and were repeatedly failing to arrest or charge women despite glaring evidence that they were lying. Here is one of the worst examples, of both the crimes and the dismal weakness of the authorities in dealing with the perpetrator. It dates from 2007, so you can see that the fight for fairness and justice is nothing new. It has been going on for a long time already, and has been a losing battle so far:


  7. I have some sympathy with Liam’s accuser. She did hand her phone over, and Liam did tell the Police what she had sent. Yes, she did lie, but the Police routinely abuse damaged people by getting them to lie.

    I agree someone should be charged with PCJ on this. I’m just not sure she’s at the top of the tree.

    Nothing will happen until the Police suffer. One recalls the deliberately slowed down video on the ridiculous assault prosecution at the station ; as far as I am aware nothing has happened over this ridiculous prosecution.

      • You don’t know, however, what her mental health is like. She might be a fantasist, or mentally unbalanced or any number of things.

          • One of the reasons they don’t prosecute is their own collusion “Why did you say this ?” “You told me to !”

        • None of those factors would alter the fact that an innocent young man’s life was damaged with absolutely no justification at all . Further to that , when the things you mention are given a major role in deciding how to treat such a “complainant”, they simply encourage malicious or spiteful people to use them as an excuse . How should we handle such cases ?
          A recent article saw it’s female writer saying that “if a few innocent men go to gaol , I can live with that “. How outrageous is that ?

          • I wonder if the writer you mentioned has any brothers and what sort of relationship she has or had with her father?

            Imagine the reaction if the discussion was about Islamic terrorism and a right-wing journalist wrote “if a few innocent Muslims go to gaol, I can live with that.”

          • From memory Harpie has two sons who would be 30ish, doesn’t seem to bother her. Perhaps we should get some nutjob to claim one of them assaulted her ten years ago, see if she likes it then ?

    • I consider myself to be a compassionate human being, but I struggle to see how Liam’s False Accuser is worth any sympathy whatsoever. The ninth commandment that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai prohibits in unequivocal terms the perjury of Liam’s False Accuser. Thus: ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.’ Each of us has received exhortation of this character both from mother’s knee and from Sunday School. Hence, everyone knows that is a heinous sin to utter false testimony in a court of law.

      • Not necessarily. In this case I don’t know ; but there are generally two types of claimants in this case ; the cynical and the mad. The cynical do it for revenge, money, fame, power.

        The mad are just that, mad. They will claim anything to anyone about anything. Prompted and/or manipulated they will say anything that the Police or whatever want.

        The problem is, no-one dare say “actually, you’re talking complete cr*p aren’t you” even if they know they are because of the sheer implausibility of the claims, the fantasy, the fabrications – a better example of this is the woman supposedly assaulted walking across the station.

        I suspect Liam’s “victim” is in the second category.

        • I’m afraid that Liam’s false accuser needs to suffer to the full extent of the Law. By signing her initial Statement she turned herself into a Liar and as Godfrey points out she bore ‘false witness’. She must suffer and so must all these false accusers of which there seems to be far too many. The scales of Justice cannot work if you have idiots like Saunders with their fingers on one of the pans. Wont do.

  8. Saunders is responsible for all this and should be sacked. Instead of being an absolutely impartial DPP she has driven a feminist agenda through prosecutions and demanding more convictions regardless of evidence, with a political objective rather than in the interests of true justice. Starmer, the Labour party place man and now Labour party MP, did the same before her. It is astonishing that both these left wing demagogues have been sustained in office by a supposedly Conservative government, allowed to make partisan public political speeches rather than restrict themselves to impartial service of the rule of law.

    The rot also set in with the premature use of the word “victim” rather than “complainant” and the ridiculous police pre-investigation entreaty “You will be believed”. Both prejudicial in the true meaning of that word.

    Surely it is time that the current AG Jeremy Wright MP got a grip on this situation. He should know enough about the law to appreciate how much it has been undermined by those two.

    • Yes, but look sideways in the Attorney General’s Office as well, at the senior ‘management’ team and the culture they are pushing.

        • They are on the AGO website. Perhaps some enterprising person could dig around to find evidence of exactly where they stand on the politics of sexual relations, I’m afraid I have mere anecdote only. The point is that there is a culture in the civil service of pleasing one’s mistress, rather than of giving her the facts, and this has now fed through to the CPS and the police ‘service’. These unjust prosecutions are a symptom of that.

    • “It is astonishing that both these left wing demagogues have been sustained in office by a supposedly Conservative government”

      Come now. Are you really that astonished any more?

      • I’m not astonished by it but I do think ‘it’ is astonishing from a conservative perspective and says much about the Cameron and May regimes.

    • Looking at a photograph of Saunders’s face I think all this is for her a sort of compensatory activity, or do I mean displacement?

  9. They always whine and whinge that they don’t have the resources to pass on proof of innocence to the falsely accused’s defence team.

