Police are arresting suspects of alleged historical sex crimes without sufficient evidence and keeping them on bail too long, a barrister has said.
Geoffrey Robertson QC said if a charge could not be made within three months the case should be dropped.
His comments come after no further action was taken against Paul Gambaccini over historical sex claims.
The Association of Chief Police Officers said victims were "squarely" the focus of inquiries into sex abuse.
Mr Gambaccini, a BBC broadcaster, was held at a south London address in October last year as part of the Metropolitan Police's Operation Yewtree investigation, and remained on bail for 12 months.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the inquiry followed claims of sex offences against two teenage boys in the early 1980s.
This pua video has everything, from brutal rejections handled with aplomb, to Johnny asking a 16 year old French cutie if she'd marry him (jokingly - around the 2:25 mark). Notice how it's the dogs who turn their noses up and it's the attractive females who are usually happy to flirt - something that would surprise only those who never approach women..
The following is an excerpt from a play I'm writing based loosely on the tactical genius and possible future of the man behind 'Human-Stupidity.com'. This is a sketch of the final scene..
The year is 2035, the location a rat infested over-crowded Brazillian prison cell. Human-Stupidity (HS) has been arrested after being caught looking at a 20 year old woman in the street. A child protection law had been recently passed, based on a directive of the North and South American Union, that made it a criminal offence for a man to look at a female under 21 in public for more than 0.33 seconds. Caught red-handed by facial recognition security cameras as HS glanced too long at a young lady as she sauntered along the road wearing nothing but a see-through g-string (the must wear fashion for young women in 2035), there seems little hope for him. HS sits down in his prison cell, awaiting his fate, as his fellow cell mates prepare to greet him...
Huge Thug : 'well, well, well...what have we got here then? Another nonce for us to play with. The guard told us what you're in here for bitch....looking at a 20 year old kid in the street....you disgusting pedo bastard. Now take off your trousers and take it like a little girl. If you don't scream we'll only rape you 5 times each before we skin you alive.'
Human-Stupidity (speaking with a voice that can only be described as half-way between Stephen Hawking and that of a Dalek on acid) :
Does not compute. Does not compute. 20 year old women are not children. Feminist abuse of language. Does not compute. Does not compute. Illogical. Human stupidity. Human stupidity.'
Huge Thug : 'WTF???'
2nd Huge Thug : 'Hey, wait a moment Carlos. Maybe he's got a point. Are 20 year old women really children these days? I remember when it was still legal to even fap off to 18 year olds....are you saying you've never had a boner for a 20 year old slut?'
Huge Thug : 'Are you calling me a nonce or something?'
2nd Huge Thug : 'Nah, I'm just saying that I don't think he's a real pedo. These laws the feminazis are coming out with are insane. Let's be honest. Who hasn't looked at a 20 year old at least once in their lives?'
Human-Stupidity : 'That is correct. Despite you clearly posessing African genes, which have been scientifically proven to be intellectually inferior, I must observe your logic is valid. I am an ephebophile not a paedophile. You can check Wikipedia for confirmation. A paedophile is a pervert who finds pre-pubescent children attractive. An ephobophile is a pervert who finds adolescents aged 13 - 21 attractive. I am an ephebophile not a paedophile. Feminist abuse of language. Illogical. Irrrational. Human stupidity. Human stupidity.'
Huge Thug : 'So you are a fucking nonce?'
2nd Huge Thug (to HS) : 'And who you calling intellectually inferior you fucking racist nonce?'
Huge Thug : 'Now lets just rape this bitch. Trousers down you fucking paedo....errm...ephebophebophile or whatever.. nonce'.
Human-Stupidity : 'Feminst abuse of language. Illogical. The correct terminology is unwanted foreign penis entry of my anus. Only women can be raped. Abuse of language. Check Eivind Berge. Only women are sexual resources. You cannot rape me. Illogical. Irrational. Human stupidity.'
Huge Thug : 'What the fuck??? I'm not raping the bitch if he's going to enjoy it. Let's just skin the freak.'
Huge Thug takes out a massive knife and towers over HS ominously...
