Showing knickers leads to suicide

UK A teenager was jailed for four years yesterday for raping a schoolgirl who later committed suicide after giving evidence in court.

... Her parents claimed she committed suicide at their home in New Cumnock, Ayrshire, earlier this month while feeling "humiliated and degraded" after her experience in the witness box.

... Paul McBride, a defence QC, said that in his experience as a senior counsel, Mr Carruthers could not be criticised for the way he conducted the defence.

It seems very strange that a victim of rape should be more upset about her day in court than the rape itself.

According to last week's Telegraph ... 

When his daughter came out of the court she was crying uncontrollably. She was also furious at being questioned about her underwear.

"She said the worst part of being questioned was when she was forced to hold up the G-string that she was wearing that night and show the court her underwear. She said she was absolutely mortified."

Is it possible, perhaps, that some women have now been so imbued with their own sense of self-importance through feminist indoctrination that, indeed, being questioned about evidence of a personal nature is felt by them to be more of an outrage than even rape itself? (e.g. see AH's NSPCC- Children's Charities Sued for Millions? where an example is given of a pupil feeling genuinely abused and outraged merely because a teacher put his hand on his shoulder to apprehend him concerning the illicit use of his mobile phone.)

And, if this is the case, how much more evidence are the courts now going to hide from jurors in case they upset any of the accusing women? - and the feminists.

However, as seasoned AH readers will understand, whatever actually drove this unfortunate girl to suicide is less important than what is emerging from the current lobbying by women's groups. 

It is being argued that women should not have to give evidence to do with clothing!

The Prima Donnas are livid ('furious', in fact) that they should be questioned on such matters.

Well, perhaps this young lady would still have been alive today if those to whom she had been listening, instead of endorsing and so fuelling her outrage, had spent their time trying to point out that there was nothing to be outraged about.

And, maybe, it is precisely because young women today are being taught to be outraged whenever they are being asked to prove their case that this young lady killed herself!

Calm down. What do you expect? The counsel's job is to try to defend the man in the dock. And you have to prove your case. Take it easy.

But no. Women are being trained to be outraged (yet again!) in order to justify a further corruption of the justice system.

Lindsay Armstrong probably killed herself because of feminism. 

She was taught to be outraged by feminist ideology.

But it is all men who will be punished for her death, by the further stacking of the justice system against them.

But women should have to answer detailed questions if the courts are to have access to the truth.

After all, ...

getting at the truth is what courts are supposed to be about!

And so this attempt by women's groups to use this case as a justification to further corrupt the justice system has to be opposed very strongly. 

And activists can do this very effectively by pointing out to these stupid women that it is probably their propaganda and their histrionics that caused this young lady to kill herself in the first place.

At this rate of mission creep, women will soon be taught to be outraged and suicidal at the very thought of having to give any evidence at all in a courtroom.

Perhaps women should not have to give any evidence in a courtroom when they allege rape. Their accusations alone should be enough for a conviction.

Perhaps they should be able to do such things by post.

Anonymously.

But then they might start killing themselves at the outrageous suggestion that they should have to buy their own postage stamps.

The number of UK men who have committed suicide over the past few years as a result of court decisions in 'relationship' cases runs to hundreds - with some even killing their own children.

And no-one in government seems to do anything about this. Certainly no action is taken to reduce the likelihood of such events.

But just one young woman kills herself because she had to show her knickers to a jury, and the whole justice system has to be further corrupted in order to appease the hysterical hate-stirring machinations of women's groups - whose actions will, in fact, only lead to far more pain for everyone.

2/9/02

Dear F

For some reason - despite the mountain of evidence that I have given you in my piece about the Home Office - you still insist on seeing the majority of accusers as innocent. But the evidence shows that 90% of rape accusations are false.

With regard to Lindsay Armstrong who committed suicide after having had to show her knickers in court as evidence, you assume that she was an innocent, weak and vulnerable victim at the time of the rape. 

And she might well have been. I just do not know.

However, I look at it this way.

She accused this boy of raping her. 

Most accusations are false. 

The boy must therefore be presumed innocent until found otherwise - unless, of course, you want to corrupt our traditional system of justice. 

Therefore, interrogating her about all the details concerning the case is necessary.

What were you wearing? What were you doing? What did he say? What did you do? Have you had sex with him before? etc etc etc. All these things might have some relevance. Or they might not.

The knickers were just part of that evidence. Nothing more. 

No-one is saying that skimpy clothing entitles one to rape. It is simply that clothing might be relevant when you add it to all the other bits.