    But they always seem to have enough resources to “investigate” and prosecute the innocent, not just in rape cases, but sexual abuse ones, including historic cases where they CAN’T prosecute because the innocent are deceased, and then there are all the hate non crimes.

    They even have the resources to go on fishing expeditions to trawl for more innocent victims to prosecute!

    What next?

    Painting their nails, putting on size 14 stilettos, and going to the fair to clown around dodging even more of their responsibilities on taxpayers time?!

    • In fairness to the authorities there do seem to be some towns in England where the authorities have lacked the “resources” to investigate a large number of rape allegations for about 20 years. The main resource that has been lacking is the will when the allegations are against men belonging to a certain minority.

  10. “Sex sells”. It has now become a marketing tool for just about anything . The fact that it is so much more than a simply bodily function , albeit a pleasurable one , is often forgotten and the emotional and mental anguish that can follow the careless and thoughtless indulgence in sexual behaviour is simply a consequence of modern marketing techniques . We should get used to it or change it , how we do either of those things , who knows !

  11. Liam Allen stated that the police were more interested in finding him guilty than proving him innocent. Thus, the criminal system we have today means any allegation is as good as a conviction.
    A few years ago (I could be wrong about the time frame but it was a short enough time to remember), a young Oxbridge student was accused of rape and went through a prolongued period of shame and pain. He was proved to be innocent but the strain placed upon him by this false conviction and considerable damage to his reputation and family life proved too much. He committed suicide – a year later, his mother, still grief stricken, also ended hers. What happened to the girl who made the claim? Probably living the life of Riley, oblivious to the lives she wrecked. The police are no better either.
    Until this country returns to innocent until proven guilty and less trial by media, tragedies like the one above will continue to happen.

    • The elephant in the room is that it is European law that requires the prosecuted (should it be persecuted in this case) to prove themselves innocent before the Law.. It was a great way of the French to get rid of their aristocracy, and our police to do a lot less work that makes it so attractive

    • I, too, remember that tragic story, but not the names. I was reminded by the news reports of the mother’s suicide, which was quite recent.

      • There’s two things that should happen in future sex claims. 1) Both names should be anonymous until either innocent party is proven guilty. 2) If a false sex claim has been made, the person(s) who have made the accusation should face the same custodial sentence given to the alleged perpetrator, if that is the case. This would send a message to all those who, at the moment, can make false claims, ruining not only the life of the accused but of their families, and not have the worry of being named or punished. Though rape is a terrible crime, it is equally heinous to make false accusations which could potentially imprison and/or cause death to those involved.

  12. What level of incompetence or malice is necessary before you get fired from a job in the public sector? Why is Alison Saunders, the Director of the Crown Prosecution “Service” still in a job?

    • Because she’s a woman and women don’t make mistakes. Remember the woman who worked for the NHS, hounded from her job for serious mistakes made? No matter, they just made up a job with a tidy 6 figure salary and dropped her into the role without question. The age of equality is a myth.

    • William Collin’s blog on this issue would say that cutting off the head of the snake is not enough – the whole system is now rotten – although I concur that Saunders sacking would be a start.

    • We have a PM who identifies as a feminist and a law enforcement system where most of the major positions are now held by feminists. Home Secretary, head of the National Crime Agency, head of the CPS, and chief of the Met Police. Add influence from numerous feminist pressure groups and MPs and the current wretched situation of ideology driven prosecutions is not surprising.

  13. “and telling friends she was devastated he did not want to meet her again”

    This woman’s friends also knew the accusations were false. Yet they did nothing either.

    • You may have a fair point. However, the woman’s friends may not have known that she had made an accusation of rape. Remember the accuser is offered anonymity. Even if they did know she had made an accusation, they might not have known exactly what that accusation was. Without knowing the time and place of the supposed ‘rape’, it is difficult to be sure that it didn’t happen. And then there is another question? Who could they have gone to if the police were not interested in evidence exonerating the accused?

      • Exactly. The problem with the attempt to “protect” introduced in the 1970s is that elements of secrecy begin the distortion of due process. There is no “stigma” with reporting sexual crime now as evidenced by the fact that all such reports are “believed” there is no reason for protecting the identity of the complainant. Just as naming may bring witnesses for the prosecution it may also for the defence. There have been a number of cases with serial accusers eventually being unmasked, which may have happened earlier and of course had Ched Evans not had the resources to engage private detectives the crucial witnesses may never know they new anything about the case as the linking factor was the young woman.

        • The justice system tried to remove the price tag for complainants of sexual crime. But there’s a price tag for all involved in a prosecution. That’s a hard fact of life and no single category of people in the process should be made exempt. When you do remove the price tag – surprise surprise – the number of false claims shoots up. Anyone schooled in the economy of human action will know this first principle.

          • Indeed. And when you remove compensation, the number of allegations drops down (as experienced not so long ago in Germany. I think they did the same with the same result in Portugal.)

          • Yes it did . I think that people with good incomes totally underestimate the importance of “compo” in sectors of our society. There are a variety of sources, from accidental injuries, jippy tummies on Holiday , to criminal injuries etc and medical mistakes. Visit the poorer communities in my conurbation and you’ll see a surprising number of “law firms” quite openly saying they’ll get compensation for you.

