Metropolitan Police to Use ‘Al Capone’ Tactics if Supposed Rapists Haven’t Raped Anyone
The hysteria and lynching of a dead old man these past couple of weeks has been disheartening, to say the least, but the following story sent the shivers up my spine even more, and highlights just how backward and how much of a dangerous place to live in the UK is fast becoming – at least for a man.
The Met police are going to use a variety of strategies to target those who commit rape or sexual assault….
…The Met also plan to go ‘Al Capone’ on men they strongly suspect of being rapists – Capone was jailed for tax evasion rather than any of his gangster activities, and the police hope to able to prosecute on possession of weapons or driving illegally if there’s not enough evidence for a rape conviction.
http://londonist.com/2012/10/pubs-and-clubs-could-lose-licenses-over-rape.php
Well at least the British police are finally admitting to being nothing more than the biggest gang in town.
And given that with all the Big Brother legislation introduced in the last couple of decades, it’s been estimated (very conservatively) that the average Briton breaks the law 21 times a year, then the Police are certainly free to employ these Kafkaesque tactics and arrest any man in the UK that upsets them.
Naturally, the ‘liberal progressive’ media don’t see in any of this important issues of ….you know…Third World selective justice. Instead, it’s simply an insult to the ‘victims’ : http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/victim-blaming-ignoring-justice-met-police-crime-head-accused_n_1957799.html
those are third-world-country banana-republic tactics. Shame on them for stooping to such levels.
I take it nobody is really innocent — you just haven’t been proven guilty yet.
inclinedreader
12 Oct 12 at 11:27 am
I don’t think they’ll need to stoop to that type of third world republic policing, for ‘crimes against women’ and certainly not for crimes involving ‘protecting children’, because from what I’ve been seeing, especially over the past 3 weeks, a simple accusation is all they need anyway.
The police presenting their case for the prosecution in a trial is practically ‘cosmetic’ only because it’s just standard legal procedure or practice for them to do so. It’s really just a little ‘act’ or show they put on to impress the sex-obsessed, paedo-sleaze hungry public, via the manipulated press and other news media providers.
Once a woman (who wants a fast boost of cash from ‘victim’s’ compensation) accuses any man she chooses of raping her by reporting it to the police, (these days, she doesn’t even need to prove she’s in fact met him), the man is automatically guilty.
Just look at the recent ‘dead paedophiles trials’ if you doubt they really do that, but
for a much more detailed and factual account on how the British Judiciary and for the matter the gynocratic / manginatic governement deals with ‘sex offenders’, read Inquisition 21 for many examples of their injustice and if you have time: be sure to read the entire Operation Ore story…
In other words, if the British police want to stoop to Al Capone style justice or tactics, for crimes against women or children nobody will notice, as they’ve already engaging such sleazy tactics for a number of years anyway.
This article merely officially states that they have…
Alan Vaughn
12 Oct 12 at 11:58 pm
“I take it nobody is really innocent — you just haven’t been proven guilty yet.”
IR, bureaucrats have passed thousands of statutes to make sure everyone is guilty of violating some of their statutes, daily. They use these statutes to harass, fine or imprison people at whim and many have been set in place for when the world economy goes in the crapper, and people take to the streets. Look at Spain and Greece, as a taste of what’s in store for everyone, and that’s only a beginning. In these last days of Rome only the wealthy can buy justice, but the worm always turns. We’re living out that Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.”
Alex
13 Oct 12 at 2:11 am
Meanwhile, in sunny carefree Western Australia they can sell your home and any other assets they choose IN ADDITION to whatever sentence the court hands you.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/law-to-confiscate-pedophiles-assets/story-e6frg6pf-1111116441444
This law was originally intended to remove the assets of drug dealers – that’s how it was sold to the public to get voted through parliament. “We only want to stop the drug trade”.
Once the law was established it suddenly had to be expanded to “protect the children”. And guess where all that money from asset sales went? To the victims? Nah – don’t be stupid. The so called ‘child protection agencies’ get the money. That’s right. Whether guilty or not, either the accused and/or the victim get fucked over by the Government and the ‘child protection’ agencies.
By the way, even BEFORE you stand trial your assets are frozen to prevent you from selling anything to fund a decent defense.
Oh, by the way, drugs are now everywhere in Perth.
Deano
13 Oct 12 at 6:17 am
Angry Harry noted that drug sentencing chiefly targeted men and that the war-on-drugs would end if females were sentenced to anywhere the same rate as men. The confiscatory and jailing system victimizing sex offenders doesn’t need to be rehearsed because it has been applied for quite a time already to drug cases. Cocaine, “child porn”, ecstasy, “children”, you name it, they’re all fuel to a man-destroying machine. The convergence point of all this is violence. It’s as though women were sick and tired of science, economics, law, space exploration, governance and all the field in which they can’t compete, and wanted to revert to unadulterated animal cut-throatness, something they understand and respect.
Jack
13 Oct 12 at 9:38 am
well, they have long done away with two fundamental constitutional legal principles when it comes to these cases.
A suspect’s right to confront his accuser has been a standard of procedural law in most enlightened Western democracies for centuries, and according to some accounts even literally dates back to biblical times. This fundamental right is even enshrined both in the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and traditional English common law.
