[hv123]

(02-12-2018 10:40 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

(02-08-2018 06:28 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

People don't understand that cops might be a little more red-pilled than the average person by virtue of the things they have to see and do but most of them are complete pussies who have built their entire persona around being a special superhero with a magic uniform and a shiny badge made of precious unobtanium. Nothing terrifies them more or even comes close to the utter dread they feel at the prospect of having to become a worthless "civilian" again.

A such, the vast majority of them will quietly re-compartmentalise any of the ethical nuts and bolts in their brain in any configuration required to remain a cop and sleep at night. This is not a "muh pension" thing. If you offered them the choice of digging holes for a living with no badge but the same pay and benefits, or the alternate choice to keep their badge and crack down on patriot groups while obeying orders to turn a blind eye to foreign men raping native women then they will choose the latter nine times out of ten.

Whatever the cops have to do to keep their badge, they will do it. If that means giving female SJWs a pass for anything but the most brazenly criminal acts, or tossing a fellow officer under the #meetoo bus every now and again, they'll hamster that stuff in a heartbeat.

Well in the U.K domestic situations or rape cases were dealt with unofficially. So from the get go, when they realised that it was probably a false allegation, or the victim didn't seem credible enough. They would dismiss it or convince the 'victim' to withdraw their allegation.

However there were some scandals overtime and nowadays the more 'common sense' approach is not allowed. Everything is audited and tracked, from emails to phone call; also conversations due to body cameras.

And officers not treating something seriously and going through the whole process. That usually involves arresting the male on the premise of the false allegation, for bail conditions and safeguards to be set, has to be followed through. Technically they are doing everything by the book like they were supposed to before; but back then integrity, the criminal justice system, and even the general population was as a whole, a lot different back then.

Ironically enough, people who criticized the police for years from an 'anti establishment' point of view. Just made things a lot more difficult for themselves when it comes to things. By calling for more scrutiny on law enforcement, you in turn do away with integrity. As a lot of 'police not doing their jobs'.

Is usually for the benefit of somebody who should really be arrested for something. But the police decide to let them off and go their own way, because it is just not worth it.

The UK police treat all accusations of anything as being true unless proven otherwise. So in any case the person who complains first is essentially "the victim", as far as they are concerned. The fact is the UK justice system is now a complete farce. The police can put you on a database with a harassment notice, because someone makes a claim based on nothing.

It's not just the police is the courts who treat people differently based on perceived victim level. A few years ago I was involved in a crash with a motor cycle and was told in court, because the person was a vulnerable road user, it would go against me if it went to court, just for that reason. It's quite important to understand the full implications of that. How responsible you are for your own actions is dependent on how much of a victim you are or how the bad the outcome of your own actions is for you.

The director of public prosecutions in the UK has decided there needs to be a crusade against rapists because not enough are getting convicted. (You might think that her job is to ensure the law is carried out properly in an unbiased way) Now think about that for second. We have a jury system, where trials will take place in a crown court of indictable offences (serious ones). Now the only ways you can alter the conviction rate, if jurors are picked at random, is to do several things:
1) bring cases to court based solely on the "evidence" of the accuser. Now this can work but the problem is pesky jurors have a habit of finding people innocent
2) withhold evidence from the court/solicitors (famous recent cases) and alter evidence (e.g slow down video like in the case of famous game of thrones actress who accused some one of finger banging her, when he walked passed her).
3) drive as hard as possible to de facto alter the legal system so that, in sex cases, the burden of innocence lies on the accused. This is essentially where we are now. The system has been subverted to such a degree that guys are having to rely on facebook messages not to get a 10 year stretch. Never mind that in theory they don't have to prove anything. Now you do. It's complex web to alter the public and therefore the jurors mind that people need to prove their innocence.

if you combine 1 and 3 you get this.

If you're not accused of a sex crime though you can burgle and rob with impunity as the police now consider such matters to be "petty crime".

Feminism is very much winning the war against the legal system.

Picture of the director or public prosecutions attached.

[Constitution45]

Yes that is pretty much all correct. I believe the experience for these men who are falsely accused must be terrible. Generally speaking, when an allegation is made, 'safeguards' have to be made to protect the 'vulnerable victim'. So that includes arrest the suspect and setting bail conditions, seizing phones along with clothes and maybe swabs depending on the context.