      • You also make a fair point I hadn’t considered.

        Another thing about the anonymity argument; police / CPS often say that publicizing the name of the accused encourages other “victims” to come forward and warns other women about the dangers posed by the accused. But they don’t apply the obvious corollary – i.e. publicising the names of false accusers to deter other false accusations and warn other men about the dangers posed by a particular woman.

    • Isn’t it a crappy state of affairs where we have to separate the two – International Mens and Women’s Days. We seem to have separate days for everything now. Wouldn’t it be good if politicians scrapped certain roles like Women and Equality Ministers and just replaced them with equality roles? Or, come to think of it, just scrap that and recognise that we’re all (or should be) in the same boat and just get on with it without having the stigma of victimhood.

      • An interesting idea, and Philip Davies MP – who sits on the Women and Equalities Committee – has proposed a name change to the Equalities Committee. The reality is, however, that the state’s equalities drives are aimed at further privileging women and girls over men and boys. In our 2015 general election manifesto https://tinyurl,com/V10manifesto we explored 20 areas where the human rights of men and boys are assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions, almost always to privilege women and girls. There are no areas in which the British state today assaults the human rights of women and girls specifically. None.

        We hear endlessly about the problem of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), very little about a far more common problem, Male Genital Mutilation (MGM). All MGM is more injurious than most FGM. MGM is illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, being at least Actual Bodily Harm, and probably Grievous Bodily Harm. The criminal injustice system has yet to bring one prosecution against the criminals carrying out those mutilations on male minors’ genitals, their victims sometimes being babies of just eight days of age (the offspring of Jewish parents). The parents are guilty of conspiracy, yet they too escape justice.

        • Though I’m aware of the problems you have highlighted and Phil Davies’ good work on these issues, I speak from an idealistic view. I’m aware we don’t live in a world where equality can and does exist but it would be good if those in charge looked at all issues regardless of colour, sex and/or gender and focused on the problems and solutions without bias.
          Maybe I’m just overcome with the joys of the festive season. I imagine when we enter the New Year, it’ll be battle stations once again.
          Merry Christmas, by the way.

          • Of course ‘… it would be good if…’ but that hasn’t been the reality for 40+ years, during which time all the political parties have surrendered to feminism, the relentless quest for ever more female privilege. This Xmas, as at every other Xmas for many years, thousands of men languish in British prisons after convictions for sexual offences they didn’t commit, because the police and CPS are more interested in locking men up, often on nothing more than a woman’s word, than seeing justice done.

        • Unfortunately the Jess Phillips feminist school of strident gob gets more Parliamentary attention than Philip Davies objective iteration of facts.

          • I imagine Christmas at the Phillips household is a hoot. Her husband will probably cook the meal since Jess would probably deem domestic chores inconsequential and sexist. She’ll probably eat, drink and be merry while her dear spouse is marched all over the house.

          • She reminds me of some of the characters played by Peggy Mount. In the 1970s the term “tyrannical matriarchs” could still be published in the media and everyone knew exactly what it meant. The battleaxe is still very much alive and well but now we have to pretend she isn’t to avoid offending feminists and to maintain the feminist myth that BNL (before New Labour) all women were “oppressed”.

          • And why is that? Because the police and CPS try to pin FGM on men – white men, ideally – while the criminals (in the UK) who carry it out are overwhelmingly middle-aged and elderly black women. MGM is largely carried out by men. FGM is largely carried out by women, at the behest of women.

            Can we PLEASE – for once – not divert attention being paid to MGM by talking about FGM? The point is that the criminal injustice system doesn’t even pretend to gave a rat’s a*** about MGM, whilst at least trying to stamp out FGM.

          • It’s because the consequences of circumcision are significantly less horrific than the consequences of female genital mutilation. Comparing the two is suggestive of lunacy.

          • Nonsense – but even if what you claim were true, why would that be a reason to not stop MGM? The fact is ALL MGM is more injurious than most FGM. Do you even know the WHO recognizes four types (with numerous sub-types) of FGM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#WHO_Types_I%E2%80%93II ? If you actually have an interest in understanding MGM, the best place to start is with one of four pieces William Collins has written on the subject http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=519. Then you might like to watch the video of Tim Hammond, an intactivist, speaking at last year’s International Conference on Men’s Issues http://icmi16.wordpress.com about the finsings from the 2012 Global Survey on Circumcision Harm. The video is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8izzCSRhKXs.

            The purpose of MGM has always been to remove the vast majority (90%+) of the nerve endings in the penis which in later life give men pleasure during masturbation or sex.

          • Not a motive at all. Is the following difficult to understand?

            1. MGM is illegal under the offences against the person Act 1861.
            2. There are no defences in the courts of England and Wales for religious and/or cultural considerations.

