Terrible Precedent in Footballer Ched Evans Case

by W.F. Price on May 23, 2012

Ched Evans is a 23-year-old British footballer who played for Sheffield, and was just starting to make an impact as a talented striker. Last month, he was convicted of rape over an incident last May in which he slept with a woman who had been drinking. The sex was apparently consensual, but the judge found that the girl’s intoxication, indicated by CCTV footage of her with Evans’ friend before the incident, invalidated any consent.

Both Evans and his friend, co-defendant Clayton McDonald, slept with the girl that night, but only Evans was convicted. Since the conviction, a further 13 people have been arrested for allegedly releasing the woman’s identity through Twitter, so that makes 15 arrests so far over one case of drunken sex.

Although there are a lot of problems with tying consent to sobriety, the biggest is the assumption that consent is presumed to be absent, i.e. those charged with rape must provide an affirmative defense, which sets the bar far too low for the prosecution in rape cases. What I’m getting at is that the idea is that when a woman is intoxicated, we can’t know for certain whether she would have consented or not otherwise. So, the court has decided that the default is nonconsent. If this applies in drunken sex, it applies elsewhere where consent is unclear. This means that unless a man can prove in court – while facing a determined prosecutor – that a woman intended to have sex with him, he can be convicted of rape.

Under the old standard, the default assumption was that sex acts are consensual, barring proof, such as coercion and/or assault, that they were not. This put the burden of proof on the prosecution. For example, if a woman went out drinking and then went to a hotel room with a couple athletes and had sex with them, the assumption would be that that was what she intended to do, and a prosecutor would have to come up with evidence that she had somehow been forced into the situation against her will.

Now, however, it has been turned around. We start from the assumption that women do not intend to have sex, even if they drink and enter hotel rooms alone with athletes, and then must establish through some process of investigation that they did, in fact, intend to have sex, to determine that rape did not occur. And if they were drinking, defense is automatically invalidated.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would result in the imprisonment of perhaps hundreds of thousands of young men every year if it were the law of the land in the United States. Every college party in the US would result in a dozen or so arrests and lengthy prison sentences. It would put more young American men out of commission than WWII. But perhaps that’s the idea.

{ 283 comments… read them below or add one }

Okrahead May 23, 2012 at 12:07

By any chance was Mr. Evans drunk as well? If so, perhaps he is also a victim of rape. Maybe they raped each other.
Even if he was not, if a man gets drunk, and as a result of his “beer goggles” awakens next to a “coyote ugly” beast, may the female in question be charged with rape? After all, he certainly would not have slept with the slattern in question had he been in full possession of his faculties.
Thus, I see two “amusing” possible outcomes: If two strangers are drunk and decide to have sex, neither of them is capable of consent and thus both have committed rape. While this is the logical outcome of the argument it fails to meet the needs of the feminist agenda, so I doubt that it will be implemented.
The second outcome is that men who have sex with ugly womyn as a result of intoxication may then charge those womyn with rape. Call it the “Ms. Thang there is sooooo freakin’ ugly it’s self evident I wouldn’t have poked her if I wasn’t sloshed” rule. Once again, however, this does not meet the needs of the feminist agenda, so although it is the perfectly logical outcome of this case I expect it will not be implemented as such. Too bad…. it would make the court system so much more interesting.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 141 Thumb down 14
Ethical May 23, 2012 at 12:08

Very insightful breakdown. With such wise insight patiently being spread I can’t help but be hopeful that men will begin to see that the biggest thing that’s broken are the laws that governs relationships between women and men. Once that insight spreads, laws will change.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 10
AfOR May 23, 2012 at 12:11

There are other men being convicted in this way every day, both drunk but only the wimminz inebration counts.

Got witnesses who state that after the alleged rape she seemed fine?
No good.

Got witnesses who state that she only claimed rape after her husband turned up?
No good.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9281095/My-ordeal-at-the-hands-of-the-hunt-master-John-Norrish.html

doubling down, it is the only game the wimminz know

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 13
Opus May 23, 2012 at 12:15

It is (as I have said before here on this case) a simply appalling decision.

Last week The Home Office tweeted that: ‘Britian has been voted best for LGBTs’. I replied ‘…and worst for Hetero-sexuals.’ I await a visit from the thought-police.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 7
Survivorman May 23, 2012 at 12:16

Apparently – the only current form of “safe sex” is to rub one out whilst looking at internet porn..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 7
evilwhitemalempire May 23, 2012 at 12:19

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would result in the imprisonment of perhaps hundreds of thousands of young men every year if it were the law of the land in the United States. Every college party in the US would result in a dozen or so arrests and lengthy prison sentences. It would put more young American men out of commission than WWII. But perhaps that’s the idea.
***********************

note how men enjoyed so much more sexual freedom under traditionalism

the right is hypocritical about being sex negative

the left is hypocritical about being sex positive

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 6
Tom936 May 23, 2012 at 12:22

Okrahead May 23, 2012 at 12:07
By any chance was Mr. Evans drunk as well?

I’d be surprised if he wasn’t.

If so, perhaps he is also a victim of rape.

By logic, yes, of course. By the law and prosecutorial bias, no, of course not, because he’s a man.

Maybe they raped each other.

That’s the logical but insane conclusion of the legal logic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 5
Huck Finn May 23, 2012 at 12:24

Neither Evans or those who revealed the woman’s identity should have been arrested or punished. The response to this immoral court decision will be more men and boys avoiding women and girls (when drunk or sober), and more males turning against government and society. If alpha males (athletes, politicians) are now getting screwed over by society and its laws then betas and omegas know what odds they have of receiving justice. The sooner the misandry bubble bursts the better.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 68 Thumb down 9
dragnet May 23, 2012 at 12:30

American feminists have already begun the effort to mainstream the idea of shifting the burden of proof to the accused in sexual assualt cases. Jessica Valenti wrote approvingly of the efforts of Swedish misandrists to do just that in no less a rag than the Washington Post:

“In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn’t give it.”

The real problem with shifting the burden of proof to the accused is that it would essentially invalidate the right of the accused not to testify against himself. Since most sex happens in private, most sexual assault cases are of the he said/she said variety. If the burden of proof is now on the accused, he would essentially be compelled to take the stand to even have a shot at clearing his name—effectively stripping away his 5th Amendment right and taking us back to pre-Magna Carta jurisprudence.

Shifting the burden of proof to the accussed is really just the latest salvo in the long effort to erect a gender-biased two-tiered justice system—from VAWA, to gender-based sentencing disparities and now this. The only relevant question here is why anyone would want their sons growing up in a world where at any moment they could be imprisoned for a lengthy stretch for failing to disprove a negative. Or why anyone would want their daughters growing up in a world where in the blink of an eye their husbands, sons, or uncles could be snatched from them almost solely on some woman’s say-so.

But maybe we really have nothing to worry about—women never lie about rape, I’ve been told.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 7
codebuster May 23, 2012 at 12:34

On the one hand, there is DUI (driving under the influence) in which the driver is expected to take responsibility for making the choice of driving a car while under the influence, and on the other hand, a woman is not required to take responsibility for making her choice of man while under the influence. Do we tell these idiot lawmakers to please make up their minds, or do we just assume that they are intelligent agents who have declared war on men?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 93 Thumb down 8
Tom Smith May 23, 2012 at 12:47

The problem with this scenario is the shifting burden of proof. Last time I checked, in all crimes it was: the burden is on the state to prove each and every element of the offense. When this is taken away, it’s simply a “pass” for the prosecution to push the law in directions it should not go.

And whether you’re an athlete or a simpleton, no man should be in the position of having to defend this type of charge when the woman was “consenting” through her actions/behavior as to what happened after she came into a man’s apartment or hotel room.

Think about it this way. You’re a guy who goes out, gets his “drunk” on and wakes up with an ugly bird next to you. Could you imagine what would happen if you went to the police and said, “I would never have consented to sex with that, unless I was completely drunk.” Do you think the girl will get arrested? Of course not. You will be laughed out of the police station.

However, if a woman does the same thing, even if there’s no physical evidence left, the police will take a report. The next step is that it’s likely the police will recommend that the prosecutor charge the man. And the cost of defending one such case will bankrupt the ordinary guy. Unfortunately, if the prosecutor feels like he’s losing, he’s likely to engage in misconduct to get a mistrial (which in the states means a re-trial- and hence added costs for the hopeless man).

So unless and until men get politically organized, we will see this happen again and again. But think what it would be like for the simpleton, who has not the athlete’s millions to fight the case. The simpleton will have to take a deal which will mark him as an offender for the rest of his life……

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 4
walking in hell May 23, 2012 at 13:15

Here are some quotes from the judge in the case:

‘Ched Evans took advantage of a vulnerable young woman who was in no fit state to consent to sexual activity. He did so knowingly and with a total disregard for her physical or emotional well-being.’

‘It is a myth that being vulnerable through alcohol consumption means that a victim is somehow responsible for being raped. The law is clear: being vulnerable through drink or drugs does not imply consent.’

Look at how the judge uses the word rape. But in mind that two men had sex with this woman: a black man and a white man. The black man, McDonald, was acquitted, and the white man, Evans, was found guilty. What is going on here? Did one guy who had sex with girl rape her, while the other guy who had sex with her didn’t? It sounds crazy like some kind of witch hunt.

It seems to me the big goal in the UK and America is incarceration of men; these cases are simply excuses to lock men up. The lesson is clear: if you are a man in the UK or America, there are women out there who want to take you down, and “white knight” judges, prosecutors, and police officers are dying to help her do it.

The lesson is clear: do not engage with the women of either of these countries on any level. It is simply too dangerous.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 76 Thumb down 9
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 13:16

Actually the logical conclusion to this form of ‘justice’ requires you to slit the throat of any girl you fuck, to ensure that she cannot prosecute you for rape.

I know it sounds horrifying, But this is already the case for home invasions… If you try to defend yourself, the only chance you have is to kill the intruder, or else you could be looking at a hefty lawsuit and extended jailtime.

The feminists are secretly praying for more violence and dead college girls, to justify their victim status and force ever-more destructive laws down our throats. And they are incredibly likely to get them.

Frankly, I would MUCH rather kill my accuser than spend even a single day imprisoned for a crime I did not commit. Freedom is something I would die for, and kill for. America’s founding fathers agreed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 23
W.F. Price May 23, 2012 at 13:22

Actually the logical conclusion to this form of ‘justice’ requires you to slit the throat of any girl you fuck, to ensure that she cannot prosecute you for rape.

-Brigadon

I think you’re trolling, B. This, for example (along with the above), is too far over the top to take seriously:

Frankly, I would MUCH rather kill my accuser than spend even a single day imprisoned for a crime I did not commit. Freedom is something I would die for, and kill for. America’s founding fathers agreed.

Anon May 23, 2012 at 13:28

… Institutionalised Penis Envy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6
W.F. Price May 23, 2012 at 13:35

@WiH

The law is clear: being vulnerable through drink or drugs does not imply consent.

Well, the question should be “does it imply non-consent?” If you can convict someone simply because consent is not “implied,” then what we have here is a clear case of putting the burden of proof on the accused.

This site has the name of the accuser May 23, 2012 at 13:37

http://afterwatt.blogspot.com/2012/04/ched-evans-and-lauren-crawford.html

As far as I am concerned, no accuser has the right to anonymity.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 10
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 13:40

Price, have you ever been in prison?

I have. for a crime I did not commit.

There is NOTHING more soul-destroying, Humiliating, and rage-inspiring than to be locked in a cage, like an animal, at the whim of some arrogant, ignorant cunt.

In less than a year you will be quite ready to destroy whoever put you there. And quite willing to die rather than be returned.
There is a reason that they are referred to as ‘animal factories’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 73 Thumb down 10
Jim May 23, 2012 at 13:44

Nice comments guys!

This is just more misandry on steroids.

And of course as others have mentioned it’s only rape if a guy has sex with a woman who was drinking. If a woman has sex with a guy that is passed out drunk it’s no big deal.

In fact there was a case here in the u.s. where a woman drugged a guy and then anally raped him so violently he woke up in a puddle of his own blood and she admitted it. How much jail time did she get…you guessed it not one day…and of course she did not have to register as a sex offender either.

Guys that are really drunk have sex and regret it the next day and a woman is NEVER charged with rape for it.

But our prisons are full of MEN who have done the exact same thing as these women have done and not one is even charged with a crime.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 4
Jim May 23, 2012 at 13:54

“”As far as I am concerned, no accuser has the right to anonymity.””

EXACTLY!!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 5
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 13:54

I would be willing to bet that there are several others who read this site regularly that are NOT happy with the whole “Passively try to get laws changed for fairness’ attitude of the MRM.
After a certain level of injustice, you are done with civilized methods.

Getting locked in a steel box for three years on the say so, with no evidence, of a useless welfare princess.
Being called a ‘criminal’ for trying to see your own children.
Losing your job, your license, your passport, your status, and eventually your honor.
Being labelled ‘deadbeat’, ‘liar’, ‘convict’ or ‘dishonorable’
Being placed on a list that you have to give to every neighbor you will ever interact with that proclaims a LIE that you are a Criminal that beats women… which of course means every ignorant neighbor thinks that you are a CHILD molester.
Owing more money than you will ever make in your lifetime.
Being considered a monster by your own family because you made the mistake of calling an ambulance when your wife fell asleep with a lit cigarette and burned herself when she lit the couch on fire, and later decided to use the medical report to ‘prove’ that you tortured her.
Spending every spare penny to try, and fail, for almost two decades to clear your own name, while attourneys fall all over themselves to pro-bono your ex?
Be reliant on military disability, since, with ‘insurance and healthcare responsibilities’, garnishment exceeds 80% of your post-prison job income?

At what point is it justified to say ‘enough is enough’? At what point is violence FINALLY the answer?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 8
Raj May 23, 2012 at 13:59

The judge is obviously biased and there is no denying the lack of justice here but on the other hand the defendants are no angels either.

These alphas get laid so many times they forget to be careful sometimes, sleep with the wrong woman and get burned.

Anytime you forget to treat women like 12 year olds you gonna pay.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 26
W.F. Price May 23, 2012 at 14:00

At what point is it justified to say ‘enough is enough’? At what point is violence FINALLY the answer?

-Brigadon

Well, it seems kind of disingenuous to advocate violence on someone else’s site using a fake name. Start your own site and do it, if you must, but don’t make me deal with the fallout.

Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 14:04

I was pointing out the logical conclusion, not advocating violence.

Not that I do not advocate violence, But I was trying to point out that, the way things are going, it is virtually suicide to leave someone that could be considered a ‘victim’ alive.

This is the direct result of laws of this sort. You literally create a crime wave.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 13
Raj May 23, 2012 at 14:05

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 30
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 14:05

But, feel free to take down my comments if you genuinely feel they will put you at risk. I would not wish to endanger someone else without reason.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 7
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 14:09

Raj, believe me. It’s a definite case of ‘if i knew then…” The problem is, I did not. The early 90′s were a seriously weird time, and blue pill was not even a concept yet. And once you get past a certain point, all the knowledge in the world will no longer help you.

If I could afford it, I’d happily move to southern mexico and never see america again, and count myself lucky. But if you do that without ‘south american marketable’ job skills you will quickly find yourself looking at the inside of a prison.

unfortunately, semi-professional artists, house painters, and rennaissance men are not marketable. The world cannot afford them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Dave May 23, 2012 at 14:16

Okrahead May 23, 2012 at 12:07
By any chance was Mr. Evans drunk as well? If so, perhaps he is also a victim of rape. Maybe they raped each other.

Well, the CDC’s recent intimate partner violence would seem to label him a victim of “other sexual violence” (unless she penetrated him with something during the act which would them make him a victim of “rape”).

dragnet May 23, 2012 at 12:30
American feminists have already begun the effort to mainstream the idea of shifting the burden of proof to the accused in sexual assualt cases.

How you could even do this given withdrawal of consent laws which means that even if the woman said yes on video in a public setting while clearly unintoxicated, if she claimed to say no during the act in question they that would seem to be impossible to prove. Is the only option to ensure that everything ends up on video?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price May 23, 2012 at 14:16

But, feel free to take down my comments if you genuinely feel they will put you at risk. I would not wish to endanger someone else without reason.

-Brigadon

They won’t endanger me — DMCA makes you – the commenter – fully legally responsible for any comment you make. However, they will certainly be used to harass me with guilt by association attacks.

Anyway, I made my point.

djc May 23, 2012 at 14:17

@walking in hell

That’s the same conclusion I have come to. It’s become too dangerous. I’ll do without.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Reality May 23, 2012 at 14:17

So did the woman accuse them of rape and maintain the accusation? It doesn’t say. You said mentioned the judge saw a survallience video.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno May 23, 2012 at 14:28

This is just total madness, just like almost every law that covers the interaction between men and women.

All af these laws (marriage, divorce, domestic violence, rape, parenthood, … ) are specially designed with only one goal in mind: to give a woman complete superior legal powers over a man, to make him a second class citizen, a slave.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 4
Justinian May 23, 2012 at 14:29

Well, it seems kind of disingenuous to advocate violence on someone else’s site using a fake name. Start your own site and do it, if you must, but don’t make me deal with the fallout.

Yup, there is no realistic way to do that on the internet. If Brigadon feels that it “is time” only he can make that decision and he’ll have to deal with the consequences of that himself. Don’t expect to organize an army of resistance in this country. Broadcasting ones intentions on the internet is a recipe for getting arrested and accomplishing nothing.

Thomas Ball in his manifesto, asked others to use violence against the state. Yet in the end all he did was off himself in a horrifically painful way. If I ever found myself in Thomas Ball’s position I would model my course of action on Jack Hinson’s exploits.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Matt Strictland May 23, 2012 at 14:32

Not going where alcohol is served and especially not partaking are pretty good strategies for avoiding this kind of injustice even in Airstrip One, err I mean the U.K.

This has the side effect of increasing stress and anger, clearing heads and therefore improving political activism as well.

The last thing the EIIC (evil idiots in charge) want is a politically activated and motivated populace, especially of men and as such we ought to give it to them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Ollie May 23, 2012 at 14:34

@Brigadon
The answer to your question is:

One or even a dozen men flipping out is not going to change a damn thing. If anything, it will make things worse. Think man, how many generals send a small, visible squad against a major force? Only the ones that lose wars.

Make no mistake, the situation is infuriating. I know it. You know it, and I know how you are feeling. The good thing is that you are not alone.

There is an ocean of rage smoldering out there because of the current situation. The problem is that 0.5 to maybe 0.75% of the men of in this country, the ones in whom it burns, have any inkling of its true cause. Our mission is to wake them up to that cause, and channel that energy into something productive.

You, because of your personal history and the value it holds as a cautionary tale are far too valuable of an asset to just throw away in this fight.

I know it is a maddening situation, but violence is not ever justified in this fight because it is a war of opinion, a propaganda war, an information war. Violence has no place because it is entirely counterproductive, like trying to cure tuberculosis by shooting the patient in the chest with a .45.

We are going to have to slog through this, inch by blistering inch, until our position becomes the dominant paradigm.

We are going to need to be on guard for anybody looking to use our words against us (I promise you , they will).

We are going to eschew violence because it undermines our message, and hands victory to our enemies.

We are going to spread the word, day by day, word by word, man by man.

We are going to let the truth out, and we are going to win.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 4
Anon May 23, 2012 at 14:39

This page here says the dirty dog has previously made 3 or more similar rape accusations in pursuit of the victims dividend and ancillary compensation monies.

http://afterwatt.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/ched-evans-lauren-crawford-and-judge.html

The scarier aspect of it all is the zeal with which white knight police officers, court judges and other rent seeking parasites are so keenly suppressing the woman’s deceptive priors and false previouses.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 3
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 14:46

Yes, I understand that Ollie, but without the financial and job resources I used to possess I feel like there is nothing I can do to truly make a difference.
I have tried the ‘urinal notes’ (all over salt lake city, in fact. I doubt there was a walmart that did not get plastered), I have tried ‘meet up groups (If I want to suit in a circle and whine like a woman, I would go to AA)

It comes to a point where your rage takes all of your creativity away. I cannot THINK of anything more to do to short of ‘suicide by cop’ which frankly would not truly hurt the people that cause this sort of thing. In fact, I am well aware that it would probably do more harm than good, making me into yet another ‘violent male statistic’

It’s just the whole ‘we will win’ line. I mean, that’s what the ron paul campaign kept saying too, and that was one of the few things that held out any hope to guys like me.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Opus May 23, 2012 at 14:54

I see an exact analogy with the Slut-walks.

In the case of the slut-walks, the would-be sluts say, that no matter their behaviour, they must not be Raped and if they are it is not their fault. In fact, of course, it is their behaviour which will persude the ‘rapist’ that he has consent, as happened with Evens. The Rape is thus simply female fantasy. The woman is thus never to be responsible for her actions or its consequences which is effectively what the slut-walkers allege and demand.

In the Evens case, the woman who I may not name (as she is as pure as the driven-snow) has consistently given green lights for double penetration with two strangers who she is only interested in because they are millionaire celebrities, and she became voluntarily inebriated to buck-up courage to do so. On sobering up and realising that she was just pump and dump material after-all, she rationalises her present unhappiness as lack of previous consent.

She is no more to be held repsonsible than the slut-walkers and the law will clearly never hold a woman responsible, even though to act as the law requires would involve more patience than a Roman Catholic Saint could muster – and these are horny fit young guys who can have – presumably (for a fee or otherwise) any woman they want. Had she sobered up and discovered that Evens had not so much as touched her, you can be sure that she would slander Evens as having insulted her as a woman, alleging that he was probably Homosexual and that he lives in his mother’s basement. The good people of Swansea (or was it Wrexham) need to know the identity of this woman, if only to protect themselves from her future machinations. It may not technically be a False Rape (given the juries decision – though it should never have even been committed for trial), but I would not want to take any chances. There are far too many men who have been falsely accused by women who know that they will never have to answer for their lies if they are found out; far too many men languishing in prison for sexual assaults which were either non-existent or entirely consensual. There can hardly be man it has not happened to in some degree and I include myself and some of my friends in that.

The inevitable consequence of this case is that no man should ever sleep with a woman if he has the slightest notion that she has imbibed any alcohol, for a woman can always maintain that the alcohol deprived her of free volition. Why should a man take the risk? – especially in an age when binge drinking amongst anglo-women has reached hospitalising proportions: thus women are effectively being told to engage in personal prohibition if they want to have sex – yet over here alcohol is known as ‘knicker elastic loosner’.

Blackstone (we looked into this before) was of the opinion that even if it was possible to Rape a slut – which he doubted as she had no reputation to maintain – proof of lack of consent was virtually impossible. Blackstone seems to me to be entirely correct. Can we out the Judge as a Misandrist Pussy-begging Mangina who has wrongly imprisoned and wrecked the career of an innocent man?