There will be a lot of situations, where a couple have been seeing each other for a year, they have since split up. A few months later, the girlfriend states that there was a time when he didn't put on a condom during sex, when she agreed that they could only have sexual intercourse under those circumstances. Technically under the definition of law, that would be rape and an investigation will have to take place.

I have known personally of guys who have been investigated, for giving a girl a kiss on the cheek after a night out while speaking on the bus. To give some context to this, everything was perfectly amicable and friendly, they were speaking for thirty minutes and that is how he ended it. Giving her a peck on the cheek and a hug. Boom, investigation into sexual assault had taken place and he was dragged through the system.

Truth of the matter is, the criminal justice system and the police are being massively drained because of our culture and what are culture deems as being the most pressing issues. I believe partly the majority of resources issues that the country is facing, is due to such initiatives. Especially when ideology gets involved, it becomes deeply depressing. No one will ever dare mention this though, because they will be going against the population essentially etc.

[hv123]

I don't think its the populace per se. Sure public opinion has been swayed but it's more about infiltration of organisations by leftists. The Saunders woman being a prime example.

There is an organisation that does shady training for officers to essentially make them more leftist. I can't remember its name now. I'll have a search.

[Constitution45]

(02-12-2018 04:20 PM)hv123 Wrote:  

I don't think its the populace per se. Sure public opinion has been swayed but it's more about infiltration of organisations by leftists. The Saunders woman being a prime example.

There is an organisation that does shady training for officers to essentially make them more leftist. I can't remember its name now. I'll have a search.

Yes but it has a lot to do with the people who are calling up the police in the first place as well to report allegations. Plus the courts and laws ultimately bend with the common culture and how people's perceptions change.

Look at cannabis for example, before there would be no two ways about, you would be arrested if you had possession of it. If you had a bulk of it, you would probably be charged with possession with intent to supply. Nowadays the CPS are not interested in drugs and because of that the threshold and standards become a lot harder for officers to prove.

So many people smoke it and usually buy in bulk, and in certain communities carrying a lot of cash on you, is normal. So officers have the burden of proof, and meanwhile there is way more serious crimes stacking up to deal with that involve actual victims. So you can guess what happens.

I don't wish to divulge too much information as this is a public forum. But really most police officers are not blue pill politically correct drones. It is a big organisation, and to compare an officer investigating rapes to say a territorial support officer would be absurd.

There are drives and attempts to make the organization more politically correct. Such as recruiting directly from the private sector to place candidates in senior positions despite having no policing or military experience. The plan is to make the organization more diverse and liberal. Even though they don't think about the practicalities.

The police is not a normal civilian organisation. It is a very complicated profession and it involves enforcing a law, often in communities that are very complicated in itself. Practically speaking, how can a senior officer be in charge of officers, when they themselves have never been to a sudden death, dealt with a genuine domestic case. Or been spat at by a HIV positive mentally ill person. This is the day to day life in policing in any urban area around the U.K and probably the Western world.

Ultimately, becoming a police officer involves you becoming very red pill and cynical. You are dealing with horrible people on a day to day basis that lie and communities which frankly hate you. Plus in left wing cities like London, you have a general public that dislike you intently just out of ignorance and ideology, yet they are the first to call you, when they get robbed or having an argument with their partner.

At the same time, senior figures in government who have no understanding about policing like to interfere, and try to remove boundaries and investigate officers for missing sandwiches and making 'insensitive comments'.

Back to my point, after six months of being in the job, you will become very cynical, and this is an attitude that want to get rid of in the job. Ironically enough, you are not becoming cynical, you are just becoming very realistic and seeing the world through a different lens.

These ideologues cannot see past their echo chamber and believe that if they interfere, and just make the police 'nicer', then it will all be better.
This all ties into what you were saying in regards to the direct of prosecutions setting quotas for rape cases. Which is abysmal, I really don't know too much about it however in order to comment.

[Constitution45]

Further to what I was saying, in regards to how the populace effect policing. Well in a massive way really, ultimately feminism has the backing of the general population. We can talk endlessly whether this is accurate, but the fact to the matter; is that the politicians which are supposed to represent us, state that. And there is no denying, that in places like London, a lot of people sympathise massively with feminism, and harp on about this toxic masculinity.