            MGM also transgresses UN and EU conventions on human rights, and is as unethical as FGM (Brian D Earp, ethicist, Oxford University).

            What value do YOU place on the human rights of baby boys and other male minors?

            The Jewish case against circumcision:


            The Muslim case against circumcision:


            Our YouTube playlist of 43 audio and video pieces relating to MGM:


          • Good sir, I beg to differ. A significant minority of men suffer severe lifelong sequelae from MGM – ask any consultant Urology surgeon. The larger cohort of men who apparently have no problem with having been circumcised as an infant are generally in a position of ignorance, since this cohort has no baseline by which to make a comparison.

          • To me the point is that it is in either case an operation with risks that the infant is not able to consent to. It should be treated in the same way as tattoos. It is beyond me why it simply cannot wait till the person is old enough to decide for themselves.

          • It has in the USA. Arrests underway for FGM
            Donald leads the way again. Let’s hope that as he drains the swamp, some of ours get drained too as the Western world now has a leader who is not afraid to say what we think

        • FGM is not comparable to MGM in the sense of circumcision, as you suggest it is. To compare the two totally undermines the seriousness of FGM, and frankly stinks of both anti-Semitism and militant secularism!

          • I defy you to find anything anti-Semitic in what I’ve ever said or written, or withdraw the allegation (time-saving tip: nobody has ever found any such thing, because it doesn’t exist). If you believe religion justifies mutilating male minors’ genitals, then you presumably believe it also justifies other practices advocated in the same ‘holy books’ e.g. stoning adultresses to death, killing people for homosexuality or apostasy, killing children who disobey their parents… and much more.

          • Well… your absolutely ridiculous comments about “stoning adulteresses and killing people for homosexuality” tell me you are definitely a militant secularist (who clearly has no understanding of Christianity or Judaism)! Regarding my claim that seeking to ban circumcision is anti-Semitic, I really don’t understand how you can claim that such a policy is not anti-Semitic? Circumcision is an essential, religious ritual in Judaism, by seeking to forbid its practice you are in effect forbidding the practice of Judaism. How can seeking to ban the religion of the Jews (and thus faithful Jews from the country) not be considered anti-Semitic?

          • You cannot, surely, be unaware that the punishments I wrote of – and others – are in Genesis? I have not the slightest interest in forbidding the practice of Judaism or any other religion (does that mean I’m not a militant secularist? Not that I care, either way.).

            In this country, as in others, Jews have abandoned many of the practices mandated in Genesis. To understand why they haven’t abandoned MGM would require that you show some understanding of psychology, gender politics, and have empathy for the male minors who are born into a religion intent on mutilating their genitals – with the purpose of greatly reducing the pleasure they’d otherwise experience later from masturbation or sex – a religion of which they can obviously know precisely at the time of that excruciating amputation. As it’s a deemed a mark of religious affiliation for both Jews and Muslims, it’s patently NOT a mark of religious affiliation.

            Finally, do you have the slightest notion of the scale of the physical and psychological suffering than can result from MGM? I’d be happy to point you to materials on that.

          • Well your absolutely ridiculous comments about “stoning adulteresses and killing people for homosexuality” tells me you are definitely a militant secularist (who clearly has no understanding of Christianity or Judaism)! Regarding my claim that seeking to ban circumcision is anti-Semitic, I really don’t understand how you can claim that such a policy is not anti-Semitic? Circumcision is an essential, religious ritual in Judaism, by seeking to forbid its practice you are in effect forbidding the practice of Judaism. How can seeking to ban the religion of the Jews (and thus faithful Jews from the country) not be considered anti-Semitic?

          • Religious circumcision could wait till the young person is old enough to make the choice themselves. as is the case for tattoos for instance. Infant circumcision is quite simply barbarism done on infant boys or girls.

          • That sounds very sensible! Unfortunately, the issue here really just highlights the incompatibility of atheism (especially the type of atheism that thinks it can justify objective moral values) with theism. If God does not exist, then your solution seems very reasonable. However if God does exist and He has commanded that parents who seek to honour Him must circumcise their children on the 8th day, then to deny the omnipotent, all-knowing Creator of the universe because we somehow know more about morality than the all-knowing God, must be completely irrational and your proposal thus utter foolishness.

          • Haha, ok but that’s cheating your way out of the thought experiment! I’d also add that denying what God has said, not because of evidence but because you don’t like what the all-knowing Creator of the universe has said (thus implying you know better than God), actually has a great deal to do with atheism!

