

Another poor bloke…..

Filed under: General,Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — pcObelix @ 7:14 am Thu 30th March 2017

Months in Jail

I made it all up because I was having a hard time at home.

I don’t think I could be as calm as this poor bloke seems to be

37 Responses to “Another poor bloke…..”

  1. Downunder says:

    An exceptional case said the judge.

    Men are regularly persecuted by prosecution. The courts control the media to protect our precious female complainants.

    What is exceptional is that this story actually got published.

  2. David Sundin says:

    Judge:”I’m satisfied we now know the truth. What you have is a trial process that’s worked,” What because at the 11th Hour the accuser changed her mind? Otherwise he would have been ground through the system and given 5 years in jail with no evidence except her story.

    I wonder what the accused relationship to the girl was? Probably his daughter put up to the lies by the mother. Its happening all the time, 2% what a joke.

    So what happened next? Does the state compensate this man for locking him up? He probably lost his job, had his reputation destroyed.

  3. golfa says:

    #2. Exactly. And the woman from Rape Crisis Dunedin thinks the lying false accuser is the one who needs help !

  4. Man X Norton says:

    Prosecuting when the only evidence is someone’s allegations will always be unsafe. It’s only allowed in very few cases, sexual allegations being one of those. No way would the police prosecute someone for theft, burglary or even common assault on the basis of nothing but allegations.

  5. Downunder says:

    Rubbish Man X Norton

    I hear about more of these cases in casual coversation than I read about in the news.

    What we don’t see reported by the media is men being found innocent.

    What you’re seeing here is a carefully staged, tactical withdrawal by the State when someone realized, they had a Houston sized problem, because this guy had been locked up for the best part of a year.

  6. Paul Hay says:

    When are we going to finally unite and stop this Bull Shit.
    Where are the politicians on our side of this fight?
    If i had a dollar for every time I heard of this happening I could fund my own election campaign.
    Are we going to spend the next 15 years talking about the issue or are we actually going to get out and do something?
    I suggest we take an Extreme Stance and remove all services than any male offers any females in regards to work, housing and education and let them sort themselves out.
    Remove the silver platter and watch them crumble!
    We need politians on our side or nothing will change.
    I will go see Stuart Nash tomorrow to do my part.
    Will you?
    Get in touch with your local politician and make a real change, and that doesn’t mean making one call, it means making a call everyday at the same time to remind them what we want.
    Xmas, new years, st Patrick’s, your birthday, their birthday…. everyday!
    otherwise were blowing hot air with no result.

  7. Downunder says:

    There was an organisation called ‘UMANZ’ back in the 1990s, but it may have been ahead of its time as it obviously fizzled out.

    I think it stood for


    But that might take more than a politician or two.

  8. Man X Norton says:

    Downunder @5. You labelled my comment as ‘rubbish’. What was rubbish and what evidence do you have to justify your rudeness?

  9. andreas says:

    Yet another fabricated case. The cases appear to be fabricated by adults to get at some male who the adult does not like. There has been Johan Aarts, The case at Phillipstown school, the case of Michael in the last series of “I am innocent”. Previously Menz ran my story “tonsil touching teacher” this is also on the new series of “I am innocent”. I suspect that as happened in my case the whole “crusade” was orchestrated by some people within CYF who will never be shown up in court or elsewhere. I do hope the gentleman in this case does receive compensation and sincere apologies. I resent paying my taxes to have the taxes squandered by CYF and the police. The trouble is that most cases where CYF decides to pick on a bloke do not show in the public arena. Why can’t state servants always be honest? Andrew McCarthy

  10. Balance says:

    I understand accused can be held on remand for up to 2 years. If they are then found innocent, I understand no compensation. It is unacceptable that the legal system gives itself 2 years to get a case brought to trial, and the poor remand prisoner gets nothing if innocent. If we let our legal system perform so badly we get what we deserve.

  11. Lukenz says:

    Video links here

    Its worse than that. As everybody knows, in sex and rape cases the accusation is the verdict.

    Kathryn McPhillips is the person on the video clip is a Clinical Psychologist and executive directer at help. She believes false rape complaints are extremely rare.

    Kathryn. Why don’t you do your research before you speak. See here.

    87% of men in NZ are found not guilty of rape. What is a man suppose to do after being found not guilty of rape?

    Kathryn McPhillips. Why don’t you get off you feminist horse and openly advocate for the true victim of crime.