This is a new Reign of Terror: This is Sexual Thermidor.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 5
Eric May 23, 2012 at 14:54

Price & Others:
Correct me if I’m wrong—but wasn’t there a case in the US a few years ago where a woman admitted to consensual sex, but then charged rape on the grounds that she revoked her consent during intercourse?
I seem to remember that case was the impetus behind the draconian ‘consent rules’ and other gender-segregation rules imposed in Academia during the 1990s. But I don’t remember any of the details about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Nico May 23, 2012 at 15:02

The safest way to have sex will soon be to rape women for real and leave without giving any indication about your identity.

Giving your name and playing honest is going to be a foolish mistake endangering your whole life.

Consensual sex will become more hazardous than a well-executed rape.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 9
Thomas Tell-Truth May 23, 2012 at 15:03

Amazing..the artistocunts have actually managed to get into law the idea that heterosexual sex is by default..rape.

And they wonder why men are growing angry and nihilistic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 1
Eric May 23, 2012 at 15:05

Opus;

‘The woman whom I dare not name…’

This the worst element of the ‘Rape Shield Laws’. I’d have no problem with those laws if the ‘Shield’ included the accused. The media should prohibited from even reporting on these cases until after a guilty verdict is reached and barred from reporting about acquittals at all. That alone would discourage a lot of false accusations, especially on guys like Evans who have high profiles and deep pockets.

Just as an aside, doesn’t it seem strange that high-priced journalists and high-priced trial lawyers never seem to singled out for these kinds of accusations? Maybe there’s an ‘unspoken agreement’ there. Anyway, I hope the British legal system takes Murdoch & Co. down and that will one less cog in the corruption machinery.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
bruno May 23, 2012 at 15:10

Let’s look at the bright side: this is just another reason for not buying women drinks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 15:12

heh, ‘drunk shaming’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Eric May 23, 2012 at 15:21

Nico,
What you said might sound far-fetched on the surface, but it’s logically true. By setting these precedents and laws what these idiots are doing (intentionally or otherwise) is the same thing that other prohibitions do: i.e., creates a Black Market.

Remember how proponents of outlawing things like narcotics, alcohol, tobacco, pornography, &c all claim that such restrictions would make society safer? If women think that this is going to make them somehow safer from ‘the predatory man’ just wait until sex falls into the hands of Organized Crime like these other things did.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Raj May 23, 2012 at 15:24

Brigadon
It’s just the whole ‘we will win’ line. I mean, that’s what the ron paul campaign kept saying too, and that was one of the few things that held out any hope to guys like me.

Ron Paul campaign’s failure is the perfect analogy. While his heart is undoubtedly in the right place, what people like Ron Paul don’t understand is that the culprit is the people themselves not some group of elites. It is people themselves who are OK with what’s going on because they are invested in the system and will never vote down the system.

Coming back to MRM, it is men themselves who enable and participate in other men’s oppression. The are so heavily invested in matriarchy that they will never bring it down despite what they say. Your best bet is to find a way to free yourself from the chains you are in, by yourself. For that you must get rid of anger and resentment so you can think clearly.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5
Soapwort McFuggletoes May 23, 2012 at 15:31

First, we must have new law, whether by legal precedent, legislation, regulation, policy, executive side-stepping, etc., be mercilessly imposed upon those that generate it.

I’ve often thought that legislation be reviewed carefully for logical inconsistencies, redundancy, impractical burden, constitutional violation, weasel words/indefinite meaning, economic distortion, and imbalance in application. All done before being rubber stamped as actual law. Naturally, such circumspection would simply ice over the entire legal world of the USSA, or other pseudo-representative farce of a government.

But should they actually manage to expand law afterward, it should follow that those who created or lobbied for it, along with their immediate family, must live under its heaviest thumb for not less than a year before it may be applied to anyone else. I think you would find judges issuing such logically incredulous rules as new precedent a damn sight less frequently if they understood that they and theirs would then be scrutinized and whipped with that very issue not a day afterward.

These days, if your not angry about such things, you’ve been successfully residing beneath a well compacted mineral deposit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
AfOR May 23, 2012 at 15:33

Brigadon raises a valid and vital to society point.

1/ you have a “top of the line” offense, such as murder.

2/ you have a “lower end of the middle shelf” offense, such as assault / affray

3/ you have a “bottom shelf” offence, such as not paying a parking ticket, or alimony.

If you are going to hand out 20 years (JOLIET) for #1, you can’t hand out much more than 2 years for #2, else it becomes worth escalating an assault into a murder , and you can’t hand out much more than 2 weeks for #3, else it becomes worth assaulting someone, and if you already closed that gap up, it becomes worth killing someone.

“may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb” is an expression a lot older than the industrial revolution, yet we forget it at its peril.

If you re going to play “fuck you and game over” with guy because his wife decided the grass was greener, expect it to be a matter of time before guys start agreeing with your analysis.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
dragnet May 23, 2012 at 15:38

@ Brigadon

Your posts are rather indelicate…but I take your point. They are not so much an endorsement of violence, so much as an explanation of the logical conclusion should feminist radicals succeed in transforming American law to presume men guilty.

When those who are wronged and disenfranchised cannot find justice through the system, the only way to obtain it is through vigilanteism. If you are accused of rape in a society where alleged rapists are presumed guilty then killing your accuser would, in fact, be somewhat logical—after all, murderers are still presumed innocent until proven otherwise and so you would have a chance to beat that charge whereas you would have no chance whatsoever to go free in a sexual assault trial. “No justice, no peace” as liberals like to say. It is not condoning violence to point this out.

Anyways, we still enjoy our constitutional protections…for now. But in some ways this really goes back to the argument that Welmer was making the other day: that men of any wealth, ambition or ability should really think long and hard about leaving this country.

It’s looking as if it no longer wants us around.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
TiredGuy May 23, 2012 at 16:02

@ WF Price

I’m not so sure that Brigadon is trolling. I once had a law professor who said “A good law system will ensure that no-one need use the triple S law. Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up. When the legal system is corrupted, more people will resort to such tactics.” Its a shame, but I can see how that happens.

However, I agree with your view that a call to violence could mean trouble for the site. Whenever a MRM issue pops up in conversation with friends or family I’ve been directing them to a few articles on this site – so I’m hoping you don’t get taken down.

But back on topic – we need to push for civics to be taught in schools again. Teaching people why we have ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I do not believe it is an exaggeration when I say that feminism is the new Nazi party.

They too demanded that the pillars of freedom be removed so they could better destroy an enemy they demonised in the eyes of society. Sound familiar?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
TFH May 23, 2012 at 16:09

dragnet,

If you are accused of rape in a society where alleged rapists are presumed guilty then killing your accuser would, in fact, be somewhat logical—

Delusion Damage had a superb article on InMalaFide about how this is exactly what would happen. Particularly since a man in the business of killing false rape accusers is not taking on more additional risk to himself after the first one.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 16:24

The irony is that There are only four barriers between an ethical man and a cold-blooded killer.

His God
His sympathy
His Honor
His fear of reprisal

Rampant feminism and liberalism first carefully dismantled god, destroying churches and ethical frameworks under the guise of ‘freeing from religious Tyranny’. They have killed god, and with it, their own best protection against the monster that lies within both women and men.

They have destroyed his sympathy by behaving like animals, treating men like nothing but paychecks, and abusing them at every turn. They kill his children or turn them into monsters, and compete with us with tactics that would get a dog put to sleep.

They have destroyed Men’s Honor, perverting our natural protective instincts into ways of stealing from us. Fighting dishonorably, with lies and hatred, and eliminating the very foundation of honor… a man’s desire to protect his family. They have destroyed our honor within the community with labels like ‘deadbeat’ and ‘convict’ and made honorable behavior into their own tool for power expansion and control.

And now, the only thing between us and monsters is simple fear of reprisal. Unlike women, Men can only be afraid for so long before that fear turns to anger, and rage. But, in so doing, they have actually started to tear down the framework of fear of punishment, because now punishment does not ONLY punish misbehavior, it also punishes good behavior. They have, in essence, given men nothing to lose from behaving like beasts, and everything to gain. You are fucked no matter what you do, and resorting to monstrous actions actually IMPROVES your chances of surviving and avoiding punishment.

The question is, when more men turn their hatred upon their oppressors, are they going to act surprised? I bet that they do.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 1
Eric May 23, 2012 at 16:31

Raj:
I had a discussion with a female client during lunch and we discussed gender relations, among other things. She is a non-religious feminist, I’m Catholic and pro-MRM. But both we agreed on something you brought up:

‘the problem is people who are OK with the system because they are invested in it.’

Whenever social and political issues arise, there are always people who profit—not from one side or the other actually winning—but from keeping the controversy and social division going. Those types are parasites who sap the vitality of any society they come into contact with.

‘Find a way to free yourself from the chains you are in’

The mind (or soul, in religious parlance) is the one thing humans have which can’t be forced, only changed by volition. Knowing that these evils exist is the best defence against them, having that knowledge enables you to see what the course of that evil is and how to protect yourself against it; and also how to change other minds and turn them into allies.

That’s why the people who are emeshed in the system try suppress knowledge as their true natures at all costs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Crank May 23, 2012 at 16:35

Last I checked, non-consent is an essential element of the crime, so it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (at least in the USA). But, the thinking is, if she is sufficiently impaired, then genuine consent is impossible. Personally, I don’t agree with that, unless she actually passed out or otherwise unaware of what is happening to her. Either way, it doesn’t make this an affirmative defense in cases where she isn’t incapacitated by alcohol or whatever.

Having said that, some nutty feminists have seriously suggested reversing the burden of proof for consent in rape (I think that Valenti broad, for one). If we had honest judges, that would seem to be unconstitutional, but you never know how they would rule in light of political pressure from both liberals and white knight cons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 16:36

actually price, I do (did) have my own blog.

Unfortunately, the name that I named it turned out to be identical to that for a gay bondage porn site, save for the extension. Imagine my dismay.

Now I am shopping for a new name.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
TiredGuy May 23, 2012 at 16:40

Sorry Brigadon, that is too funny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 16:41

Oh, believe me, i laughed my butt off after I got done cussing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Ted May 23, 2012 at 16:46

“This site has the name of the accuser May 23, 2012 at 13:37

http://afterwatt.blogspot.com/2012/04/ched-evans-and-lauren-crawford.html

Good blogge, that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Eric May 23, 2012 at 16:52

Brigadon:

Actually ‘fear of reprisal’ is been stripped away too, it’s just that the reprisals aren’t as apparent because the media is complicit with feminism and is trying its best to cover up how bad the situation for women really is.

The reprisals are going unnoticed also because men are taking the form of passive resistance. Men are going MGTOW, turning to foreign women in record numbers, and dropping out of the US dating/ marriage market at an escalating rate. I haven’t even dated an Amerobitch since 2009.

Even though the media won’t advertise it, women ARE feeling the effects. I know college and even HS-age guys who aren’t dating, but meeting foreign girls online and travelling abroad.

Don’t make the mistake that some do and conclude that men are inevitably doomed. The fact that feminists are attacking sites like these via trolls, engaging in increased propaganda, and turning to the force of law is proof that they are losing. Granted, they may ‘win’ temporarily through these measures, but men can still expatriate and regroup. Even if a feminist dictatorship takes over the US, even that would end up being taken down by some masculine country like the Chinese.

Feminism cannot win in the long run, it’s a logical and moral impossibilty. Keep your eye on the big picture. Men have headed civilization at least since the Neolithic Age and that’s not going to change anytime soon.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 16:55

@Eric-

MEN do not like waiting around for someone else to fix things for them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
keyster May 23, 2012 at 16:57

This has been recently covered under the FBI’s new definition of rape.
It’s meant to “gender neutralize” the affects of alcohol because women are cheap drunks biologically.

First she decides how drunk she was, THEN she decides whether she consented or not. Depending on how drunk she says she was, the judge will decide whether that was too drunk to consent. She’s never drunk enough to know how drunk she was, but always too drunk to properly consent — you know, like a responsible adult.

This is a pure Patriarchy play. Men produce alcohol, men distribute alcohol, men own bars and liquer stores that serve alcohol and men buy alcohol for women so they can get them drunk and sexually assault them. Women are victims of this conspiracy, but they just don’t realize it. Someone needs to tell them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
W.F. Price May 23, 2012 at 17:08

This has been recently covered under the FBI’s new definition of rape.
It’s meant to “gender neutralize” the affects of alcohol because women are cheap drunks biologically.

-Keyster

I don’t know if I’m representative of the typical guy, but drunkenness in women has always been a major turn-off for me. They become sloppy, sexually aggressive, and the smell of liquor on their breath is not enticing.

This is another reason this law is crazy. In my experience, women are at their most sexually aggressive when drunk.

Cynical Youth May 23, 2012 at 17:41

@Brigadon-

“MEN do not like waiting around for someone else to fix things for them.”

Men ALSO don’t clean other people’s messes. MGTOW ARE fixing things…..specifically their own lives.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Justinian May 23, 2012 at 17:56

Men ALSO don’t clean other people’s messes. MGTOW ARE fixing things…..specifically their own lives.

While MGTOW is often the rational course to go for someone with a short life who wants to make the most of it, you are essentially ceding power to the feminists.

While you may be able to keep yourself in a manner of your pleasing for the rest of your life, at some point in the future MGTOW won’t work anymore if such things a bachelor taxes are enacted.

In response to that facebook founder who renounced his citizenship both parties are now proposing a new expatriation tax.

1) Individuals who are deemed, in the sole discretion of the US government, to have renounced US citizenship in order to avoid US taxes, will be permanently barred from re-entering the United States.

2) Such individuals will also be required to pay a 30% capital gains tax to the United States government on ALL future investment gains derived from the US. Currently, non-citizens who do not reside in the US pay no US capital gains tax.

3) These proposals are RETROACTIVE, and, if passed, would apply to anyone who renounced his/her citizenship within the last 10-years.

How are you going to expatriate for foreign brides if the government decides someday to seize all your wealth when you try to leave? What if it becomes like the USSR where you CAN’T leave?

What do you do if they make a bachelor tax as expensive as child support?

MGTOW will probably work for some years in the future, but someday it will become impossible if you always cede power to the feminists and refuse to fight back.

US citizens now one step closer to becoming permanent tax slaves

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 18:33

You mean, like when the Nazis only allowed Jews to leave after the appropriated all of their money?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
American May 23, 2012 at 18:40

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 21
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 18:43

American, are you actually a random phrase generator?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
American May 23, 2012 at 18:48

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19
American May 23, 2012 at 18:49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19
American May 23, 2012 at 18:55

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19
Justinian May 23, 2012 at 18:57

American, are you actually a random phrase generator?

American is a poster who is obsessed with giving life to the phrase “Gender-Raunch.”

People can create new words and phrases, but what American doesn’t realize is that words loose their meaning when overused.

American is thus desperately trying to create a phrase he is actively destroying.

How ironic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 18:58

It’s not that, it’s the fact that you keep using the same phrases over and over again nearly independent of the actual conversation or original article, strung together almost randomly, making your messages nearly incomprehensible.

Perhaps instead of using ‘gender-raunch’ constantly you could use a term the rest of us understand? I know the term seems to make perfect sense to you, but there are a huge number of groups you could potentially be speaking about.

Conciseness and better explanation could also help. Half of what you say sounds like randomly-generated gibberish.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
td9red May 23, 2012 at 19:00

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 27
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 19:06

I know what ‘gender’ means, it means male or female.
I know what ‘raunch’ means, it means blatant or offensive sexuality.
and I think the word you are looking for is ‘enflamed’. which I suppose means aggravated.
Of course, empowerment is generally understood as ‘getting or keeping power’

so, by direct translation, I get the following:

male or female, male or female-offensive sexuality are getting power for themselves by persecuting the innocent. Without perverting law enforcement to persecute the innocent, How would male or female offensive sexuality aggravate their way to power???

Well, I mean… Logically I can think of about a million and a half ways for… porn stars? to gain power. Through investments, by giving a powerful message during their popular broadcasts, and a miriad of other potential power routes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Rob May 23, 2012 at 19:14

This is another reason this law is crazy. In my experience, women are at their most sexually aggressive when drunk. — W.F. Price

You can see what is going on over time. Men and women have always used alcohol to lower their inhibitions, to get through that first terrifying time they have sex together. (Good sex rarely happens until you’ve done it a dozen times or so).

It’s the same as the 1990′s campaign about “No means no!”

What bullshit. I’ve read studies that have shown that in the average sexual encounter, a woman will give somewhere around 100 denials – either visually, bodily, or verbally, before she finally spreads her legs and gives acceptance.

Thus the age old saying, “He chases her until she catches him.”

Women’s porn (Romance Novels) is also based upon this premise. At first she hates the brute, but he intrigues her… she shuts him down… hmpph… he is persistent and doesn’t take no for an answer… she still turns him down but is becoming more and more intrigued… finally, her own self is overwhelmed with his strength and passion, and she succumbs, while saying “No, I mustn’t” while his hand roughly touches her nipple through her thin blouse… the universe overwhelms her… she feels his hardness enter her… and all is right with universe as this bull of a man overtakes her, consuming her entire soul. (In women’s porn – No does not mean no).

They are trying to make “the mating dance” illegal.

Rats!

Zenpriest #18 – The Designated Initiator

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 19:16

@td9red-

The problem is, she is not being held accountable for her own actions. It’s like a fucking instruction on a toothpick that says ‘do not stab toothpick in eye’

If a man is held accountable for his actions driving while intoxicated, why is not a woman held accountable for her actions while intoxicated? I am reasonably certain no one tied her up and poured beer down her throat.

If you try to cross the freeway at night dressed in black, and lie down in the middle of the freeway to take a nap, is it really fair to blame the guy that runs you over?

Oh, right. no one should EVER have to suffer the consequences of their own actions. go back to your fucking slutwalks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
Anonymous May 23, 2012 at 19:27

Ahahahaha. Brigadon. Good luck with gender raunch troll. You’re obviously new here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Eric May 23, 2012 at 19:33

Brigadon,

‘MEN do like sitting around waiting for someone else to fix things for them?’

When did I say they should?

Sometimes men have to accept the inevitble and formulate a strategic withdrawl. Look at a general like Charles deGaulle. He was right about the Maginot Line not being defensible. He was right that France’s failure to develop armor capabilities and an air force would make the French defenceless in a modern war. He was right that the Soviet Union couldn’t be relied upon as an ally.

So when the Nazi Blitzkreig proved him right, what should he have done? Drawn a sword and charged the oncoming panzers? Or ‘expat’ to England where he could rebuild France and come back?

The MRM is right about America just like deGaulle was right about France. But we have to analysize our prospects realistically like he did.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 19:34

-td9red

My apologies for the rancorous tone of my last post. I tend to get incensed at blatant, white-knight style irresponsibility apologists. i should be educating, not insulting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price May 23, 2012 at 19:44

One’s incapacitation should not imply consent.

-td9red

Maybe not, but the real question here is whether it should imply lack of consent.

You mention robbery, but that’s a lousy comparison. Usually, when someone helps themselves to another’s property, it can be safely assumed that without some deal there was no consent. However, usually, when a sexual act occurs, unless you hold to the feminist assumption that most sex is rape, it is consensual.

Can you really argue that in most cases of sex where a woman has been drinking she was opposed to the sex? If not, then we should err on the safe side, and decline prosecution where it is unclear. Although feminists probably disagree, I concur with Blackstone’s formulation.

When you bring someone up for charges that carry a potential sentence in years, this is a very important distinction to make. Invalidating consent as a result of drinking opens up enormous potential for prosecutorial abuse, and only those who are logically challenged, or deliberately obtuse, can fail to see that.

td9red May 23, 2012 at 19:46

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 25
td9red May 23, 2012 at 20:00

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 21
Raj May 23, 2012 at 20:00

td9red,

Because of your female bias you are failing to account for women who lead men on, try to entrap them, try to get the man drunk, lie after the fact and try to extort a cash settlement.

Drunk in park example would be more suited if two people know each other while getting drunk, one drunk person promises to lend the other some money the same night, they both get too drunk and the borrower takes the said amount from the other’s wallet while the first one is passed out. When the person comes to next morning he/she feels regret and calls the cops etc etc

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Jason May 23, 2012 at 20:05

What strikes me as bizarre about the case is that in a real sense the “burden is on the accused” is what used to be the case under more traditional settings. Perhaps this is a better arrangement to have given the nature of rape as a crime, but it is utterly incompatible with the current setting.

For this “burden is on the accused” (at least to some degree) approach to be rational, there needs to be a societal assumption in place (and that actually exists) that women wont have sex with a man outside of being married to them or at least with some sort of domestic living arrangement in place.

Plus, any such assumption would raise the spectre of “blaming the victim” based on the way she acted or was dressed.

And whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you get drunk and do something stupid (it doesn’t seem that anybody is claiming this women was staggering around drunk and was forcibly dragged into the bushes) then that is your own fault and you need to live with the consequences.

Given the current social understanding about sex and womens “empowerment” the only sane legal principle is that a women was willing to have sex unless she actively resisted or was forcibly made to comply at knife or gunpoint. Certainly none of those conditions would apply here, and “buyers remorse” is hardly a legitimate grounds to cry “rape”.

Of course, I guess expecting sanity from feminists is akin to expecting it from jihadists.

Jason

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
nugganu May 23, 2012 at 20:05

So basically stop fucking white women? No problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
td9red May 23, 2012 at 20:05

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21
W.F. Price May 23, 2012 at 20:07

Even, if you don’t believe what this guy did was a crime can you at least agree that morally he did somthing wrong? I think the suggestion that drunkeness should implies consent is a bad idea and not healthy for male/female relationships. I’ve read comments by MRAs expressing anger that some women act fearful of men, feel that men are untruthworthy, cross the street when a male approaches. If you are drinking and watching a movie with a friend that happens to be a girl, is it acceptable behavior to start screwing her if she gets too drunk? Would you take your buddies wallet off him if he got too drunk while watching a movie at your place? As a gyrl I would hope that if I got drunk with one of my guy friends he would take my shoes off and put me in bed, alone. If screwing her is acceptable behavior than crossing the street when a male approaches or avoiding friendships with males it’s probably a smart idea for women. I hope male/female relationships never get to this point.

-td9red

I’ll answer for Brig. Yes, I think according to conventional morality he did something wrong, but she matched him. It’s called “fornication.”

As for the robbery comparison, that’s already been addressed. And women really are more aggressive about sex when drunk. They are more likely to initiate it when inebriated — no doubt. I suspect quite a few of them drink prior to meeting men because they know it will give them the “Dutch courage” they need to go through with it.

If a female friend of mine got sloppy drunk around me, I would definitely let her sleep alone. With or without her shoes. If I had to haul her up into a bed or onto a couch, I’d be a bit peeved about it, and even more so if she soiled the couch with vomit.

I will only run cover for a woman who can’t hold her liquor if she is my woman (or a family member), and in that case I will definitely try to wean her off of it. I do feel for women with drinking problems, but I certainly can’t afford to foster every one of them. Just one female drunk is more than enough for one man to handle.

freebird May 23, 2012 at 20:12

It’s funny how judges,cops,lawyers and the very wealthy have “Constitutional rights,” whilst the rest of us get mocked for using the phrase.

Caste system.
These things do not happen to “the right people.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price May 23, 2012 at 20:13

@WFP

Yes, one’s incapacitation should imply non-consent.