          • Good sir, I beg to differ. The male foreskin is the most richly innervated part of the male sex and, contrary to popular belief, its structural integrity is very important to male sexual health. On a scientific level, there is today a much greater understanding of the role of the foreskin, whereas years ago there was zero knowledge and hence the foreskin was wrongly thought to be a trivial appendage that served no purpose. This is perhaps not the forum for a detailed discussion about anatomy, but there is plenty of information freely available on the web about the benign physiology of the intact penis vs the dysfunctional physiology of the circumcised penis.
            While it is true that many men claim not to have suffered from infant circumcision, let us keep in mind not only that such men do not have an uncircumcised baseline by which to make an informed judgement, but also that such men are for cultural reasons strongly disinclined to make a fuss. Furthermore, it is also true that a significant minority of men do suffer and report severe lifelong sequelae from infant circumcision, ask any consultant surgeon in Urology.
            Men as a class are victims of MGM in a way that is directly analogous to the women as a class being victims of FGM. The sort of comparison that says that FGM is always worse than MGM is not only wrong (sometimes MGM is worse) but also rather unhelpful.
            There is no sufficient justification to allow to cutting of the genitals of an infant of either sex – except in the vanishingly small number of cases where the most serious disease pathology makes medical intervention necessary.

        • I recently wrote to the UKIP MEP Margot Parker who sits on the EU “Womens and Equalities” ( the clue is in the title) about MGM. A few days ago I received the latest copy of the UKIP magazine to find that she has written an article about FGM also mentioning how she spoke out about it on International womens day. Needless to say no mention of MGM and on International Mens day deafening silence. She is a typical example of someone who subverts a cause to promote her own views. I have cancelled my subscription to UKIP and they will shortly be receiving a letter to explain why . I think it is important that any of us who are members of voluntary organisations that do this sort of thing withdraw our financial and practical support.

  14. At its core its quite simple. The Police are required by law to investigate. To this they have powers far in exceeding any private citizen. The first point of investigation is of course did the crime occur (in another context was the car taken or borrowed? etc.). A result can indeed be “no crime” (even now I think 15% of “rapes” are no crime as well as a significant number that stop upon initial investigation). It is clear that if the Police did their job and shared the result of their investigation as they should a lot more cases would evaporate. Of course they are encouraged not to do their job to get convictions and the CPS, te body who decides if the investigation should result in Prosecution have a big role in moulding how the Police work. In the case that set this off it was in fact the Prosecuting Barrister (for the CPS) who both forced the disclosure and then went public with this being a systematic injustice. I’m pretty sure the officer, very quickly named you’ll observed, will be hung out to dry to suggest he’s a “bad apple” rather than the whole barrel is systematically bad. By the time things get to court huge damage has already been done. In so many cases some pretty basic investigation would have stopped the case very early on.

  15. I think you’re being too kind to the police. My reading of reporting was that the police did more than claim to have not read the social media evidence. The police tried their hardest to deny the defence lawyers access to the evidence. The implied explanation for this was their professional embarassment at not having done a thorough job due to lack of resources. Another is that they knew what was in the evidence and they knew that Allan and Itiary were innocent but nevertheless did their best to convist them.

    Sure, the huge number of emails, messages and other social media input would demand the commitment of personnel that the police do not have. In these cases, however, it is difficult to see why they needed to do so. Had the police had an open mind about the accusations against Allan and Itiary, they would have asked Allan why he thought that the sex was consensual and Itiary why he thought the girl was 19. In both cases, the answers of the accused would have directed the police as to what to look for and where to look. The police would have discovered very quickly that both men were probably innocent of the charges against them. That the police did not do this suggests at best that the police did not have an open mind or at worst they were determined to frame innocent men.

    • Precisely. The Police are required by law to investigate. Indeed the creation of the CPS was supposed to mean the Police could concentrate on Investigations and not be thinking ahead to Prosecution. So I’m afraid front and centre in this is the way the Police behave. Of course the CPS and its commitment to make more Prosecutions and secure convictions plays a powerful role, but had officers actually conducted investigations without fear or favour the cases would have stopped way before they did as probably the Police themselves would have concluded their was no crime.

      • Having thought more about the subject, I wonder whether the availability of social media is actually making it EASIER for the police to conduct these type of investigations. Firstly, what is said in written messages is recorded. There are no grounds for claiming ‘I never said that’, except for claiming that someone else had access to your social media logins – a claim that could probably be easily disproved. Secondly, the process of arranging interviews is extremely time consuming. It must be so much easier starting an investigation by going through social media.

        • Yes, that crossed my mind too. That’s why I’ve commented that I would have thought that, far from the complainant’s phone messages being inappropriate for disclosure, they’re highly relevant evidence. Personal messages should be the very first stop when investigating a highly ‘personal’ crime. That they were excluded for being personal is bizarre. The advent of social media surely makes the police’s job easier.

          • Yes indeed so much of the interaction of young people is carried out through text, messaging, social media and this is recorded even when people may think it isn’t. A great deal of use of this is used across crimes to establish movements, associates, evidence of conspiracy etc. It is unbelievable that the Detectives ignored this sort of data when it is now at the core of investigations of all sorts of crimes. It is pretty clearly deliberately “concealed” because it would be likely to give evidence (either way).

      • Chilling but unsurprising with the police risk averse to being blamed for failing to take complaints seriously and the CPS driving feminist demands for higher conviction rates.