    Kathryn Phillips. As the director of help, how much of the 10 Million dollars did you receive to help victims?

    Advocate for the entire human race not your just spices of the human race.

    Kathryn McPhillips I think you are just like KKK who hates blacks and strung them up in the nearest tree. Or the Nazis who hated the Jews and murdered 6 million of them.

  12. Pedro1 says:

    It’s all about females being victims even if they are the only perpetrators, as in this case..not that I’m suggesting a twelve-year-old girl can be prosecuted for perjury. In these cases, you can bet on two things. First, some woman will say how rare it is. Happens every time. Second, some woman will say that the tragedy of these rare cases is that real victims may not be believed. But it isn’t at all. The tragedy is that a man may have his life destroyed. It is outrageous and it has to stop.At the very least, let’s get the language right. It’s accuser, not victim; it’s suspect, not perpetrator.

    Research done on all 1754 rape complaints in Bavaria in the year 2000 by Erich Elsner and Wiebke Steffen revealed the following. A third of these accusations were judged to be probably not true. No prosecution of an alleged rapist was pursued in half of the total. Reasons for abandoning prosecution were divided into four groups (figures rounded to nearest whole number): lack of evidence 38%; contradictory statements by the women 25%; no punishable action 14%; no offender found 22%. Of the 1754 complainants, 7.4% were investigated for making a false complaint, and of that 7.4%, every single one admitted she had lied. Police prosecuted three-quarters of the false complainants; the other quarter were let off because of mental instability. The study also found that female police officers were more skeptical about rape accusations than male officers.

    Most interesting is that 7.4% of the 1754 total admitted they had lied. This means that the absolute minimum of false rape complaints in this study is 7.4%. The true percentage of false rape complaints could never be determined, but it must have comprised two numbers: the known 7.4% plus an unknown additional number: those who lied but could hide under enough doubt to escape blame. A woman who is part of that 7.4% of confessed liars still had a one-in-four chance of escaping prosecution because of her mental state.

  13. DJ Ward says:

    The claim that only 2 % of prosecutions are false claims is interesting.
    It’s actually 2% of prosecutions involve the female admitting she made a false claim.
    What % are false but still result in conviction.

    Here is another false claim.
    Take note this is Australia.
    Actually 3 false claims.

    The woman, given the court-appointed name of Ms Heston, claimed the pregnancies resulted from her stepfather-in-law raping her.
    So false claim 1
    She’s playing the “I’m an innocent helpless female, I can do no wrong”

    “Before they separated in 2014, Ms Heston and Mr Norton had altercations which resulted in the police attending. In November 2012, a verbal argument over the state of one of her son’s bedroom ended in the couple pushing one another and spitting. In March 2013, Ms Heston sought and was granted a protection order for herself and the children against Mr Norton.”
    She knows the system.
    Female makes claim and the courts accept it.
    Police attend but only violence was minor and mutual.

    “Sometime after this she called police to complain about his “play fighting” with the children.
    However, police found the children “in good spirits and happy and it was determined that no domestic violence had occurred”.”
    Protection order then false claim of child abuse.
    Yes she knows the system well.

    “In her judgment, Justice Carew noted that Ms Heston made allegations of repeated rapes and violence resulting in broken ribs and a broken nose against Mr Norton during their 12 year marriage.”
    False rape claim 2
    He’s a violent rapist.
    Give me “my” kids.

    Found it.
    Knew it would be in there somewhere.
    “He denied the allegations and Justice Carew said she found it “difficult to accept … her allegation of repeated rapes” because she had also made rape allegations against the New Zealand father of her two older sons.”
    False rape claim 3
    Problem is she was probably successful in using the rape strategy in the past.

  14. Jerry says:

    In my view the false allegations of family violence and abuse [sexual and otherwise] must also be in this equation; because all allegations destroy not only men’s lives, but the family unit; the extended family and is seriously destructive to the community as a whole. Women can never be our equal until they are held to accound equally with us.

  15. Man X Norton says:

    Many intelligent comments here. Pedro @12, thanks for digging up that research from Bavaria that identified their bare minimum proportion of false complaints. Of course the feminists will reply that most of those women who admitted they lied were pressured into saying that by the nasty male court system etc etc. But that seems unlikely in Bavaria where there is a 75% chance of being prosecuted for making that admission.

    In NZ the proportion of women prosecuted for their proven false complaints seems to be close to zero. The feminists always come to the rescue of lying women, excusing their behaviour and claiming that prosecution would inhibit true victims from coming forward. That seems unlikely because honest complainants will know that it’s only liars who would be prosecuted.