-td9red

Incapacitation and inebriation are not equivalent. Not only is one voluntary and the other not, but drunks have been determined in courts of law to have agency over and over again.

If inebriation=incapacitation, then a drunk man who commits a crime should be not guilty by reason of incapacitation, much as a parent who has fallen into a diabetic coma cannot be held responsible for criminal negligence if his or her child wanders off and drowns in a swimming pool. Do you think a drunk parent should get off the hook in this case?

Rob May 23, 2012 at 20:14

“Dutch courage” — Welmer

That’s so racist! Lol!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price May 23, 2012 at 20:16

“Dutch courage” — Welmer

That’s so racist! Lol!

-Rob

hehe. Well, I’m a little Dutch, so I think I can get away with it. ;)

Opus May 23, 2012 at 20:18

@Eric

The purpose of the Rape shield laws is of course to protect a virginal reputation, but of course the women are not virginal and they thus have no reputation to protect – for the English legal system to treat the unnameable one as pure, is, given the facts of the case absurd. Men like Evens are on a hiding to nothing. Once upon a time marriage was the answer but now you cannot escape rape accusations even then. I can only recommend employing Prostitutes on all occasions (although they will only go tell the press).

You suggest however that somehow top legal people are somehow immune from these sort of cases: that is I am afraid not so. Was not Strauss-Khan a lawyer? and so was Clinton. Last year a Barrister was shot dead in a seige in Chelsea. More to the point a young lawyer was convicted of Rape here a few years ago and these were the circumstances:

1. He had invited a fellow lawyer to a function – he paid.
2. He picked her up.
3 They attended the event which obviously went well.
4. He took her home.
5 She invited him into to her bed-sit.

[note: nothing but green lights so far]

6. They sat on her bed.

[another green light]

7. He made his move.

It did not go well (as sometimes happens).

He was subsequenlty convicted of attempted Rape. Although he was not imprisoned, his career and life were ruined.

In speaking with the police he acknowledged that he had paid for the evening etc and therefore etc etc as anyone might. If he is a Rapist then so am I and everyone else who has ever dated. One gets green lights and makes ones move. If it does not go well one backs off, but at what point to back off is the difficult decision to make, especially if one has had a few drinks. One can never tell whether the woman will not, suddenly, freak-out. Clearly the only way to proceed is as the baddest of bad-boys, which, after all, is what most women seem to actually want.

The bitch, of course, continued with her career and remained anonymous.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2
Raj May 23, 2012 at 20:19

td9red “I haven’t read anything that suggests the woman Evans raped did any of those things.”

Maybe she tried but he didn’t give in before she called the cops. Sounds like a business deal gone bad to me.

Maybe he didn’t feel like having sex but she pressured him and he agreed because he was drunk too. Maybe she held his member and inserted it herself. How do we know? If you apply idea of incapacitation to one one drunk, you must apply to other drunk too.

Anyway good night.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Opus May 23, 2012 at 20:23

I might also add (though I mentioned it further up the page) that even if I am not a TOP lawyer, I have had trouble with a false accusation. I can assure you that my qualification was no protection to me, indeed quite the reverse – the police love nothing better than to bring down the sort of person they see as the enemy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Poester99 May 23, 2012 at 20:35

What is her name?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Poester99 May 23, 2012 at 20:47

So it’s down to in effect “it’s illegal for women who have had a drink to have sex”.
This needs a campaign, “if she’s had too many she’s not worth the risk”, leave her passed out where ever she falls.
or “if you buy her a drink you are likely to be 100% liable for what happens to her for the rest of the night”. Sounds like great fun.

Apparently there’s a Twitter support group to absolve drunken females of anything they do while drunk. #Ibelieveher. It’s apparently full of tradcons, who are flabbergasted that everyone is not in support of this lynching.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
MaMu1977 May 23, 2012 at 20:49

Easy fix: record everything.

4 out of 5 states (and the military, regardless of area) have single consent laws. Prior to any sexual activity, set up your videocamera/phone/etc. to record the subsequent events. Worst-case scenario- you have to show a audio or video file of yourself engaging in sexual activity to a judge and/or jury (and your sexual skills aren’t up to snuff.) The light embarrassment of having to watch your performance in a crowded room Palestine in comparison to having to deal with multiple weeks or months of trial time.

Even a laptop camera can work. Using a movie-maker software, you can easily set up your recording ahead of schedule, then delete or store the evidence at your leisure.

I’ve been witness to no fewer than 3 separate military rape trials that were ended by Airman “Snuffy” gesturing to his lawyer and dragging out the computer. In the funniest/saddest case, the accuser claimed that she was dragged to his quarters and forced to have sex, then restrained when she tried to leave. Unfortunately for her, the accused had set his laptop camera on “record”(ostensibly to catch a suspected dorm thief.) We, the members of the court martial, were privileged to watch a women give unprompted oral sex, *receive* unrestrained oral sex, climb *on top* of him, *lay in his bed* as he wandered off to the bathroom, *be allowed to go to the bathroom by herself* (the bathroom in the living space being *right beside the front door*), *return to the bedroom* and *asked him if he was “as good on top as he was on the bottom”*, *put a condom on his penis and pulled him on top of her*, *went back to the bathroom by herself as soon as he climaxed*, returned to the bedroom and chatted with him until he excused himself and went to the bathroom again (for his second absence, he was gone for almost *10 minutes*), then snuggled into his arms when he returned to the room to go to bed. Adding insult to injury, one of the other jurors noted that the defendant was living on the *first floor*! As he so calmly put it, “Even if he had locked the front door, its a 4-foot drop from the bedroom windows in that dorm to the outside. He left her alone for almost 15 minutes, during the recording. Even if he had done anything to otherwise inhibit her from leaving, she could have opened the window and left at any time. And she wasn’t even drunk? I’ve got almost a dozen legless Marines and Airmen to take care of, half of my staff are being sent to Kandahar and time is being taken out of my work schedule to deal with *this*!?” We didn’t even have to spend 10 minutes to acquit.

Of course, I’d bet good money that some feminist somewhere is complaining about the low conviction rates in the armed forces…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Poester99 May 23, 2012 at 21:00

Granted, they may ‘win’ temporarily through these measures, but men can still expatriate and regroup. Even if a feminist dictatorship takes over the US, even that would end up being taken down by some masculine country like the Chinese.

True, if the feminists get the girly men they want then the US will fall. Effective warriors and soldiers are generally “manly” men, so unless they can convert all the cultures of the world at the same time, there will be some “power shifts”.
America’s ubiquitous laws and vindictive sentences make it very risky to be a manly man here in the first place. Skullduggery, stealth and backstabbing (where women are at a mostly even footing) are much more handsomely rewarded.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Opus May 23, 2012 at 21:03

Rob at 19.14 is quite correct.

If a woman is not interested in you, she will just ignore you. If she begins to give you verbal Nos, and a lot of them this is a sign that she wants you to break down her resistance (even if she is not conscious of it). I read that 55% of communication is body language and it is that one must observe most. 38% of communication is tone of voice and only 7% is actually the words used. So, when a woman says No, the chances are that through tone of voice and body language she means yes. If she means No she will not even be talking to you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
Rob May 23, 2012 at 21:10

It amazes me, with all the cretin men out there, that women dare to go out in public without protecting their “treasury” with a good old fashioned chastity belt.

She could, like, you know, leave the key with her father, and then go out and party it up all night, no matter how drunk she gets. Her “treasury” will be completely safe!

If I Only Had a V – by Angry Harry

If I Only Had a V

If I only had a V
I could be accusatory
And hide in anonymity
Despite my obvious perjury.

If I only had a V
I could live so happily
Causing untold agony
To the man who married me.

If I only had a V
I would be officially
protected by immunity
With no responsibility.

If I only had a V
I would dress most prettily
And all of the judiciary
Would judge my claims most favourably.

If I only had a V
I would use it expertly
To generate equality
That somehow always favours me.

If I only had a V
I could act appallingly
And cause my partner misery
No matter how atrociously.

If I only had a V
I would stroke it tenderly
Because quite unbelievably
It is my gold-filled treasury.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
slwerner May 23, 2012 at 21:24

Justinian – ”American is thus desperately trying to create a phrase he is actively destroying.”

Beyond his mere over-use of inane phrases, the bigger issue with American/elvis/proffesor (sic) and the other names he’s posted under is that his ultimate goal is to get everyone to believe that woman who make false rape claims are not the ones who are to be blamed for the immense harms that come about, but rather that there are these nebulous entities (“American Law Enforcement”, “Gender-raunch”, and, of course, their homosexual masters) that have been conspiring to trick and seduce poor unwitting women into making those false claims so that they can (somehow) gain empowerment from those false allegations being made and innocent men suffering.

Seriously, I’m not just being flippant here. He has posted hundreds of times here, on the False Rape Society/Community of the Wrongly Accused, and on a Voice for Men, and if you check through those posts, what you will NOT find is one instance in which he has been able to place blame on any woman who has made a false rape claim (seriously, check into it if you don’t believe me).

Scot is actually the victim of a false rape claim himself. Yet, incredibly, he has stated on multiple occasion that he DOES NOT blame the woman who accused him of raping her (because she was in violation of her curfew), but instead has chosen to shift the entirety of the blame onto the police investigators who failed to exonerate him (although they apparently dropped the case against him). [I cannot help but think about the idiot mangina who went to the court where she was being prosecuted to propose marriage to the woman who had stabbed, and damned near killed him. A woman who loves a man does not try to kill him or accuse him of rape just to get out of trouble for violating curfew. A woman who would do that CLEARLY does not care the least bit for the man she would thusly accuse].

With Scot, EVERY false rape claims comes done not to a woman choose of her own free will to do so based on her own perceived self interests, but is rather a matter of those larger nebulous forces which have conspired to trick her into doing so.

Now, there can be no doubt that as a whole, law enforcement has failed spectacularly WRT the handling of FRA’s over the past few decades. They have been too quick to believe claims, too quick to arrest, and way too slow to actually investigate. But, seriously, there is no “profit motive” for them to do so – nor has there ever been any need for one. Men (all of society, actually) have always been prone to believe women. Potiphar’s wife did not invent the FRA. She obviously knew that her husband would be predisposed to believe her over another man.

And, so it has been down through history. Who knows how many woman at risk of being caught in their infidelities or simply as a revenge tactic have accused innocent men – even their own lovers – of rape rather than have to accept and faced the consequences of their own choices? And, they have never, ever needed any law enforcement agency, any conspiring collective of Gender-raunch enthusiasts, nor homosexuals with designs on creating a Matriarchy to convince them to make false rape claims.

No, woman have only ever needed their own personal self-interests to drive the entirety of false rape allegations. They don’t need an external source of motivation, they have more that enough in the way of internal motivations guiding them.

As in the case above, the criminal justice system can often fail spectacularly [okay, how the Hell can the man who had sex with a drunk woman first be found innocent, but the man he invited over to join-in be found guilty?!?!]. But, it isn’t just law enforcement that failed Ched Evans. The Press and the public had a hand in creating he image of a rapist. His own legal defense team seems to have done one piss-poor job (he said/she said cases have very low conviction rates, most ending up as the other guys defense team getting him acquitted), and (let’s not forget) that it was ultimately a jury of citizens that found him guilty. There’s plenty of fault to go around.

But, bottom line, if the damned skank hadn’t decided to turn her drunken gang-bang regrets into a rape allegation, none of these participants would have had the reason nor the opportunity to f*ck it up. That woman bears the primary blame in this.

This is what I have tried to get across to Scot for a very long time – no matter who else screws up, and no matter who might get it right (and out the FRA), it is always ultimately the responsibility of the false accuser who set everything else into motion. Scot has a serious mental block in this. I believe that he desperately needs to get over that hump, and learn to blame woman for the evil they choose to commit. He needs to get past this back-handed White-knighting on behalf of these evil women. Thus, I would ask others to join me in encouraging Scot to try, just his once, to write that this Lauren Crawford woman is the one person who is ultimately to blame. I think if he could bring himself to do it just once, he could then get past whatever mental-block that he has been suffering from, and could move on from his pathetic campaign to try to convince the world that law enforcement and Gender-raunch “make” woman make FRA’s.

Learning to blame women for their bad behaviors is the first step to over-coming the natural urge to be a White-knight – whether that White-knight is an all too eager-to-believe-women cop, or an all too willing to excuse false-accusing-women cop hater.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
continent May 23, 2012 at 21:34

While the media voluntarily does not name alleged rape victim, it’s no longer either a crime or tort liability to publish the name in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law
in State of Florida v. Globe Communications Corp., 648 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1994), the Florida Supreme Court held that a Florida criminal statute that prohibited the media from identifying the names of sexual assault victims violated the First Amendment. In that case, Globe Communications Corp. twice published the name and identifying information of a sexual assault victim, violating the Florida statute. The paper had lawfully learned the victim’s name through investigation. The Florida Supreme Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Florida Star v. B.J.F., finding that the Florida statute barring any media publication of a rape victim’s name was unconstitutional because it was “overbroad”; that is, it punished the media even if, for example, the name of the victim was already known in the community. It also found that the statute was “underinclusive” in that it punished only media publication and not acts by a private person.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Opus May 23, 2012 at 21:51

It seems that maybe you Americans (who are never going to meet the bitch) can name her, but I (who might) am unable to know who she is, or if I do commit an offence if I state her name. Crazy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
"The One" May 23, 2012 at 22:08

Brigadon wrote: “Actually the logical conclusion to this form of ‘justice’ requires you to slit the throat of any girl you fuck, to ensure that she cannot prosecute you for rape.”

Actually, the logical conclusion to this form of ‘justice’ requires me not to fuck any woman I don’t trust, and also to be wary of the ones I do trust.

The appropriate response, Brigadon, is not to match female hysteria with your own kind of hysteria, but to remain rational. Instead, you’re feeding their hysteria with a solicitous kind of violent rhetoric.

It’s true the Feminists’ deprival of men’s basic civil rights increases the odds of violent crime against women, but it isn’t true that violent crime against women is the logical conclusion for the vast majority of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 22:10

Yes, Opus, Crazy.

It’s all Crazy.

Thank you Robert Heinlein, you named this time appropriately, The ‘Crazy Years’
I will consider him a deity if it is immediately followed by a hyperconservative religious dictatorship or set of european dictatorships. ‘springbacks’ from social insanity seem to always be extreme, and I suspect he may prove prophetic in this as well…

When the change comes, it will be so drastic a backlash that it will be nearly the complete opposite of the stupidly liscentious laws we have today… it will have to be, in order to oppose (or become?) muslim. In one hundred years time, women will be oppressed as they have not been before throughout all of history.

and it will be their own fault. Not that the ones alive today could give a flying flaming frog fuck about what’s going to happen when they are dead.

I expect the change to come in a little over a year.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire May 23, 2012 at 22:18

Nico May 23, 2012 at 15:02

The safest way to have sex will soon be to rape women for real and leave without giving any indication about your identity.

Giving your name and playing honest is going to be a foolish mistake endangering your whole life.

Consensual sex will become more hazardous than a well-executed rape.

**********************
heh. i hear that the muslims in sweden rape females (the real deal) all the time

goes to show just how fucked up stupid feminists are

any female who thinks feminists are doing them a favor by criminalizing drunken sex is fucked up stupid

there is a lot of anger here
console yourself in the fact that if females in the west do not clean up their act the muslims WILL come and do it for them

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4
piercedhead May 23, 2012 at 22:24

American is a poster who is obsessed with giving life to the phrase “Gender-Raunch.”

That’s what I thought as well.

But I suspect slwlearner may be nearer the truth.

If we are to believe “Gender Raunch” is at fault, then whatever blame is left for women and feminists is well diluted, if there is any left at all.

“Gender-Raunch” is a nonsensical entity preventing American from blaming women for their own choices. It is surprisingly like the many ruses women themselves use to absolve themselves from all consequences to the choices they make. In this way, the methods and objectives of women and their mangina enablers are similar.

I found it hard to believe anyone would persist as he does for credit for an idiotic term, but to persist in order to lead us a merry dance so that women’s personal culpability goes unremarked is much less unusual.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 23, 2012 at 22:36

I still don’t get what this gender raunch thing is supposed to be though. Now i am actually curious.

Never attribute to conspiracy what could be more easily attributed to greed or stupidity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Opus May 23, 2012 at 22:36

That is a terrific essay Slwerner, except for one matter which I hope I may expound on.

You suggest that the Defence team for Evans were less than competent. I think that unfair (without knowing the case). Firstly, the Police investigated (in white knight mode) then the Crown Prosecution Service (advised as to charging, when they should have advised against) then the matter went before the Magistrates who found that there was a case to answer, although the case should have been thrown out. Finally the trial judge should have thrown it out , but did not do so. There was no question that sexual intercourse took place; the legal advice from the Judge was as Welmer states above. In those circumstances I am hardly surprised there was a conviction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Black Rebel May 23, 2012 at 22:43
fmz May 23, 2012 at 22:58

Dumb drunked piss head slaaart wins the booby prize.

Again.

Go Your Way.

And dont fark dumb drunk piss head slaaarts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Ode May 23, 2012 at 23:56

Ahahahaha. Brigadon. Good luck with gender raunch troll. You’re obviously new here.

Out of curiosity as to what the phrase “gender raunch” means I did a google search to find a definition and couldn’t find anything.

When an Internet search robot doesn’t want to waste it’s time recognizing a person’s existence even after repeating the same word over 100 times it’s kind of sad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
walking in hell May 24, 2012 at 01:08

From Brigadon’s story, my story, and countless others on the internet, I hope if anyone is not yet convinced that America is the worst country in the world for men and particularly fathers, they are now.

One of the things you find out when your wife divorces you is just how much you are hated as a man and particularly as a father, not just by the divorce courts, but by your own family and male friends. Everyone will automatically turn on you. Why? Because you are the father. They automatically assume you did something wrong. This is ingrained in the minds of almost all of your fellow citizens, male and female.

Make no mistake about it, the crimes committed against American fathers during divorce are grievous human rights violations on an international scale: loss of children, destruction of mental health, false accusations of domestic violence, imprisonment, destruction of career, destruction of reputation, destruction of any sort of financial future, loss of drivers license, loss of passport, homelessness.

Those of us men who planned our life to marry and have children and who loved the idea of family life, get burned the most, because we try to do the right thing: we try to keep our families together.

Because we are victims of humans rights violations, at the very least, our country could guarantee that we have access to our children 50% of the time, but they don’t. They could give us new social security numbers, but they don’t. They could give us passports, but they don’t.

Instead, once the father is destroyed, we hear the grave dancing and slogan chanting of “Where are all the good fathers? Why are fathers MIA?” Why do you think? Because you killed them.

America is sick. It is a sick, and vile place for fathers. Any father is one step away from being targeted and viciously destroyed. No group is as systematically targeted and destroyed in America as fathers are.

At the same time we see the herofication of single mothers: “She is so brave.” “Her husband abandoned her and the children.” “Let’s have a ‘single’ mother’s day.” “Her husband abused her.”

Of course, she never hid the children from the father; she never moved the children 500 miles away; she never lied about domestic violence; she never abused the children or the husband; she never brainwashed the children against the father; she never cheated.

So what is to be done?

For those young men who are not yet victims of women and the divorce industry, the answer is simple: do not engage on any level with any women, and plan an expat strategy. Keep a basic mental focus of this: women in the West are rotten and want to destroy your life and make you a slave and they have the power to do it; if not today, than probably tomorrow.

For those of us who are victims of women and the divorce industry, I don’t have any answers. Our lives are ruined and they will never be the same. When you lose a child or children, you really never recover emotionally. On top of that you never have any financial future or security. Once I was hard working and upwardly mobile and planned for retirement; now, my potential and productivity is almost non-existent. My mental and physical health is bad. I have no hopes and dreams; only nightmares. I worry about homelessness. I would much rather be dead than living.

I never wanted to be here telling my story. I would rather be at my son’s soccer game or school conferences or teaching him how to be a good Christian, but I haven’t seen him in seven years. I don’t even know where he lives or goes to school. Any attempts by me to negotiate with my ex are met with silence. The legal system already bled me and destroyed me; how can I go back to that? I don’t have a career anymore that could pay for an attorney.

More than anything, America failed me and destroyed me. Even though I had a bad ex, the system could have protected me and given me 50% access to my son and not taken away my financial future; but it didn’t.

America failed my son by not guaranteeing him access to me and rendering him fatherless and destroying a sense of livelihood for him; me.

The whole thing leaves a sick hole in my stomach. I have no present and no future. And once I did. American judges, lawyers, case workers, politicians, and American women. You should be ashamed of what you are doing to fathers and children.

Brigadon, let’s talk. Maybe we can expat together.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 24, 2012 at 01:43

Heh, that would be fucking cool. Sell some shit to a pawn shop, catch a boat to Kiribati (Google it.) with a couple of fishing poles, throw up a shack on one of the islands that nobody ever wanders past, eat lots of fish and grow spinach while we buy/sell shit on ebay for profit with anonymous paypal accounts, get skinny and sneak a couple of cute, desperate cambodian girls over.

And print out about a thousand pictures of Oprah, the ex-cunts, and Obama to blow holes through as target practice.

My biggest gripe is that I had this whole plan…I mean, I KNOW I am going to get old someday, and social security is more dried up than my ex-wife’s pussy. My kids were supposed to fucking take CARE of me when I get old.

Although…I do have an alternative idea. email me at my name on hotmail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Reaper May 24, 2012 at 02:07

@td9red:
Your “stealing my wallet while I’m passed out” example doesn’t really fit the situation in my opinion.
She wasn’t passed out, she was drunk.
So it’s more like me getting drunk and giving 500 bucks to some stranger at the bar, that doesn’t make the stranger a thief, it makes me an idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
will May 24, 2012 at 02:13

So the next definition of rape is to deny women alcohol. If to have sex with drunk woman is rape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Ted May 24, 2012 at 02:37

“a narcoleptic has fallen asleep in the dark corner of the library. You jump on top and have sex with her.”

Honestly, now. How often does that happen? Leaving aside the vileness of men’s uncontrollable animal impulses, there just aren’t that many narcoleptics around.

But it’s quite common to get pissed and have a shag. The law in the UK now makes every one of those a rape, if the drunk one is a woman.

If you want to reduce the incidence of rape, then, you should do something to reduce drunkenness in women. It’s not very attractive; a bit disgusting, even. Maybe the ladies should be educated on how unappealing too much drink makes them look.

This means that if you don’t do something to reduce drunkenness in women, then you are part of the problem. If you direct attention away from the drunkenness of the ladies, into any other direction, then you are part of the problem. In particular, if you focus attention on the man and away from the woman and her bad behavior, you are part of the problem.

We need to focus more on making it less socially acceptable for women to be drunk in company. That’s the proper response to the new UK law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Ted May 24, 2012 at 02:38

Brigadoon and walking in hell sail off into the sunset.

Best of luck, guys!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
walking in hell May 24, 2012 at 02:40

I don’t believe for a minute any type of political activism is going to reverse the man-hating and man-destroying trends one sees in America. These trends go back more than 40 years; they go back before the beginning of feminism.