        • Which illustrates that people in authority are looking at the problem wrongly. There is no “high” or “low” conviction rate for rape (although, of course, people like Harman would not be in the least worried if it were considered too high). There is a “correct” figure for convictions. If the evidence points to guilt, a jury should convict. If it does not, they should acquit. Is there any evidence that juries are not doing this? The “too low” idea comes from feminists who seem to think large numbers of rapes are being committed, for which there is no evidence. The figures are guesswork, based on polls, and biased “research”.

    • I have seen many times police officers getting personal, becoming “convinced” of guilt and determined to “win” the case rather than seek the objective truth. I also think – and I’m generalising here – that younger people are more intent on “winning” by any means.

      • Many miscarriages of justice involve police officers making a decision as to an innocent person’s guilt early on. Once that is done, the police tend to ignore all evidence pointing at anyone else and have eyes only for evidence that points at their suspect.

    • They claim the evidence was “too personal”. So either they haven’t read it and are lying, or they have read it. It is not plausible that they read it and thought it wasn’t relevant.

  16. This article should be called ‘When Crying Rape Falsely is Worse than Rape Itself’ because crying rape harms not only the falsely accused but those who really have been assaulted.

    • Touching a knee is rape looking at me on a funny way is rape…..

      The focus is to change the meaning of the word.

      Not a good outcome for women

      • Precisely. Trivialising the meaning of the word is damaging how men and women think of one another and will make it harder to prosecute some cases of rape.

      • A similar thing happened to the defintion of DV to up the conviction rates. Storm off in a fit of pique after an argument with your partner, and bash the wing mirror of their car ..? Domestic Violence.

    • Yes crying rape falsely harms the accused man . I don’t feel that there is any need to underline the seriousness of the crime by pointing out that it also harms women. Just for once lets be clear that things that harm men are wrong FULL STOP

  17. After what happened to Green, I would advise the prosecution lawyer and Conservative MP, Liam Hayes, to watch his back. The police don’t like to be gerrymandered unless it is by their Common Purpose and political directors in the Labour party

  18. Either both should have anonymity or neither should.Those who majke false accusations should be named,shamed and prosecuted.

  19. The police and the CPS bear huge responsibility for these miscarriages of justice. There will always be twisted women who lie and make false accusations of rape. The authorities should be keenly aware of that and had they looked at these cases with any sense of balance then the real victims (the accused) would have suffered less anguish and less time and money been wasted. Women who pervert the course of justice with false rape allegations should feel the full force of the law. It is no joke. I remember a local case of a young woman who a false accusation of gang rape. Then mobile video evidence came to light showing she had willingly taken part in group sex. She got her just desserts from the court. We need to see more false accusers dealt with in this way. My advice to young men is to steer away from casual sex. Casual relationships tend to mean a casual attitude to you as a human being. Hold out and wait for a woman of good character

    • ‘Woman of good character’?
      Regrettably, these are few and far between.
      Feminism has polluted and corrupted women everywhere.

      • Agreed. After this scandal and the metoo witch hunt, I wonder what will happen to the marriage rate in the western world?

        • The numbers of MGTOW men are growing by millions every year. I’m mad because i love women, but this generation be with a women it’s very dangerouse, i’m afraid to have any relationship with one. Now you can thank this madness to feminism. I better be alone than in prison or lose everything i own by the unfair laws against men in marriage…. One friend was accused when he broke up with is crazy GF. And he was release (3 days in jail) without any prosecution.

        • MGTOW is a solution for some. But, for men who yearn to fulfill their natural role as the head of a family, things are much more difficult. It takes two to make a marriage and finding a willing woman of good character is by no means an easy task.

      • Reminds me of the old joke about the gilded Liver birds on the Liver building on the dockside in Liverpool.

        They were said to flap their wings when a virgin passed by.

        Of course, they never did.

  20. The rot starts at the top of the CPS with Alison Saunders, who routinely calls complainants ‘victims’. It’s a short step to regarding the man the ‘victim’ names as guilty.

    The extremists have created a climate where believing implausible allegations is mandatory.
    Vindictive and spiteful women have always used non-physical means to get revenge. Telling malicious tales has now become making malicious complaints. These women are lauded as ‘brave’ and rise up the victim hierachy. It’s no wonder that some men regard women as unstable and dangerous. Yes, it’s a minority, but false or exaggerated complaints of some kind by women are now a feature of many men’s lives. They play a part in almost every divorce that comes to court, where the women automatically plays the ‘victim’ card.

  21. It’s a good thing that false allegations of rape are incredibly rare.

    Accusers should never be told they are not believed.

    • False allegations of rape are not ‘incredibly rare’, they’re commonplace. If a woman lies and says YOU raped her, should she be believed?

      • Police man on talk radio last week ‘ we get about 7k allegations of rape per year , out of them only 5% get prosecuted , it’s not incredibly rare .

