Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why bother with trials?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • voidspawn
    replied
    Originally posted by unheard View Post
    Yeah, a woman sensible enough to see the difference between right and wrong - there must be more like her out there. If they spoke out women may listen
    Women do listen to other women. That's why they do everything they can to marginalise and remove from mainstream media Karen Straughan, Janice Fiamengo, Hannah Wallen, Alison Tieman, Diana Davies, Janet Bloomfield, Bettina Arndt and dozens of others. This women do tell it like it is and so many women being sexist (has to be said!) won't listen when a man says it. But these SJW's and feminists have been playing the long game for a long time, they've manoeuvred and manipulated into positions of power and influence using endless demands for affirmative action to where they can corrupt the entire system. Decent women have to make their voice heard and withdraw support for feminists loud and clear, we need that message to go to politicians, and that is just to get permission to start cleaning house. These parasites won't clear easy, anyone ever tried to clear a flea infestation?

    Leave a comment:


  • unheard
    replied
    Originally posted by Plato the 2nd View Post
    Interesting that a female barrister whose worked in trials of men accused of sexual offences opposes this move.
    Yeah, a woman sensible enough to see the difference between right and wrong - there must be more like her out there. If they spoke out women may listen

    Leave a comment:


  • unheard
    replied
    Originally posted by mr_e View Post
    It's more expedient that way, obviously. Otherwise they would have to round up 12 women to sit the jury-- you know, interrupt their hair and nail appointments, and possibly cause them to miss their daily soaps... what a tragic circumstance that would be.
    But it would be another crime to prosecute men for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mifune
    replied
    Trials have plenty of uses.

    In a just society, trials are, in a sense about protecting the people from becoming the monsters they might otherwise allow themselves to be. We've all read of people being beaten to death or near enough on the mere claim that a woman says she was raped. That's how people react, with outrage. Trials in a just society attempt to make us better than our base instincts.

    In an unjust society trials are simply a rationalization. They are a show that allows us to indulge those base desires and soothe our outrage through violence while maintaining the illusion that we're anything other than the monsters that we are.

    Leave a comment:


  • mr_e
    replied
    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    And please note this little casual aside:
    "The new system will also prevent men accused of domestic violence from questioning their accusers in family court disputes – a move requested by judges."

    Why only men?

    And which judges are these?
    And since when do judges get to do the work of the legislative?

    M

    It's more expedient that way, obviously. Otherwise they would have to round up 12 women to sit the jury-- you know, interrupt their hair and nail appointments, and possibly cause them to miss their daily soaps... what a tragic circumstance that would be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Manalysis
    replied
    Originally posted by unheard View Post
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-evidence.html

    No need for a trial anymore, let's just convict based on allegation
    And please note this little casual aside:
    "The new system will also prevent men accused of domestic violence from questioning their accusers in family court disputes – a move requested by judges."

    Why only men?

    And which judges are these?
    And since when do judges get to do the work of the legislative?

    M

    Leave a comment:


  • Plato the 2nd
    replied
    Interesting that a female barrister whose worked in trials of men accused of sexual offences opposes this move.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatStrengthWithin
    replied
    Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
    You don't need to put it past them, they proudly boast about what they do.
    Very true.

    Leave a comment:


  • voidspawn
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatStrengthWithin View Post
    Man, these types of people are nothing but an empty husk inside I bet. Innocent Men and Boys will be sacrificed to satiate this blood lust of Feminists, and they don't give a fuck. I wouldn't put it past them (if they have a son) that they would sacrifice their own offspring if he had an allegation of Sexual Assault/Rape against him.

    Very dangerous this is.
    You don't need to put it past them, they proudly boast about what they do.

    http://injusticestories.com/i-aborte...-it-was-a-boy/
    I stand by my decision to abort my baby because it was a male.

    I don’t hate men, I hate the patriarchy, what men, and even some women, turn into, I wasn’t going to let that happen with my offspring. The chances were greater that it would with a male, it was unacceptable.

    If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mifune
    replied
    Possibly NSFW....animated nudity
    Last edited by Mifune; 07-12-2017, 09:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatStrengthWithin
    replied
    Man, these types of people are nothing but an empty husk inside I bet. Innocent Men and Boys will be sacrificed to satiate this blood lust of Feminists, and they don't give a fuck. I wouldn't put it past them (if they have a son) that they would sacrifice their own offspring if he had an allegation of Sexual Assault/Rape against him.

    Very dangerous this is.

    Leave a comment:


  • mr_e
    replied
    They would have a harder time doing that here in the United States, as being able to confront your accuser is written into the constitution. But knowing that and having it be honored could be two different things. The colleges and universities were getting away with it because they weren't courts and there was nothing being done or said that was in any context an actual legal setting. So they were free to set their arbitrary Byzantine rules for the accused and they would have to jump through the hoops, or else create a huge legal stink by suing the University or else calling the cops directly (911) and reporting the issue himself-- which frankly, I wonder why more people didn't actually *DO* that. I mean I understand being young and the fear / ignorance of the actual real legal / criminal justice system, but nothing would have blown the doors off of this issue faster (IMO) than doing that right up front. Because like it or not, when the state gets involved, they have to follow at least a modicum of decorum and dot a few I's and cross a few T's along the way, or else they get themselves into hot water.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iggy
    replied
    Showtrails... its a tradition.

    Leave a comment:


  • unheard
    started a topic Why bother with trials?

    Why bother with trials?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-evidence.html

    No need for a trial anymore, let's just convict based on allegation
Working...
X