    That a false rape complainant had ‘other reasons’ for lying, “such as personal issues, health issues or even past history of sexual violence” may be interesting but doesn’t excuse her nasty crime. Most male offenders have ‘other reasons’ but that doesn’t stop them from being prosecuted for their crimes; why is the situation different for females?

    The feminists also often try to minimize the seriousness of false complaints (and false convictions) by referring to the allegedly low proportion of sexual cases that ever result in conviction. That’s actually a manipulative red herring. The two issues are separate ones. That there might be a low rate of conviction does not mean that the proportion of actual convictions that are false is low, or that falsely accused or convicted men deserve to have their trauma dismissed as unimportant.

    It seems that Mr Ferguson (why wasn’t his name suppressed?), who spent 10 months in prison before even being brought to trial, is not eligible for compensation because that’s not available for remand periods. The system views his 10 months deprived of liberty, income, family and any reasonable life as simply being ‘lost time’ for him. However, I don’t believe it’s that simple. In this case as in many others the police and Court probably did not do their job properly and the state should be held accountable for this. Police received a complaint, did a video evidential interview and proceeded only on that without seeking any other supporting evidence or doing any reasonable investigation of the claims. When it finally came to Court the defence lawyer conducted the investigation the police should have done in the first place and it very quickly became evident that her claims could not be true.

    Police are in a difficult position, admittedly. In sexual cases they are allowed and expected to proceed on the basis of nothing but allegations. The Court would not let a case get past the first depositions hearing if police tried to prosecute for burglary, robbery, fraud or pretty well any other alleged crime on the basis purely of someone’s allegations that an accused did it. If you go to police and tell them your neighbour threatened to kill you, police will ask “were there any witnesses?” and if there weren’t police will most likely tell you they wouldn’t be able to prove it in Court unless the accused admitted the offence. But feminists demanded that sexual offences, mainly committed by men, be treated differently and so they are, unevidenced allegations being allowed to proceed all the way to conviction. The jury then ‘believes’ the complainant simply because she sounded believable, looked nice and cried and the man looked less believable, but can that ever amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt? No, and that’s why most types of offending are not allowed to proceed unless there is some solid corroborating evidence.

    If police try to question a rape complainant too closely the feminists get on to the media about police insensitivity and treating a female as if she isn’t being believed. WTF? Surely the police’s job is not necessarily to believe any complainant but to interview thoroughly both to gather evidence and to rule out falsehood?

    Mr Ferguson was the victim of our sloppy prosecution process for sexual allegations and should be compensated handsomely.

  16. Richie says:

    Come on Jerry its not a 2 way street.
    My experience with women is they would rather stay home and look after the kids. But then expect you to come home and take over the kid duties, House clean on the weekends and cook diner. On top of that they still want to spend up a storm and all hell will break lose if you try and pull back their spending. You will be told in no uncertain terms to MAKE MORE MONEY! Then when things become untenable they will run into the arms of their sugar daddy government who will suck you dry so your completely financially debilitated and can’t move on with your life. After all they have been wowing her to leave every night bombarding the TV with male hate advertisement. Shes finally convinced. Hey the pays not bad.

    If you make noises about wanting to have equal or fair access to your own children that’s when the allegations of violence with shades of sexual innuendo appear (after all if you had 50/50 access is would affect her DPB). Then your in big trouble because that’s when the State violence officers (Police) come into their own and go to work “Fitting you up”. Ultimately you lose all contact with you kids except for the satisfaction of knowing your still contributing to their upbringing and also paying her mortgage.

    True Story.