        • Absolute nonsense. Keir Starmer is as much a feminist as Alison Saunders. Saunders has always made clear her desire to see more men convicted of sexual offences (she has no interest in the women who sexually assault men or women). The police are highly disinclined to approach the CPS to make charging decisions in regards to false allegations, agreeing in 2012 to only a minority (29%) of such police requests, as shown in a report by Alison Levitt QC for the CPS https://j4mb.org.uk/2014/09/05/why-does-the-cps-prosecute-only-29-of-the-women-who-the-police-believe-have-made-false-rape-allegations/. I recommend you read the first of three pieces William Collins is publishing about rape, false rape accusations etc. http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=2073

        • Good sir, you are of course being sarcastic by quoting an article published in the Guardian. Everyone knows that the Guardian is postmodern / feminist propaganda mouthpiece.
          Ask any retired policeman of 20 experience. Each of them will tell you that the police are overwhelmed by false allegations of rape.

        • MTB, I repeat my simple question:

          You state, “Accusers should never be told they are not believed.”

          So a woman who lies about you having raped her, should be believed? And you’d be happy to spend many years in prison as a result of your position?

          • Yes. No woman who says she has been raped should be disbelieved.

            None would say it about me, since I’m not a male rapist.

            Women lying about rape is incredibly rare.

          • Then I can only hope you’re one of countless victims of false rape allegations, and spend many years languishing in rat-infested prisons explaining how women lying about rape is incredibly rare. Enjoy!

          • I didn’t follow your script, so you resort to wishing harm on others. Fail. This is why your kind is losing the battle against feminism.

          • I simply wished for you to reap the consequences of “no woman who says she has been raped should be disbelieved”. Maybe then you’d open your eyes to what’s going on.

        • That article mentions conviction rate for false allegation, not the rate of false allegation in and of itself. Prosecution of false rape allegations is reserved for the most egregious cases, due to not wanting to put complainants off reporting rape, so that number is even more irrelevant to this discussion.

          If you average the numbers from the studies posted in the Wikipedia article on false rape allegations, the number is around 21%. If we take a mean value it’s around 16%. The true figure is almost certainly in double percentage figures.

          The logical conclusion to your statement “a woman who says she’s been raped should always be believed without question” is that a man is guilty of rape when a woman says so. Cross examination should not be allowed. In fact why waste time with a trial?

          • The Wikipedia article is probably written my MRA’s, rapists and other misogynists. Get a professional source.

            I agree with your second point. An inquisitorial trial as used in Europe would be better. All that’s needed is for the judge to ask the woman what happened.

          • Okay, you’re hopefully having a laugh – Wikipedia is not the source, the studies listed within the article are. I’m personally more in favour of pricking and/or dunking to ascertain guilt in all criminal trials.

    • They clearly are not “incredibly” rare. We’re up to at least about 20 or so between 2016-2017 that I’m aware of.

      And those are just the ones we hear about.

    • But the alleged crime should be investigated before the Police actually believe it has occurred. The Police have forgotten that one can be respectful and supportive without becoming the complainants “advocate”. It is their legal duty to investigate.

  22. The wikipedia entry for Alison Saunders is quite interesting, if too short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Saunders
    She was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions in 2013 by the then Attorney-General in David Cameron’s Coalition Government, Dominic Grieve. The previous DPP, who was Keir Starmer (now Labour’s Shadow Brexit Secretary in the Commons) was appointed in 2008 and served until 2013. This indicates that the present AG Jeremy Wright will have to decide whether to reappoint Saunders in 2018 or not.

    If the DPP appointment is for five years, renewable, it must be doubtful that Saunders will get reappointment – she has irritated too many people, has made serious errors, and ‘has become the story’ (which has happened to previous DPPs,but not on the same scale).

    The wikipedia entry on Alison Saunders does describe the case of Eleanor de Freitas, who had made a claim of rape against a boyfriend, Alexander Economou, which was rejected, and had run a public website about her ex. This resulted in him starting a private prosecution against her, which the DPP took over and Ms de Freitas was to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justicep. She was unstable mentally and took her own life and Alison Saunders was criticised for in effect causing her death. She then said she had reviewed the papers and the prosecution of Ms de Freitas had been justified against the required tests.

    The DPP could argue that taking cases against women who make fraudulent claims risks such outcomes. But the Eleanor de Freitas case points to the need for mental health assessments of women who make them, not for failing to prosecute most women who make fraudulent claims of rape, when no serious mental illness is found.

    There are a number of articles on the free-to-access Guardian website about Eleanor de Freitas and Alexander Economou and one in the Daily Mail:

    • Thanks for the info but I would rather not go to the Guardian website as their visitor numbers drive their advertising revenue

    • Roughly translates to ‘ if it wasn’t for austerity we’d have much more money and resources to prosecute innocent men .

    • I may have misunderstood, but I got the impression that the pertinent evidence was in the masses of communications between the accuser and her friends, not between her and Allen.

    • The evidence was of the woman’s calls to her friends from her phone, though it did add corroboration to his records. Of course Mr. Allan could not know of her “intimate” messages to friends, though it would seem highly likely that her messages etc. would have at least some references to her relationship. In fact she appears to have been quite “vocal”.

