False rape/abuse accusations

[Gullscorer]

BBC news report:
‘Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has been cleared of raping a child. Mr Le Vell, 48, of Hale, Greater Manchester, denied 12 charges in total, including five of rape. Manchester Crown Court heard the girl, who cannot be named, claimed she was abused from the age of six. Le Vell, who has played garage mechanic Kevin Webster in the soap for 30 years, was tried under his real name Michael Turner.’

Note the following: He is completely innocent. The report describes his accuser as a girl. She is in fact an adult eighteen year-old. She remains anonymous. His real name, Michael Turner, has been published. News reports still describe her as a ‘victim’ rather than ‘alleged victim’.
The actor was first arrested in September 2011 and questioned after the teenager claimed he had sexually assaulted her from the age of six. Three months later, however, prosecutors said there was insufficient evidence to take the allegations to court and no charges were brought.
But, after a review of the ‘evidence’ (nothing more than allegations), he was charged with 12 sex offences, including raping a child, indecently assaulting a child and sexual activity with a child. Alison Levitt QC, principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: ‘I have very carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Michael Robert Turner with a number of sexual offences.’
In a statement Mr Le Vell said that following the serious allegations that had been made, he wanted to make it quite clear that he was innocent of these charges and intend to fight them vigorously. He added: ‘I will now put all my efforts into clearing my name and proving my innocence.’
Anybody following this case closely and reading the ‘evidence’ presented by the accuser can be in no doubt that she was lying. The jury obviously thought so too, and acquitted him of all charges. We may have a low opinion of his drinking and philandering, but he is an innocent man.

However, the whole affair, as with so many other similar cases, raises some disturbing issues for men in modern society. The extent to which extreme radical feminism has embedded in the culture, its influence upon attitudes, policies and codes of practice in the media, education, politics, police, health, social services and the judiciary, all biased towards women to the disadvantage of men.
Michael Le Vell could have spent years in prison as an innocent man if the jury had believed his accuser. Even though he is innocent, the trauma, stress and psychological damage of false accusations could remain with him for years. This young woman, on the other hand, in the absence of any hard evidence of a false accusation, or an admission on her part that she was lying, will remain anonymous and carry on her life as normal. Even if found guilty by a court of perverting the course of justice, she would receive just a slap on the wrist, a prison term of eighteen months at most, and defended as being ‘vulnerable’ and simply in need of counselling.
Feminist influence allowed this case to come to court without any corroborating evidence. It’s worse in California, where judges are required to direct juries in such cases to believe the accuser. In other words, a woman there can merely accuse a man, and in the absence of any other evidence he must be found guilty. A presumption of guilt unless proven innocent. It will be only a matter of time before this happens in the UK. Goodbye justice..



http://www.cotwa.info/
http://www.angryharry.com/Why-Women-Lie-About-Rape.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/
http://www.angryharry.com/Truth-About-Rape.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/Incredible-Ra ... istics.htm

[Gullscorer]

It looks as if Nigel Evans MP is about to suffer the same ordeal. The way the British justice system is set up in today’s society is an open invitation for young (and not so young) women (and men) to make false allegations, and many are doing so, knowing that it is to their advantage and that even if they are found out there will be little or no repercussions for them.

On the other hand, such false allegations could totally ruin an innocent man’s life and career, even leaving him homeless and penniless. Modern feminist ideology is a totalitarian hate movement that demonises all men.

If you are a man of known wealth and affluence or in the public eye, or are in a sour relationship with a vindictive manipulative partner, or are simply out with the opposite sex for a social evening, beware. False allegations, which are far more numerous then official/feminist false statistics show, could well be heading your way.

[ferrarilover]

I said a week ago that he'd be acquitted. The whole thing hinged on the medical evidence. As soon as that was inconclusive, the prosecution didn't stand a chance because there was no way that Le Vell was going to admit to anything under examination (I happen to think that this is because there is nothing for him to admit to), so the Prosecutor was never going to establish guilt to the required standard.

Sadly, false accusation is the price we pay for our determination that vile sex crime should be punished. Of course, this is quite the right line to take, sex crimes are some of the worst in our society and the punishments need to be severe. Unfortunately, sex is one of those things which can sometimes be legal and sometimes illegal and the difference between the two is often nothing at all which can be evidenced. This is precisely why this prosecution failed (evidentially, I mean), because while the medical evidence established that the accuser was not a virgin, it could establish little more than that, which, of course, is completely meaningless. The girl is 18, her not being a virgin is completely irrelevant.

