Posts Tagged ‘Rape’

Please write to your MP about the unfair Clare’s Law which splits our justice system into two!

December 3, 2013

Please write to your MP about the unfair Clare’s Law which splits our justice system into two!

By Dark Politricks

If you read my latest article you will know I was a bit annoyed about the new Clare’s Law which was being brought into the UK nationwide.

This law would let women ask the local Police for any criminal history about their new partner. The new law would not apply to men who make up 40% of all domestic abuse victims.

The disturbing thing about this law is that it divides our judicial system into a sexist one where one law exists for men and another for women.

Also the police are able to give out “suspicions” and “allegations” to the inquisitive woman which might not be truthful or correct.

How many vindictive women are out there which would claim that their ex partner beat or abused them because they are upset or jealous that they split up?

I don’t know, but I do know that we have had recent court cases where a women has been prosecuted and jailed for making false claims of rape against men. The most recent one being the case of Natasha Foster who was jailed for 3 years for making up a claim of rape against an ex boyfriend.

Therefore if you think this new law couldn’t in any way affect you then think again.

Not only could your current partner lie and make a false claim of abuse but just by alleging an offence took place, even if it didn’t result in a court case, it could still be treated as an “allegation” serious enough to be given out to future partners.

Also old crimes that should be “spent” after a period of time under the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will still be eligible for the Police to give out to future partners even if the crime happened many years ago. This goes against the whole point of the 1974 law as the crime is not even supposed to be on your record any more.

This turns the whole concept of our criminal justice act on its head. Supposedly, under this law, once you have spent your crime you are “rehabilitated” and therefore allowed to not mention it on job application forms of other legal documents that ask about criminal convictions. This new Clare’s Law, like the Criminal Records Bureau checks before it, have totally negated the nature of the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and could throw any chance of rehabilitation away for ex-offenders.

For example if you had a fight with a man 20 years ago this should supposedly be “spent” and no longer on your record. You should be able to apply to jobs and not even mention the event.

However under Clare’s Law the police could give this information out if they felt it was “relevant”. This in itself is leaving a very important matter up to a low-level Police officer rather than a Judge or Magistrate.

Here is what is “supposed” to happen when you have committed a crime and then “spend” it by passing a specified length of time which is dependant on the seriousness and nature of the offence.

I quote directly from the Home Offices own page on the law:

Subject to subsection (2) below, where an individual has been convicted, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, of any offence or offences, and the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a)he did not have imposed on him in respect of that conviction a sentence which is excluded from rehabilitation under this Act; and

(b)he has not had imposed on him in respect of a subsequent conviction during the rehabilitation period applicable to the first-mentioned conviction in accordance with section 6 below a sentence which is excluded from rehabilitation under this Act;

then, after the end of the rehabilitation period so applicable (including, where appropriate, any extension under section 6(4) below of the period originally applicable to the first-mentioned conviction) or, where that rehabilitation period ended before the commencement of this Act, after the commencement of this Act, that individual shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as a rehabilitated person in respect of the first-mentioned conviction and that conviction shall for those purposes be treated as spent.

Read the full law here: The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Therefore after my earlier rant I wrote to my local MP about this matter and I got a response back telling me that he will raise the matter with the Home Secretary.

Here is the letter I received:

Dear Mr ….

Thank you for your email in which you pose some interesting questions which I shall submit to the Home secretary.  I shall let you know when I have a reply.

Best wishes

Sir Gerald Howarth MP
Member of Parliament for Aldershot
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Therefore I suggest anyone else, male or female, who is concerned about our whole criminal justice system being split into two – one for men and another for women, complain to their MP, or directly to the Home Secretary ASAP.

You can find your local MP and contact them directly online here > http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

Here is the letter I sent to my own MP. If you cannot think of your own version feel free to copy it and change wording as you see fit.

Dear [YOUR MP’s NAME],

Can I enquire about the introduction of the new “Clare’s law” which is apparently going to be rolled out across the country.

From the news reports it seems that this law is only going to apply to women even though a reported 40% of victims of domestic violence are now men.

I quote directly from a report made from Home Office statistics which was reported in the Observer > http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

“About two in five of all victims of domestic violence are men, contradicting the widespread impression that it is almost always women who are left battered and bruised, a new report claims.

