Week 11-02-16 Archive

To return to the main site please close this window.


London's police boss Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (?) has called in a senior Judge to carry out an enquiry into how the police have handled historical allegations of sex crimes and to suggest guide lines, if necessary, on how they should be handled in the future

He has also said that certainly one guide line should be that officers should stop automatically believing the allegations made by alleged victims

In other words, assuming the GUILT of the ACCUSED until proven otherwise

If it is a fact that some officers do indeed automatically believe what is alleged by "survivors" (the over dramatic way of describing people who make such claims) then it is little wonder that they are under such public and media criticism

Why would our police, whose basic function is to uphold the law, go so positively against its basic principle of innocence until guilt is proven. The answer is simple. Leave aside the excuse trotted out by Howe (?) that it was their original disbelief over the claims from the multitude of accusers of Jimmy Saville and the subsequent rubbishing of that investigation, that brought about a complete reversal of investigative procedures

But the rot had set in long before Saville

The forces of law and order had already been cowed into submission by feminists and other PC propogandists to work on the basis that any women alleging rape must be telling the truth

Driven into a corner by Political Correctness, the police have concluded that, as rape is a sex crime, any person reporting any sex crime - male, female, child or adult - must also be telling the truth

The fact that only a little over 1000 of the 95,000 men accused of rape each year are actually convicted is dismissed as faults in the legal system. The fact that women queue up to make accusations of rape for whatever their ulterior motives because they know they can enjoy anonymity in court, is also ignored

As for what has become the main issue in cases of historical sex crime allegations, the dreadful fact that alleged perpetrators are named by the police long before they are charged and often before they have even been arrested and cautioned, the answer is again simple

it should not only be made a criminal offence on the part of the police for such people to be named, but anyone publishing the name of such people - whether obtained from the police or from elsewhere - should also face criminal charges



Why is it that every time there is a mention of the Germans and the atrocities they committed in WW2 they are called "Nazis"?

It was the Germans. It was Germany. It was the German nation. It was not the political party THEY VOTED IN

It was the people of Germany and their military forces who invaded country after country. For example, over a million of them invaded Russia

It was the Germans who set up extermination camps and murdered some six million Jews, and their activities were not restricted to places like Belsen, which was just outside the German town of Celle. Not in Poland

There were dozens of "facilities" all over Germany where Jews and other people were murdered. There were factories in the Ruhr - in Germany - where slave labourers were worked to death.For the German people to say they did not know what was going on is crap