  17. Jerry says:

    Richie @16;
    Well my experience isn’t so generally regular as yours. I personally know so many women who are boxing on through life without personally hating their sons. Indeed I have made two daughters and they also qualify as “Women” and yet they sahed me victim-hood and my ordeal. Even my ex was not after me, but what happened there was that when we hit trouble, the authorities and their feminazi lot got along side my wife and in her ear. The spoon fed her the legal access and experience in form filling. Indeed some of you will know my eldest, because she joined in with MENZ protests, even took me to one. All the same she has had a shit of a life, and still struggles with the various legacies from the abuse. Feminists cultivate the “Them or us” idea and provide tye lies top support and exaggerate it.
    I recall that Felicity ran COSA and I met her, I assure you shes all woman too- and cares enough to have done thehard yards and sacrifices for genuine equality of rights. So Richie, I am really uncomfortable allowing the feminists to dictate our thinking. It can never be “Them or us” its got to be “Women and men together”; and welcome to exclude all extremists. We have been brainwashed so long, we repeat what they want us to repeat.
    But some men are quite irrational too. I met a chap up town on Wednesday. He was older and we swapped stories of the tragedies we both had with our ex’s and the family court – but bizarrely he finished off by re-stating the special privilleges women are entitled to – privilleges I was taught so long ago and abandonned after being abused as a patriarchal male chauvanist pig for opening a door for what I assumed would have been a lady. Such fems are extremists and I know many women lament the damage they are doing to women’s interests. So yes, I will always try to look at both sides. Of course, you don’t need to agree with me.

  18. Evan Myers says:

    More than twenty years ago and recently separated my ex-wife marched off to the Police Station with allegations of sexual abuse against our children.

    She was quite rightly shown the door. I heard about it, but was never interviewed.

    Last week I was a talking to a man, recently separated and before the court facing a ridiculous historic allegation, of sexual abuse of a child.

    No reasonable jury will find him guilty.

    And I think, there but for the grace of God, go I.

    He will walk the walk of shame, not alone, but on our behalf, while we are busy doing whatever it is we have to get done.

  19. Richie says:

    If Anyone is interest in entering the elections on a platform of:
    a) Default position of 50/50 custody and shared cost. Not a socialist wealth redistribution. No more DPB unless 1 parent doesn’t want in.
    b) Repeal of the Sue Bradford hitting bill – Not that I think you need to hit a child but you shouldn’t be criminalized for parenting
    c) Limitation of immigration to sustainable levels
    d) Limitation of property purchases in NZ to NZ residence -not a Chinese Ponzy scheme.
    e) Balanced budgets – Lets stop stealing off our children
    f) If we go to war all feminists in the first draft – as we know girls can do anything
    g) Capital gains on second houses. People should own there own homes not live in rental shit holes

    I think you would easily get 5% of the party vote with sensible policies as above. Who’s in? Party Name?

  20. DJ Ward says:

    Another poor bloke?
    I’ve been paying attention to this case for awhile.
    I think the prosecution is dodgy.
    Child hurt > find nearest male > make up a story > prosecute.
    Find guilty.
    Women celebrate.

  21. Jerry says:

    Richie @19; 50/50 shared parenting sounds great, and I am for it if what precedes it cannot be avoided. However, I would prefer policies which remove the incentives for either party to fracture the family. No-fault divorce legislation should be scrapped. In my view there is no reason to marry these days, but a relationship or a fling seems to pass as the same thing these days. These days indulging flights of fancy seems to take precedence above providing a secure stable constant family for children to grow up in. In this sense the children should come first above either parents wish to explore dreams. I believe in both parents having equal non-negotiable responsibilities – and here is something novel – with responsibilities comes RIGHTs and sovereignty over their families. The state should back off out of the household unless some basic gender neutrally applied criminal law becomes applicable. Assault of children always was illegal – but it was simply called assault back then.
    Parents who divide the household are blameworthy and their infringement should not be excused or be concealed by “No-fault” law.
    I see no role at all for CYPFS or for Ministry for Women’s affairs, or given their prejudice – the Human Rights office. Certainly gender specific NGOs should not be funded.
    Gender specific groups would be okay provided that both genders had them without being harassed by the other gender.
    I think the DPB needs a review. I/we have known many girls around third form age who already intended having babies and getting the DPB –it is a career for many it seems. I met so many solo mums who were never married, but had four kids to four different fathers. Its easy to imaging that when the younger gets to an age where WINZ is pressuring the woman to get into paid work, she conveniently randies up some stupid chap and becomes pregnant again – and of course he then has child-tax – not to mention custody/access and shared parenting lobbying – all that to look forward to.
    For me it is really sad when things get to the point of having to lobby for 50/50 shared parenting. United strong stable families is my dream.

  22. Man X Norton says:

    Here’s another confused campaign spreading feminist propaganda. I’m not sure about the reasoning of the perpetrators of this campaign, but it seems to be trying to associate the male body and male sexuality with an uncomfortable, embarrassing seat. This is male denigration. How can it be allowed when any comparable thing targeting women, racial groups or any other group would raise howls of protest and would quickly be stopped?

    One thing though, stuff like this is leading to a rapid increase in the number of men and women growing thoroughly sick of feminism.

  23. Richie says:

    Well said Jerry couldn’t agree more with you sentiments. Its pretty laughable how we have these elaborate weddings at huge expense with great ceremony and vowels to be followed up 5 years later with. “I’m not happy” .i.e. Its not my princess fantasy.

    i had a look at TOPs policies to see if there was anything in it for us guys. Apparently not, they want to enshrine in a constitution the rights of “Women”. I would have thought a key component of a constitution would be to enshrine all members of societies right not set in stone special interest group privileges.

  24. DJ Ward says:

    Here is another poor bloke.
    Male anywhere near child equals paedophile.
    Is this male going to be compensated?

    “A widower who checked into a Travelodge with his teenage daughter last week was shocked when a staff member called police, apparently suspecting he was a paedophile.”
    So he will have the police visiting him every time he is seen with his daughter?
    Especially if they book a motel room.
    Next It will be.
    Look a male is walking a child home from school!
    Call the police, it’s a paedophile.

    “Hotels, taxi companies and other licensed premises have recently been equipped with the right knowledge to identify children who could be at risk of exploitation under Operation Makesafe.”
    Clearly it’s any child with a male.
    Right knowledge?
    Oh! Could be at risk.
    Meaning everybody in all situations.

    “A spokesman for Travelodge said: “We take our responsibilities towards protecting children and vulnerable young people extremely seriously.”
    Actually it’s there responsibility to provide a safe hotel, rooms, pool, etc.
    They are not social services or the police.

    Just to show how this can be a violation of the human rights act.
    Have any women with a boy booking a motel room had the police called on them?

  25. Jerry says:

    DJ Ward @24; Because its like an event we experienced, I’ll repeat it here. We had to fly to ChCh for a pediatric neurological exam on my abused daughter. Flying Air NZ. We too the youngest along so we were together and to give her the experience. So Ageing male gets onto a link plane with two female children. Immediately on board strapping in, the stewardess was demanding I sit away from my girls. It was only when my youngest errupted in terror of not having Dad, that the crew backed down. The kids were not unaccompanied minors. I was parent and could prove it, but this made no difference. Human Rights commission decided there was no problem with Air New Zealand’s sexist anti-male conduct.

  26. DJ Ward says:

    #25 Jerry
    That sucks.
    If you need proof the Human Rights Commision is a sexually bigoted entity you’ve got it.
    Not suppressing from Air NZ as its done a few sexually bigoted things in the past.
    Have they ever told a mother not to sit next to thier sons?
    Let’s not feed the vultures. I meen lawyers.
    But you were in fact sexually harassed in thier workplace.
    Hate crime?
    Sexually discriminatory treatment.
    Your children were being removed from your care, possession, without legal rights to do so.
    Sue the bastards.

  27. Jerry says:

    DJ WArd @26; I would love to sue them. But you will know this happens when we are under attack/duress/poverty from a lot of directions/despair and depression – at a time when we need to insulate and amuse the children from the hatred as if all was still rosie. When we get a chance to come up for air and breathe again, we have no funds left, and as males, nobody takes us seriously let alone help. Being males – we can only be offernders – right? or thats what the population around us are brainwashed, and now swallow hook line and sinker. Where are those wealthy patriarchal representatives? Well we all know if there are any, they are busy buying advantage one way or other by funding/supporting extremist feminist anti-male action – examples: donating to women’s refuge, promoting white ribbon and so on. The idea of supporting a male friendly initiative would never occur to them – and if it did, the feminist backlash would change their mind really fast.
    I react by being extremely reluctant to shop or patronise such organisations with my meagre funds – and others might consider doing the same. Because our day to day spending might be the only way we can hit back even in a small way.
    I stay away from Air New Zealand, Warehouse stationery, The Warehouse, Moreland fabrics and other stores because of this. True, I don’t know if Jetstar wouldn’t be just as gender biased – but so far I’ve not taken another flight.

  28. DJ Ward says:

    Sometimes it’s not false allegations that’s the problem.
    It’s corrupt police, prosecutors, and judges.
    With a jury blindly willing to believe them.
    This case is a good example of that.

    His arrest was a political decision.
    Intended to calm the public and protect the university’s business.
    They ignored the fact that after his arrest the (identical) rapes continued.
    They ignored the fact that he had a sound alibi.
    The police were dodgy in doing ID line ups with the victim.
    The judge prevented relevant evidence from being presented.