    • I think he didn’t have it any more. The impression I have is that he told the Police that he’d been sent this barrage of texts confirming his story, but he didn’t have them any more ; lost or changed the phone perhaps. If this is correct, the Police are being criminal here IMO.

  23. Where did the incredible lie that ‘false accusations of rape are rare’ come from? If 2% of accusations are proven to be made with malicious intent and 20% of accusations result in convictions, that doesn’t mean that the other 78% are true by default. Anyone who claims so has serious issues and is promoting guilt via accusation alone. That’s about as backward and stone age as one can get. If you believe the 2% lie, you need professional mental health assistance. It’s common sense that what you believe is instead ‘confirmation bias’. “Feminists said the rate was 2%, and that suits my agenda, so we’ll go with that”.
    I was falsely accused of assault with a deadly weapon by a woman I broke up with. Get this…she feigned a suicide with a gun, I talked it from her hand and called her mother who came and collected her – and after an hour or so the police were at my door to arrest me. Back in those days, the state didn’t automatically take over the case if the accuser didn’t show up to court, so I was let go and wasn’t prosecuted when my X girlfriend finally realized she’d gone way too far (which is why I broke it off with her in the first place). Let me say this clearly: I was innocent yet wasn’t prosecuted because there was a) no evidence that I’d committed a crime and b) that was a time in which you weren’t automatically assumed guilty by default. Now days, had she showed up to court, I’d probably be dead from suicide.
    Man I hate this backwards, misandric world.

    • The 2% lie originally appeared in a paper by a US female academic (Papers from feminist academics are not worth the paper they are printed on. They are propaganda, not scholarship.) and has been seized on by women’s groups ever since. But people such as Starmer in the UK, are no better. He said false accusations are very rare. B/S. Indeed, I did a bit of research after I read his comments, and found that the only way you could support his claim was to count only the false accusations prosecuted by the CPS. In the papers I saw, which were from a few years ago, only one quarter of confirmed false accusations were prosecuted. In addition to this, lots of false accusations are shunted into a group called “no crime situations” to keep the figures low. Finally, those cases dismissed at an early stage, because the police know there is no chance of a prosecution, or withdrawn by the accuser for reasons that may included she is afraid her lies are about to be revealed, or she thinks she has done enough damage already, are not included in the figures. .

    • I think it comes from successful prosecutions for false accusations. This very rarely happens – as far as I know the actress who fantasised the station “rape” hasn’t been prosecuted.

  24. Cf. the Biblical story of Potiphar’s Wife, just to give you an idea of how far back the phenomenon of false reporting of rape goes.

  25. Crying rape falsely is worse than the alleged offence. It stigmatises the accused possibly for years; it puts his family under incredible strain, and if may put him behind bars. It will wreck his career chances in any kind of profession forever.

    Rape of course is a serious assault which can have lasting effects on the victim. But it is not necessarily injurious to career prospects and has nothing like the same inevitable effects on family, friends and social relationships.

  26. The problem is very easy to identify and very easy to solve.
    First of all it is very easy to accuse when concealed behind the curtain of anonymity. If you can’t accuse in the full light of common day then you shouldn’t accuse at all. Remove anonymity.
    Secondly ALL evidence should be handed to the defence as a matter of course – everything.
    Third, if you falsely accuse then you must suffer. Woman should be, as a matter of course, prosecuted for ‘attempting to pervert the course of Justice’ and the falsely accused man should have a right to sue her for slander.
    And last, but by no means least, we need to get rid of idiots like Saunders and if you hold an office in the CPS you are prevented from seeking or holding any elected office (or being made a Peer) for 10 after you leave the CPS. It is a disgrace that Starmer walked out of the CPS and straight onto the opposition front bench. Same goes for Police Officers.

    • The situation that men who are accused of rape are exposed to the full glare of publicity but the accusers aren’t, was put in place by New Labour as part of the ‘men are all rapists ‘ and are all ‘oppressors of women’ ideology.

      No thought was given to the capacity for gross injustice this arrangement allowed. Or if it was, it was dismissed because the overriding concern was to pander to feminism.

      • ” the overriding concern was to pander to feminism….”

        Exactly, which is why the obvious and much-needed reforms suggested by Andy will never be brought into being. Even if reforms gather support, the women’s groups will ask lawmakers: “Don’t you want to protect women?” and the lawmakers, most of whom don’t have the guts of a louse, will cave in.

        • Is there something in the marriage contract which stipulates that a husband should always have access to his wife’s body?

  27. As bad as each other? Most women adjust to the awful trauma of rape. False accusation and conviction often erodes the personality beyond repair.

  28. Well we only have ourselves to blame for this.
    The powers that be have been slowly dismantling the very protections we shed blood and tears for over the centuries to achieve and we have, in our late civilisation apathetic stage, done nothing to stop them.
    Trial by jury
    Habeas corpus
    Innocent until proven guilty
    They are all obstacles to an authoritarian state which is why they want rid of them.

Comments are closed.