So if it was discovered that a police officer attended a scene to report an allegation of a rape. Using his/her previous experience from attending many different rapes before. Comes to the conclusion that this is not worth pursuing, perhaps the woman had sex with the man, but changed her mind afterwards, thinking that she wasn't comfortable. In the old days, integrity would be used, and probably nothing would happen.

However, why on earth would any sane police officer take such a risk like that. Firstly it would always be on the back of their mind, that there was potentially more than happened, which I cannot assess right now. And I don't want this going back on me. But imagine the outcry if the female went public with this. Firstly he would be in serious trouble with his immediate supervisor and probably be investigated himself. Most of all this would be ridiculously damaging to the police and senior officers who are essentially politicians.

Same applies for domestic violence cases, which simply wouldn't go down the criminal route in the past. Another leap can be made at stop and search. The community and liberals made a massive outcry and innocent little black kids being brutalised by the racist pig police on a daily basis, while just playing outside. Stop and search went down massively, because that was the decision made. So unless you literally see a drug deal happening in front of you, you will not be allowed to do anything.

In turn, stabbings went up, every teenager in places like Hackney, started carrying knives again. In turn the community got angry, stating that the racist pig police are too lazy and not doing anything. The liberals started saying that "hmm may we can have stop and search but it should only be for knives and not drugs". Which again shows how stupid they are. The drug searches are usually made because the grounds to base your search around for drugs are more full proof. Knives don't smell and make people wide eyed and behave strangely, drugs do.

but anyway, it was a full circle again, nobody addressed the problem to begin with, and it just keeps on going on and on.

In conclusion the police really does bend over and apologise to the left wing on a daily basis. Usually at the expense of their rank and file officers who are demoralised and leaving the job for better paying roles in Lidl, because they don't feel like police officers anymore. Essentially the organization has had it's teeth taken out from it. If you have noticed, the British public don't come out and protest and agitate against false rape accusations and high crime rates anymore.

The areas with the highest crime rates have been essentially abandoned and the majority of the time, the population who lives there are recent immigrants or left wing students and middle class professionals who have liberal beliefs. The local police in these areas don't have any money either.

The recent disclosure case that happened in South London, where the young man who mentioned the text messages that disproved him raping her. But this line of enquiry simply was not investigated. Will just get used by defence lawyers to get off more genuine criminals on technicalities, which they are so good at. I doubt it will begin to penetrate this issue with false allegations.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

We should also never forget that feminism is a communist creation that was designed to destroy the Christian West while being banned in Russia:


(well - partly banned - they pushed aspects of female empowerment there too)

https://www.henrymakow.com/000180.html

There is nothing that feminists said or did in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) of the 1940's and 1950's. While the CPUSA took their orders from Moscow, Feminism was repressed in the USSR. The Soviets understood its subversive character.




By Henry Makow Ph.D.

Quote:

"Rape is an expression of ... male supremacy ... the age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men."


Does this sound like a modern radical feminist? Guess again. It is from an American Communist Party pamphlet from 1948 entitled "Woman Against Myth" by Mary Inman.

redfem.jpgIn a 2002 book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154)

In fact, Weigand, a lecturer at Smith College, shows that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists said or did in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA of the 1940's and 1950's. Many second-wave feminist leaders were "red diaper babies," the children of Communist Jews.

Communists pioneered the political and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. They originated "women's studies," and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They forged key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising."

In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to focus on women and African Americans. They hoped "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)

Communist women who made up 40% of the party wanted more freedom to attend party meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA initiated a process of "re-educating" men that we recognize only too well today.

george-marks-man-and-woman-washing-dishes.jpgFor example, in the party newspaper "The Daily Worker" a photo caption of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)

The Party ordered men who didn't take the woman question seriously to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)

A film Salt of the Earth, which critic Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.

Communist women formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded women's oppression and decried sexism in mass culture and language. For example, Mary Inman argued that "manufactured femininity" and "overemphasis on beauty" keep women in subjection (33).

05friedan2_184.jpg

The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden, left, relied on these texts when she wrote The Feminine Mystique (1963). These women all hid the fact that they were long-time Communist activists. In 1960, their daughters had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.


