Two men ruled to be rapists despite never facing trial

Few things are as frightening as the lack of due process. The idea that someone could be held responsible for an act they may not have done without any means of defending themselves brings up thoughts of the medieval Inquisition. One would think that as a society we would be past the point of denying someone a trial or any means of defending themselves. Yet a UK judge recently ruled that two men accused of rape are “rapists” despite neither men facing any charges or trial:

A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial.

Denise Clair, who was left “devastated” by a Crown decision not to prosecute, sued striker David Goodwillie.

She also sued Goodwillie’s then Dundee United colleague David Robertson.

She claimed they raped her at a flat in Armadale, in West Lothian, after a night out in Bathgate in January 2011.

It was the first civil rape case of its kind in Scotland.

The first question this raises is why the Crown chose not to prosecute. Rape cases are often difficult to prosecute due to lack of evidence or the accuser’s lack of credibility or the accused possessing an alibi. There are a number of other reasons that go into that decision. That the case was not prosecuted is not evidence of misconduct or disbelief. It may simply be a situation in there is no way to put on a winning case.

According to the article: Continue reading

CNN: Lying Liars Who Lie

Donald Trump’s first press conference in months became the spectacle that most people expected. I watched it with my cousin. We found it ridiculous and unprofessional. There was, however, one moment that brought a smile to my face:

The reporter is right. It is not appropriate for the president-elect to deny a media outlet the opportunity to ask a question or call them names. Yet it is also not appropriate for CNN to run a story they not only did not vet, but one that no other media outlet could verify. If all it took to disprove this report was checking Cohen’s passport, why did CNN fail to do this? Why did they not ask those around Cohen questions about his whereabouts? Why did they not do their jobs?

The answer is simple: the lie fit their narrative. Continue reading

A Dose of Stupid v131

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept.

Case in point:

Social workers claim they did not know lying to the court was wrong

How is it possible for this to occur? What social worker does not know they are not allowed to falsify evidence in their cases? Who even needs a person to tell them this? Apparently some Californian social workers:

Using taxpayer funds, government officials in Orange County have spent the last 16 years arguing the most absurd legal proposition in the entire nation: How could social workers have known it was wrong to lie, falsify records and hide exculpatory evidence in 2000 so that a judge would forcibly take two young daughters from their mother for six-and-a-half years?

From the you-can’t-make-up-this-crap file, county officials are paying Lynberg & Watkins, a private Southern California law firm specializing in defending cops in excessive force lawsuits, untold sums to claim the social workers couldn’t have “clearly” known that dishonesty wasn’t acceptable in court and, as a back up, even if they did know, they should enjoy immunity for their misdeeds because they were government employees.

One must give them credit for the arrogance and conceit it takes to make such an argument. To use this as a defense is absurd. To stick to it in the face of its obvious stupidity is rather bold.

The state is being sued over the wrongful removal of the children. The officials involved attempted to claim immunity as government employees, which the court rejected. They appealed the decision, which led to the following exchange between the panel and Pancy Lin, a representative of the firm: Continue reading

Puritanism’s Shameful Secret

The Honey Badgers had an interesting stream with YouTuber TL;DR about the “puritanism” of the current progressive and feminist movements. The Badgers and TL;DR break down some of the reasons why so many modern leftists fall into the a cycle of smug arrogance. As TL;DR notes in the stream, everyone has this capacity and everyone does it from time to time.

Alison mentions this as well. She notes that she and Karen Straughan went through a series of videos and noticed the smug looks on many feminists’ faces in the videos. This is something I have noticed as well in my dealings with feminists, both offline and online. The contempt for those who disagree with feminists or feminism is often palpable, as is the arrogance when feminists know they are in a protected space.

One can see this in spaces in which the opposition is heavily moderated or banned. The feminists in those spaces behave with a kind of self-righteous indignation based solely on their assumed superiority over whomever represents the opposition. Yet this attitude quickly shifts when they enter uncontrolled spaces. Feminists then become defensive to a comical extent, reflexively accusing anyone and everyone of hating feminists, women, and social justice. Continue reading

Woman dodges prison to spare her kids from foster care

Here is yet another example of women getting a pass for a reason that would never apply to a man:

A FORMER dinner lady who had sex with a 14-year-old boy has been spared a prison term because it would have meant her four children would be put into foster care.

That makes perfect sense. A person commits a crime, but because they have a family who depends on them, said person should not face the consequences of their actions. We can be sure, of course, that the crime in this instance was completely harmless and the offender had no idea she violated the law:

Terri Spragg, 35, had sex with the young lad on several occasions – including on the kitchen floor – warned him not tell anyone because it was illegal.

So Spragg not only pursued the victim, gained his trust, and abused him, but she also clearly knew it was wrong.

That is likely why she was convicted on seven charges. Of course, the judge wasted little time holding the victim responsible: Continue reading

The Importance of Male Role Models

Where are the men?

It seems a bizarre question to ask, yet given the current situation in the education system and many community centers, it is one we must ask.

For almost three decades we have watched men lose their position in society. It is not only reflected in the education and community support systems. It also appears throughout pop culture. Gone are positive fathers from TV and film. Now fathers are the comic relief. Our commercials feature men barely (and often not) more intelligent than pets. Articles, talk shows, and studies abound touting the “inherent” uselessness and pointlessness of men. We are constantly told that men essentially do not matter, except in how they can benefit and protect women.

If the message is not the above, then it is the claim that men are predators who ruin the world for everyone, particularly for women. Men are harassers, bullies, batterers, and rapists. Men need to be taught not to rape, not to beat, and to learn affirmative, enthusiastic consent lest they remain villains.

The net result of this is that men stop engaging. Continue reading

Philip Davies and the Temple of Feminist Zealots

One must commend UK MP Philip Davies. He was recently appointed to the Women and Equalities Committee. The committee, in typical newspeak fashion, has little to do with actual equality and instead focuses exclusively on women’s issues, often misrepresenting facts about women’s situation in the UK. Feminists were none too pleased with conservative Davies’s appointment, particularly given his history of criticism of feminism and concern for men’s issues.

This criticism and concern led several UK outlets to brand Davies “anti-feminist” and accuse him of “misogyny”. Davies has not stated or done anything suggesting he is afraid of or hates women. He merely criticizes the modern feminist movement, its control within his government, and the lack of services available to men.

What makes Davies so interesting is that he managed to get on this committee and there appears to be little anyone can do to remove him. Continue reading