    Death in prison.

  29. Downunder says:

    In a literary sense, she has been written up as the hero, the antagonist is quietly hiding in the background, and men are guilty.

    Sadly, ‘this story’ is NOT about

    The Innocence Project
    The persecution of an innocent man, or
    Those people, who in their professional capacity allowed a system that would have protected this man, to fail.

    And as the story goes, (read it right through) she was gracious, forgiven, but we (us men) must continue to bear the shame and responsibility of having failed her.

    The real crime continues, write before our eyes , one might say, as the author lines up with those who failed their profession and sacrificed their integrity.

    The real bottom line is that there is nothing gracious about this.

    This an abuse of literature, an abuse of the written word, in the name of women.

  30. Man X Norton says:

    DJ Ward @28: This is an example of the consequences of reducing protections against false conviction in rape and sexual assault cases. Femaleists such as Catriona MacLennan have been agitating successfully for a long time to make it easier to convict accused men on the same inadequate evidence that could not prove their guilt under longstanding principles of fair trial. Those feminists use false reasoning such as “only a small proportion of rapes end up being reported so we need to make it easier to convict men” and “many rape cases end up with acquittals so we need to make it easier to convict men”. They have convinced lawmakers to throw out numerous protections against false conviction, such as the right for the accused to face his accuser, the right to test an accuser’s character and credibility, the right to cross-examine thoroughly, the right to have cases disallowed at depositions when there is no evidence other than someone’s accusation, and the statute of limitations. They have manipulated our society including those who should know better to use biased, prejudgemental terms such as ‘offender’ (instead of ‘accused’ or ‘defenant’) and ‘victim’ (instead of ‘accuser’ or ‘complainant). Most of these changes apply only to sexual cases, but there is no rational basis for singling out sexual allegations for such special treatment except misandry.

    In the case of the now deceased Timothy Cole, the police and the judge applied feminist justice, failing to investigate properly, disallowing clearly relevant evidence and preventing any hard questioning of the accuser and her false identification.

    This stuff is becoming standard fare. NZ currently has several special sexual complainant Courts where the feminists have been allowed to indoctrinate the judges and lawyers to abandon even more of what used to be protections against false convictions. MacLennan and other femaleists are busy trying to get rid of a presumption of innocence to have accused men treated as guilty unless they can prove their innocence; they have already achieved this in the attitudes of those who administer ‘justice’ as well as general society.

  31. andreas says:

    This is so similar to the case of Sam on the recent program “I am innocent”. I am quite convinced that these sort of cases which may or may not go to trial are very common in NZ.

  32. Ted says:

    Associate justice spokesperson for sexual and domestic violence Poto Williams said only 13 per cent of the sexual assault cases reported to police ended in a conviction and something needed to be done to address the “power imbalance”.

    Labour would change the system so that a victim was believed as a starting point, and that an accused would have to prove consent – an idea rejected by National.

    “That might cause some people difficulty but we have to do something about increasing the prosecution rates. There’s no doubt sexual assault is a problem in our country,” Williams said.

    She wanted to see a “much more sympathetic” approach by the courts towards people who experienced sexual violence and police needed to be better resourced to investigate properly.

  33. Voices back from the bush says:

    How can a man prove that sex was consentual ?

    Pehaps its time we started issuing sex contracts to young men so they realise the risks of sex without one.

  34. Downunder says:

    So, this is about improving conviction rates based on the number of complaints.

    The Police should be resourced to prove the defendant guilty.

    The courts should not provide an objective administration of the law, but pander to the mysterious ideal that all woman are angels.

    Now, who in their right mind, would call that a ‘Justice System’ – each to his/her own?

  35. Downunder says:

    So, we need to do this because of a mythical beast called ‘Power Imbalance’.

  36. Voices back from the bush says:

    Yes this “Power Imbalance is mentioned in both articles and a discussion that needs having according to Poto.

    Poto Williams also says.

    “One thing we have to do is find out the numbers of false allegations that have been made, because that will be one of the things people will be really concerned about – that someone who’s falsely accused of sexual abuse will be put through a process that is completely unfair.”

    Why don’t we find out the numbers of false accusations that have been made regardless of this new intended law process.

    And who should we refer to to enlighten us about these figures?

    I’m guessing her answer will be some of her cronies in her women’s victims movement.

    How many innocent men having their lives destroyed by false accusations of sexual violence will be too many for her?

Leave a Reply



Skip to toolbar