3rd Huge Thug (holding a smuggled in iPad generation 25) : 'Hey, hold on a moment guys. I was checking out this Eivind Berge. He talks some sense. He says that all these pedo laws are just sex hating feminists denying men quality pussy. And he hates the pigs! (all three thugs spit on the ground in unison). And then there's another one, called 'the antifeminist'. He reckons that feminists are just jealous bitter hags out to control the pussy market - he says these evil cunts are raping us all.' (looking at Human-Stupidity with new found respect) 'I think we should leave this guy alone. These MRAs talk sense. Here we are in prison, after a life of thuggery and violence against our fellow men, and now we're going to slice up a guy just for looking at a 20 year old when we all know that we would love to bang 20 year olds. It's the feminist cunts who are making us do this to him - they're the enemy, not him!'
Huge Thug dropping his knife to the floor - 'you're right. Real men don't lie about their sexuality or kill other men for being honest. He's our brother. Why are thousands of men in this rat infested hell hole fighting each other like dogs, while women never go to prison? Why were we even thinking of killing a brother for looking at a 20 year old slut, when women walk free for having sex with 13 year old boys? Let's become brothers. Let's become men's rights activists and let's dedicate our lives the moment we are free to fighting the feminist cunts who are raping us'.
All the dozens of prisoners in the overcrowded cell start to cheer and now salute Human-Stupidty as a hero. After a few moments, they fall into a hushed silence, waiting for him to deliver a speech that will spark a revolution, overthrow feminism, and save the lives of millions of men who would otherwise perish in a sexual holocaust. This is Human-Stupidity's chance to change history. Will he seize the moment and deliver...?
Human-Stupidity : 'Illogical. Irrational. You are fellow ephebophiles but you are illogical, irrational. Does not compute. Your negro impoverished brains are illogical. The Anti-Feminist is illogical. Does not compute. Feminists cannot rape men. Abuse of language. Does not compute. Women are sexual resouces. They cannot abuse boys. Feminists are not rapists because women cannot rape men. The anti-feminist is illogical, irrational. Sex with children is harmless. It is scientifically proven. This is the meme that will destroy feminism. The Antifeminist does not accept this. He is irrational, illogical. Human stupidity. Does not compute. Men are the real problem. Jack says men are the real problem. You get more pussy than us. You are the real problem. I want to kill you. Jack is logical. The Antifeminist is illogical. Does not compute. Does not compute.'
Sparks start to fly out of Human-Stupidty's head.
All the thugs : 'WTF??!! Lets skin the fucking nonce!!!'
Huge thug picks up the knife and starts to cut into Human-Stupidity's arm. Instead of blood, the thugs are horrified to see electronic circuitry. Sparks fly out of the exposed metal in his arm. The thugs start screaming in terror..
All the thugs : 'Agghhhhhhh...(beating on the cell walls in a desperate attempt to get the attention of the guards)...lets us out of here, let us out of here in God's name!'
Human-Stupidity : 'Illogical. Irrational ceasing of stated goal - to skin me alive. Irrational. Does not compute. Does not compute. Human stupidity. Human stupidity.'
Human-Stupidity's head explodes in a fireball of electronic circuitry non-computing overload...
Quote of the year from loyal and esteemded reader 'thedude' :
If you can't even own up to your own natural, healthy sexuality, do not expect anyone - including feminists and other men - to take you seriously.
Doesn't really require a further explanation, but if the paedocrite manginas of the MHRM want to understand why men are held in such derisible contempt in today's world - by both women and other men - then perhaps they should begin by looking at themselves.
Take a look at the pictures below of Brigitte Bardot in her prime - when she was considered the most desirable female on Earth. If you find her sexually attractive be warned! The men's human rights movement officially considers you a paedophile. The only political movement with a possibility of preventing a sexual holocaust in the coming decades that could destroy millions of men in Europe and across the world considers you a 'paedophile apologist' if you so much as admit to her beauty..Lucien Varlen does not find this woman attractive at all, Paul Elam regards her as an obvious boner killer and would like to see you raped like a little bitch in prison if you disagree, while Dean Esmay would sooner pound David Futrelle in drag than get an erection to anything but the 80 year old version of Bardot...a lovely looking sheila at last!
