The column in question was actually penned by radical feminist Julie Bindel, but we all know The Guardian uses guests columnists to put forward its own ideology.
Strangely enough, remember to remind yourself that this is the same Julie Bindel who wasn't SJW enough for Manchester University and other tertiary institutions. She was banned from MU, like Milo Yiannopoulos. The fact that this SJW was rejected as a SJW by other SJWs for her views on transgender people, only to then write this article on getting rid of juries for rape trials, demonstrates how even those branded as 'too moderate' leftists are anathema to a healthy society. What even worse forms of leftist totalitarianism would MU's leading SJWs argue for if they get their hands on a mainstream newspaper column?
A few points after reading Bindel's excremental opinion piece:
Strangely enough, remember to remind yourself that this is the same Julie Bindel who wasn't SJW enough for Manchester University and other tertiary institutions. She was banned from MU, like Milo Yiannopoulos. The fact that this SJW was rejected as a SJW by other SJWs for her views on transgender people, only to then write this article on getting rid of juries for rape trials, demonstrates how even those branded as 'too moderate' leftists are anathema to a healthy society. What even worse forms of leftist totalitarianism would MU's leading SJWs argue for if they get their hands on a mainstream newspaper column?
A few points after reading Bindel's excremental opinion piece:
- The evidence put forward in rape trials is lackluster, to say the least. I have repeated this ad nauseam in my articles: it's invariably he-said-she-said. Even when the woman comes forward before a week has passed since the 'rape,' there is typically next to no legitimate basis for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
- Because of the point above, courts have already lowered the evidentiary bar. The Brian Banks threshold for a rape conviction, the woman's testimony, is commonly used to convict men of rape and sexual assault. Whatever you might think of a character like the convicted child sex offender Rolf Harris, for example, there is no way that mere testimonies could convict a man of a robbery or murder 30 years after the alleged incident in the same way Harris was convicted in the UK for his purported acts.
- Legislated anonymity for rape accusers, or the media's complete unwillingness to vet their stories, consistently shifts opprobrium onto the perpetually named accused, well before they are even charged. Irrespective of any court decision 'convicting' them, their lives are most often ruined. Short of a prison term, men only accused of rape (without being charged) or found not guilty of rape face all the consequences of having a sex offender status.
- Prosecutors are currently bending over backwards to increase rape prosecutions. This focus is more salient now, but I would suggest efforts at white-knighting and kowtowing to calls of rape without evidence have been going on for decades. And look what happens: particularly in well-publicized UK cases, men are drafted into the dock when even something like CCTV evidence proves they should not be there. The hounding of Mark Pearson by the British CPS after old witch and actress Souad Faress falsely accused him of a 0.000001 millisecond digital rape as he walked past her comes to mind.
- Bindel points to 16,000 'rapes' being recorded by police in England and Wales in 2013-14. Aside from the bad terminology and record-keeping (i.e. reported, usually insufficiently investigated and vetted allegation of rape = rape), 16,000 reported 'rapes' across a female population of ca. 30,000,000 means the victimization rate (assuming all reports were true, which is codswallop) is around 0.05%.
Born Down Under, but I enjoy Slovakian Thunder: http://slovakia.travel/en/nove-zamky
![[Image: bindel-kamps.png]](http://sonofhel.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/bindel-kamps.png)
![[Image: angry.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/angry.gif)