Men assaulted by their partners are often ignored by police, see their attacker go free and have far fewer refuges to flee to than women, says a study by the men’s rights campaign group Parity.

The charity’s analysis of statistics on domestic violence shows the number of men attacked by wives or girlfriends is much higher than thought. Its report, Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective, states:

“Domestic violence is often seen as a female victim/male perpetrator problem, but the evidence demonstrates that this is a false picture.”

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in
2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.”

Therefore can I ask you the following questions:

-Will men be able to find out if potential new female partners are violent and in this age of supposed equality surely any law should be equally applicable to men and women?

-What actual information will be given out to women enquiring about their partner?

-How does this new law effect the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in which convictions are supposedly “spent” after a number of years. For example if I was arrested and convicted for a street fight against another man when I was 18 will that information be given out?

-What about if a women had made a false claim of rape against me which led to no charge or conviction? From the reporting it seems that even “accusations” true or not can be given out. How would that effect men who have been falsely accused of rape or other violent crimes.

-How are you going to handle “deliberate” misleading reports of domestic abuse by former partners who are upset that their relationships have broken up. I can see no better way for an annoyed ex to get back at me than claim to the Police that I hit or abused her and therefore ensure any future partner I might have could be told about it. It could potentially ruin relationships and allow manipulative women to purposefully ruin lives.

Also I would like to state that in a country where we are all supposedly innocent until found guilty the only way guilt is proven is by a conviction in a court of law.

Therefore giving out “accusations” and “rumours” goes against a supposed long standing maxim of our country that all are equal under the law until proven guilty.

Can you please ask the Home Secretary how she can claim we live under the rule of law when it is not applied equally to all?

Surely in this day and age of female equality when websites exist that let women brag about beating men up >
http://www.likelike.com/pollcommentary/2408 we should all be equal under the law, rather than having two sets of laws dependant on the sex you are born as.

Yours sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]

Hopefully if enough of us can get questions raised in Parliament or MP’s actually thinking about the consequences of their new laws they may think again.

I have no problem with sensible measures to protect women from horrible domestic abuse.

However any law in a democratically country should be equally applied and it should not negate previous laws in doing so.

Please help our politicians understand this.

 

View the original article on Clare’s Law an unfair law to be rolled out across the country here on the main site www.darkpolitricks.com

Read the The response from my MP to Clare’s Law on my main site: http://www.darkpolitricks.com

Advertisements

When is a cult a religion and when is a religion a cult?

May 20, 2012

By Dark Politricks

Watching The Big Questions this morning (2 articles this show has now spawmed) there was only one question which was “What’s the difference between a Cult and Organised Religion”

On one side were the standard old age religionis, Christians, Catholics, Rabbis and Muslims and on the other side we had members of existing “new” religions such as Raelians, Moonies – or as they are called now members of the “Unification Church”, an ex member of the Branch Davidians which if you remember was the target of the ATF and FBI ended up in a state sanctioned massacre of 82 religious people.

The audience was also filled with ex members of cults, physchologists who have studied the “brainwashing” techinques used by such called groups and other affected by these groups in one way of another.

In my mind it is quite simple but lets look at a definition of a Cult

  • a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
  • an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
  • the object of such devotion.
  • a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
  • Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

Lets look at the definition of a Religion

  • a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
  • a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
  • the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
  • the life or state of a monk, nun, etc. to enter religion.
  • the practice of religious beliefs – ritual observance of faith.

In mine and many in the audiences (apart from those belonging to organised religions) not much differece.

Jesus was supposedly a characteristic person who had followers – apparantly a key sign of a cult. The same could be said about Mohammed, Buddha, Hari Krishna and many other “old religions”.

The disagreement seems to be as one person said one of size. The Catholic Chuch is a huge and rich organisation whereas some of the orgainisations called cults such as the Raelians who believe we were created (just as scientisits on this planet are now starting to do with DNA) by human beings from another planet in the universe.

A case of aliens geo-engineering the earth and it’s inhabitants. When compared to some of the stories that the “official” religions believe in such as virgin births, coming back to life after dying and performing miracles not too bizare a belief.