THE COMMUNIST CHARACTER OF FEMINISM

Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:

Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and imposes a political-economic concept like "equality" on a personal, biological and mystical relationship.

Why the "women's movement" also embraces "equality" of race and class.goalsofcommunism.jpg

Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.

Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination and coercion.

Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.

Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whoever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.

Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.

Why they refuse to debate, don't believe in free speech, and suppress dissenting views.

Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Communism is designed to give power to the puppets of central bankers by fostering division and conflict. Divide and Conquer. Having failed to peddle class and race war, Communism promoted gender conflict instead. In each case they fostered a sense of grievance in the target group. Now the traditional feminine role "oppressed" women.

Violence-Against-Women-650x400.jpg(Left, another Communist psy op.)

The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent Communism's attempt to empower and use other minorities, gays and "people of color," to further undermine the majority (European, Christian) culture. Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict was never a big seller.

The term "politically correct" originated in the Russian Communist Party in the 1920's. Its usage in America today illustrates the extent society has been subverted. Feminist activists are mostly Communist dupes. The Communist goal is to destroy Western Civilization and establish a veiled dictatorship called "world government" run by the toadies of the central bankers.

We have seen this destruction in the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities. We have seen this virus spread to government, business, the media and the military. This could only happen because the financial elite, in fact, sponsors Communism.

In Communism, the government is the ultimate monopoly. It controls everything, not just wealth but also power and thought. It is the instrument of monopoly capital (i.e. Rothschild, Rockefeller.) Everybody from the President on down works for them.

A LOCAL EXAMPLE

"Political correctness" has dulled and regimented our cultural life. In 2002, here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee referred to "the Asian invasion" causing house price increases in Vancouver. Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn.

granger-betty.jpgAt a meeting, the School Board Chairman acknowledged that Granger is not a racist and Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, Granger was censured because, I quote, "appearances are more important than reality." This slippage from the mooring of objective truth is the hallmark of Communism.

The atmosphere at the meeting was charged. Mild-mannered Canadians, all champions of "tolerance," behaved like wild dogs eager to rip apart a trapped rabbit. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure.

These rituals of denunciation and contrition, typical of Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, are becoming more common in America. They are like show trials designed to frighten people into conforming. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against Christians, white heterosexual men and traditional women. They use the specter of "sexual harassment" to fetter male-female relations and purge their opponents.


you-gentiles9.jpg
CONCLUSION

In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanac. The KGB shut down the magazine and deported the women to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism has largely been for export. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."

In conclusion, the feminist pursuit of "equal rights" is a mask for an invidious Communist agenda. The Communist MO has always been deception, infiltration, and subversion using social justice issues as a pretext. Communism can take any form that empowers the puppets of the central bankers. The goal is the destruction of Western civilization and creation of a new world order run by monopoly capital. This has largely been accomplished.

Kate Weigand's Red Feminism demonstrates that we live in a de facto Communist society, a development which took place by subterfuge with the complicity of the Masonic central banker-controlled Establishment.

Feminism is thus and integral part of the globalist conditioning. It will of course end as soon as it stops being supported from above - it's actually very similar to marxism which topples instantly as it is being met with reality.

[hv123]

The organisation I was thinking of is called Common Purpose.

This is not tin foil hat stuff, it's very real. high up police officers like Cressida Dick(head) are up to their necks in it.

@Constitution45 I think most people who spend time on the "front lines" in life are pretty red pill. Police or other. I think that's why the left is so keen to extent adolescence in, in effect, infinity through further education and make work public sector jobs. I guess which is largely covered by Zelcorpion's post above.

I think we all agree it's a top down push rather than a bottom up for societal change. In my points above I was trying to say what you said better, in so far as the big push in sexual assault cases needs to be to change societal perception, because if you don't juries still tend to find people innocent on flimsy pretexts. Contrary to what blue pill people might think, I believe it's well known that women actually tend to find men innocent in these cases more than men do.

Common Purpose is an incredibly blatant attempt at social engineering. I guess the fact that it goes unchallenged just show how far down the rabbit hole things have travelled.

[spydersuit]

(02-08-2018 10:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The good news is that when things get sporty the police are going to be a walkover for any local organised resistance, and soon the military too.

You must be referring to the Australian Army.