In the light of AVoiceforMen's decision to continue to advocate for the obvious and imminent feminist sexual holocaust of men through the researching of the 'paedophile apologist' movement of previous decades, here's a repost of an article I published on David Thomas - one of the very first men's rights supporters and author of the classic - 'Not Guilty - In Defence of Men'.
Today MHRAs believe that it is right for feminists to lock up men as 'paedophiles' for looking at, in the privacy of their own homes, pictures of 30 year old women with small breasts. Any MRA who claims even this as a men's rights issue deserves, in the words of the leader of the MHRM, 'to be fucked in prison like a little girl'.
But this hasn't alway been the case. In the 1990s, the men's rights movement was dominated not by puritanical American fathers, nor by puritanical American 'liberal progressives', but by common sense British fathers, and it was taken for granted that inflated feminist definitions of child sex abuse were attacks upon male sexuality. This very un-American attitude to feminist child sex laws lives on in the men's rights movement today, with the likes of myself (British), Steve Moxon (British), Eivind Berge (Norwegian), Human-Stupidity (German/Brazillian), Chris Brand (British), and Angry Harry (British - and in relation to the trauma myth at least), all questioning feminist anti-sex dogma that leads to the destruction of the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, as well as boys (both as 'abusers' and 'victims'), and with no end in sight to the legislative creep that follows from it.
Back in 1993, British father and journalist David Thomas published the first men's rights work since Ernest Belfort Bax in the 1920's. He devotes an entire chapter to discussion of child sex abuse hysteria, at that time taking hold of both the USA and the UK through 'satanic abuse ritual' panics. He takes it for granted, as a men's rights supporter (and even as a father) that teenagers having willing sex with older men will NOT be harmed or traumatised, and to believe that they will is to believe in an absurd anti-male feminist construct. However, here he talks about the trauma myth in general, discussing how the obsession with abuse, and the insistance that victims will be traumatised for life, likely does more damage than the (real) abuse itself :
“It is generally agreed that a child who is compelled to have sex with an adult against his or her own will suffers lasting damage. Certainly that would be a common-sense view, and one with which, as a parent, I would instinctively agree. In August 1992, however, the New Statesman published a special issue devoted to opinions that were politically incorrect. One of its articles, by Edward Barrie, suggested that the after-effects of sexual activity might be less traumatic to children than had previously been supposed. In particular, he said :
“An enormous investigation was carried out for the German police by Dr. Michael Baurmann, who reported his findings in 1983. His team carefully assessed 8,058 young people of both sexes (more girls than boys) involved in illegal sexual relationships. They found that in many cases no harm was done – neither emotional nor physical. About 1,000 boys under the age of 14 took part in the study, and not one of those was found to have been harmed. Harm to the girls, when it occurred, was sometimes (not always) a result of the sex act itself, and sometimes the result of heavy-handedness by police, parents and others in the aftermath. Bauermann has shown conclusively that a child may well become a victim purely because victimisation is expected. More recent police department follow-up studies have confirmed the findings.”
Those findings, astounding though they seem at first glance, tally with the experiences of the solicitor whose letter about her experiences of abuse that I reproduced earlier in the chapter. They make me question whether the important social issue which both British and American society needs to confront is not abuse itself, but our apparent obsession with it.
Barrie remarks : “Perhaps most sinister of all, a young woman university graduate working on a doctoral thesis and pursuing the ‘harm done’ aspects of abuse, with help from….overseas experts, was denied a grant unless she came up with findings that would help the authorities ‘detect peadophiles’. She found this distortion of her views unacceptable.”
At this point the truth is clouded with exaggeration and confusion that one cannot do anything other than speculate about what is really going on. But when celebrities que up to reveal ever more lurid accounts of their childhood experiences, or publicise abuse helplines, the sickness to which they bear witness may just be the profound suspicion with which the Anglo-Saxon world regards sex. That, and the belief that the quickest route to public approval is to label oneself a victim – even if one happens to be a millionaire rock star, or a candidate for the presidency.
