TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MyThreeCentsWorth Archive

View 0 posts and 6 comments by MyThreeCentsWorth on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Two points: 1. The police can arrest someone, and maybe also lock them up for a very limited time, but they certainly cannot lock someone up for months, as Daniel was. Only a judge, to my knowledge, can lock someone for months. So, a judge had to be satisfied that the bail conditions were breached. How was that? The bail conditions were that the parents supervise him. Did they? If they did, or even if they didn't but just claimed they did, how can any judge ascertain they didn't, and based on th…
/r/MensRights02/02/19 01:32 PM
2

True, he wasn't convicted. My mistake. Nonetheless, I assume that a judge would have had to confirm locking him up for months as he was, awaiting his trial in jail rather than in his house. Certainly the Police had to be satisfied that he needed to be locked up to, to haul him up in front of a judge. He was already on bail. The bail condition stipulated that he is supervised by his family, which means the court had trust in his family to supervise him. if indeed he was at home, hence in complian…
/r/MensRights02/02/19 01:06 PM
3

Released on strict bail conditions requiring around-the-clock supervision by his parents According to you, the authorities did not trust his parents to act honestly as his supervisors (i.e., to give an honest testimony as to whether he was or wasn't in the house). In that case, what's the point of his bail conditions as quoted above (of "around-the-clock supervision by his parents")?
/r/MensRights02/02/19 12:37 PM
5

Hi, I tried to attach the full text of The Australian article about the matter, but it was too long. I am therefore only attaching below an excerpt from the article. If you read the excerpt below, though, you will see that the alleged rape occurred while Daniel (the man accused) was supposedly in supervised house arrest, over some earlier allegation. That is my point: how can a man be convicted of a crime, if it can be proven in court that he was under house arrest, away from the scene of the al…
/r/MensRights02/02/19 12:18 PM
2

As a subscriber of The Australian, I am privy to the full article as it appeared on The Weekend Australian (a weekend magazine of The Australian, for those who don't know). I read it carefully. But, please, do post the detailed article and we can take this conversation from there. Regards
/r/MensRights02/02/19 11:40 AM
2

Something about this story just doesn't seem right. Find it hard to believe that a man would be charged and convicted of rape just based on the say-so of someone, when the accused man was actually not anywhere near the scene of the alleged rape when it allegedly took place, and he can prove it. ​
/r/MensRights02/02/19 11:02 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter