Men should be considered guilty of sexual abuse until and unless ‘evidence’ shows them to be innocent, says Alex Marshall, Chief Executive, College of Policing

Here we go, yet again. The start of the article:

Police in England and Wales need to further encourage sexual abuse victims to come forward, the College of Policing has said.

Chief executive Alex Marshall said claims should be “believed” unless there was evidence to the contrary.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Men should be considered guilty of sexual abuse until and unless ‘evidence’ shows them to be innocent, says Alex Marshall, Chief Executive, College of Policing

  1. daddybones45 says:

    The phrase “encourage sexual abuse victims to come forward” is merely an advertisement for people with no morals to approach police with a view to providing lawyers with income and the Judiciary with false crime statistics with which to further scare the public. The entire corpus of claimants against Jimmy Savile, for example, is made entirely of such – long driven by career criminals such as Liz Dux. Note that claims of sexual abuse/assault/rape are highest in countries that offer compensation based on allegations. Germany altered its procedures some time ago, from monetary “victim” compensation to “curative” “offender” programmes, and its said that claims dropped by 80% almost immediately. It doesn’t take a cynic to find that plausible.

    • nrjnigel says:

      I’m not usually a cynic but it really is suspicious that the recent circus about polititions was essentially a “case” against Tory politicians in particular at a time when that party is in charge of reducing funding to the police. I note it took a brave gay tory to reveal just how flimsy the whole thing was. His broadcast statements of the actual “case” revealed to the public just how ridiculous it was. Otherwise people assumed that there was some fire in amongst the media smoke.
      Yet over the past decade or so various police forces resolutely ignored actual sex abuse rings in at least 9 major towns so as not to upset community cohesion (aka multiculturalism) And over a much longer period been pretty uninterested in abuse in institutional settings. in both partly claiming not to have resources for such investigations.
      There really has to be some wonder that a supposedly cash strapped body can find so much resource to pursue such old cases or indeed such implausible ones.

    • nrjnigel says:

      The comment about Germany is very interesting do you have a ref. ?

      • daddybones45 says:

        I did. It was in German, but it’s no longer on the ‘net at its old location, sadly. A chap in the EU is producing a “false rape” blog and promised to link me up with some similar stats, fingers crossed. Sexual abuse claims (from females) in a country are directly related to how much money a claimant can make and how easily anonimity is afforded. India seems to have the highest rates of false claims (female claimants are paid at point of claim and get more money as cases progress) and China the lowest (where an agonistic legal system hammers false claimants with the apposite jail term that would’ve been given a guilty defendant).

        The Savile case, from the outset, was essentially the true Peter Righton scandal, transposed onto a heterosexual and more easily attackable, clownish celebrity male. “Low-hanging fruit,” I believe the term is. Righton genuinely sourced and had relations with many teenaged boys and was caught importing boy porn. He escaped justice largely off the wave of gay liberation sentiment and it riled many people. Someone had to fall, somewhere. Coincidentally enough, the following year produced what we now think are the earliest claims against Savile, though even those made by “star witnesses” such as Karin Ward and Dee Coles have been studied into oblivion. Clearly products of fantasy, guilt, bitterness, mental illness all – and not a single claim against Savile has been substantiated at all. Some of them are so ludicrous as to be projected fantasy. Some are from men! He was no more gay than a paedophile or hebephile!

        Note that Dame Smith’s case report cost £10 million and Slater & Gordon must now have tapped the Savile estate dry. All that money was raised to help sick children and it’s all gone to feminist lawyers and nutters with a hand out. Truly, truly evil.

        I personally am not convinced by the so-called Islamic grooming gangs stories either. I know that’s a controversial stance, but I don’t say that lightly. I am happy to be proven wrong, always, but these too stink to high heaven. Child sexual abuse takes place ALMOST ALWAYS in family homes (perpetrated mostly by women, of course) or in children’s institutions. I strongly suspect that Muslim men were either (a) scapegoated for abuses committed within the homes themselves or (b) the homes were pimping the girls to the best available market. Maybe some of both. The more a case reads like a “brazen monster” story, the more likely it is to be fabricated.

        The trouble with all of these cases is that the lies are now so big as to be unchallengeable. Anyone picking apart the madness of the investigations or reportage gets branded a “denier” or “paedo enabler.” It’s why sex crime is always the best weapon to use against people. It provokes human horror instantly and lies never really get repealed.

  2. sanity2014 says:

    the real question is this: considering the shameless behavior of increasing numbers of contemporary women, the unfounded accusations, the made up lies, the quotas, the divorce rip-offs, the father alienations,,etc.. why would any man in his right mind want to treat such women as as gentleman ? Ready to offer assistance, leniency, preferential treatment.,etc..
    The more gentlemanly treatment these women receive, the greater their demands, complaints and accusations. it doesn’t take rocket science to figure this out, does it ?

  3. MacOisdealbh says:

    How can a man in a liberal western democracy come out with the hogwash? He has no business in the position if he doesn’t know the fundamentals of law’

  4. John mws says:

    I see he does not extend this ludicrous idea to male victims of sexual abuse by women. If you want this bad idea you must allow it for male victims too. The fact that men cannot even report rape by a female as a crime in the UK is a scandal. I am sure he would be happy to receive the honour of himself or a male relative to be charged with rape should he get his way.

    There will be no need for a trial, if the female accuser must be believed, and every child custody battle would all be decided with a universal assumption of guilt of the man of any sex claim made by the woman. This is nearly the case now but this would rubber stamp it. Even if you could defend yourself successfully your life would still be disrupted massively regardless of this outcome. The false accuser gets off scot free.

    Why not do this with all crimes? Selecting one type is illogical. Then again selecting any category of crime that gender feminists want to manipulate (or invent) is guaranteed to be illogical. We already have the situation that a mere sexual accusation reported to the police now counts as a real crime in the statistics regardless of if it actually reaches a charge.

    What he should be saying is all claims have the right to be investigated, no one, male or female, has the right to be believed on no evidence. And feelings are not evidence of anything otherwise all men could rightly claim fear of any woman if this type of thing is made the law. It would cause chaos in society, men would not be able to protect themselves from a false accusation from any random woman. How could we ever trust and talk to them knowing that. The level of though some people in jobs of importance seem to have is very worrying indeed.

  5. boggojones says:

    Hogan-Howe seems to be trying to resist the trend, declaring that at least evidence in defence should be considered. The NSPCC, on the other hand, seem to be saying that not even that is acceptable. The context, of course, is with allegations of child sexual abuse, so the alleged victims might likely be boys as well as girls, though doubtless the focus will be on girls.

    If the “guilty until proved innocent” principle is accepted it should be challenged by a man accusing a women of abuse. Then we’ll see how well the principle holds up.

  6. sanity2014 says:

    feminists, as well as large numbers of women, if not opposed by men, will reduce western democracies into lawless, degenerating, economically stagnating banana republics.
    the writing is on the wall all over the place, loud and clear. Men must put a stop to this trend and a good start is to no longer accept the notion that women deserve special treatment at workplace. Of any kind.

  7. cadburycat says:

    What has happened to innocent until proven guilty? Far more important to my mind than Yuman ‘Rites, to quote Richard Littlejohn.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s