There was a time when children were the property of the man; but that was more than 100 years ago. There was a time where men were held in integrity and there was no draft or selective service; again that was more than 100 years ago.

What we see now is an acceleration of the man-hating and man-destroying trend and this will get worse. For every little victory for men’s rights, there are many more defeats.

Don’t expect women to come to their senses. As women become more lonely and more childless, logic would dictate that they should ask the question: “why doesn’t anyone want to marry me and have children with me?”

But will they ask this question? No. Why? Because they are not capable of accepting responsibility for their own behavior. Furthermore, as they become angrier and angrier, they will blame men more and more for their own choices and failures, and therefore, want to punish them. That is how the mind of a woman operates.

Don’t expect help from the younger generation because now we have an entire mass of fatherless young men and women. Who will they side with in any dispute? The mother who brainwashed them against men, of course.

Don’t expect any help from politicians. Women have the best jobs now, and so pay the most taxes. They are also easy to pander to. And most men will vote the way their wives and mothers want them to vote.

Don’t expect any help from the churches. They were lost a long time ago.

Even if sharia law took hold in America, it would take decades to make a difference. And it might end up in some watered-down form.

If you are a man in America, you can look forward to more draconian laws and judgements: for example, arbitrarily assigned fatherhood and child support; for every sex act, a potential assignment of a rapist; castrations of men as punishment; vigilantism against “accused” perpetrators of domestic violence. You can expect your fellow citizens to cheerlead all of these advances.

Yes, America is already hell for men; but it can get worse. Don’t think there are any limits to this depravity. Remember, by virtue of being a man, you are the enemy, and your life is expendable.

Yes, selected assasinations of judges, lawyers, feminists, and ex-wives would change the tide, but no one is going to do anything like this. There hasn’t been any revolutionary activity in America since 1776; American men don’t have any revolutionary activity in their blood.

Of all the men in the world, American men are the most marginalized; I should know, I am one. And as Price mentioned, advocating violence, puts him, the webmaster, in jeopardy, even though such an advocation coming from an American man is a joke and is never to be taken seriously precisely for the fact that the advocate is an American man i.e., a silent sufferer, an shivering sodomite, the most pathetic man in existence. How else could things have gotten this far?

I know it is pie in the sky, but for my own case and for a little bit of justice, I would like to see access to my son and have a new social security number and passport, so I can be a father, so I can work, so I can have a future, and then leave. I think that is the least that can be done for my son and I. The very least.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Ted May 24, 2012 at 02:54

OT: New York wants to ban anonymous speech online

http://rt.com/usa/news/new-york-anonymous-internet-020/

“According to the proposed legislation, the administrator of any website hosted in New York State shall, upon request, remove comments that were “posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agreed to attach his or her name to the post and confirm that his or her IP address, legal name and home address are accurate.” Additionally, the bill calls for all website administrators to have their own contact information “clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted” to allow for irked readers to demand censorship.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ted May 24, 2012 at 03:01

“an American man i.e., a silent sufferer, an shivering sodomite, the most pathetic man in existence. ”

Shivering sodomite? You’re overdoing it, walking in hell.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
Ted May 24, 2012 at 03:06

“I think that is the least that can be done for my son and I. ”

That should be “my son and *me*”, walking in hell. Excuse I.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
Brigadon May 24, 2012 at 03:17

heh, Ted, I think you misunderstood the euphemism.

American men are renowned for ‘bending over and taking it like a man’.

Admittedly the shivering sodomite comment might take a little more work to decipher, but it is certainly more poetic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Ted May 24, 2012 at 03:27

I don’t live in the US, Brigadon, but my picture of it is getting clearer and clearer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
walking in hell May 24, 2012 at 03:30

“New York wants to ban anonymous speech online”

Has anyone ever noticed that most laws of American repression seem to come from New York?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 24, 2012 at 03:55

well, what happens when you overcrowd rats? They start eating each other.
New york is apparently one of the largest, and most overcrowded, cities on earth.
New Delhi has people living on sidewalks, but New york has about 8 times the population per square mile.

Urbanites are a sick, twisted lot of troglodytes. They cannot help it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Ciaran Rehill May 24, 2012 at 04:28

Hello, I am the chap who wrote the half a dozen entries on Ched Evams. FYI, the number of arrests now stands at 17 “with more to come” we are told by North Wales Police who evidently have no burglars or muggers. I am threatened with arrest by Louise Mensch MP (@LouiseMensch on Twitter if you wish to share your feelings). There are many facets to this case, not least of which is the veracity of Lauren Crawford’s testimony. I can name her here as you are (I think) an American site. You know, small stuff like freedom of speech, a constitution. Currently in Britain a man accused can be named (Evans, Assange) but not a woman accuser. See R v Blackwell, R v Donnellan and the Shannon Taylor case, not to mention David Carrington-Jones.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
FFP May 24, 2012 at 04:29

Let’s face it – the drunken college parties and the drunken sex with strangers after a bar night really had to stop. It is way out of control. It is a destabilizing factor for the society and finally has to be stopped or at least reigned in. At this point, they should also limit the sale of alcohol for people below 25, given the scope of the problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Wilson May 24, 2012 at 04:32

Women should get the rape culture they dream about. Men should laugh at any woman who says she was raped, and never under any circumstances should male jurors convict a man for rape. The consequence of misusing a social and legal protection is losing it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
FFP May 24, 2012 at 04:34

The “gender raunch” could mean something like this: there is an egalitarian imperative in the society, e.g., “women must be equal”, but at the same time there has been a rise of the raunch culture since 2000. Raunch culture – porn, ultra sexy female singers, increased display of female flesh, increased objectification of the female body and an increased attempt on behalf of women and girls to “sell” their body (happening quite successfully). So you have these two social elements combined, which is in fact a really toxic combination. One the hand it gives women a lot of power, but also degrades them. It’s also not that favorable for men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Andie May 24, 2012 at 04:37

This issue is the one that frightens me the most as a mother. I have a son. He’s only six at the moment, but I have two teenage boys living on one side of me and two young twenty-something men living on the other, so I get to see quite a bit of what young men are up against.

The two teenagers are being raised in a home without a father, but their father died tragically about five years ago. They have uncles and grandfathers who are doing their best to be role models and my husband tries to step up whenever he can.

The twenty year olds live with their mom and dad who are a great couple and in no danger of divorce.

That makes these boys targets. Nice, stable, smart, good-looking boys attract the WORST kind of women. And they are worried sick about being accused of date rape. Younger men seem to know the deck is stacked against them and they live in dangerous times. Rarely a weekend goes by without some drunk slut staggering up the driveway pissed out of her mind trying to “hang out” with one of these guys.

They are sent packing because we live on a tight street with close neighbors, but what if we didn’t? I am ashamed for the girls and worried for the boys. Their lives will be ruined if they make the mistake of “hanging out” with a vindictive, insecure drunk with daddy-issues. She’ll just earn her slutwalk badge of honor and carry on.

I also have two daughters and I plan to teach them that if they get drunk and end up in bed with some guy and wake up feeling like a whore the next day, it’s not because they were raped, it’s because they ACTED LIKE WHORES. Solution: don’t act like a whore.

Will my voice count in the sea of slut-walking and zero accountability? I hope so, but I despair.

My brother has never married and has no kids. He works in industrial heating and air-conditioning so he makes great bank and he is in seriously great physical shape. He just turned 40, but the only single women left at 40 are all insane so he has been dating younger women. He’s been seeing this one woman (she’s 29) for a few months, and things seemed to be going well. He likes her, they have fun, it’s all good.

Last night, she sat him down for a talk. She pulled out a typed and printed list in bullet form that detailed all my brother’s personal failings and suggested that he take a month off dating her to work on some of these issues (having a beer with the guys at the bar after work is apparently a personal failure). She was SHOCKED when he told her to fuck off. As in “no darling, you will never be seeing me again”. Tears, anger, stomping feet, the whole tantrum. No apology though.

He called me after this scene saying “what the fuck is wrong with women”?

Women are taught, from a very young age, that everything they do is right and everything boys do is wrong. They are taught to blame men and never hold themselves accountable. They believe this to the core of their being.

My husband is looking at overseas jobs because this is not just a frightening place and time for boys and men, it’s frightening for women and girls, too.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 9
FFP May 24, 2012 at 05:07

The right way to go about this: if you see a drunk woman, just don’t touch her. Even if she throws herself on you, don’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
FFP May 24, 2012 at 05:16

Andie, maybe this younger woman wants a man who doesn’t have bachelor habits? Maybe she wants real, solid family life. After all, that’s why she settled for a much older man, to have someone stable, a home body, not someone who’s priority is the bar scene with his buddies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12
td9red May 24, 2012 at 05:21

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17
Nico May 24, 2012 at 05:33

OT: Two mums leave their four kids all alone at home during a whole week-end to go partying in Paris (140km from their flat).

The kids are 5 months old, 2 years old, 6 and 7 years old.

They were found by chance when a neighbour called the firefighters for a water leakage.

The article doesn’t mention whether these mums work neither where are the fathers.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/05/24/01016-20120524ARTFIG00522-deux-meres-abandonnent-leurs-enfants-pour-aller-faire-la-fete.php

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Wilson May 24, 2012 at 06:19

Your example doesn’t work, td9red. A sober driver is not charged with first degree murder for killing someone in an accident; they may only get a ticket for the traffic violation, at most they will charged with negligent manslaughter. Drunk drivers are punished more severely for every driving offense, and may indeed get charged with higher vehicular homicide charges.

Almost always the drunk driver actually makes a sober decision to drink a lot with no transportation plan. And a drunken woman has almost always decided to go out and get laid by a stranger. Yes, drunken women can still be raped, but their risky behavior can make the crime undiscoverable . Not every crime can be punished; the government can’t protect idiots from everything, even if they are women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
freebird May 24, 2012 at 06:24

@slwerner:
You’ve written an interesting write-up about american’s over-use of the hyphenated words and converted it into a wholesale excuse for the Police industry.

Everyday we’re bombarded with media statements that one in four,and one every two minutes,and OMG something must be done!

Same as creaming terrorism in a peaceful country,an excuse to deprive men of liberty.

Yeah, it IS the women that make the false accusations,because they are encouraged to do so by a system fonching at the bit to incarcerate
innocent men and/or deprive them of money and due process.

It is a money making industry and a furtherance of a police state.

Women KNOW there are NO repercussions for false accusations and on the positive side they get to destroy men out of spite and also get FREE legal council and attention in the process.

What we have here is SYNERGY of spite and lust for power.

Takes two to tango, or three if you count the LESBIAN Presidential councils for wimmin that are pushing these legal
fabrications.

The corruption is at the top,and from the bottom up.Let’s be truthful and apply blame and shame to both parties,for they are both complicit.

Unlimited-unchecked-unmitigated POWER is what we are talking about,and everyone benefits except the accused.

There are NO excuses for a prosecutor who goes after these men knowing full well they are innocent.
None for the judges either,none for the Councils for women and none for POTUS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
td9red May 24, 2012 at 06:24

@Ted

I agree that drinking is a problem…. for both women AND men. You seem to suggest the behavior of women with respect to drinking needs to changed, but, you don’t mention any need for a behavioral change for men.

Many feel that drunk sex should not under any circumstances be a crime. I think drunk sex must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Under a particular set of facts it could be rape. There are suggestions that the expanded definition of rape and drunk sex charges are bad for both women and men in that they alter the relationships b/t the sexes by making women children and men criminals. I posit that if the definition of rape were altered such that only a guy jumping out from a bush with a knife was a rape, date rape and acquaintance rape were no longer crimes, rape shield laws were taken off the books, rape victims were named, and false rape accusers received the same number of years in prison as a rapist the relationships b/t men and woman would likewise be drastically altered. If all those changes to the laws were made it would be truly foolish for any woman to go out with a man she didn’t know very well outside of a group. The risk would be too high. This is not irrational. I suggest to you that the world is a different place for your when 50% of people out there are significantly stronger than you and against whom you would have no hope of winning the fight. Laws change behavior. If these laws were changed certainly the number of recorded rapes would go down as nothing would be considered rape. Further, a person would be foolish to report any rape to police for fear of being charged with a false claim and harshly punished. Additionally, their name would be in the paper with a description of past sexual encounters. While the number of recorded rapes would go down, the number of actual rapes would likely increase. Again, laws change behavior. If taking advantage of an inebriated girl were not considered a crime more people would do it. If overpowering a girl you bought diner for in your car were not a crime more people would do it. I suspect there would be far fewer drunk women in public, far less dating outside of groups, and far fewer women at bars. I suppose a return to the time when a guy would ask a girl’s father to take her out could be good for all of us…. But, under this scenario isn’t the girl still in the position of a child? I certainly agree that the “rape culture” has gone too far. Too many men are incarcerated today and for far too long. But, I don’t know where the cutoff point should be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16
dragnet May 24, 2012 at 06:43

@ Welmer

“If inebriation=incapacitation, then a drunk man who commits a crime should be not guilty by reason of incapacitation, much as a parent who has fallen into a diabetic coma cannot be held responsible for criminal negligence if his or her child wanders off and drowns in a swimming pool.”

Exactly. The same drunk woman who is absolved of responsibiltiy for having sex because she is drunk, would still be held accountable for driving if she operated a car under the same condition.

Why can you consent to operate heavy machinery while drunk, but not consent to have sex? It’s ludicrous in the extreme.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd May 24, 2012 at 06:56

Meh …

Slwerner WORKS for the Rape Industry …

Of course he’s going to defend corrupt judges & lawyers, & the illegal laws they push like sick demented crack dealers

Slwerners just another mangina posing as a MRA …

Just look at his sick support of police arresting men for false rape & DV, over at Dalrocks …

Rape laws, make anonymous gang-rape, & kidnappings far more viable for sex & recreation, then dating or consensual sex

Organised monthly kidnappings, sex dungeons, & pushes sex crimes against women by a MASSIVE amount

Feminists can pass all the man hating laws they want, all theyre increasing is the viability & preference for violence against women

Im with Brigadon here, the only solution is violence, BUT we can rest assured its the organised criminals who’ll do the violence for us …

Expect mass kidnappings & an increase in the rise of organised crime against women

Passing laws which require NO evidence to convict a person, is automatically an illegal law

These bitches support illegal laws against men

These bitches deserve to be turned into a statistic

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10
Richard Woland May 24, 2012 at 07:03

In CA, driving under the influence does not depend on how much alcohol you ingested or is in your system, all that matters is whether you were affected by it. That means that even if you drink one thimble full of beer you can still be arrested even if you do not reach the .008, or .02, blood level alcohol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
walking in hell May 24, 2012 at 07:10

@ted
“I don’t live in the US, Brigadon, but my picture of it is getting clearer and clearer.”

You are lucky Ted. The place is a human cesspool. The analogy I like to give is that America is a society that has been socially clear cut. It has nothing more to give; so those with a few coins in their pocket are being turned upside down and shaken down. If you are a man in America, you are condemned to a very unnatural, lonely, and dangerous life.

Check your statistics for number of men in prison and length of average prison sentence in America. The big goal: enslavement and imprisonment of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
walking in hell May 24, 2012 at 07:11

@Brigadon

I emailed you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
walking in hell May 24, 2012 at 07:22

@evilwhitemaleempire
“there is a lot of anger here
console yourself in the fact that if females in the west do not clean up their act the muslims WILL come and do it for them”

I wish it were true. I wish Muslims would invade and emancipate us trapped men. But the very think that protected America from invaders–oceans on both coasts–has made it the perfect prison nation.

You should expect that the lack of resistance to all the man-hating legislation and treatment is an invitation for more of the same.

So bend over, lube up, and put a big fake cheerleader smile on your face. Then say a prayer that people like Thomas Ball will start to take a few judges, lawyers, and ex-wives to hell with them when they have had enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 07:26

Freebird – ”Yeah, it IS the women that make the false accusations,because they are encouraged to do so by a system fonching at the bit to incarcerate
innocent men and/or deprive them of money and due process.
It is a money making industry and a furtherance of a police state.”

It’s not that there is NO possible financial incentives for “the system” to encourage FRA’s, it’s just that woman have never needed encouragement from “the system” in order to make FRA’s. That they happen all over the world (even in country’s where no governmental monies are available for crimes against women) and that they have happen down through the ages should be proof enough that the motivations that lead to FRA’s are not external, but rather internal to the woman making them.
And, while American/Scot may simply seem (on first blush) to be wanting to make sure that the role of law enforcement in the injustices owing to FRA’s is not forgotten, I have seen his efforts for years now, and it has always been focused on creating these “boogey men” (Law Enforcement, Gender-raunch, etc.) that can serve his need to find someone to blame other than the women (seriously, read his posts over the course of years at the False Rape Society – go through the archives, open a few threads here and there, and search for the term “Gender-raunch”).

The reality is that the perils men face vis-à-vis false rape allegations (and false DV, and false child molestation allegations, as well) come not only from the possibility of the police failing to recognize the rights of the accused, and their subsequent failures to properly investigate. There are also perils “built in” to the laws, the perceptions of the public towards accused men, the indifference of the courts and prosecutors, and, of course, the peril they face at the hands of 12 of their “peers”.
And yet, none of these other perils would ever have to be faced save for the women choosing, of her own free will, acting as her own fully-formed moral agent, to tell the lies that start the process in motion.

Now, it’s a long and involved topic, but I will repeat the point I have made often at the FRS/COTWA – that sites existence has been making a huge difference. If you look back at the earliest archives there, you’ll find case after case of men routinely hauled off to jail, berated, interrogated, and subjected to humiliation – only to have the police eventually figure out that the rape claim was a lie. The man would be left with his public reputation in shatters, deserted by friends and family, out thousands of dollars, his career destroyed, and the eternal stench of being a (on time) accused rapist on him forever; and his accuser give a pass and seldom even charged with the misdemeanor of false reporting.

But, then one looks at the last years worth of stories, and one sees the difference. False allegation unmasked without an innocent man being arrest nor publicly named; and woman actually facing charges (even if the only applicable ones are misdemeanors). This apparent turn around on the part of police is certainly no mere coincidence. The FRS has been getting the truth out, and even the police are beginning to move away from their age-old reactions of blindly White-knighting for any woman who makes a claim.

There is still much to be done. More police reform is necessary, miscreant and activist prosecutors need to be exposed and removed, and laws need to be changed so that false rape reports can be charged as felonies, and so that the innocent men who are targeted due to FRA’s (whether they are directly named, or simply match the description) will be viewed as the victims of those false reporting crimes (I’m afraid most people, who allow common sense to be their guides, simply do not recognize that the way the laws are written, a false report of rape is considered a crime against the state – not against the falsely accused. A false allegation against an innocent man is a tort, not a crime, by the laws on the books).

I don’t doubt that the Prison Industrial Complex does advocate for more men to be charges with crimes, prosecuted and imprisoned. But, most men in prison are not there due to the crime of rape (real or false). Guns, drugs, homicide, assault, and theft far outweigh the small percentage convicted of rape. There is no “dependence” on “manufacturing” more rape claims (via tricking, seducing, or otherwise forcing women into making false allegations).
And even the federal monies (US only) available via atrocities such as VAWA do not represent some massive windfall for law enforcement agencies. Their annual set-asides in VAWA amount to only $67M, minus ~15% administrative over-head, and divided between all states, territories, and Native American nations – resulting in only about $1M per state. And, to top that off, that money is not provided based on actual need (as suggested by crime stats) but is competitively awarded as grants to agencies which are committing to establishing new operations aimed at targeting violence against women (these are required to be new, long-term programs, which will cost far more every year than the VAWA grants – typically $50-100k, one-time – will cover).

Hell, you’d even have a more plausible case that defense attorneys would be th eones trying to get women to lie about being raped, becuase they DO directly profit by defending men who get accused.

Yes, there is some federal money available. But, it’s on the other side of a series of flaming hoops that individual agencies must jump through to even be in the running to possibly be awarded a pittance. The idea that there exists a direct money exchange available to local law enforcement so as to encourage them to force women into making FRA’s can be seen for the nonsense that it is when one takes the time to look into the realities involved. You’d have a far more compelling case to make private prisons have a greater financial stake in promoting false rape allegations than do the local police who must absorb all the costs of handling those claims, with not only NO guarantee of reimbursement, but actually very little realistic chance of such reimbursement.

Busting ass trying to get women to make FRA’s in the faint hope of one day securing a small federal grant would be beyond a fool’s errand – it would be a moron’s errand.

The only real motivations for cops to over-react to and mishandle false rape claims are the ones hard-wired over the millennia into men to reflexively seek to protect and avenge women (without bothering to think first). Police are amongst the biggest White-knights anywhere. And, it affects even those who aren’t just bullies who’ve been given badges and guns. Even those police men who truly want to do the right thing and fight real crimes cannot seem to help themselves any time a woman comes crying.

The long and short of it – law enforcement has many flaws; but they would not be manifest against innocent men if it were not for women first choosing to lie.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 07:32

Rmaxd – ”Slwerners just another mangina posing as a MRA …
Just look at his sick support of police arresting men for false rape & DV, over at Dalrocks …”

Okay, I defy you to show one instance where I have ever supported any such arrests. Come on, put up or shut up!

Then, I’ll show you hundreds of posts on the false Rape Society where I have derided police practices of arresting men with cooborating evidence nor investigation. I’ll show you my long-running advocacy for legal reforms to create better protects for men who are falsely accused.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
walking in hell May 24, 2012 at 07:35

@Rmaxd
“Im with Brigadon here, the only solution is violence, BUT we can rest assured its the organised criminals who’ll do the violence for us …

Expect mass kidnappings & an increase in the rise of organised crime against women”

Wishful thinking Rmaxd. Expect nothing. The old mafias are gone. Did you know George Christie (Hell’s Angels President), went through a divorce? I don’t think it was of his own choosing.

The local, state, and federal are the new mafias and are colluding more every day. They are also hungry; hungry for more money and prisoners. They are going to find excuses to put MORE men into slavery and prison.

Next, I would expect widespread forced labor in prison at the rate of 10 cents per hour. They are already making prisoners pay for the cost of their own incarceration. And you what? The American people will jump up and down, cheering and clapping in support.

If you are a young man, now is the time to get out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
walking in hell May 24, 2012 at 08:07

@Rmaxd
“Im with Brigadon here, the only solution is violence, BUT we can rest assured its the organised criminals who’ll do the violence for us …

Expect mass kidnappings & an increase in the rise of organised crime against women”

Actually here is another logical conclusion:
Murder suicide.
If you google “murder suicide” on google news, I found 6 this week.
Salem, Oregon
Queens, New York
Louisa, Virginia
Kingman, Arizona
Watsontown, Pennsylvania
National park, Iowa

What could make someone so desperate as too do something like this? If you are man, the threat of losing everything you love and you did nothing.

This is the future of America: murder suicide.

What a sick and disgraceful country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Ollie May 24, 2012 at 08:27

It’s taking time. But it’s working.
They started getting afraid 3 years ago.

http://www.doublex.com/ section/ news-politics/ mens-rights-groups-have-become-frighteningly-effective

With the SPLC ploy this year, they started putting up specific resistance, via smear tactics.