What got my interest though was that one of the audience members said to an ex member of the Branch Davidians asked whether the leader David Koresh sexually abused children at the branch. The member denied this but others of the “scientific” community said that one of the signs of a cult as compared to a religion was the sexual abuse that was endemic within cults which had such charesmatic leaders that the followers did whatever he said due to brain washing techniques as well as the cult of personality. This seemed to be a big difference between living your life by a set of defined values (as Christians, Jews and Muslims supposedly do) whilst cult members didn’t.

There wasn’t any mention of the numerous cases of sexual abuses, pedophilia, cover ups and criminal cases over the years that have been engrained in “old religons” since their conception.

We have just experience a major Catholic cover up over its treatment of pedophile priests which led all the way up to the ex Nazi Youth Pope. Court case after case in Ireland has shown the Catholic Church to be one of the biggest organised pedophole rings in the world – and one of the most well funded and protected.

The same sort of sexual abuse has been endemic in Christian history for a long time. Why a man of breeding age would willingly chose abstinence and the company of little boys over a normal life seems obvious to me but in these times where psychology would give more than one answer it seems like an old excuse to hide ones sexual pedidocs from the community at large.

Islam has always had its critics from those who called the original “cult leader” Mohammed certain terms for the age of some of his wives. However in some states of America where the age in some states it’s 18 you might call the Spannish strange for having an age of consent of only 13 and other European countries from 13, 14 up to 18. Even in some places in Africa and Asia is not uncommon for child weddings where an old man takes a 12 year old as a wife.

From Wikipedia:

Traditionally, across the world, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.

In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.
The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to “ravish” a “maiden within age,” whether with or without her consent. The phrase “within age” was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.

In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.

And then there is the Jewish Talmud, the book of laws made by Rabbis that is full of teachings that allow Rabbis to have sex with girls of extremley young ages or not consider rape illegal if the man was a rabbi. These Talmudic laws have been known for a long time but are not unique for an age in which rape wasn’t even considered a crime.

Even in England raping your wife wasn’t considered a crime until back in 1990.

So sexual behaviour cannot be considered a sign of cultish behaviour. However when a science fiction writer claims that “the best way to make a million dollars is to start a religion” and then goes on to do exactly that.

Charging people thousands of dollars for learning it’s many steps up to the big reveal, the “ultimate secret” one that wouldn’t be out of place in any science fiction book:

Scientologists believe that 75 million years ago an evil galactic ruler, named Xenu, solved overpopulation by bringing trillions of people to Earth in DC-8 space planes, stacking them around volcanoes and nuking them. Then the souls of these dead space aliens were captured and boxed up and taken to cinemas where they were shown films of what life should be like, false ideas containing God, the devil and Christ and told to get ill.

After that they supposedly clustered together and now inhabit our bodies. Scientologists believe that if they rid themselves of these body Thetans then they will be healthier and will gain special powers like mind-over-matter.

People who try to leave are harassed, treated as traitors and have even had to face legal cases over their revelations of the “big secret” that people like Tom Cruise and John Travolata pay up to $500,000 for this top secret information. No wonder the Church of Scientology wants to keeps it’s big secret secret!

So there seems to be clear cases of made up religions that can be called cults, in which the aim of the organisation is to extract money from the member instead of a pay if you want to bag of donations passed around a Church on a Sunday morning. However it seems that if one were to go back to the start of each off shoot of the Abrahamic faith with today’s knowledge and science each new religion could easily fail into the class of a cult.

In my mind it is up to you what you want to believe but mocking anothers belief using claims that could easily fit your own brand of spiritual belief is stretching rationality at least a little.

When the definition of what is a religion and a cult are so indistinguishable from each other then maybe members of either grouping should stop to consider their beliefs before slagging off their opponents.

I’m right because my religious book says so therefore you must all be wrong is not a logical argument that stands up too long at all.

The Dominique Strauss-Kahn case is thrown out – An example of why Rape anonymity should be granted to both sides

August 23, 2011

By Dark Politricks

The Dominique Strauss-Kahn case shows us once again why the legal rules around rape cases are unfair to men.

Having been someone who was dragged out of my house during my teenage years by a mob of policeman at 6am with my mum slapping me shouting “how could you” because a girl who had run away from home had fantasied in her diary about me and my friends gang raping her – I know what is is like to be falsely accused of a horrific crime.

Luckily for me the girl whose diary cauaed the problem returned home and explained the gang rape she had fantasied about in such vivid detail was all false and we were let go but only after the best part of a day in jail, DNA tests, interviews and a month on Police Bail waiting for police line ups.