The real issue to tackle is that of anonymity. It is entirely right that the accuser should remain anonymous, but that courtesy should extend to the alleged perp too. We see all to often what happens when people, wrongly accused, have their names given to the press. Trial by media always ends in a guilty verdict based on absolutely no evidence. The case of the landlord who didn't kill Jo Yates in Bristol a couple of years ago is a prime example. He was arrested on suspicion and released workout charge 3 days (or so) later. Sadly, in the intervening period, readers of the Daily Wail and other gutter press had decided he was scum because he happened to have wild hair and boggly eyes. Apparently that makes one a murderer! It didn't matter that there was absolutely nothing linking him to the crime, he has been arrested and he looked weird, that was more than enough for the hard of thinking.
The same is true of the nurse (whose name escapes my Alzheimer's addled brain) arrested on suspicion of committing criminal damage with intent to endanger life when it was discovered that 8 hospital patients had died from contaminated saline drips. The drips had been switched for insulin which caused hypoglycemic shock and death. The nurse was arrested on pretty paltry evidence and, as usual, the press got to work proving her guilt. This time, the got a picture from her MyFace page, which showed her out with her mates getting pissed. This was more than enough evidence for every retard in the village to know, instinctively, that she must be a murderer. Surely only a murderer would go out and get pissed at the weekend.
If both of these people had been allowed to remain anonymous until they were found guilty, then they would be going about their lawful business now with no stigma attached to their names and faces. As it is, I'm sure if we ask, there will be plenty of people about who still believe that those people were guilty, regardless of what has happened subsequently, because Richard Littlejohn said they must be guilty, so they must be guilty.

Matt.

[SuperNickyWroe]

agree matt. as you have said it was obvious to anyone with at least 2 brain cells that he was innocent.

as for the nurse, I think you mean rebbecca leighton at stepping hill hospital. she has suffered not only the fact of what she was put through, but then lost her job as a result of it even though she was released. shocking decisions there.

nurses - as I know, are placed in a difficult position. there are some nurses who are registered that I know who I wouldnt let look after my dog.
i think as far as nurses go, its beverley allitt syndrome. everyone assumes that once a nurse is arrested, he or she is guilty. there is a nurse who is in prison currently (unless he has been released pending appeal) colin norris, who was found gulity of murdering patients in Leeds.
I think he will be released as his conviction is "dubious" at best.

as far as celebs and nurses go, its plane-crash media.

[Gullscorer]

The false allegation epidemic:

[ferrarilover]

Rebecca Leighton at Stepping Hill, absolutely.

Matt.

[Gullscorer]

Good article by Richard Littlejohn three weeks ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -head.html

[Gullscorer]

And this by Peter Lloyd: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... rials.html

[happytorq]

And this by Peter Lloyd: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... rials.html

You lost me at 'dailymail.co.uk'. A horrible, hateful publication.

[Gullscorer]

You lost me at 'dailymail.co.uk'. A horrible, hateful publication.

Agreed, but this article is spot on.

[Gullscorer]

Rolf Harris is the latest well-known personality to appear in court. Six charges relate to the alleged indecent assault of a girl aged 15-16 between 1980 and 1981, three relate to a girl aged 14 in 1986, and indecent images of children were alleged to have been made last year.

Operation Yewtree was set up in the wake of allegations against the former BBC Radio 1 DJ and TV presenter Jimmy Savile. Operation Yewtree has three strands. One is looking specifically at the actions of Savile, while the second strand concerns allegations against "Savile and others". Rolf Harris was arrested as part of the third strand, which relates to alleged complaints against other people unconnected to the Savile investigation.

Operation Yewtree is basically a fishing expedition, the practical effect of which is to find, not cases of abuse, not even evidence (which would obviously be useful), but mere accusations of historical abuse by people in the public eye. It’s an open invitation to women to make false allegations in the knowledge that if successful they will be rewarded financially (the BBC has paid out millions to women claiming abuse with no evidence whatever, in the Jimmy Savile affair). If the accused is found not guilty, there is no evidence to prove their perjury, and they walk away scot free.

Modern police and judicial procedures, guidance and codes of practice (not to mention those in education, health, social services, family courts, indeed most areas of society) are infected with radical feminist ideology which hates and discriminates against men. Combined with the eagerness of the CPS to prosecute cases without evidence, we have a situation where all men are potentially at risk of false accusations.

Sexual abusers are usually serial offenders and can be female as well as male. Indecent assault is one of the less serious offences, as compared with, for example, rape, even allowing for the fact that feminist ideology has changed the definition of rape to such an extent that consensual sex, if subsequently regretted by the woman for the flimsiest of reasons, can become rape after the event.

There are a number of concerns relating to allegations of historical sexual abuse. There is almost certainly no evidence, apart from an accuser’s testimony. To such accusers, it’s like having a free lottery ticket. They cannot lose, but may strike it lucky with a large payout of ‘compensation’. And the question must be asked, what pressures are put upon these old men to admit to lesser charges, even though innocent, with the threat of possibly lifelong imprisonment hanging over them?

Rolf Harris is 83 years old and would have been 50 and 56 years old at the times of the alleged offences. His accusers would now be 48 and 41 years old respectively. He has been happily married for 55 years. He met his wife, the Welsh sculptress and jeweller Alwen Hughes, while they were both art students, and they married on 1 March 1958. They have one daughter, Bindi Harris (born 10 March 1964), who studied art at Bristol Polytechnic and is now a painter.

All male painters and artists, given the nature of their work, are at risk of being falsely accused of sexual misconduct and making indecent images regardless of the context of their work and the difficulty in deciding what is pornographic, erotic, or mere artistic expression.

Obviously we cannot decide guilt or innocence; only a jury can do that, as in the Le Vell case. But the whole thing leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. It really does come across as a feminist-inspired hysterical witch hunt; shades of the Salem trials and of the crazy Satanic ritual abuse witch hunt of a few years ago. Modern radical feminism is a man-hating ideology, just as Hitler’s National Socialism was a gypsy and jew-hating ideology, and they adopt similar tactics. As the Nazis demonised all jews, so radical feminists demonise all men. We ignore them at our peril.

[The Farmers Friend]

Rolf Harris is 83 years old and would have been 50 and 56 years old at the times of the alleged offences. He has been happily married for 55 years. He met his wife, the Welsh sculptress and jeweller Alwen Hughes, while they were both art students, and they married on 1 March 1958. They have one daughter, Bindi Harris (born 10 March 1964), who studied art at Bristol Polytechnic and is now a painter.

No bearing on the current allegations and trial, but many people who met him would testify that he is not the genial character he liked to portray.

I recall his roadshow programme in the early-80s drew many complaints from parents of chidren who visited the show. Two kids from my school went to the Plymouth show and said he was horrible, and I've had another report from soemone who met him on another occasion describing him as a 'miserable bastard'.

[Gullscorer]

As you say, this has no bearing on the current allegations; being horrible, miserable, and lacking in geniality (which we've all been guilty of at some time in our lives) is evidence of absolutely nothing. But may be precisely the kind of thing which prompts a resentful and vindictive woman to make a false allegation.

And now, in California, radical feminism has had such influence that judges have been ordered to require juries, in the absence of any other evidence, to believe the word of the female accuser over that of the male accused. In other words, the accused in such cases is guilty until proven innocent, which turns traditional due process in the judicial system completely on its head. Only a matter of time before it happens here too. Then watch the rise in the number of false allegations, and the increase in the number of innocent men convicted, zoom off the charts. Goodbye justice.

[Gullscorer]

It's not too surprising. More allegations against broadcaster Stuart Hall have emerged from the woodwork.

Why now, after all this time? Why not following his earlier arrest, charge, trial and conviction? Why not all those years ago, following the actual alleged events themselves?

Whether Hall is innocent or guilty is to some extent irrelevant, but the question must be asked: was the 83-year-old pressured into pleading guilty, even though he may have been innocent, as a result of being threatened with potential lifelong imprisonment?

Today's radical feminist-controlled environment is an open invitation to women to make false allegations, knowing that they could be on to a financial winner, and that even if they lose, unless they admit to making a false accusation they will get away completely free.

[Gullscorer]

The results of feminist political pressure: In the USA, new Federal Department of Education directives from the Obama Administration are specifically targeted at men even though many college-age women are also sexually aggressive, sexually harass, and sexually assault young men (and women) on campus.

Unfortunately, these new Department of Education directives expanded the definitions of sexual assault and virtually destroyed due process rights. Male students are presumed guilty and can, for example, be accused and labelled as a sex offender for merely inviting someone on a date.

The mere accusation is the proof. The accused cannot testify, present evidence, be represented by an advocate or attorney, or otherwise defend themselves. A young man's life and career ruined on the whim of a petulant, fickle, vindictive or neurotic young woman.

The falsely accused and wrongly punished have had to stand up for their rights and seek justice by suing their university (if they have the money) to recover their reputations in the courts. Young men wrongly punished by their university after a false accusation of sexual assault have been fully vindicated by the legal system. But this never should have been necessary.

Such injustices against men are now commonplace in the USA, Canada, Sweden and other countries.

If we say and do nothing, don’t think it won’t happen here.