In 08, Alex Jones had fembot Naomi Wolf as a guest. In 2012, he has changed his tune toward her ilk.
http://www.mgtowforums.com/ forums/ mens-general-discussion/ 4548-alex-jones-criticizes-feminism-yet-again-word-getting-out-there. html
This guy has several million listeners, and he is spreading the word.

It ain’t going to change overnight, but we are living in “interesting” times, so things are going to get worse before they get better.

I am against violence, and like all the good gentlemen here, firmly opposed to any acts of domestic violence as well.

However, all the ladies who chose to “marry” the State are about to experience “domestic violence” (from said State) on a scale they thought was only possible in their worst nightmares. You can’t call the cops to protect you when they’re the ones bashing your head in, and walking off with your kids.

When this happens, and it will, I will step aside and let the long arm of the state do “what is in the best interest of the children”. My white knight card was revoked years ago. But, my citizen journalist card is in shiny, perfect condition. Put enough footage like that on the intertubes, and enough people might just see that the “evil oppressive patriarchy” is not the enemy here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Opus May 24, 2012 at 08:36

Well let’s hope that Mr Evans can be directed to the Spearhead so that he will see that he has considerable support – perhaps to his surprise. I believe I observe a slow willingness of men not to neccesarily trust a woman when she makes some wild allegation, and that women who do so are now being at first treated a bit like the boy who cried wolf. At first there is resistance to the idea that most Rape/Assault claims are false, but I believe the message is slowly coming home.

Why do they do it? I have long pondered as to a certain ex of mine who (and in hindsight) clearly made a false assault claim. Even as recently as a few months ago (as a result of reading Wiki) as to self imposed injuries, I am now satisfied as to where and when her cut was administered and by whom. What did she expect to get out of a wilfully dishonest claim when a sharp-eyed policeman might have seen through it. Certainly no support from the gender-raunch community, or probably any financial claim (whether she made one I do not know as I was quickly shot of her). Was it perhaps a ‘let’s you and him (meaning her father) fight over me’ there was (again in hindsight problems of an incestuous nature – though re-reading her letters they stare me in the face). Was it otherwise dreamt up so as to avoid having to come back to me and apololgise for her behaviour on that fateful evening? Or was there an even more extreme reason (which I won’t now go into).

I never saw her again, but if I ever did, I would like to ask her, ‘why or how, could you, a woman who in a letter to me claimed she ‘you know I never like to hurt people’ instigate the prosecution of a man who at worst had done exactly what you wanted and who was thus as you could have predicted sentenced to eighteen months confinement’. Yes, I know he pleaded guily in the end, but that was because the law was slightly different before the Spanner case and its aftermath, but she knew he was innocent morally. Was it merely a failed and desparate attempt to retain my rapidly failing interest in her (never been so happy to get rid of someone)? Was it the recognition that she was blowing her best and underserved chance of a husband and family – or so she thought? I am thinking she would have hit the wall early – any woman who needs to swim sixty lengths a day to stay fit when only 27 must have a weight problem. I can only wonder. Perhaps she was not even clear herself as to her motivations as her actions must have been taken on the spur of the moment. And yet I should have realised more quickly – for even the police said that they were amazed how quickly she recovered from her traumatic ordeal (hours rather than weeks) – yet even so they did not see the truth, even though some of her evidence was flatly contradicted by an impartial witness; a witness whose evidence, was inherently plausible whereas hers seemed to come out of some gothic horror novel.

The only thing I can take away from it is that the exciting ones are bad news and the exciting ones – exciting for a limited while that is – are usually promicscuous and drink heavily. They, as the unfortunate Mr Evans discovered – faced with a judge who seems to think Evans should have acted not as her pump and dump lover but as her Chaperone – are the ones to avoid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 08:43

Opus – ”You suggest that the Defence team for Evans were less than competent. I think that unfair (without knowing the case).”

I’m basing that assessment on the fact that Clayton McDonald’s defense team was able to get him acquitted, even though it was he who took the (drunk) women back to his room, and was the first to have sex with her:

” The court heard that Mr McDonald met the woman and took her back to the hotel room, sending a text to Evans stating he had “got a bird”.

During Evans’ evidence, he told the jury he had gone to the hotel, let himself in to Mr McDonald’s room and watched his friend and the woman having sex.

It was claimed Mr McDonald asked if his friend could “get involved”, to which the woman said yes. “
The testimony from Mr. McDonald was that he asked the women, and got consent for Evans to have sex with her.

So, how does the jury acquit McDonald and convict Evans? The stronger rape case should have been the one against McDonald. Yet the jury could discern that the sex he had had with the women was consensual.

So, I’m left with the possibility that Evans’ defense team failed him. Again, a “he said/she said” rape conviction is rather rare. The prosecution would have to effectively portray a man as something worse than just a guy who misread the situation. And, that should have been something that his defense could well have answered and put down.

I don’t know the details of what went on in the trial, but that McDonald could be acquitted and Evans convicted begs the question of what was different between them. One obvious answer would be different defense teams.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 09:20

Brigadon – ”I still don’t get what this gender raunch thing is supposed to be though. Now i am actually curious.”
Oddly, I fully understand American/Scot’s meaning. He’s not entirely wrong either, he has simply made an awkward conflation of two things, and misapplied the true significance.
On the one hand, there exists what is known as “raunch-culture” and within that, “raunch-feminism” (see Ariel Levy’s “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture”). One could think of Jessica Valenti’s “Embracing your inner slut” as an example of sex-posi feminists who’ve promoted sluttiness to young women.

And, there is also a branch of feminsm known as gender-feminism – the most gynocentirc of feminists, and quite a few absolute man-haters to boot. They are amongst the worst of the promoters of anti-male laws covering matters such as rape allegations.
Now, there is also quite a bit of cross-over between the two. Pro-raunch, sex-posi Jessica Valenti is also the leading advocate of (formally) changing the burden of proof so as to require that a man accused of rape would have to prove his innocence and produce evidence that he obtained consent.
Now, Where I agree with Scot is that this creates a serious contradiction in stated goals. On the one hand, the same feminist who are encouraging young women to go forth and f*ck any and every man they please are the same ones who are also encouraging young women to re-imagine any sex that they regret (or that wasn’t good enough) as rape – and to be sure to report it. [now, what could go wrong with both encouraging women to have sex and then decide it was rape after-the-fact?]
In doing this, these feminists are most certainly setting the stage for untold numbers of false rape allegations. His poorly thought-out and ill-constructed “gender-raunch” conflation of terms may leave people puzzled as to his meaning, but he is dead-on right that there are such people who do encourage false rape allegations by playing both sides.

Where I believe he goes astray is in his imagination of a conspiratorial plan on their part to benefit (this “empowering” he imagines they gain) by promoting these FRA’s. The more rational way to view what id going on would be an application of Occam’s Razor, and to realize that these raunchy sex-posi, yet anti-male harridans don’t allow themselves to face the fact that so very many of the allegations stemming from casual random drunken hookup sex are going to be false (regret, alibi), and that they simply believe that any time a woman says it was rape, that it was rape. They do this not because they gain one damned thing from doing so, but rather simply that they hate make sexuality in general.
There isn’t any “empowerment” that accrues to them each and every time a woman makes a false rape complaint. Rather, there is only a discernable “disempowerment” of the man accused (and all men, by extension). That the feminists revel in male disempowerment doesn’t actually translate into any tangible empowerment for them – just smug satisfaction at the continuing travails of men.
In the end, the real ‘empowerment” ends up going to those agency’s which pose as (female) victim advocates, as they are the ones who get the Lion’s Share of all VAWA money. But, even then, they don’t rely on either false rape allegations nor even real rapes to increase their lot. The fact is that by the USDOJ’s Uniform Crime Statistics reporting, there isn’t any serious rape epidemic (~80k/year – just a bit more than the number of murders). So, the people who do profit from violence against women (Pierce Harlan has aptly termed them the Sexual Grievance Industry, or SGI), have come to rely not on actual statistic derived from actual police reports, but rather the imagined (and grossly over-stated) numbers of “unreported” crimes against woman to justify more and more funding for themselves.

It is the SGI, not some bunch of unaffiliated man-hating Gender-raunchies, that stand to gain from rapes, real or false.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
keyster May 24, 2012 at 09:24

I don’t believe for a minute any type of political activism is going to reverse the man-hating and man-destroying trends one sees in America.

The Free Market is doing it right now; men choosing to disengage and/or young men choosing to not engage at all. Pop Culture analysts, commentators and social scientists are at least 10 years behind the curve – – and these are people typically biased by feminism.

It’s going to have to get much worse before it gets better; before the MSM has no choice but to acknowledge the word “misandry”. The male of the species in western cultutre is voting with his participation or lack thereof.

When the Bubble bursts, and politicians feel “safe” to talk about men and boys and fathers – – the politcal activism begins in earnest. By then the worldwide economic system will have collpased under its own debt burden – – within the the next 5 or 6 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 09:24

err, “they hate male sexuality in general”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 10:02

Opus – ” Firstly, the Police investigated (in white knight mode) then the Crown Prosecution Service (advised as to charging, when they should have advised against) then the matter went before the Magistrates who found that there was a case to answer, although the case should have been thrown out. Finally the trial judge should have thrown it out , but did not do so.”

I did want to address this, but fear I might give it short shrift.

Anyway, I’m not sure of how faithfully the systems in the states and in the UK mirror one-another, but they seem to have many of the same elements. So…

When the police get a rape claim case, here in the states, they must proceed as if it is legitimate unless and until they can disprove it (evidence against, recantation, etc.). If they are unable to disprove it (even despite strong suspicions), they cannot simply drop it. They can set it aside (cold case), or, they can pass it along to prosecutors who do have the ability to decline the case for prosecution. It’s a lazy pass-the-buck out, to be sure, but it happens all the time with weak case – especially those which involve the hyper-charged “woman’s” issue of rape.

Now, here in the states, the majority of those rape cases which boil down to “he said/she said” are declined for prosecution, owing to the difficulty in presenting a provable case.

One need only read RAINN’s denunciation of police and prosecutors for supposedly dumping so many rape cases to see this in effect in action. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates)

However, certain “high-profile” cases are likely to be taken up (District Attorney’s being elected officials who must answer to the public), and ultimately taken to trial. Sadly, this is more a (sexual-)political choice as opposed to a solid legal determination. But, yes, it does happen. And, I suspect that it was the situation with the cases against McDonald And Evans.

And, id the Crown Court System is like that in the US, the case would have to pass muster with a judge (preliminary hearing) or indictment via a grand jury to be bound over for trial. Yet, judges are not immune from public pressures as well, and do often make poor rulings from the bench so as to appease the public.

Now, neither police, prosecutors, nor even judges have “crystal balls” which allow them to know, for certain, exactly what happened, and if a crime actually occurred or not. That is left up to a jury to decide.

As you suggest, there are several points along the way in which such questionable cases should be, in effect, dropped prior to a trial by jury (or plea deal). And, by looking as RAINN’s b*tching, it is clear that it is usually the case that they are. However, high –profile cases are going to be a different sort of animal. Nobody want’s to be the one who denied a woman her day in court against a famous man – not police, not prosecutors, not judges. So, cases like Evan’s, although unlikely to end in conviction, are allowed to go on.

Sadly, the seeming unlikelihood of conviction is no guarantee for the accused, and some men are going to be convicted anyway. It may be because they do not come off as sympathetic to the jury, poor defense work, or whatever. But, for men like Evans, sometimes it does happen. And, we are left to wonder: “How could it have happened?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire May 24, 2012 at 10:09

I suppose a return to the time when a guy would ask a girl’s father to take her out could be good for all of us….
**************
nawwwwww!

If all those changes to the laws were made it would be truly foolish for any woman to go out with a man she didn’t know very well outside of a group.
*****************
what’s that? but that would mean that females and their folks would have to start taking some responsibility!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Eric May 24, 2012 at 10:50

Ted:
‘Brigadon and WIH sail off into the sunset togther…’

I thought immediately of the song ‘Ride Captain Ride’ by Blues Image from the 70s.

Brigadon, if you get your blog going again, think about that for a theme song—it would be really cool.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Eric May 24, 2012 at 10:55

Opus,
I should have clarified, I think they’re selective about not reporting on lawyers who specialize in prosecuting these false allegations. There are false allegations against a lot of journalists too, but they sweep those under the rug.

My own attorney here in Seattle went down over a false accusation last year; I’ve been looking for a new one. Fortunately, I haven’t needed an attorney, so it’s on my to-do-list.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Eric May 24, 2012 at 11:01

Slwlerner:
Ach! Bumbler! Didn’t you get the top-secret communique from Twot Novy at our last inner-circle Anti-Game Cult meeting? Rmaxd is already on to Keyster and myself! He’s been exposing us with post-it notes at urinals!

Be more careful in the future! Now, I must get back to updating our codebook…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Eric May 24, 2012 at 11:11

Keyster:
‘The free market is doing that now…&c.’

Like I pointed out to Brigadon above, the fact that anti-male elements are being to forced to resort to law is proof in itself that they are failing. As men are turning to blogs like these and dropping out of the relationship market in favor of alternatives, the feminist can’t help but realize that they cannot enact their changes voluntarily.

It goes back to what Burckhardt said about interest groups in a democracy. Most interest groups, like the feminists, could never impose their will on society as long as society has the freedom to reject it. It’s only by seizing the machinery of the State that they can impose their will; and even then only outwardly. The only way a republican form of government can be successful is to keep itself out of social issues as much as necessary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Eric May 24, 2012 at 11:23

Andie:
I remember you said on an earlier post that you had a best friend from Serbia. I would suggest, given your son’s age, that you have her look into programs (I don’t know if Serbia still has these but the former Yugoslavia did) whereby they can study abroad in that country? That will give you plenty of time to find a good school by the time he’s old enough (13 or 14 would be my suggestion). Not only will he get a better education, but once he meets some Serbian girls, he’ll be immune from American ones for life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Opus May 24, 2012 at 11:28

@slwerner

Yes it is very curious that MacDonald was found Not guilty whereas Evans was found guilty. Doubtless there were differences in the two cases, however, there are those who think that the only difference is their respective ethnicities. That is not a matter for The Spearhead, however.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 24, 2012 at 11:52

See, here’s the thing, I actually agree with slwerner.

But I do want to shift the focus slightly.
I appreciate that false rape criminal accusations are being prosecuted less. But it is not the criminal courts where false rape is still the elephant in the drawing room, or at least they are not the worst offenders.

It is the divorce and settlement industry.
Even if a false rape or abuse claim is never investigated, or make it to trial or the prosecutor, the moment it is brought up in ‘family court’, your reputation is ruined, your child support payments are multiplied, and you can be placed on a sex offender list (as I was). No burden of proof even requested.

Since when has a family court judge been given the responsibility of placing divorced husbands automatically on sex offender registries and making court orders to that effect? Without a criminal trial?

I never saw a jury. I was imprisoned for years without a trial for losing my job, failing to appear (I was never given notice to appear) and failing to report to my community that I was on a sex offender registry.

Every 90 days, like clockwork, the judge would order me to pay support. of course, since I was imprisoned, it was impossible. and another 90 days would be tacked on.

33 months. the ONLY thing that saved me was that the judge went on vacation. 33 months of incarceration with drug dealers, murderers, and violent criminals. I am also certain that the fact that I am 6’2″, muscular, scarred, and tattooed automatically ‘proved’ that I was a violent wife and child rapist despite never having a sentence handed to me by a legitimate authority. And, in the state of Indiana, you cannot be held in ‘jail’ for more than 90 days, which meant that, without trial, I was transferred to a ‘prison’. And of course, since it was a judge’s order, there was no chance of getting bailed out.

before-
I have never even gotten a speeding ticket, in my life. Nothing like a criminal record. I don’t drink, I smoked a joint once in my life, I am a veteran of two wars, I never cheated on my wife or hired a prostitute, I was even a virgin until i married my ex, I had strong morals, I got in fights with men who would not stand up for a woman on the bus or loudly used profanity. I was a valued member of the community, a good churchgoer, a good house, and a good post-military career that was on it’s way up.

Now-
I cheer every time I hear about a cop getting injured or killed. I am unemployed and unemployable, I am so far in arrears that if I set foot in the state of maryland I will be permanently imprisoned, My family and former friends are all convinced that I diddle two year olds, I am on the public dole (albeit legitimately injured in the military, permanent ankle shattered by shrap) and frankly, if I had a button that would nuke a major city, I would sprain my finger on it.

A lawyer I consulted said that 90% of all women accuse men of abuse or rape in family court, with no proof or evidence required. and no matter how genuine ‘criminal court’ may become, and how little money there may be made by imprisoning the falsely accused of rape, accusing fathers is a HUGE money industry.

In Marion, indiana, when I was jailed, there were 80 other men with me. 72 of those men were there for delinquincy or for ‘emergency separation from their wives.’

False rape is more of a symptom than the disease.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 24, 2012 at 12:02

@Eric- since I, and apparently walking in hell, are not even remotely gay, that is actually appealing. I am also ex-Navy, and proud of it. my entire tour I never did a single minute of shore duty, I was on a ship and loved every minute of it.

Actually, at times I WISH I were gay. it would make things much, much simpler.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Eric May 24, 2012 at 12:20

Brigadon:
I had heard that that song was about an experimental society that some guys were going to set up on an island back in the early 70s. That’s why I thought it would be a good theme for you guys if you were considering a project like that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 24, 2012 at 12:25

The problem with experimental societies is that they always end.
I was thinking more like ‘cocktail’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Opus May 24, 2012 at 12:30

@slwerner

There certainly would have been different defence teams for Evans and MacDonald, yet given the similarity of their situations it is hard to see a Jury making sufficient distinction between the two cases. The Prosecution witnesses would have been examined by Defence counsel in turn; the Defendants would have been examined by their separate counsel one after the other, but cross examined by the prosecutor; from the point of view of the jury it is just one case yet with two defendants. It is only one trial.

Sometimes in cases like this, Counsel, to aid his team, seeks to make analogy with a Tennis Tournament, where you will have different players playing together or against each other (never overestimate the intelligence of a Jury!), yet here such a tactic would seem pointless or even counter-productive by reason of being unconvincing.

I can offer no proper explanation for the strange result, where although women are now strong and independent and the equal of men, the moment they excercise that independence men get the blame for women’s freely chosen behaviour. The analogy is with the female drunk driver who seeks to excuse causing death by reason of her inebriation: if such a defence would not work then I fail to see how her freely chosen consequences would absolve her from willlful slutdom. It’s not as if she alleges she merely wanted to go back to the guy’s rooms to discuss Kant’s First Critique, or Hume’s Treatise. She got tanked up, made a play for two athlete millionaires and was looking for a threesome. What more of a green light does a guy need or what more of a green light could he reasonably expect to have!

Imagine (as might happen) some girl you know turns up at your place the worst for wear and with clearly only one thing on her mind. What would any single man do? Even if she passed out don’t tell me the Judge would not even feel justified in touching her up. Has the Judge never got into bed with a woman who was asleep or half asleep and found to his delight that what she wants is sex. If that is Rape, then I am a Rapist [I am Spartacus] as are most men. Women love it too. Had the tart awoken next morning with a hangover to find the guys had been ‘perfect’ gentleman she would have been mighty disappointed and probably started rumours that they were Gay!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
American May 24, 2012 at 13:27

For a little clarification of my usage of the term “Gender-Raunch community”.
Gender = the dominant form of feminism being practiced on campuses around the country today, which replaced the old “Equality feminism” of 30 years ago.
Raunch; comes from what Ariel levy talks about in her book, about female chauvinism, and the rise of the feminist Raunch culture.
You put these terms together, and you get a perfectly characteristic term for the modern East coast gender-feminist. “Gender-Raunch”.
The term is so effective that if one was to ask a college student where the “Gender-Raunch” community offices are, the student would tell you right where to look. Many Gender-Raunch get offended by the term because it so effectively characterizes them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9
DruidV May 24, 2012 at 13:45

Drunken Amerisluts just can’t stop shooting themselves in the foot, can they?

This is your very last warning young Men.This case should be enough to scare any sane, hetero young Male off of drunken sluts FOREVER!

They have no agency anymore. They can just do what they want and fuck you, buddy! Uncle-goverment-daddy-husband has seen to his spoilt princesses and treats them like two year olds responsible for absolutely nothing and accountable for even less than nothing.

Remember young, straight Men (coming from a 45 year old Male), if you see a drunken slut(s), RUN! Do not attempt to approach it as it is extremely dangerous. get to a safe distance and report it to other nearby Males. This goes double for large herds.

If, however you see another Male (friend or not, excluding PUA’s , White Knights and manginas, of course,) being seduced by one (or more) of these creatures, it is your duty as a Man to attempt to get him away from her and to a safe distance (I like 300 feet, as a rule) as soon as possible. This may prove difficult if not impossible, but it may save a Man’s life, maybe even your own.

Remember though; unless other Males are threatened with consumption, get to a safe distance and report, report, report.

This has not be an Ad Council public service message.

Thank you for your time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
American May 24, 2012 at 13:50

20 years of faulty, inflammatory (and yes mr Werner, “manufactured statistics”) have made American Gender-Raunch into the super-power status they are enjoying today.
But folks, lies ran around the world while the truth was tying its sneakers. American Gender-raunch may be soaking up the perverted and or manufactured statistics from American law enforcement, that are serving to Empower them today, but as the forced matriarchy further consumes the US, other nations may be taking notes.
One of the biggest lessons for other nations may be that “Law enforcement has no business in manufacturing faulty and inflammatory statistics for anyone”, its just not a task that any law enforcement should be engaged in.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
Sisterh00duk May 24, 2012 at 14:05

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 25
bruno May 24, 2012 at 14:28

The law is absurd:

If an intoxicated woman is legally unable to give consent to sex,
but in reality intoxicated women are more willing to consent to sex than no-intoxicated women,…

Then the only logical conclusion for the law is: forbid alcohol to women.

The more you think about it, the more absurd this law is.
After all, alcohol and sex go together already thousands of years.

Only when you look at that law as just another stick to beat men, then it all makes sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 14:29

American – ”20 years of faulty, inflammatory (and yes mr Werner, “manufactured statistics”) have made American Gender-Raunch into the super-power status they are enjoying today.”

Oh, there are manufactured statistics alright. You’re just badly mistaken about who it is that’s manufacturing them.

I’ve tried to explain this multiple time to you, but the ridiculous “only 2% of rape claims are false” canard DID NOT come from any statistical measures derived from actual ;police reporting. It was made up by Susan Brownmiller out of thin air (or, more accurately, pulled from her anus). Seriously, the FRS had a sidebar item on this. You should check it out sometime. Never have any statistics related to rape reporting to police ever been used to support that 2% lie. In fact, actual police data is what Dr. Eugene Kanin used to assess that 42% of rape reports in one mid-western city were false. More recently, other studies authorized by the SGI, which employed very restrictive definitions of what could be counted as a false rape report (irrefutable evidence against the validity of the claim and/or an irrefutable recantation by the accuser) have used police data to establish that the rate of false rape reports which are undeniably false amount to around 10% of all rapes report to police. 1 in 10 shown to be absolutely lies! Only ~80k reports of rapes and attempted rapes per year, as reported tot eh DOJ by local LE agencies!? These are not “good” statistics fro the Sexual Grievance Industry.

