Nearly every case they make public it turns out the woman is making accussations up.
How do they keep managing to pull this off?
The last one I remember a girl was receiving oral sex from an extremely attractive man in public. When the next day she found this was socially embarrassing, she was like "how can I blame shift this onto someone else? must have been rape now".
It was only after someone published the video of her rocking her hips, grabbing his head, and moaning, that they stopped believing being interested - at which point they just moved to their next target of fake and hysterical accussations.
It's not hard to understand why the individual pushes these.
"No sane man would touch me, and if I'm not getting laid no one else will either!
You post obscure anecdotes all the time and act as if they are somehow representative of all women, or that there aren't similar anecdotes for reprehensible male behavior.
This is an actual law that will affect everyone (in Scotland). This is actual news.
I appreciate that you recognize the editorialized title though -- maybe you're actually listening to people's feedback, even if you're still ignoring it?
A minor difference. If the population doesn't live up to the standard set by the Socialists in charge, then it deserves to be destroyed. The German ones thought that Germans didn't deserve to be destroyed until 1945. The Scottish ones have just thought that for several more years.
The sad part in Canada is that for rape, you're actually better off with a judge thana jury. Scotland will end up the same as they become more and more gynocratic, like Canada.
The brother of a friend of mine recently had to go to trial in canada for rape and his lawyer advised him to pick judge because recently in Canada, that has had better outcomes than jury. He was pronounced not guilty.
As countries become more gynocratic the simps and women that get out on jury duty believe it's their duty to rule in the woman's favor, regardless of evidence.
I rarely submit posts on here, but this is so egregious that I posted it a few months ago. Happy to see it here again because holy shit...this is insanity.
Well, one of the two changes here (the not-rape one) is actually quite welcome. The abolition of the “not proven” verdict. UK jurisdictions had that, where the jury (or judge in a bench trial) decided you probably did it, but the prosecution hadn’t produced quite enough evidence to be sure. That’s total bullshit. Either the prosecution proves you did it, or the law should consider you not to have done, “not guilty.” That’s part of what are meant to be protections against the state: even if you actually did do it, the state still has to prove it and if it can’t, the state has to go forward treating you as if you didn’t do it. The courts shouldn’t get to basically say you “probably” did it. The court of public opinion already does that enough, but at least they can’t stick something on your record like a verdict gets stuck on your record. So THAT change is welcome!
The rape thing is retraced though. It’s obvious what this is trying to accomplish, and it’s the same thing that the Title IX hearing system at US colleges is trying to do: weaponize sex-crime accusations as yet another way of attacking and degrading men, both the specific one accused and our sex generally. I’ve actually read an impassioned defense of Title IX that claimed that because it isn’t a criminal proceeding, men don’t need due process rights. The argument claimed that it isn’t like a trial where you might go to jail, the consequences are “limited.” To expulsion and a permanent record plus any related reputations damage, yes, very limited!
Now THAT Is scary terminology. Can't slap charges on innocent people? Sounds like we need a kangaroo court.
Nearly every case they make public it turns out the woman is making accussations up.
How do they keep managing to pull this off?
The last one I remember a girl was receiving oral sex from an extremely attractive man in public. When the next day she found this was socially embarrassing, she was like "how can I blame shift this onto someone else? must have been rape now".
It was only after someone published the video of her rocking her hips, grabbing his head, and moaning, that they stopped believing being interested - at which point they just moved to their next target of fake and hysterical accussations.
It's not hard to understand why the individual pushes these.
"No sane man would touch me, and if I'm not getting laid no one else will either!
https://archive.ph/YMf6k/07588a0e5c97bd47dc466122d57ccb022ddfc73c.avif
But how on earth do they manage to keep being taken seriously
If imp stuck to posting like this, he’d be a valuable pillar instead of an annoying routine.
You post obscure anecdotes all the time and act as if they are somehow representative of all women, or that there aren't similar anecdotes for reprehensible male behavior.
This is an actual law that will affect everyone (in Scotland). This is actual news.
I appreciate that you recognize the editorialized title though -- maybe you're actually listening to people's feedback, even if you're still ignoring it?
Scotland is the now home of the imprisoned and they shout 'a little bit of freedom!' When they cross the border to England!
On a side note, heard that a lot of people are expecting the former SNP leader to get arrested soon for embezzling donor money
Scotland is run by National Socialists.
You don't have a right to private conversations, why would you have a right to a jury trial?
Maybe in name, but they act a lot more like international socialists these days.
A minor difference. If the population doesn't live up to the standard set by the Socialists in charge, then it deserves to be destroyed. The German ones thought that Germans didn't deserve to be destroyed until 1945. The Scottish ones have just thought that for several more years.
The sad part in Canada is that for rape, you're actually better off with a judge thana jury. Scotland will end up the same as they become more and more gynocratic, like Canada.
The brother of a friend of mine recently had to go to trial in canada for rape and his lawyer advised him to pick judge because recently in Canada, that has had better outcomes than jury. He was pronounced not guilty.
As countries become more gynocratic the simps and women that get out on jury duty believe it's their duty to rule in the woman's favor, regardless of evidence.
I rarely submit posts on here, but this is so egregious that I posted it a few months ago. Happy to see it here again because holy shit...this is insanity.
Your post was about France.
Haha well shit this is spreading I guess. Thanks for pointing that out.
Another poster pointed out that my thread was about France.
Somehow Scotland is deciding to be more oppressive than England.
Fucking Scots.
Now I know the answer to "What does a Scotsman have under his kilt?"
"A vagina."
Well, one of the two changes here (the not-rape one) is actually quite welcome. The abolition of the “not proven” verdict. UK jurisdictions had that, where the jury (or judge in a bench trial) decided you probably did it, but the prosecution hadn’t produced quite enough evidence to be sure. That’s total bullshit. Either the prosecution proves you did it, or the law should consider you not to have done, “not guilty.” That’s part of what are meant to be protections against the state: even if you actually did do it, the state still has to prove it and if it can’t, the state has to go forward treating you as if you didn’t do it. The courts shouldn’t get to basically say you “probably” did it. The court of public opinion already does that enough, but at least they can’t stick something on your record like a verdict gets stuck on your record. So THAT change is welcome!
The rape thing is retraced though. It’s obvious what this is trying to accomplish, and it’s the same thing that the Title IX hearing system at US colleges is trying to do: weaponize sex-crime accusations as yet another way of attacking and degrading men, both the specific one accused and our sex generally. I’ve actually read an impassioned defense of Title IX that claimed that because it isn’t a criminal proceeding, men don’t need due process rights. The argument claimed that it isn’t like a trial where you might go to jail, the consequences are “limited.” To expulsion and a permanent record plus any related reputations damage, yes, very limited!
Another step in the direction of singular Shariah judges