And of course the presumption of innocence, which equally goes back to Roman times and has been one of the most indispensible foundations of due process of law in civilized countries around the globe; perhaps a principle that has been many times more important even than the right to confront your accuser.
But look at where we stand now. According to the new EU child sexual abuse directive, but increasingly also in adult rape cases, all it takes to convict you is a witness statement by the purported victim. You have no right to confront them, speak to them, and plead your case against them in person if they don’t want to deal with you. As for the presumption of innocence, well, that too is a farce now, as you said. Some radical feminists here in Germany even want to abolish this legal principle altogether; for example, after the Jörg Kachelmann trial (the German weatherman who was framed by his scorned former lover), Alice Schwarzer, Germany’s most influential old-school feminist extremist, has called for the words “consensual sex” and “presumption of innocence” to be named “bad words of the year”.
In the end, I worry that it is really going to be much like when the Nazis took power; society will only realize that it has betrayed and sold down the river its most fundamental constitutional legal rights when they have been completely hollowed out and rendered so meaningless that nobody, not anybody, can claim them anymore. But until the pendulum swings back again from that kind of dystopia, thousands, potentially millions of lives will be forever ruined.
inclinedreader
13 Oct 12 at 8:35 pm
Inclinedreader:
It’s gotten so bad in the US that the media actually tries cases and riots have been known to break out if the sentence the media is calling for doesn’t happen. Needless to say, the media has quite a power over judges and juries.
Over here, we’re moving, not so much towards Naziism like in Britain, but more towards an orchestrated mob-violence. I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to imagine officially sanctioned stormtroopers in America in the near future; administering ‘justice’ without any regard to the actual laws involved.
Eric
14 Oct 12 at 2:16 am
Good point Eric:
For sure!
Is there not such a career or business there in the US, as a ‘Bounty Hunter’? I understand that there are some men whose fulltime job is hunting down wanted felons, then (‘citizens) arresting’ them and delivering them to the police or FBI and collecting the reward money, which can sometimes amount to many 100′s of thousands of US$?
If that isn’t encouraging vigilantism, then what is?
Alan Vaughn
14 Oct 12 at 2:29 am
Alan:
Yes, there is. And not only that, but some police jurisdictions actually have vigilante groups who report civil infractions to the police and get a share of the fines collected!
In many ways, the SPLC is a vigilante group, and the FBI considers them an ‘asset’.
It really wouldn’t take very much at all to get a vigilante movement based in paedohysteria to get going and on the move here. The media already has the public fairly well primed for it. There are national networks already in place to locate ‘missing children’—a few years ago that was changed to ‘missing and exploited children.’
You probably know what they mean by ‘exploited’, too.
Eric
14 Oct 12 at 2:43 am
Not totally certain, but maybe something like this: Female ‘children’ aged 15 to 17 years, who are missing from their Oprah and Chris addicted, paedohysterical parent’s home (where they would normally be expected to reside for the entire 26 years of their ‘childhood’).
The paedohysterical public would gleefully subscribe to the frenzied, paedosleaze-manipulated media reports (theories) that those ‘exploited children’ have all been abducted by filthy, predatory child-eating monsters that lurk EVERYWHERE in all communities?
However, the most likely explanations for a typical innocent little 16 y/o daughter’s disappearance being either:
a) She’s sick and tired of listening to her puritanical, paedohysteric parents with their constant drivel about the dangers of predatory paedophiles, who are so cunning and evil they often disguise themselves as innocent looking 17 y/o boys next door, who are only interested in doing the unthinkable, she just decided ENOUGH! Then ran away to another town or state just to ‘escape’, or:
b) Due to reasons similar to a) above: She has in fact (willingly and gladly) eloped with her slightly older boyfriend, because contrary to her parent’s belief and feminist social construct: she had in fact passed childhood when she was about 12 years old, and because of the danger of said boyfriend being lynched by the angry and omnipresent paedophile hunting mobs, they both had to elope to some very secret and safe place and are therefore in hiding.
Missing? Yes.
Exploited? Yes, by the paedohysterical feminist totalitarian State, NOT by any ‘pervert’, ‘paedophile’ or ‘sexual predator’.
And most certainly not a ‘victim’ of anyone other than the same one that ‘exploited’ her.
Alan Vaughn
14 Oct 12 at 6:42 am
Alan:
And point ‘c’ oftentimes these girls are pregnant, and have escaped with the father to some place where the man won’t be locked up and baby ‘expropriated’ by the ‘compassionate’ social workers.
The ‘Center for Missing and Exploited Children’ (another vigilante group) actually disguises that fact by stating that the girl ‘is need of medical attention’. That usually always means that she’s pregnant; but these scum want to cover up that little detail.
Eric
15 Oct 12 at 8:27 pm
Interesting. While we don’t actually have (yet) a feminist corrupt and bogus charity such as your ‘Center for Missing & Exploited Children’, we do have a similarly feminist manipulated media that uses that same phrase: ‘she is in need of medical attention’ and everyone knows too that it translates to the ‘missing child’ being pregnant.
If she is about 8 months or more, they state ‘she’s in need of urgent medical attention’.
Alan Vaughn
15 Oct 12 at 11:36 pm