Which is exactly why they, the Sexual Grievance Industry make up statistics that better fit with what they wish to demonstrate. You know how they’ve been proclaiming that some 60-90% of all rapes are never report to police? I’m sure you heard of this going on, right?

Well, do you know what the “adjusted” numbers that they claim (200K+ rapes/annum, etc.) are – NOT LAW ENFORCEMNT STATISTICS! Think carefully about this, Scot. If a number is made up by people who are not involved in law enforcement, and is based on some arbitrary value that they have declared to be a true representation, and their number is in direct contention to the number that was obtained using actual data which came from actual police reports, then that number that those non-law enforcement people are claiming instead of the number that law enforcement reports, then that number cannot be a statistical value manufactured by law enforcement. Hopefully you could follow that. I tried to break it down to make it as simple as possible for you, as the logic therein has consistently eluded you for some time now.

The bottom line is that we have no need to fear the data provided by law enforcement, as you seem to believe we do. We can actually embrace the statistics which are coming from law enforcement, because they very powerfully make the case against what the SGI and (as you have awkwardly named them) “Gender-Raunch” are trying to claim. Rape is not rampant, and false rape reports happen at a rate much higher than 2% – according actual police data.

If Gender-Raunch were only relying of law enforcement’s data, they never have become a power-house. They had to make up numbers which make it seem that there is a much bigger problem than what actually exists. And, even if you wildest dreams came true, and the police stopped reporting all crime data, things would only get worse, as the SGI and gender-raunch would then be free to claim whatever number they wanted to, with no actual police data available with which to refute them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
anon May 24, 2012 at 14:33

How can one be guilty and the other one not. Both innocent or both guilt, the girl must have known that clayton mcdonald was a afootballer and must have known however drunk what she was going back to the hotel room for. But there must be something we dont know as to how solid the evidence were. Was it her word against his?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 14:40

Anon – “Was it her word against his?”

In a word, “yes”.

It was only her word against both men. Both men fully acknowledge that they had sex with her. And she doesn’t deny that she willing went with McDonald to his room. She simply claimed that she did not consent to sex with either man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Opus May 24, 2012 at 14:52

That is what gets me. If she was not going there for sex what was she going there for? That is a rhetorical question. She is either a repentant slut or a prick-tease. Either way it is she who should be in prison not Evans. perhaos if a few women were imprisoned with lengthy sentences this epidemic of false accusations would stop. I once again refer to Blackstone who thought that a slut had no reputation to lose and could therefore not be raped – and of course he was also convinced that it would be – in a sluts case – difficult to prove stolen chastity. He was right. The tart is merely suffering from buyer’s remorse – and what is the betting she sells her story to one of the tabloids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Uno Hu May 24, 2012 at 15:21

The truly sad thing about situation such as this is that they are (1) unfair, (2) sex-biased, and (3) once the charge is made it is will be increasingly difficult to defend against. In short, we are approaching a situation were men cannot get justice in the court system when in an adversarial case against a woman on the issue of consent (i.e., it was never given, it was given but I retracted it and he did not stop, it was given but it was invalid because I’d had a beer or two).

This is not the cause for celebration that some gender feminists desire. Bear in mind that there is no animal walking the face of the earth that is more dangerous, more capable of greivously wounding or killing you than a full enraged adult male human, especially one who perceives that he has nothing further to lose. There will come the time, in the near or distant future, when men who have been ruined by a woman’s “rape” charge that he knows (and only the man will really know) to be false or based on “withdrawn or voided” consent – when those men will reach out and administer private justice to their tormenting females. I won’t be specific – I don’t need to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
td9red May 24, 2012 at 15:54

@Opus

“If she was not going there for sex what was she going there for?”

We will have to be sure to instill in the minds of our girls that if you go to a man’s room it means you want sex. Never be fooled by claims that a party is going on. Setting foot into his space means you want sex…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10
W.F. Price May 24, 2012 at 16:56

We will have to be sure to instill in the minds of our girls that if you go to a man’s room it means you want sex. Never be fooled by claims that a party is going on. Setting foot into his space means you want sex…

-td9red

You’re turning it around. The assumption here (made by the judge) is that she didn’t want sex. Is that reasonable to assume given the circumstances?

Sam May 24, 2012 at 17:14

So women are children. They are not responsible for getting too drunk to remember if they gave consent. They are not responsible for jumping on a guy and initiating sex, because they were too drunk to consent. They are never held accountable for their own actions, just like we blame the parents when a tottler throws a tantrum. Yet, feminists say want equaltiy, excuse me, superiority over men.
That women mature earlier, are smarter and holier than thou.
I must be a man, because none of this makes sense to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 17:53

td9red – ” We will have to be sure to instill in the minds of our girls that if you go to a man’s room it means you want sex. Never be fooled by claims that a party is going on.”

Claims of a party??? Where do you get this sh*t?

Perhaps you might take a moment and read some of the testimony from the trial (from the guy who the jury believed, and acquitted, BTW):

“I was looking to get a taxi, I just wanted to go home,” he told police. He said he was “tipsy” after the night out but “knew what he was doing”

He “bumped into” the woman on a corner and asked her where she was going, to which she replied: “Where are you going?”

He said he told her he was going back to his hotel and she responded: “I’m going with you.”

Mr McDonald described the woman as “pretty”.

He added that she was carrying a pizza box and said: “She wasn’t slurring her words and falling all over the place.

“If that was the case I would have got into the taxi by myself.”

When they arrived at the hotel, they walked “arm in arm” to the ground-floor room

Now, where’s that sh*t about luring her to the room on the false pretense of going to a party?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
td9red May 24, 2012 at 18:19

@slwerner

The problem with that testimony is that it is contridicted by the testimony of at least 1 unbiased witness 9someone at the hotel testified that she appeared obviously drunk) and a recording which showed the women to be in such a condition that she could barely stand. Additionally, from what i have read it maybe an unclear question as to whether she consented to sex with the baller she got into the cab with. But, it seems clear that she did not consent to sex with Evans. From what I read the baller in the taxi with her (i’m forgetting his name) called Evans indicating he had a girl in his room. Evan than went to the room and had sex with this drunk girl while others watched and recorded it. Clearly, she did not go to the first baller’s room to have sex with Evans. Evans came over and had sex with a drunk girl in the other baller’s room.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12
Eric May 24, 2012 at 18:30

Opus;
Off-topic, but is ‘SisterhoodUK’ ‘s comment typical of British women?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 18:48

td9red – “The problem with that testimony…”

The problem with your reply is that you are trying to evade the question I asked about where it is that you got the sh*t about her being lured to a party that you did interject earlier.

So, what’s the deal?

Be honest now. You just made it up hoping to cause confusion, didn’t you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
piercedhead May 24, 2012 at 18:57

“20 years of faulty, inflammatory (and yes mr Werner, “manufactured statistics”) have made American Gender-Raunch into the super-power status they are enjoying today.” -American

We are all well aware of your desire to parade the term “Gender-Raunch”. You have been at it for years, at multiple sites.

What is in question now is your motivation. Is there an agenda behind this one-man campaign, or is it nothing more than the single-mindedness of an unusual personality?

It has been noted that you have never pointed the finger at women themselves for their bad behaviour. You appear to be incapable of doing this. Instead you erect straw men like “Gender Raunch” to attract the blame.

You still seem unable to address this charge at you – you use the opportunity to further promote your puerile ’cause’.

I don’t like putting words in others mouths, but I find it curious that any man who was falsely accused is unable to find fault with his accuser. Such a situation could suggest many agendas, many of which are not friendly to men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 19:02

td9red – “a recording which showed the women to be in such a condition that she could barely stand. “

Say, why don’t you link up that video so that we can all see it. I hate having to rely on the judges “impression” of what they guy who was acquitted (McDonald) might have noticed about her ability to stand when he met her while waiting for cab.

And, what does her ability to stand have to do with the charges against Evans, who seems to have not seen her until after she was naked and lying in bed? Was he supposed to first watch this video that you pretend to know the exact contents of, so that he could better asses her level of intoxication? If he didn’t see her bump into his friend, just how was he supposed to know that she was (supposedly) staggering. The jury did acquit the guy who would have had that knowledge, making it seem dubious that the jury agreed with the judges assessment – or they would have had to find him (even more so) guilty under the same reasoning that she was too drunk to have consented.

If they believed she could consent when she first arrived at the room, what made her unable to also consent by the time Evans arrived (note, her claim is that she remembers nothing – including whether or not she consented to sex with McDonald. His acquittal must mean that the jury doubted her supposed lack of recollection, now doesn’t it?)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Ted May 24, 2012 at 19:09

“the world is a different place for you when 50% of people out there are significantly stronger than you and against whom you would have no hope of winning the fight”

That’s a major justification for traditional rape laws – the physical power imbalance between the sexes.

But when it comes to drunken sex, there is no imbalance. Women are just as capable as men when it comes to deciding how much to drink and with whom.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
piercedhead May 24, 2012 at 19:19

“the world is a different place for you when 50% of people out there are significantly stronger than you and against whom you would have no hope of winning the fight”

That is exactly how the world looks to every man in a courtroom, whose word is in contest with that of a woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
td9red May 24, 2012 at 19:21

@slwerner

No No, I did not read about a party regarding this case. I was making a general comment in respponse to the comment from Opus above where he suggests that the only reason that a women would go to a guys room is if she wanted sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11
Ted May 24, 2012 at 19:24

“It has been noted that you have never pointed the finger at women themselves for their bad behaviour. You appear to be incapable of doing this. Instead you erect straw men like “Gender Raunch” to attract the blame. ”

It’s not only the fault of the false accuser though. You shouldn’t forget the efforts of her vast army of enablers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
td9red May 24, 2012 at 19:25

@Ted

“Women are just as capable as men when it comes to deciding how much to drink and with whom.”

Yes I would agree

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
slwerner May 24, 2012 at 19:40

Td9red – ” I was making a general comment in respponse to the comment from Opus above where he suggests that the only reason that a women would go to a guys room is if she wanted sex.”

And yet you felt compelled to clearly and deliberately add the suggestion that she had been lured and that she was told that there would be a party there? Why?

She claims to remember nothing – not how she got there, nor anything that happen while she was there with the men. The prosecutions cases was, accordingly, that she must have been to drunk to have given meaningful and valid consent – to either man. How could a jury acquit the man who picked this woman up and took her to the hotel room, supposedly past witness who saw her very drunk, and had prolonged sex with her (apparently from soon after the time he and she arrived there until Evans could get to the hotel from his home); and yet find the second guy guilty.

The most obvious answer would be that they did not believe that she was too drunk to consent to McDonald (nor too drunk to remember).

Now, I don’t know what really went on there – but neither do you. Perhaps McDonald did take an obviously very drunk woman back to his room, and perhaps she did pass out, and perhaps he did take sexual advantage of her, and perhaps he did then call his friend to come over and also take advantage of her. But, if this is true, how is that McDonald could be found not guilty? Wouldn’t he be the one who was far more culpable?

If your numerous attempts to portray the events as an actual rape, then McDonald must certainly have raped her first & most. Are you suggesting that the jury gave McDonald a pass because he is black, and instead heaped all the blame for the entire series of events on the white guy Evans?

If so, how can this truly be “justice”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
td9red May 24, 2012 at 20:19

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17
LBK May 24, 2012 at 23:54

MGTOW is the best solution. Western civilization is beyond saving. It is time to just let it die. The way to do that is for men to withdraw their support from society in general just as they are withdrawing from women.
I strive to live a simple life while producing as little as possible. My goal is to take more out of the system than I put in. If everyone did that, the system would collapse, which is what we need to happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Bub May 25, 2012 at 00:14

The Ched Evans case was actually a joint trial with another footballer called McDonald, who was acquitted. What the argument fails to take into account is that she consented to McDonald, went back with him while she was drunk, Evans only joined later at the hotel and after further alcohol had been absorbed by her system, it is a medical fact that after consumption of large quantities of alcohol the body will still be absorbing alcohol from the stomach and will effect the consumer further, resulting in the state the victim was in, as described by the receptionist at the hotel. Evans was then not available for consent at the same time as McDonald and was found guilty of raping a half unconscious victim.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10
Opus May 25, 2012 at 01:49

@Eric

Life is short.

I, thus, have failed to read the comment by Sisterhooduk because the name suggests it is written by or on behalf of a person representing all UK Feminazis. Nothing such an organisation could say would be of any interest or value to me, for even if they assured me that the Sun rose in the East, I would assume they were fabricating and dissembling.

I can say however that U.K. team-women will in the upcoming London Olympics gain Silver medal for awfulness behind your own country’s competitors, who will win Gold (Canada probably gaining Bronze – but it will be a photo finish).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Opus May 25, 2012 at 02:52

My view is that unnameable woman has been raped in pretty much the same way that a prostitute who engages in orgies is being raped if it turns out that one of the men involved wasn’t on the official guest list and had gate-crashed. What is one dick more or less to a woman who has no chastity. Notice the way that the females who have commented degrade their sisters by attempting to make no distinction between sluts and women (there are some) who aren’t. Women should be up in arms that far from protecting women the Judge has effectively ruled that all women are essentially whores.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Eric May 25, 2012 at 03:58

Opus,
From what I’ve read of other Anglosphere MRA’s, Australia is going to knock Canada out of the running this year and give the British a good fight for the Silver.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
freebird May 25, 2012 at 04:40

@slwerner
Thanks for your reply, I know for fact you are acting in good faith and cannot refute a single word you have penned.
Thanks for your work at COTWA.

I get the feeling we are much like the blind men going ’round the elephant each describing what he perceives.

There was an article at AVFM about Australia’s DV lawz that stated something to this effect:
(insert large number of $,perhaps 10 billion?)
%10 goes to the courts and judges,%10 to the barristers (lawyers) %60 to maintaining two separate residences,leaving the two remaining parties to fight over the remaining %10
of funds leftover after the legal process.
My experience was after two trials, the second being over two hours in length where the prosecutor took on her “civil” claim for free,above and beyond his duty to prosecute the criminal contempt of court charge..(having trouble putting this together)

After a long fishing expedition..
All of her testimony on the stand was that I had never abused nor ever hit her..
At the end the judge looked me square in the eye and said he would sign ANOTHER ex-parte PPO/RTO against me w/ no evidence AGAIN upon request…

I find no integrity in the justice system..
Later I would piece together that my lawyer had conspired in secret with the prosecutor and judge as to the outcome in advance (standard procedure it seems)
He did not even object to hearsay claims by the prosecutor…
The Police deliberately delayed my summons of her to my hearing, past the hearing itself,forcing me to hire this officer of the court..Who lied about obtaining subpoena of her medical records..
The court clerks who lied and said I could defend myself with the help of the Michigan State site..
Claims that I could subpoena were a lie..
The court clerks were all female and checked all the abuse boxes by typewriter-directly against Michigan law..
Failure to dismiss when found plaintiff had not filled out the form herself nor checked the box indicating so-in direct violation of Michigan law..

All these media claims of one on four,one every two seconds-those needs to stop,from Police statements in local papers appear to agree about the “epidemic of male on female abuse..”

I maintain my position that is is a money fueled industry and a furtherance of a Police State.
8 Councils for women?
For pete’s sake..

It appears we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Brigadon’s story here is horrific,but I do not doubt one word of it.

The law has no interest in innocence only guilt-via VAWA training and funding,and yes it has been found in one case substantial monies made their way into a judges personal slush fund account..

The biggest problem appears to be that these women’s shelters can coach these women what to say and to obstruct Police from initial questioning…
Also the VAWA trained nurses who create the evidence…before and Police questioning..

I was very lucky that she had moved onto relatives property..testimony during the trial she mentioned temporarily moving over to a friends house first…
My lawyer said something to the effect I should have told him that-it was very important.later I figured out he,the judge and prosecutor would have liked to establish her residence at my house,ostensibly to extract the value there-of from me…

Apologies for the rambling.What a mess.

Power seeks more power and absolute power corrupts absolutely -and I believe this is what most guys who have been mauled are trying to express.
As to the false stats, I agree from reading your site that the Police are not fabricating false stats,but the FBI may very be,due the nature of their definitions..seems to be deliberate in that area..
Good reading at the International Chiefs of Police site:
Has roughly 100 articles clearly laying out standard operating procedure,and definitions.

Well I commend you for altering my frame of mind a tad bit,but there is no soft spot for the “justice system.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
freebird May 25, 2012 at 04:51

@td9red:
What’s with calling the defendants “Ballers?”

Seriously, what’s up with that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
freebird May 25, 2012 at 04:56

I forgot to mention the one bright spot of my trial, it was at the very end,perhaps even after the trials-she yelped out at me” You made me insane,I’ve been in a mental hospital for the last week.”

The prosecutor went bright red with shame,it’s clear he knew in advance!

Never seen that before!
(prosecutor w/ shame-that is)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
td9red May 25, 2012 at 06:35

@freebird

Someone else above called them “Ballers.” I presume they were soccer players. As an American I believe that soccer is an utterly useless sport other than for 5yr-olds. In America if you referred to someone as a “Baller” most would think you were talking about a basketball player. I can’t speak for the linguistics in the UK. But, as I indicated someone above called them “Ballers,” I just went with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11
slwerner May 25, 2012 at 07:08

Freebird – ”My experience was after two trials, the second being over two hours in length where the prosecutor took on her “civil” claim for free”

This was a clear conflict of interest. The prosecutor is paid by the state to represent the state in the business of the state (in this case, criminal cases). If she took time (on the states clock) to represent your ex(?) in a civil matter, she was, in effect, stealing from the state (getting paid to do your ex’s work). I don’t know how long ago this was, but since she would have had to have made an official appearance on the record, there is documentation available to prove that she did this. You should contact your states Attorney General (not that they will want to hear from you) and report this. Then, you should contact your states Bar Association and file a complaint against this prosecutor-turned-divorce-lawyer. There may even be grounds for you to file a civil action against that prosecutor, especially if she failed to notify the civil/family court of her involvement in a related criminal case.

Don’t let her get away with this. Prosecutors are supposed to be held to a higher standard of conduct. This one seems to be getting away with clearly violating the ethical rules of conduct to which she swore an oath to uphold.

And, do you have documented evidence of the other misconduct you noted by others? If you do, or could go back with a hidden recorder and get court workers to give you the same misinformation, I’m certain that there are civil liberties-focused attorney’s who would be willing to take on your case, so as to gain standing to take on the state/court system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
slwerner May 25, 2012 at 07:22

Bub – “it is a medical fact that after consumption of large quantities of alcohol the body will still be absorbing alcohol from the stomach and will effect the consumer further”

UYeah, I figured one of you female-apologist would get your rationalization hamster working double-time to try to back-fit some semi-plausible explanation for finding the one guy who was best able to assess her level of intoxication, the one guy who got her back to his room, the guy who had sex with her first (despite her claim that she did not give him consent/didn’t remember doing so) AFTER leading her past the hotel receptionist who testified that she could hardly walk, innocent – but when it came to the second guy Evans, who that first guy McDonald invited over to join in, and even though McDonald testified that he was the pone who asked her consent for Evans to join in, then they could find him guilty.

That bit about getting even drunker via further absorption is really nothing more than an attempt at a smoke-screen to try to cover for what, on it’s surface, appears to be a racially-motivated miscarriage of justice.

Simple logic dictates that if you believe that she was too drunk to walk on her own when McDonald lead her into his room, then she was already too drunk to give consent. So, it would pretty much be an all-or-nothing situation. The idea that the second guy should have known better about her state of intoxication is, well, just silly.

But, nice try in you efforts to defend a jury which seems to have rendered a verdict on something other than the evidence presented.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Lavazza May 25, 2012 at 08:13

I have tried to make up scenarios where a woman (or a man for that matter) would be convicted to prison just on the word of a man, without any further evidence, but I can’t.

Masters and slaves indeed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Opus May 25, 2012 at 08:18

@slwerner

I am lost as to the scientific details – which you deal with above – but it now seems the State require a man (not medically qualified) to be able to assess the level of intoxication of a woman (who owes – as we lawyers say – no duty of care). Am I really to suppose – as now I must – that when a woman goes out drinking, that that is an indication that she does NOT want to have sex with any man who might taked her fancy, and how exactly am I to then know (as she becomes increasingly inebriated) how much of her repsonsibility has now been shifted to my shoulders.

Anyway I see we have a new rape case in the UK of an Army Officer who ‘would not take NO for an answer’. Without knowing any of the details, what is the betting the women were half naked before they realised that they did not want sex after all or even more likely it was morning after buyer’s remorse? If it is, it will be yet another case of the man being responsible for the woman’s Feeeeeeelings. Isn’t about time a man sued a woman for being useless in bed on the ground that if he had known how hopeless she was going to be, he would never have gone through with it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Emma the Emo May 25, 2012 at 12:13

To take their thinking to its logical conclusion.. Since drinking and fucking is so dangerous, and results in rape so easily, drinking and fucking, like drinking and driving, must be outlawed. If you drink and have sex, you’re going to jail, no matter it you only hurt yourself, others or no one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Pops May 25, 2012 at 17:08
freebird May 25, 2012 at 17:20

@slwerner
Thanks for your reply,yes my lawyer objected “conflict of interest” the judge said nothing-the trial continued.

This is exactly what I mean by “administrative law” or “judicial discretion.”
No, I cannot and will not fight this.

There is no winning fighting city hall.
“two sets of books”
What I hesitate to say is what could happen if another false accusation comes
due to my perception of no recourse in the system.
This is very bad for everyone concerned.
Have a safe Memorial weekend.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
freebird May 25, 2012 at 17:24

BTW the prosecutor was male.
Certainly not a man,as a man has integrity.(same goes for the judge)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
freebird May 25, 2012 at 17:34

My lawyer showed me during the hearing to clear the PPO where she had signed the criminal contempt of court form:
I ashamed to say I wept bitterly in open court at the betrayal.
This is a woman I did nothing but molly coddle and nurture to the best of my ability for 7.5 long years…

So yeah,it’s her fault there.
She called 1.5 yrs alter,weeping OMG,I was coerced by my sisters…

I wanted to call the Police out of fear she would come to my house,but I Feared the Police would of course arrest me,as they are part of the system that railroaded the whole mess.
All I could think was the triple s’s.

Thank God I never did a day in jail,and also that she did not lie upon the stand.
The 3 months of waiting for trial took my soul.
Consider this area of comment dismissed.
No reply needed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 25, 2012 at 17:40

freebird, you bring up an interesting, and valid point.

My ex was not even close to a bitch until she started talking to the mother and sister she hadn’t spoken to in decades.

The first clue that something was wrong came when she started spending an hour or more a day speaking with them. both bitter, mean hags.