Consider, specifically, the determination with which some women seek to paint a picture of rampant sexual abuse, practiced entirely by men. Is this motivated by an altruistic desire to cure a social malaise, or just a fearful hostility towards male sexuality as a whole? Are they simply projecting their own terror onto children? Is there anything to choose between the dysfunction that causes an adult to seek out sex with children, and the dysfunction that persuades a doctor or social worker that she is surrounded, on every side, by a raging sea of sex abuse?”
http://theantifeminist.com/why-mras-fail-men-feminist-sex-law-hysteria/ (this article was written before the take over of the men's rights movement by American liberal progressives and its rebranding as the 'men's human rights movement')
Angry Harry : Traumatised by a Tomato
As the personal hell of former DJ Dave Lee Travis continues , there is still no prospect of justice in sight Russell Joslin - a male DJ whose sexual harassment by a colleague was so severe that he actually killed himself.
Whilst the life of Dave Lee Travis is destroyed for fondling the boobs of a woman nearly two decades ago, the abuse and consequent suicide of Russell Joslin appears to be all but forgotten. In fact, instead of facing trial and a stay in prison as a sex offender, the alleged abuser of Joslin - fellow DJ Liz Kershaw - is free to make money from an autobiography that portrays HIM as a pervert who made HER 'feel uncomfortable'.
Russell Joslin apparently went out for a meal with colleague Liz Kershaw, and after spurning her sexual advances, she allegedly began leaving threatening and demeaning messages on his answering machine describing him as a 'flake' and a 'loser'. Joslin complained to their employee - the BBC - and when they refused to take his complaint seriously, he suffocated himself.
Mr Joslin, who as a reporter at BBC Coventry and Warwickshire, is believed to have received a series of phone messages from Ms Kershaw after they argued during a meal out together in 2007 and he apparently walked out on her in a restaurant, leaving her to find her own way back to Coventry. The phone messages branded him a ‘flake’ and ‘a loser’.
Ms Kershaw, now 54, worked at BBC Coventry and Warwickshire between 2005 and 2011.
While there is no evidence that the messages contributed to the death of Mr Joslin, who was being treated in a psychiatric hospital when he died, his family claim that he was left ‘a shadow of his former self’ because he felt bosses failed to act on his complaints.
The BBC has launched an investigation, but the family are demanding a fully independent inquiry.
Mr Joslin’s father Peter, 77, the retired chief constable of Warwickshire, said last night: ‘When Liz Kershaw joined BBC Coventry and Warwickshire she did not know the area and for some reason Russell was chosen to show her around.
‘He quite enjoyed it, I think, until this particular incident but after that life became very tough for him.
‘We have the recordings of what she said to him. Russell, being a good reporter, actually recorded the messages as they were being left.
‘They were very unpleasant and she made it clear that she felt she was on a different level to him. A lot of things happened because he had to carry on working with her. He did not tell us everything but it badly affected him.
....The allegation that Ms Kershaw, made the calls to Mr Joslin came after she claimed last month there was a culture of sexual harassment of women at Radio 1 and that she was groped while broadcasting live.
Where is the evidence?
An accusation is not evidence.
An accusation requires evidence even to begin to be established.
Parallel accusations are not evidence, and they are not mutually corroboratory simply for being in parallel; especially when the context is a high-profile police trawl of a celebrity, because self-evidently this is almost guaranteed to generate multiple false allegation.
False allegation of sexual assault, notably rape, is commonplace, and research – along with examination of media-reported cases – shows the often incredible triviality of motivation.
Then there is 'false memory' of various forms, which is a major problem with 'historic cases' such as this – an alleged incident 20 years ago.
The CPS should never have brought this case, which is a re-trial of what was itself a trial that never have been brought. It should never have passed even first-base in consideration, but such is the serious anti-male prejudice of the CPS that the case was progressed in the hope that most of the jury would share similar prejudices. On this occasion, most did -- but some did not: conviction was on a majority verdict only.
On top of all this is the triviality of the alleged offence: fondling breasts is barely even a serious misdemeanour, never mind a notable criminal offence. It's straining definition to term it 'sexual assault' when the genitals of neither alleged perpetrator not putative victim are in any way involved -- the term 'groping' is improperly applied to anything other than hands on genitals. And the usual context is of frivolity (even if that may be a cover for unwanted fondling).
The whole Yewtree fiasco is near beyond belief, and will be seen in retrospect as a stark manifestation of the loony era of 'identity politics'.