For example, "And there she sat on the grass in front of me with her legs wide open."

Well, to me, what 'she' was actually wearing while she sat in that position has some relevance to what happened next.

For example, what if she was wearing nothing?

As such, clothing might be relevant with regard to how the scenario crept toward a 'rape'.

And for women to suggest that what a woman is wearing while her legs voluntarily part company is never relevant to understanding a sexual scenario clearly exposes their desire to pervert the justice system in order to be able to hurt men severely - and with impunity.

It must also be obvious to any fair-minded person with even a modicum of intelligence that when it comes to serious crimes, courts must have the power to investigate all the evidence. 

There is no acceptable alternative. 

NONE! 

And those groups of people who want to hide evidence in these situations - feminists, mostly, in this case - must be hounded viciously and discredited relentlessly until the public sees them for what malicious and wicked people they are.

And those politicians and judges who go along with corrupt legal procedures designed to hide evidence from jurors in cases of serious crime need to be removed from office.

By their attitudes alone they show themselves to be deceivers and liars. 

Never should such people be given much in the way of power.

They can never be trusted.

Further, I would like to point out that if you start out with the presumption that the accusing woman is genuinely a victim of rape - which means that you presume that the man is guilty - something that is completely contrary to the presumption of innocence - then it makes some sense to argue that one needs to protect the victim from being upset any further, even if this does hide some of the evidence.

After all, he is guilty!

But if you are to presume that the man is innocent - until proved otherwise - then you must also presume that the woman is lying, exaggerating or mistaken. 

Further, at the very least, the very fact that she is in the courtroom means that she would like to see the man punished very severely. Why else would she be there? She is therefore hardly an objective witness, even if she is a genuine victim. 

In fact, she is a hostile witness.

It is no use simply paying lip service to the notion that men should be presumed innocent until proved otherwise while at the same time sneakily presuming his guilt and also conveniently forgetting the fact that the accuser - even if she is a genuine victim - is a hostile witness!

Furthermore, people who want to hide evidence have something to hide. And feminists want to hide as much evidence as possible because they know that women often make false accusations. But a court is a place where the whole truth should be sought.

This girl seemed more upset ('angry', actually) over having to show her knickers to the court than she was about the actual rape! "She was furious," is what her father kept saying - despite the fact that the 14 year old boy had already been found guilty and sent to prison.

In other words, she was no wilting angel. She was a woman full of anger.

Well, with so many false accusations around these days I'm afraid that every piece of evidence must be scrutinised. If the jury does not find some evidence to be relevant, fair enough. But it is up to a jury of ordinary men and women to decide this, and not for the accusing woman to say, "Sorry. I refuse to give you this evidence because it will upset me or it might undermine my case."

According to Professor Jennifer Temkin, of Sussex University's School of Legal Studies, and an ardent feminist, a woman barrister seeking to justify the use of sexual history evidence said: "There are lots of women who make complaints of rape who would sleep with the local donkey."

AH

And, while on this particular subject, I wish to make a further interesting point!

Here, in the UK, we are soon going to outlaw certain types of pornography because some sex-offenders have claimed that "pornography made me do it". In other words, the government reckons that men can be 'enticed' into doing bad things by looking at pictures.

Well, surely, if lofty people can accept the notion that men can be 'enticed' by pictures, then they should also accept the notion that men can be enticed by 'reality'!

And, if this is so, then women - who bring about their own reality - and who thrust it upon others - must also often be viewed as responsible for enticing men in much the same way that pornography allegedly does.

So, how is it that women can escape all responsibility for enticing men - e.g. by wearing revealing clothing - whereas pornography and pornographers cannot?

Well, of course, the answer is obvious.

Women are nowadays held to be responsible for almost nothing that they do; not even for those situations in which they choose to place themselves.

They are not held fully responsible when it comes to choosing to bear offspring, when it comes to their work choices, when it comes to whom they have sex with - especially when they are drunk - when it comes to child abuse, and even when it comes to murder.

And now we are simply being indoctrinated with the view that pornography can entice men to do bad things, but women, themselves, cannot.

What hokum, eh?

What lies!

Notice also that misleading women - especially younger women - into believing that their dress has no effect on the likelihood of being sexually-assaulted will simply lead to more women enticing more sexual assaults. In other words, more women will be hurt.

But, despite what they might say, most women do not actually care about this. So long as they can say and do as they damn well please, they do not actually care how many other women might be assaulted as a result.

Indeed, nothing seems nowadays to stand in the way of women getting what they want, regardless of the cost to others - including to other women!