I am beginning to wonder if women only show their true evil when packed into groups? Or perhaps they are simply easily led to evil by their femsupport group. If this is the case, it brings up interesting possibilities.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Eric May 25, 2012 at 18:07

Emma:
Not only that, but the US took ‘drinking and driving’ to even more extreme conclusions. We also have ‘sobriety checkpoints’ on the highway, an aburdly high legal drinking age; and requirements to produce identification papers to buy alcohol.

Given the neo-puritan, politically-correct culture over here, it wouldn’t surprise me to see things like being applied to sex as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Emma the Emo May 25, 2012 at 18:34

Eric,

That would be tyrannical, but might at least put an end to men being responsible for women’s drunk choices (that’s what they are – it’s possible to do a lot of functional things in a blackout and not remember them, even say sensible things). Then both would be equally guilty.

The best would of course be to hold everyone responsible for actions while drunk, just like we do with everything else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
freebird May 26, 2012 at 08:29

@brigadon-Yes sir; that is exactly what happened.
7 years her family never visited nor ever called here for her,she called them every few years.
I had the feeling they were annoyed that I had not prevented her from contacting them and contrived a ‘suitable punishment.’
Really horrible people.
The one sisters son is a convicted child molestor,the other a rabid Jehovah’s witness.
They were sorely dissapointed
when I was not wisked off to jail at the fist hearing.
I’m pretty sure the bastards came after the fact and sabotaged my vehicles also,went through two engines and two trannys in the next 6 months.

When I went over there to attempt to reconcile with her, they threatened me with a firearm,during the trial the prosecutor quipped”the gun was never pulled.”
I looked at my council for a hearsay objection, none came.
I wanted to say: yeah that’s right your were there weren’t ya prosecutor?

The judge and prosecutor knew she was basically insane at the time,yet present her as a viable witness,hell,she couldn’t even identify the complaint form when showed it.

That is why I refer to it as “the insane star chamber” they were as insane as she was!
Fuck the system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 26, 2012 at 10:30

Defense attourneys are terrified of defending a man, because it can ruin their potential future career.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Doug1 May 26, 2012 at 15:41

Walking in Hell–

‘It is a myth that being vulnerable through alcohol consumption means that a victim is somehow responsible for being raped. The law is clear: being vulnerable through drink or drugs does not imply consent.’

That is not the law in the United States, with possible and at least partial exception of Washington State.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella May 26, 2012 at 18:17

A few points that occurred along the thread…

1. If the woman being drunk absolves her of all responsibility, why is the equally drunk man not also absolved? I’ve seen countless numbers of these cases, the woman always claims that because she was drunk her ‘yes’ meant nothing, etc etc….how can you hold one person responsible and the other not? Does alcohol have some magical effect on men, leaving their judgement intact?

2. We don’t know that she was passed out. That is an assumption.

3.When are women EVER going to take responsibility for their actions? A man will wake up after regrettable drunk sex and think ‘ugh’ and move on. A woman will cry ‘rape’. ‘Drunk giddy consent’ does not equal rape…’Gee I really acted like a whore last night, what was I thinking, doing those 3 guys in the bar bathroom? I know, it was RAPE!’ …well, no it wasn’t. Sex that you wish you hadn’t had shouldn’t be charged as rape. Time and time again men are being saved by their iPhones, computers etc, with video of a woman enthusiastically having sex who called the cops on them later when she regretted it. If we really lived in a ‘rape culture’ as the feminists claim, these cases would be thrown out of court. Instead men are being imprisoned for years on these liar’s word.
4. Intent, or the assumption of…here we have yet another example of letting women off the hook. ‘Just because I went to his hotel room, what right did he have to assume I was there for sex?’ A woman bumps into a man on the street, a stranger, and says she wants to go to his hotel room. What does this look like? What is he to think? She wants to catch Law & Order reruns? Tea and crumpets? Knitting doilies? This looks much like the situation when a man picks up a hooker….two strangers going to the man’s room. Gee, it would seem that a woman going to a strange man’s hotel room gives a certain impression….

and it’s wholly the fault of the man?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
crella May 26, 2012 at 18:19

Par..don the atrocious typing, I’m on a dinky laptop.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
david May 27, 2012 at 01:10

Few facts that are not put into the equation for this particular case.

The girl in question was not with the accused prior to attending the hotel and the accused had his friends recording the whole incident through a window of the hotel whilst the offence (alleged offence) was being committed.

Evans also entered the room via a fire exit staircase so as not to be seen by hotel staff upon entering the building, hotel staff had also remarked that as McDonald (co-accused) was leaving he asked the hotel staff to make sure the girl arrived home safely. Hotel staff also advised the girl was so drunk on arrival that she could not walk without assistance, additionally she was also seen to have fallen over in a fast food outlet earlier in the night.

Where I am driving towards this is that the case against Evans was different to that of McDonald and McDonald should have been tried for aiding and abetting Evans as it may have been clearer from the ‘whole’ evidence presented that the girl in question intended to have sex with McDonald and not Evans.

It was also a surprise to me that someone can be convicted if consent is not gained on EVERY occasion you have sex in a state of inebriation whether in wedlock or not even connected to the person prior to the occurrence.

An appeal is in place but I believe the conviction is right.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 27, 2012 at 02:30

dinky laptop or not, you raise good points.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Bastard May 27, 2012 at 13:10

So many problems with the article it’s unreal. First Ched Evans didn’t play for Sheffield, he played for Sheffield United, calling them Sheffield is insulting to Sheffield the city, Sheffield the oldest club in the world and Sheffield’s oldest professional football club. Second the court hasn’t decided the default is non-consent, the law has infact made perfectly clear there is no consent if the party involved is unable to consent. Third a man doesn’t have to prove a woman intended to have sex, he has to present to the court that the womans actions would lead to the reasonable belief consent was there (lying there whilst being dicked by his mate doesn’t, and shouldn’t, imply to him that she wants him to get involved too). Fourth the athlete she went back with was acquitted, which should tell you all you need to know about burden of proof and implied consent, including that it is exactly the same as it has always been.

Before all those problems, however, your post is fairly decent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
Ted May 27, 2012 at 17:12

“Ched Evans didn’t play for Sheffield, he played for Sheffield United”

Oh.

That makes *all* the difference.

“calling them Sheffield is insulting to Sheffield the city”

I’m always on the lookout for fresh insults, Bastard. Thanks for explaining that one.

“the court hasn’t decided the default is non-consent,”

They seem to be assuming that she didn’t want sex though. A puzzling assumption, given what else went on that evening.

“the law has infact made perfectly clear there is no consent if the party involved is unable to consent.”

In other words, the default is that non-consent is assumed in that circumstance. Even if all the other evidence suggests otherwise.

“Third a man doesn’t have to prove a woman intended to have sex, he has to present to the court that the womans actions would lead to the reasonable belief consent was there”

What what I have read, that would seem to be a reasonable assumption.

“lying there whilst being dicked by his mate doesn’t, and shouldn’t, imply to him that she wants him to get involved too”

Body language…

“the athlete she went back with was acquitted,”

Strange, that.

“which should tell you all you need to know about burden of proof and implied consent, including that it is exactly the same as it has always been.”

The jail term – five years – is about what it always has been too. Tell me, Bastard, do you think that is an appropriate penalty for rape these days? As defined these days?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
common sense May 28, 2012 at 03:30

with a 6% conviction rate for rape I think men can rest soundly in their beds for now. Funny how this much consternation isn’t caused every time a miscarriage of justice happens the other way around and as for thousands happening every weekend, so that means because rape is common place we should ignore it! WOW! I hope non of the commentators on here have daughters as they need to put on the at risk register forthwith!!!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8
Al Thompson May 28, 2012 at 08:40

I have the perfect solution. Don’t get drunk and don’t fornicate. Nothing good comes from fornication….ever. So now the man is facing a prison and rape charge. That will look just wonderful on his resume…not.
http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/05/fornication-is-destruction-of-soul.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus May 28, 2012 at 09:58

@Bastard

The writer of the article is not, as you must know, English and to berate him for failing to appreciate the greater subtleties of English Football is rather pathetic and frankly irrelevant. That gives me little confidence that the rest of what you say may have value. Perhaps it does, and perhaps unlike the author, who obviously isn’t, you are legally qualified in England with a full grasp of criminal law as it applies to the crime of Rape – you do not say – but I must say I have great difficulty fully grasping your points thereon. I seem to recall hearing similar legal pontification down my local.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Opus May 28, 2012 at 12:18

@common sense

Your name hardly belies your reasoning. Even if out of every 100 cases brought, only 6 result in conviction I am pretty sure that largely amounts to upwards of 100% of convictions being wrongful (as I explain below). Evans seems to be the latest example of a wrongful conviction where we are seriously being asked to believe that although both he and MacDonald were charged, that is to say the woman claims she did not give consent only, Evans and only Evans is guilty and this notwithstanding that the woman inebriated herself and then deliberately attended MacDonald’s Hotel Room and engaged in sex with a complete stranger and a non-caucasion at that, where a threesome would be an added bonus. (I have an ex who is prouder of having pulled two guys to bed at once than any of her other conquests). It is highly implausible, I would say, that Evans should assume he has anything other than a green light – indeed for him to assume otherwise would reveal the attitude of the most Omega of Manginas. It might be better to suggest that for every 6 convictions an extra 94 or approximately 1800% (if my Math is right) of Rape prosecutions are being wrongly brought or brought where the prosecution knows they have insufficient evidence. One could then only conclude either gross incompetence or politically motivated Misandry – my experience is the latter. That of course does not include the false accusations and threats which do not reach court (and I here speak as a victim thereof) which men are subject to on the say-so of a woman, where the principle seems to be that the accusation is the evidence, where ordinary heterosexual male interest can turn an ordinary male in to a sex offender.

I have yet personally or professionally to come across one genuine case of Rape – it is that rare, yet the same cannot be said of the convictions or the endless fabrication nowadays women seem prone to make.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay May 28, 2012 at 15:28

Well if this is rape I narrowly escaped getting raped last week, and I wasn’t to happy about it. Even worse, she actually bought me the booze, maybe I should call the police and join a victims group. It has been very helpful sharing this story with you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ted May 28, 2012 at 19:31

“I hope non of the commentators on here have daughters as they need to put on the at risk register forthwith!!!!!!”

I’ve got a daughter, common sense. I’m concerned for her welfare, so I took notice of your recommendation. Unfortunately, I don’t understand it… who needs to be put on the at risk register? What at risk register? Why should whoever it is be put onto whatever it is anyway?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
ActaNonVerba May 28, 2012 at 23:11

@Brigadon,

What you were writing made me think about the scene in the movie “HEAT” where the whacko Waynegro (sp?) shoots the guard, then DeNiro orders the other guard killed (i.e. your already going up the river for murder if you get nabbed, why not make it two and leave no witenesses). Brutal and vicious, but logically sound if your back is firmly planted up against the wall.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner May 29, 2012 at 07:59

Opus, @common sense – ”Your name hardly belies your reasoning.”

Extra credit points, right off the bat.

Opus – ”Evans seems to be the latest example of a wrongful conviction where we are seriously being asked to believe that although both he and MacDonald were charged, that is to say the woman claims she did not give consent only, Evans and only Evans is guilty…”

I’m afraid you’re not going to have much luck using rational reasoning and logic against the willfully ignorant.

Clearly, in that the judge excoriated Evans over supposed observations that only McDonald could have made of the women, there is something NOT right with the outcome. It is (to me) as if the jury sympathized with the woman, wished to find some man guilty (so as to white-wash her sexual culpability and preserve her ill-deserved chaste “reputation”), but could not bring themselves to judge a member of a protected minority class guilty.

Well before the first OJ Simpson trial, the phenomena of black jurors setting out to nullify juries in cases wherein a black person was accused (even of crimes against other blacks), because of the socio-racist theory of “Not helping the white man send another black man to prison”. Plenty of people were aware of it, but not the willfully politically-correct idiot, Marcia Clark. Defense attorney Johnnie Cochran certainly new about it, and played Clark, letting her think she was stacking the jury with women, while Cochran had actually manipulated her into stacking the jury with black women (who he could count on to NOT convict a black man of crimes against a white woman).

I’m not aware of the make-up of the jury in the Evans/McDonald jury; but I would speculate that it had at least one dedicated black jury-nullifier on it, who was successful in securing an exoneration for the arguably “more guilty” McDonald.

The broader point to make is, however, that when a legal system has strayed so far from the intended ideals of meting out justice that innate factors like ones race weigh more heavily than evidence and testimony (either for, or against); then that system cannot be trusted to be the sole arbiter of (true) justice.

I say that to make the point that where I was once dubious of Paul Elam’s call for “automatic” jury nullification in any rape case, I would now have to agree with the lone caveat that I would not nullify in a clear-cut case of rape.

But, even that is a very limited caveat, in that most clear-cut rapes DO NOT go to trial – the defendants tend to plead rather than have their crimes aired in front of the public and a jury. It seems to me that the majority of rape cases that do go to trial are those that are not so clear-cut, in which case I would be willing to potentially error on the side of letting a guilty man off as opposed to the (much) greater injustice of convicting an innocent man of a crime which (uniquely) will ruin the entire rest of his life (a convicted rapist will be much more loathed than even a convicted murder).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Get the facts!!! May 29, 2012 at 13:16

I seriously cannot believe some of the crap I’ve just read! I can only assume that you guys have not got the facts of the case! The girl went back with one guy, whom was found not guilty. This is because she voluntarily went back to that man’s room. However his friend then acquired himself a key from reception (the room was booked in his name, making this easy for him) and let himself into the room whilst his friend had sex with the woman. His brother and another friend were outside, peering from a window and filming the incident on their phones. His friend then left and that is when Evans did his thing. McDonald, on his way out via reception, told the receptionist to ‘keep an eye on the girl, as she was sick’!! Evans then left the room, through he hotel fire escape!! If he was as innocent and set up as you all state, why did he act so suspiciously?
Some of you have made absurd comments and all I can say is justice finally in a rape case. So many men do get away with rape, and a lot of the time it is because the woman is treat like a slut in court. If your wife, girlfriend or daughter were ever raped then I think you would change your attitude towards the whole thing.
Dont get me wrong, i do not think that it is rape if a girl who is totally out of her mind goes back to a room with a guy. In that case she does imply that she will have sex. Her actions towards the man are used to establish implied consent. That was the case of McDonald. That was NOT the case of Evans. That was the thoughts of the judge and jury, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Stop your absurd nasty comments. I hope that you never experience what rape can do to you and your loved ones.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6
Get the facts!!! May 29, 2012 at 13:58

To confirm:
The girl did not have a threesome. McDonald left the room before evans had sex with her.
She went to the room with McDonald.
She did not go to the room with Evans.
The desk clerk was a man and he said it ‘was obvious to him what had happened in that room’. He acted as a prosecution witness.
Neither McDonald nor Evans are millionaires or ‘famous’. They both play for teams in low divisions and would not be recognised by 90% of non football followers.
The blogs where the girl was named are idle gossip and not fact based.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
slwerner May 29, 2012 at 14:05

Troll – ”Dont get me wrong, i do not think that it is rape if a girl who is totally out of her mind goes back to a room with a guy. In that case she does imply that she will have sex. Her actions towards the man are used to establish implied consent. That was the case of McDonald. That was NOT the case of Evans. That was the thoughts of the judge and jury, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Stop your absurd nasty comments.”

What absurd comments are you referring to?

Speaking of facts, let’s go back to the article, and see what the judge had to say to Evans:

“CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.
“As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.
“When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that.”

The first two sentences together show that if she was in no condition to have sex, then it was McDonald who was the one who should have known that. Was Evans supposed to have asked to view CCTV footage to try to determine for himself if she had appeared too drunk? And, how was he supposed to be able to tell the difference between a woman who was intoxicated and one who was in the throes of passion with his friend? That difference might not be so readily apparent as would have been, say, watching her stumble around on a sidewalk and through the hotel (again, in case you’re having trouble following this, things that McDonald alone, and NOT Evans would have been able to observe).

And, further, we learn from the article:

”It was claimed Mr McDonald asked if his friend could “get involved”, to which the woman said yes.”

So, perhaps you’d like to take a stab at explaining how she could consent to the request of the man who was found not guilty, and yet the other guy, for who consent was actually asked, be found guilty.

The problem with all this, as the title of the lead piece suggests is the precedent being set vis-à-vis women being considered too intoxicated to give meaningful consent. So long as a politically-correct outcome is achieved, (semi-plausible) explanations can be back-fit to try to justify injustice.

From the judges own words, he seems to believe that McDonald knew quite well that the woman was too drunk, and took advantage of her first. But, rather than find both men guilty, or both not guilty, the jury used the “gray area” surrounding the issue of what constitutes intoxication to decide that her expressed consent was not meaningful for one, but was meaningful for the other. It smacks of a jury deciding that they were basing their decision not on the facts presented to them alone, but also taking into account (in this case) the differing races of the two. It was okay for a black man to take advantage of an obviously too drunk women, take her to his hotel, help her stumble into the room, get her consent for himself to have sex with her, then get her consent for his friend to also have sex with her – but it was not okay for the white guy to take advantage of her drunken consent the same way the black guy did? That is basically what you, and the jury are saying, is it not?

The important thing to keep in mind in that regard is that if a jury can differentiate by race to be more lenient towards a black man, then a different jury could just as easily use a black man’s race to be even harder on him. Would you have been okay if the jury had found Evan not guilty, but McDonald guilty? I rather suspect that you would be frothing at the mouth over the apparent racism.
And, do understand that such differentiation, and differing outcomes (based on identical evidence in any other cases) could be based on other factors such as social status, financial status, national origin, etc. in addition to race – just as we routinely see when the genders are different (woman being less likely to be charged, tried, and found guilty of identical crimes).

But, then again, I suspect that you’d be okay with any differential application of justice, so long as the people in classes you favor do better than those you dislike. Such arbitrary and capricious mis-application of “justice” would be fine with you, wouldn’t it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Opus May 29, 2012 at 14:56

@Get the Facts!!!

Do try to keep up – we are eight threads further on now. We have far more to discuss than the unfortunate Mr Evans, or his unnameable slut (whose name has been omitted to protest the truly guilty).

I would not have noticed your comment myself, for I was only returning as I thought I had left my Hat and Gloves here – but obviously not. What is more, I am seriously inebriated, and will not be able to remember any of this in the morning so that anything I write is not my responsibility but will be yours, for taking advantage of my better nature with stuff no one here accepts as true.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Get the facts!!! May 29, 2012 at 17:56

There is evidence from the confiscated mobile phones that show McDonald sent a simple text to Evans saying ‘I’ve got a girl’.
The jury decided that as the girl happily went back to a hotel room with McDonald, it was likely that on a balance of probability, that she indicated consent to sex with McDonald.
She did not do the same with Evans. McDonald tried to stick up for his friend, but he failed to convince the judge or jury that he sought consent on behalf of Evans by asking if he can ‘join in’ (indicating a threesome – which did not occur, as previously mentioned).
My opinion is that McDonald is guilty of something – but not rape. He left a girl with whom he had consensual sex, in a severely intoxicated state, alone with his friend – knowing his friends intention. He was clearly worried about how sick she was, as he notified the desk clerk. He then tried to help his friends defence by saying that he sought her consent on his friends behalf.
Both men were foolish drunks.
I don’t know how the law is applied to rape in the US, but in the UK there aren’t any lower or higher rates of the crime. The severity of it is considered in the sentencing, in which case 5 years is guided as the starting point once an offender has pleaded or been found guilty. Life is the maximum.
One other thing I would like to mention is that football is very much a family game and free season tickets are often given to children. Evans was the leading goal scorer for Sheffield united and therefore he has many little fans in Sheffield. He was a role model to them, children who do not understand the nasty world that they are about to grow up in.
Would you narrow minded men on here argue in a similar way to a man who has ‘consensual’ sex with a child of say 13 years old?

Oh and there are far too many absurd comments for me to start listing, but trust me, any reasonable person would also call the comments on here absurd and vicious.

I have a little storey for you. A true one, you can believe me, although it never came to trial as the ‘victim’ was too ashamed to go to the police and she kept the incident a secret to this day:

19 year old girl, on holiday with her girlfriends. Had far too much to drink, kissed a couple of lads on her night out (what a slut), went back to her room (by herself). Left the balcony door open as it was extremely hot in that room, stripped off to her underwear and lay on the bed. Passed out. Woke up vaguely in a groggy state to feel movement and tugging. Briefly saw two men. Passed out again. Woke up the next morning, naked, with semen on her. Thought oh my god, i don’t remember having a one night stand??? Then remembered, she definitely didn’t. Felt ashamed and to blame. Scrubbed herself raw in the showers. Spent the next 2 days of the holiday sober, eyeing up every man she came across – was it him? Or him??

This is not what McDonald did, but it resembles what evans did.

I need to ask – why do you call me ‘troll’ in the post? Is it a means to intimidate/bully me?

Opus, go away then if you have no further interest in this thread.

I am not going to approach this site again. Seen as the majority of you seem to hate women, may insuggest you all meet up and screw each other? Be sure to gain your consent first though ;-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
Get the facts!!! May 29, 2012 at 18:10

And the reverse racial implication that you are making is total crap. It has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Being a mother of a Sheffield united fan, I thought Evans was great until I found the facts of the case out.
You are totally wrong on all comments you make.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
W.F. Price May 29, 2012 at 18:36

19 year old girl, on holiday with her girlfriends. Had far too much to drink, kissed a couple of lads on her night out (what a slut), went back to her room (by herself).

-Get the facts!!!

Yeah, it sounds as though Ms. Crawford is a slut, and had made three previous rape accusations after similar incidents.

How can we get the facts if Britain insists that Lauren Crawford is shielded from scrutiny?

Any woman can be a saintly virgin who would never, ever make a false accusation so long as the law prevents defense attorneys and the general public from looking into who she really is.

You and your feminist partisans are free to impugn Evans, but nothing about Lauren Crawford is allowed to go public in the UK. Did she really make three previous rape accusations? If so, why is this woman getting raped all the time? She’s only 19, and in her short career has been raped four times now, according to her. She goes into hotel rooms with athletes alone after making three rape accusations…

What a stellar example of a victim you have in Lauren Crawford. A serial rape-ee. A serial accuser. A drunk. A slut. A young woman who puts away large quantities of liquor and goes to hotels with strange men. Of course, if you want to buy it, Lauren Crawford had no intention of having sex. She just wanted an autograph…

If the jury had known who she was, would Mr. Evans have been convicted?

Ted May 29, 2012 at 18:50

“My opinion is that McDonald is guilty of something – but not rape. ”

So we’re talking opinions.

In your opinion, is Lauren Crawford guilty of anything at all? And should she be?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Get the facts!!! May 30, 2012 at 00:00

No. She has not made 3 other accusations of rape. They are false allegations made up by hardcore sheffield united fans who are angered that their leading goal scorer is in prison for 5 years. These men have been arrested and face charges, including defamation. Sheffield Wednesday fans, (uniteds bitter rivals) are of the absolute opposite opinion about the girl.
I just made my mind up based On the facts.
Had the girl made 3 previous accusations of rape, I would not be defending her on here or anywhere else. Also, although it would be kept from the jury as far as possible, the judge would know about her previous accusations and I would assume that he would have taken this into account in his directions and decisions about sentencing.