The problem with rape is it has a very low conviction rate which is why proponents of women’s rights want the accused names put forward at an earlier opportunity so that potential other witnesses can come forward.

If the person has a history of sexual abuse or rape then maybe they might bring forward other witnesses that could help the victim in the current case.

However the other side of the coin is that the lives of men accused of this horrendous crime are literally ruined by having their name published before being convicted.

In the UK we have a rule in which the woman’s identity is protected until the trial is over but the accused’s name is released as soon as he is charged. This is unfair and it leads to a trial by media which we have recently seen with the accusation (now dropped) of Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Trial by media is a horible thing to see and especially worse to experience if you are on the receiving side of it and the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn shows this.

Every little historical sexual detail is brought up and used against the “perpetrator” to convict them in the court of public media before they even reach a court. Past indiscretions are relived, ex girlfriends tell stories about the one time you were drunk and went too far at a party or the times you made inappropriate comments to people you had just met. All tittle tattle but stuff that hit piece articles are made from.

If they are acquitted or found not guilty then the damage has already been done to the person accused and many people will look at them as if they were a convicted rapist of the first degree even though they were found not guilty. As in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case in which the judge recently threw out the case on the prosecutions advice claiming that:

“that they could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt because of serious credibility issues with the hotel housekeeper who had accused Mr. Strauss-Kahn of sexually assaulting her as she entered his suite to clean it.”

The case for expanding the UK anonymity rules so that both accused and accuser have total anonymity until conviction in my mind is logical and fair for both sides.

At the moment there is a small but significant amount of cases where spiteful ex girlfriends aim to hurt their ex or wives are caught out having one night stands and shout rape to cover up their own misdeeds. Even though these people who are clearly the wrongdoers are able to remain anonymous their totally innocent victims have their private life trawled through by the public in local and national newspapers.

People who falsely accuse people of rape should be given the same punishment as those convicted of the crime and this should help to solve the problem of false accusations which although are small in comparison are very real (as I know) and are problematic enough to ruin numerous lives and many promising careers.

If the accuser is allowed anonymity then the same  latitude should be granted to the accused. The court of public opinion is the worst of all places to hold such a serious trial and by taking out this large gossip mongering, rumour mill there is more chance of a fair trial when the case does eventually  reach a court as jurors minds haven’t been corrupted by biased news stories.

Even though Dominique Strauss-Kahn has had all criminal charges dropped at the request of the prosecutor there still looms over him the prospect of a civil case in which the standard burden of proof is much lower and convictions are mush easier to obtain.

Not only has this person lost their well paid powerful job at the IMF, they have spent time in jail – probably beaten and maybe much worse – and they have basically had all hope of a future job in the public sphere ruined at the very least. He certainly won’t be running for French President any time soon.

Basically his life is over because his name was made public before any conviction in a court of law. The only court that convicted him was the court of public opinion and we all know how wrong that court often is.

Luckily Dominique Strauss-Kahn is rich enough to survive without a job for a while so he won’t be pan handling anytime soon but this is very good example of why we should expand the British legal system and make both parties to a potential rape case anonymous until a jury has had their say.

Rape is a serious crime, it should be treated as such. Allowing gossipers and rumours to spread in the absence of fact and evidence is the quickest way to blacken an innocent man’s name.

Man testifies cops sodomized him

January 26, 2010

KAREEM FAHIM
NY Times
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

In court, Michael Mineo told the story of his troubled young life, reciting the wrongs he had committed against others, and those he said had been visited upon him.

But Mr. Mineo, 25, insisted that he was telling the truth when he spoke about what police officers did to him in a Brooklyn subway station on Oct. 15, 2008. That day, he testified, after he was caught smoking marijuana and ran, an officer who arrested him shoved something “hard” between his buttocks — once, twice, three times, and then a fourth, this time into his rectum.

“I felt it penetrating me,” he said. “Something I have never felt before.”

Another officer told him, “You liked it,” using a homophobic slur, Mr. Mineo said. As they led him from the station in handcuffs, Mr. Mineo said, he implored the people he passed to help him. Then, Mr. Mineo said, he was let go with a summons and a warning from an officer not to visit a hospital or a police station.

Full article here