So now imagine how the girl feels. Imagine the ongoing torture of being called a slut, liar and accused of ruining someone’s life. She was brave enough (braver than many of us) to go to trial and get a very rare successful result.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Get the facts!!! May 30, 2012 at 00:09

Ted. The girl was stupid to go back to a hotel when she was so drunk. But that is not a crime. And I am sure that everyone who posts here has made that same stupid drunken decision. I have in the past.

If she had made 3 false accusations in the past she would be guilty of perjury and wasting police time. It would be on her criminal record. The judge and prosecution would be aware of it and it would have been thrown out well before it came to trial as she would be an unreliable witness.
Evans is guilty of rape. End of. A court of law and 12 members of the general public decided that, based on the FACTS. You people here have made flimsy decisions in your own minds based on idle gossip. Shame on you all!!!
If he is not, let’s await the appeal???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price May 30, 2012 at 00:53

If she had made 3 false accusations in the past she would be guilty of perjury and wasting police time. It would be on her criminal record. The judge and prosecution would be aware of it and it would have been thrown out well before it came to trial as she would be an unreliable witness.

-Get the facts!!!

Women are very rarely arrested for making false accusations, and if they have done so it is inadmissible in trial. Mike Tyson’s accuser had made previous accusations, and Alan Dershowitz was upset about the law that prevented the defense from using this information. There is something called a “rape shield” law, that prevents defense from using past sexual incidents, accusations, etc. You have it in the UK, too.

You want the facts, but we know very little about Ms. Crawford, due to your ridiculous secret witnesses in the UK. Fortunately, in the United States, hiding the identity of the witness is a violation of Constitutional law, so even if the procedure is flawed the public has the right to examine the case without fear of being arrested themselves!

Ted May 30, 2012 at 01:52

“The girl was stupid to go back to a hotel when she was so drunk. But that is not a crime. ”

Shouldn’t it be a crime though?

In your scenario, she is one step away from getting her companion five years in gaol, even if she doesn’t remember anything about it the next day.

Given that she has that much power, shouldn’t we demand an equivalent amount of responsibility from her?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Opus May 30, 2012 at 01:57

Shaming from a mother (I’m sorry. I really will go away where the sensibilities of females are not offended)- who presumably cannot imagine her little darling could be anything other than perfect (that’s what this ios all about is it not)- and from Sheffield too. For Americans, Sheffield is the English equivalent of Detroit – but worse, much much worse. Who ever would have thought that those big strong handsome guys like Evans actually like to indulge in sexual intercourse with young women – it is so, oh so, so wrong, the brutes, as without effort Evans persuades the slut to open her legs. Can’t have that can we. Always rely on the British Judiciary to whitewash any owner of a Vagina (I’ve seen it).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Opus May 30, 2012 at 02:02

post scriptum:

Would I be correct in supposing that Get the Facts!!! and Bastard (both false rape supporters) are not entirely unrelated (seeing their common interest in Sheffield)? – I think we should be told.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Ted May 30, 2012 at 02:03

“from Sheffield too”

My ex was from Sheffield. Not that I’ve got anything against the place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Ted May 30, 2012 at 02:06

Get the Facts!!! and common sense both seem to be fond of the exclamation marks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Opus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! May 30, 2012 at 02:25

@Ted

I have an Ex who removed herself to Sheffield and I never heard of her again – thank God. Do you think your ex and mine could be the same person – or worse that they are both identical with Get the Facts!!!!!! Bastard !!!! and Common Sense!!!! ? Certainly mine was bad tempered enough (all wham bham thankyou sir but all men are bastards when they treat me like the slut I really am). Can there be anything more depressing in the world than arriving at Sheffield Railway Station? – Dark Satanic Mills indeed (not that I ever, did but I saw a photo).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Get the facts!!! May 30, 2012 at 02:43

I don’t have a daughter. I have a son.
What does being from sheffield have to do with it?? Apart from the fact that we have a close proximity to the team that Evans played for? The crime did not take place in Sheffield, it took place in Wales. Bastard and I simply know the facts of the case and the law of the Uk. You guys do not know either.
What does putting exclamation marks have to do with it?
I don’t know who ‘bastard’ is, nor does he know who I am. I know plenty of bastards, but not this particular one.
No, it is not a crime to go back to a room with someone when you are drunk and irrational. Another absurd comment from you.
You may be correct that not many people are prosecuted for wasting police time or making false accusations, but it would still show up on the police national computer as ‘other relevant information’. A small section where the police record anything to do with an individual’s involvement with the police. 3 unprosecuted/unsuccessful accusations of rape would certainly be on there and therefore readily available to the police and crown prosecution service.
I feel you are all now trying to justify your comments with petty attacks on me.
I am a 45 year old woman, with a son of 11 who supports Sheffield united. I would decent Evans I though he had been falsely accused. I would criticise the girl if I thought she had lied/falsely accused. I have made my mind up based on the facts of the case. Something you guys on here have not done.
Sad men!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Get the facts!!! May 30, 2012 at 02:48

And I am absolutely not a femanist!
I just know right from wrong, whether a man, woman, black, white, cat or f***ing dog is the accused.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Ted May 30, 2012 at 03:19

“What does being from sheffield have to do with it??”

Question marks, too. Hey, Get the facts!!!, *you* brought up Sheffield. And Bastard too, of course. I’ve never actually been there though. All I know about it comes from the film The Full Monty, which starts off with a piece of puffery about how clean it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRJISaoytYg

Wikipedia says the film, set in Sheffield, touches on “unemployment, fathers’ rights, depression, impotence, homosexuality, obesity, working class culture and suicide”. It was a very successful film, I understand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Ted May 30, 2012 at 03:24

“I know plenty of bastards, ”

I believe you.

“No, it is not a crime to go back to a room with someone when you are drunk and irrational. Another absurd comment from you.”

I don’t think my suggestion is absurd.

Why do think it shouldn’t be a crime? Because the consequences are trivial? Do you think the consequences are trivial?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Ted May 30, 2012 at 03:28

“Bastard and I simply know the facts of the case and the law of the Uk. You guys do not know either.”

Still insulting Opus then. Looks like there may be something in his suspicions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Get the facts!!! May 30, 2012 at 06:28

I think I’ll leave it there. I am not getting into a petty discussion with something completely irrelevant to the original post. I’m happy to have made you react in the way you have, showing your true colours, so that any future readers will clearly understand what kind of ignorant idiots actually post on here! !!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
slwerner May 30, 2012 at 07:22

Get the facts!!! – ”She did not do the same with Evans. McDonald tried to stick up for his friend” & ” I just made my mind up based On the facts.”

Typical.

A woman finds an explanation that she likes, and bam!, it becomes a “fact”.

Well, seeing as how Get the facts!!! must surely have been inside that hotel room (I mean, how else could she know that the woman did not consent to Evans, and that McDonald was just trying to stick up for him?), I’ll defer to her. And, since she must also have been in the jury room during the deliberations (I mean, how else could she know what motivated the jurors?), I’ll also defer to her on the reasons behind the disparate verdicts.

And, we should also note that since she must have been part of the police investigation (I mean, how else could she know if Lauren Crawford had made previous false allegations or not?), we must accept that she knows all the “facts” – from her first-hand knowledge, and not from those sleazy UK tabloids that most British women rely on as their primary news source.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Get the facts!!! May 30, 2012 at 08:21

I work for a government department and have access to the pnc (police national computer) and full court case records.
So there you go.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Opus May 30, 2012 at 14:54

Well well well, I leave this thread for a half a day and look at the mess that has been created.

I now learn that Facts is a menopausal woman with inside information and knowledge of UK law – knowledge that Mr Price could obviously not have had when he wrote his essay. Now, I cannot know what access to Police computers she has but the last time I looked there was no such thing as UK law – as this false claim against Evans was made in England, the jurisdiction is that of England and Wales and the law that is applied thereto, and no one with a knowledge of English Law would or could ever make such a basic mistake, so I am therefore hardly believing of the idea that Facts and Bastard (are they one and the same?) have any knowledge of the English Legal System let alone Criminal Law as it applies to Rape. That then hardly encourages me to believe anything else Facts says if she can be so carelessly inaccurate about the question of jurisdiction. Face it Facts, you’re some sort of Admin Assistant who gets to press buttons on a computer and left Secondary Mod at sixteen with two GCSE’s probably in enbroidery and typing and are presently trying to get over a divorce from your long suffering husband – or something like that, which doubtless accounts for your Misandry. Pity your boy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Ted May 30, 2012 at 16:43

Why do think it shouldn’t be a crime? Because the consequences are trivial? Do you think the consequences are trivial?

“I think I’ll leave it there. “

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ted May 30, 2012 at 16:44

“I work for a government department and have access to the pnc (police national computer) and full court case records.
“So there you go.”

Careful now, Get the facts!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous May 30, 2012 at 19:53

Fairly soon all prior heterosexual activity will become illegal in retrospect.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/husband-for-rape-trial-after-50-years/story-e6frg97x-1226375606974

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel May 30, 2012 at 20:50

Opus
Now, I cannot know what access to Police computers she has but the last time I looked there was no such thing as UK law – as this false claim against Evans was made in England, the jurisdiction is that of England and Wales and the law that is applied thereto, and no one with a knowledge of English Law would or could ever make such a basic mistake…

Facts!!! is a joke. UK government employees are even less productive than US government employees. Of course like all female public sector employees she does no real work, so why not spend the work day surfing around on the taxpayer’s time. The last five of her comments were posted during UK working hours. QED.

I work for a government department and have access to the pnc (police national computer) and full court case records.
So there you go.

And of course we know the Police and English court system maintain their databases purely for the entertainment of low-level flunkies. Not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Opus May 31, 2012 at 03:25

@Charles Martel

You are quite right. If she does work as she says, then (within her terms of employment and duties therein) she has no right to go snooping – hacking really – for details concerning members of the public, and in any event she is not paid by the Police (or whoever) to spend her days looking at such things out of idle curiosity – or for that matter to contribute to the Spearhead whilst at work (as I assume she does). Whatever can have attracted her to The Spearhead in the first place one wonders?

What I detect as with so many of the women who come here (Brittney was the last) is that she is a rather angry self-obsessed person who has discovered that if she is annoying enough she can get a lot of attention from males which I rather doubt she gets in real life. Consider – had she been reclining on that hotel bed, would MacDonald and Evans have shown any interest? I doubt it. That I suspect is what really upsets her even if sub-consciously – not this fake outrage for a slut.

When Shakespeare wrote his Poem The Rape of Lucrece he did not have in mind a drunken slut who was claiming that she had consumed one dick too many. The point of the poem is that she was previously chaste and as a result, the Rape had genuinely ruined for life. The exact opposite of the unnamed one who will doubtless before long be selling her story to the gutter press for large sums of money.

I notice – by the way – that whereas it is presumably alright for you American citizens to do so, we Brits are prohibited from naming the woman, and in this thread I have always avoided doing so, yet she has gone and mentioned the woman’s name just a few messages above. One might have expected a somewhat higher standard, particularily from a person in her purported position.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
common sense May 31, 2012 at 04:18

Secondary modern schools haven’t existed in Britain for over 40 years, and if she is 45 she will have taken O’Levels not GCSE’s and have been to young to enter secondary mod at 11 as they will no longer have existed. UK law covers the whole of the UK in the same way federal law does the US but within that different areas make localised law. e.g. murder is illegal in the whole of the US but some states have the death penalty whilst others don’t, it works in a similar way here but is always referred to as UK law. Opus why do you keep using American terminology and language if you are British and why do you not know our schooling system?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus May 31, 2012 at 05:04

@common sense

I was not aware that I use american terminology, but if I do then I suppose I do so, so as to enable comprehension amongst the majority of those here who are indeed American.

As you can tell I am hopelessly out of date on English education, (even though I had my tongue in my cheek) but I think you are wrong about ‘UK’ law. The law in Scotland may in many respects be similar to England and Wales, indeed frequently identical, but that is merely a convenient coincidence. I have never heard it suggested that an English Judge is bound by Scottish precedent law or vice versa nor that an English lawyer has any right to practise beyond or behind the Bar in Scotland. Northern Ireland will be different again. Facts asserted her knowledge of the law, but in doing so merely persuaded me that she had little.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
common sense May 31, 2012 at 05:18

It is not just a convenience as you, as a Brit, will know Scotland is currently seeking independence, this is because they are currently governed by central government and their law making, yes Scotland has limited self rule and has made some of their own laws for centuries but UK law is the accepted term. If they do get independence they will no longer be apart of the EU and if they wish to be will need to apply but they will then have their own FULL legal making abilities. English and Scottish Lawyers can practice in either country as well as Wales so long as they have qualified at a recognised UK educational establishment. When you do do use British terminology it is as though you have learnt to speak English from a Merchant Ivory film!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
common sense May 31, 2012 at 05:22

whilst I disagree with many of the American’s opinions on here I don’t think they are daft enough to need you to moderate your language for them. I am sure they are more than capable of understanding!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bastard May 31, 2012 at 08:50

Oh.

That makes *all* the difference.
———————————
When the basics are so drastically wrong how can anything else be considered reliable?

“They seem to be assuming that she didn’t want sex though. A puzzling assumption, given what else went on that evening.”
————————————————-
They are assuming nothing. They made a judgement on the basis of the CCTV and mobile phone evidence available on her state, and in accordance with the law whether she was able to give consent and whether the rapist could reasonably believe consent was there- she was drunk and thereofre incapable, he lied to get a key from reception, let himself in, asked his mate (not her) if he could get involved, and sneaked out the fire exit. Any of that suggest to you he reasonably believed consent was there?

“In other words, the default is that non-consent is assumed in that circumstance. Even if all the other evidence suggests otherwise.”
—————————————————
Obviously. Which of course explains why Clayton McDonald was aquitted.

“What what I have read, that would seem to be a reasonable assumption.”
———————————————————-
There really is no hope from you if you believe obtaining property by deception, turning up unanounced, and asking your mate if you can fuck a bird you’ve never met is reasonable belief of consent. He had no reason to even be in the room, never mind to believe he was wanted there.

“Body language…”
————————————–
lying there naked with his mates dick inside her isn’t exactly the type of body language most people believe to constitute consent.

“Srange, that.”
———————————-
Not really- he could actually reasonably believe that she had consented. She got into a taxi with him. She went to a room with him. Which part of his case is even similar to Ched Evans’?

“The jail term – five years – is about what it always has been too. Tell me, Bastard, do you think that is an appropriate penalty for rape these days? As defined these days?”
————————————————–
No. Castration and the loss of career should do it. Shame he got neither really isn’t it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Bastard May 31, 2012 at 09:06

“The problem with all this, as the title of the lead piece suggests is the precedent being set vis-à-vis women being considered too intoxicated to give meaningful consent.”
———————————–
There have been cases prior to this of women too drunk to give consent. There will be cases following it. My money is on there never being another case of someone decieving a hotel receptionist to get a key, letting himself into his mates room and proceeding to do the bird his mate has just finished with. My money would also be on the other cases, like so many of the previous ones, resulting in the CPS being criticised by the trial judge for presenting a case with no reasonable prospect of conviction. Should there ever be a similar case then I fail to see how it’s a “terrible” precedent to set if it stops some ugly sheep shagging welsh cunt thinking that he can fuck anyone his mate picks up just because he’s a footballer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
common sense May 31, 2012 at 10:09

I’m afraid you are wasting your time bastard, there are individuals on this site who think if a woman dares to assume her body is to do with as she pleases, not hurting anyone else, if she dares to enjoy sex with several partners, again hurting no one, she is branded a slut. a man on the other hand can be as promiscuous as he pleases and not be branded at all, he can even rape and be seen as a victim. up against this level of ignorance and judgemental behaviour there is no point getting angry or upset. You are, I am afraid, what has become known as “feeding the trolls”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Opus May 31, 2012 at 12:31

@common sense

I have no intention to argue about English Law. These things change so rapidly so I must be even more out of date than I imagined because what you write certainly sounds very strange to me. If you say it is as you say, then I am more than happy to agree for the purpose of this thread, but I would feel most uneasy about acting as you suggest in real life. (All I was suggesting was that Facts is less knowledgable than she claims). By the way would I be correct in thinking you are anything other than British yourself – for no ‘Brit’ would ever refer to their fellow countrymen in that way – something Americans tend to do but it grates on the ear of a ‘Brit’ – as you so referred to me and although I have never seen a Merchant Ivory film I believe he is Indian and thus I am intrigued as to where I use ‘colonial’ – or as you implied before ‘American Terminology’. England and America (even as long ago as Oscar Wilde) were two nations separated by a common language. It can’t have improved

I have never previously had to apologise for my English but it seems I now need to do so. Profusely. I blame my parents.

I remain unrepentant however as to my view of the travesty of Justice which was the conviction for rape of Evans. Perhaps if I understood English Law as well as yourself or Facts or even Bastard (who I assume is equally up to date on the Law) I would change my mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
common sense May 31, 2012 at 12:58

I was quoting you with “we Brits” from earlier as you very well know, for the very fact it isn’t a British term! Merchant Ivory being Indian, that’s a classic, you should be on the stage with humour like that! ahhhhh well troll away all you like what ever nationality you are pretending to be this week. Don’t let me stop you arguing for men’s right to rape!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus May 31, 2012 at 15:17

Did I really say ‘we brits’ – well that was tongue in cheek too if I did – for I certainly have little recall of what I write (though you appear to know my mental activities – or so you imply) nor did I seek to refresh my memory and now you appear to lead me to believe that Ivory is not Indian. How little I know and how confused I am.

I don’t recall ever pretending to be any particular nationality nor do I recall supporting a man’s right to Rape (I’m not aware there is such a right, unless you know otherwise which given your lecturing me as to ‘UK’ law perhaps you will now tell me there is).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ted May 31, 2012 at 17:22

“Castration and the loss of career should do it. Shame he got neither really isn’t it?”

So, Bastard, you think that the penalty for drunk sex should be castration and loss of career. What a manly man you sound like, indeed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
common sense June 1, 2012 at 01:01

Opus you can argue for the right to anything whether the right already exists or not. Is every mistake you make to be written off as tongue in cheek? I have never met anyone from Britain who has not heard of the Merchant Ivory film company!!!!!!!!!!!! have you really no where else to troll than here?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Opus June 1, 2012 at 03:44

@Ted

Bastard (and the other two) are White-Knights and thus women are to be pedestalled; this is particularily common with people who have daughters (though Facts has a son). Bastard and Facts seem to be English and possibly work for or with the Police and possibly know each other (so no surprise as to their Misandry – goes with the territory) but Common Sense seems to be otherwise – and makes it up as he (I think it’s a he) goes along. Bastard and Facts seem to be outraged that their former hero Evans is an ordinary lusty young man who – to use soccer parlance – had been offered and open goal and took it. Hell will freeze over before Bastard and Facts see it otherwise. For them (probably leaving aside Racism and Pedophilia – now replacing Homosexuality and Terrorists as the world’s worst) the worst crime ever is Rape – far worse than Murder or Castration, which is what Bastard (lovely chap) wishes on Evans, whom he describes as a Welsh Sheep Shagger (isn’t that a bit Racist?). I suspect jealousy: Evans earned (probably) £20,000 a week for kicking a ball. People always turn on their heros when lady luck runs out, hence the nasty comment from Bastard. The higher they rise; the harder they fall. Happens all the time in the English gutter press of which I imagine Facts and Bastard are avid readers.

By the way, I notice that in my local bookshop, the third , fourth, and fifth best selling books presently are the Shades of Grey ‘Rape fantasy’ trilogy. (last week it was First). Curious isn’t it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Opus June 1, 2012 at 08:07

@common sense

You misrepresent me: I never said I had never heard of Merchant Ivory; merely that I had never viewed one of his films (much as I enjoy Bollywood). As for being a Troll; given the nature of Mr Price’s blog and the subject of the thread, surely it is you, not I, that is trolling?

As for my ‘mistake’ – I have now gone through this thread and see that indeed that I did use the expression ‘Brit’ to describe myself, but I did so in response to Charles Martel whom I described as an American, but – here is our little joke – Charles Martel is a first generation American (and British Traitor) , and a former ‘Brit’; so in the nicest possible way I am winding him up. To explain a joke is difficult, but, of course, he too, is, or was a ‘Brit’ as he might now describe us. For what it is worth I would always describe myself as English rather than British – as I would describe Evans as Welsh. That may not thus have been immediately clear to you, though I am sure Charles Martel grasped my meaning. I am sorry that was not clear to you – and that I had forgotten my joke – such is the nature of the Internet. Anyway today, the 1st June is the first of five days of holidays, for us ‘Brits’ to celebrate the sixty years of the reign of our present Monarch good queen Bess, which all Americans (including Charles Martel) are going to have to miss out on; indeed only yesterday, the 31st May, we were visited by not merely a Viscount who planted a tree, but also an Earl and his lady wife the Countess, so as Bart Simpson would say ‘eat my dust’. Ah, the delights of living in an Aristocracy (that new fangled Democracyyou aspire too doesn’t really cut it). That should teach you Americans that short term gains such as failing to pay taxes (still owing) have long term consequences. Suffer in silent misery as we enjoy our street parties.

I remain, your humble servant, a commoner, and loyal subject.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ted June 1, 2012 at 17:51

“Bastard and Facts see it otherwise. For them (probably leaving aside Racism and Pedophilia – now replacing Homosexuality and Terrorists as the world’s worst) the worst crime ever is Rape”

…the worst ever crime is getting drunk and having sex. Will Fact’s son ever do that? If so, can we assume that Bastard will come around with his chopper – they probably live near each other, so it’s convenient – and serve out his manly justice. To the great satisfaction of all concerned, judging by their sentiments here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Sisterh00duk June 5, 2012 at 10:48

One thing is clear the male species is slowly being evolved out of existence by a process of natural selection. Reading some of the comments on here I have no reason to wonder why, and not before time, if only it were in my lifetime. In the meantime rapists, cos that’s what most of you are those of you that can get it up. Try to keep the pathetic tool of your crime zipped up and away from civilised people aka as women. Wow I can hardly wait to hear the aggression about to come my way. You lot are pathetic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Ted June 5, 2012 at 18:03

You seem to get some sort of satisfaction from your evolutionary clarity, Sisterhood. Enjoy it while you still can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sisterh00duk June 6, 2012 at 10:27

Ted, thank you I am so enjoying it, what’s that sound tick, tock, tick, tock oh my it’s the sound of the evolutionary clock moving on relentlessly time is running out boys. Goodbye I would say nice knowing you but that would be a lie, because it hasn’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Ted June 6, 2012 at 18:29

Goodbye, Sisterhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dierdre August 13, 2012 at 07:54

maybe his 2 mates trying to video it from an outside window didn`t help his case justice has been served rightly so

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lorna June 7, 2013 at 11:53

Its a little more complicated than that. CCTV & a witness show she couldn’t stand or speak properly she was that out of it. The other footballer after leaving Evans having sex with the girl told the receptionist the girl was sick and needed to be kept an eye on. Who has consensual sex when they’re sick?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: