TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

nflcansmd Archive

View 6 posts and 124 comments by nflcansmd on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
12

When Jess Phillips read the names of all the women killed in the UK in the last year on International Women's Day in Parliament. She omitted 80% of all murder victims in that year.
/r/MensRights09/04/22 08:53 PM
22

I stand corrected. I don't pay enough attention to unlawful act/constructive manslaughter and she could have been charged with that. "Manslaughter falls into two broad categories: involuntary and voluntary. Involuntary manslaughter is unlawful killing without the intent to kill or cause really serious harm and is a common law offence. There are two classes of involuntary manslaughter: unlawful act manslaughter and manslaughter by gross negligence. Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death …
/r/MensRights04/04/22 02:12 PM
55

Hijacking top comment to explain the law. Murder in the UK requires 'malice aforethought' which is taken to mean intent to cause at least GBH. The problem here is that you cannot prove she has this level of intent. The normal person would not expect that they would knock someone unconscious with one punch and it seems unlikely that she would have foreseen this if it was a spurious act. Therefore a conviction for murder does not seem forthcoming from a mental standpoint. If we work our way down t…
/r/MensRights04/04/22 01:44 PM
12

Its basically revenge porn then
/r/MensRights03/12/21 12:43 PM
3

TED has really gone downhill if it has to film in leam
/r/MensRights25/10/21 10:56 PM
12

Legally as a teacher is considered to be in the position of locus parentus they cannot engage in a relationship with pupils unless there has been at least 3 years between the student leaving the school and the relationship beginning and even then it is not advised.
/r/MensRights28/09/21 09:04 PM
4

Did he take a picture of Big Ben with a Kodak?
/r/PussyPassDenied28/09/21 03:01 PM
1

The problem here is the law is not "wrong". There is no error caused by this as sexual assault and rape have the same maximum sentencing guidelines as each other. The only difference is the wording and considering how busy parliament is there would have to be massive public outrage for such a small and ultimately unimportant change to occur given it has no difference except in name.
/r/MensRights22/08/21 11:33 AM
4

Though there's no precedent about it in England and Wales it is very likely that if there was a case to go to the high or supreme courts the precedent would apply to sexual assault from cases on "ghosting" (the removal of a condom during intercourse) and non disclosure of STI's
/r/MensRights15/08/21 06:57 PM
2

She committed s.47 ABH, s.18 Wounding and resisted arrest yet got no jail time. She should have received >20 years for the wounding with intent, ABH and resisting arrest given she attacked public servants.
/r/MensRights04/08/21 08:42 AM
19

I think most people would feel uncomfortable if they were slapped on the arse by someone they don't know
/r/MensRights31/07/21 06:58 AM
9

"Your honour, he tragically slipped whilst having a shave and in the ensuing accident stabbed himself 55 times"
/r/MensRights28/07/21 08:29 AM
1

We have to start from somewhere. Rome wasn't built in a day...
/r/PussyPassDenied19/07/21 10:05 AM
28

Helpful reminder that threatening a judge is a crime in most countries and no complaints can be made into the decision as it uses the experts opinion and is an issue for appeal as it is not due to the Judge's conduct. The Crown should be appealing this as it sets a horrible precedent and I imagine the High Court or Supreme Court (if English or Welsh) or the Privy Council would overrule this as even if she didn't do it for sexual gratification she still intended to commit sexual acts with a child…
/r/MensRights05/07/21 05:10 PM
19

Morgan was clearly responding to what Michael said. She is actually thicker than two planks and the fact nothing has happened after this suggests everyone else agrees.
/r/MensRights04/07/21 11:30 AM
2

Cunt
/r/MensRights03/07/21 04:56 PM
0

This. The number of commentors who say "never get married" is so annoying because even though there are some women out there who will try to take advantage of you, whether that be gold-digging or spermjacking, is very small when compared to the number of women who aren't assholes. This is the same as the "all men are rapists" bs and you should get married to someone you trust and then you won't be taken advantage of. The same is true for spermjacking where, if you don't want a pregnancy, take yo…
/r/MensRights28/06/21 01:40 PM
4

I'm not saying he didn't deserve it but just that the prosecutors have a legal reason to investigate the case and take it to trial for the reason I stated above.
/r/MensRights18/06/21 06:42 PM
1

It comes to a nuance under murder law which is that self-defence must be proportionate to the actions of the other person. Therefore the prosecutors in Zimbabwe must believe that her actions were not proportionate therfore she is liable for the murder, though will likely have a lenient sentence.
/r/MensRights18/06/21 05:23 PM
1

Because Zimbabwe is a former British colony it will use the same law on murder as the UK in which case self-defence must be proportionate to the actions of the other. The stance on this would be that shooting him was not proportionate where other actions could have been done such as punching, hitting with firewood etc.
/r/MensRights18/06/21 05:22 PM
19

I would say that my 3 would be: Lack of male shelters for the homeless and those subject to DV. Despite reports showing that, from 1985 on, men and women are just as likely to be abusive to their partner there are no male victim shelters in the UK only male abuser helplines (this is on the government website). Advertisements in the UK about DV resources always have a male abuser and female victim. Hopefully some progress will be made due to the horrific finale to a recent police documentary wher…
/r/MensRights15/05/21 08:26 AM
6

Was that the one right below our collective target for rape for the next quarter?
/r/MensRights14/05/21 07:31 AM
8

It is an established principle, from medical negligence, that as long as the injuries caused by the defendant are 'operating' then it is the initial D's fault. In this case as he has permanent difiguration it is still operating so she should be liable for murder.
/r/MensRights09/05/21 03:57 PM
0

I agree but the main assertion that the numbers are the same or very similar is untrue.
/r/MensRights26/04/21 07:45 AM
1

GMP should be sued "from arsehole to breakfast" for this
/r/MensRights26/04/21 07:03 AM
36

34k - 43k is still a fairly substantial difference. That works out to be about 4:5
/r/MensRights26/04/21 06:52 AM
2

I also guarantee a motion will be made that the sentence is 'unduly lenient'.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 08:52 PM
1

No it won't. But challenging the institutions like this doesn't either. She did not have the mens rea for any sentence more severe than s.47. Therefore she cannot be guilty of any offence beyond s.47. The same would be found with a male defendant with the same facts as this is a simple legal question not one where she has been 'pussy passed'. Someone I know killed another guy in a bar fight, he got 18 months for ABH too because he never intended to kill the other. It works both ways.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 08:49 PM
1

It is rare for a previous offence to be used as evidence for another unless it is burglary and fencing par example. She may have intended her actions, and they caused GBH but that doesn't mean she intended to cause GBH. I am simply making the point of the lawyer that she did not intend to harm her husband. In the UK you actually have to intend to kill someone for murder, not just cause it which may seem shit but it is far better a guilty person 'go free' than an innocent one not.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 08:45 PM
0

The system isn't broken. As much as I agree that reform to the antiquated OAPA 1861 is necessary our laws are written so someone can only be imprisoned for what they mean to do (in most scenarios). This avoids issues where people can have life in prison for what is a minor action in comparison. It sucks but given the severity of murder it should always be that you must intend to kill otherwise someone who does not intend to do such, for example in this tragic case, spends life in prison when the…
/r/MensRights25/04/21 08:42 PM
1

Did she intend to kill her husband? Given her previous actions I would suggest not and it is clear that the lawyer felt the same given she was only charged with s.47 so only intended to cause a battery not any harm. Argue with me all you want but I am just explaining why this decision was reached legally.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 08:20 PM
-1

Say that all you want. She was charged with ABH so there was obviously a problem of intent. Say what you want but it is clear the lawyer could not claim any more than intent to cause harm.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 08:16 PM
1

As an aggravating factor for sentencing not for whether she intended to cause that level of harm as that is based of the specific act and cannot be used entirely.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 05:59 PM
-1

In there words not reported or charged so not valid evidence to infer intent from the same way a historic accusation of sexual assault shouldn't matter if its not proven. We shouldn't be hypocritical when it comes to this.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 05:57 PM
1

No. Premeditation cannot be proved by previous acts.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 05:50 PM
-1

Level of intent matters, which is why she was not charged with GBH. She had already been charged or not been charged in the 9ther events in line with CPS guidelines.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 05:49 PM
2

Because I have time to kill: His death is directly tied to her actions, hence murder A battery, the application of unlawful force, can be due to an indirect act. Such as the fact someone dying due to a bullet is technically not direct force. It cannot be assumed to have been premeditated given, she would have presumably attacked him immediately if that were so. I've already done the 2nd part in my initial response.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 05:37 PM
0

This is the UK we have murder and manslaughter not murder in the Nth degree. The fact she hit him multiple times causing GBH wouldn't matter as it was all in one event so would only be counted as one instance of GBH. She was charged with ABH due to her level of mens rea, basically she did not intend to cause abh or gbh but instead only intended to hit him (at least this was all they could prove).
/r/MensRights25/04/21 05:27 PM
8

Even what she was found guilty of s.47 ABH has a maximum sentence of 5 years she received 18 months. Given her prior history and that he died she should have received at least 4 years.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 09:02 AM
11

The officers name was Wayne Couzens (I have a very good memory)
/r/MensRights18/04/21 01:02 PM
123

Two years is still piss poor for what she should be charged with which is sexual assault and pedophilia? (Not sure what the statutory making videos with someone under 18 offence is) If it were a 27 y.o. man and a 14 y.o. girl this would be 8-10 no questio Edit: could possibly be 3 offences if the video was distributed
/r/PussyPassDenied10/04/21 01:45 PM
7

It was a smart decision to negotiate the contract as it was more financially secure however they can't then just say "I want that one" because they would have earned more.
/r/MensRights02/04/21 01:05 PM
2

In England and Wales (not sure of the rest of the UK) there is a "super asbo" that prevents making videos, owning a mobile (cell) phone etc.
/r/MensRights02/04/21 07:47 AM
6

It seems like that would be a disciplinary at work so separate to any criminal proceedings too
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/21 08:38 AM
1

I litetally study law. Just because "laws literally change every year" doesn't change the fact that the law is in no way defective. You may not agree with it but it is not a problem as it makes no material effect on the outcome of the case as sentencing guidelines mean that forced penetration is treated like rape. Its not like the Dangerous Dogs Act, which is defective, as there are unqualified terms such as the "type" of dog.
/r/MensRights14/03/21 10:41 PM
6

One week
/r/MensRights14/03/21 05:51 PM
2

Of course. This web page from the Government website covers the procedure: https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request I contacted the Ministry for Housing... as when u researched shelters they seemed to be the ones involved. You can send them a FOI request by email to: [email protected]
/r/MensRights13/03/21 09:41 PM
10

This is why what we did for IWD (not being arses and celebrating it) is helpful. We need to make it so moderate women and men on reddit look at r/feminism, twoXchromosome etc. and see us and realise we are not evil but rather fighting for other issues where we have been let down/ignored.
/r/MensRights13/03/21 12:47 AM
-2

The law is in no way defective so any change to the law is a useless endeavour.
/r/MensRights12/03/21 11:56 PM
0

This petition has been answered numerous times by the G'ment. There is no reason why it is needed beside parity that both can rape.
/r/MensRights12/03/21 11:43 PM
39

He also went to school so schoolboys should be included too
/r/MensRights12/03/21 02:53 PM
1

Basing the rating of women makes more sense as it is easier to compare as all countries in the world will report crimes against women and children far more comparably than crimes against men. It shouldn't always be this way but at the minute it is the best possible option.
/r/MensRights07/03/21 02:31 PM
0

It doesn't mean you have to believe it. Just do what you have done all your life and ignore it unless it is required. University is an opportunity you need to take as the way to remove the missndrist culture is from the top down so we need to be intelligent and studied. Become a lawyer or a politicians and support feminism when it is in our best interests but when they are trying to restrict us we go against them and hopefully we'll be able to make some change.
/r/MensRights05/03/21 10:18 AM
1

What uni is it? Durham and other of the Russell Group uni's seem too radical to have someone who would think this run.
/r/MensRights05/03/21 10:12 AM
6

Your write up is great. We must also consider that there was some legality to abuse of women. Until 1991 and the case of R v R it was legal, in marriage, for a man to rape his wife. This is the only one I am aware of that legalised abuse.
/r/MensRights02/03/21 05:51 PM
3

I'm a woman so when I hit that man with my car and drove off it was because of an existential crisis I was having due to the rape culture perpetrated by white males that is nationally accepted. Not because I'm a sexist, misandrist, bitch who was off my tits on Chardonnay. /s
/r/MensRights26/02/21 11:36 AM
7

Normally the name is allowed to be published by the media once it has reached court/ been charged. As I believe I wrote because he wasn't charged they can't publish the name.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/02/21 12:17 PM
5

During cases anonymity is not normally given if there is a charge unless there's some extenuating reason why this cannot occur (defendant under 18 is most regular). So what they have done is not necessarily wrong in naming the defendant unless a court order of anonymity was already in place or the name had not already been given. Saying that as the Police dropped the cases them naming the man they accuse could be defamatory. The fact is that it is akin to them calling out and naming any individu…
/r/MensRights24/02/21 11:37 AM
16

During cases anonymity is not normally given if there is a charge unless there's some extenuating reason why this cannot occur (defendant under 18 is most regular). So what they have done is not necessarily wrong in naming the defendant unless a court order of anonymity was already in place or the name had not already been given. Saying that as the Police dropped the cases them naming the man they accuse could be defamatory. The fact is that it is akin to them calling out and naming any individu…
/r/PussyPassDenied24/02/21 11:36 AM
1

I too will be spending all my money on an e-girl as I am a nice guy and wear simp as a badge of honour.
/r/MensRights24/02/21 11:06 AM
13

Tbf its common all over the Internet, especially reddit
/r/MensRights23/02/21 10:33 PM
36

Same used timestamp 0:17 and described it as promoting DV
/r/MensRights21/02/21 01:08 PM
23

It is interesting to say the least as they have given a penalty to you (loss of scholarship) and would only add to any contempt you may have for them and itself could be used as evidence for a "dodgy" judgement. You must attempt to appeal. Contacting any governors or chairperson would be a good move, especially if you mention you have legal representation as they are more likely to back down and return your scholarship than whoever did it originally.
/r/MensRights17/02/21 08:08 PM
30

Do you have a lawyer/solicitor who could appeal the judgement? I understand that Mexico is a signatory to all human rights legislation internationally so you may be able to appeal on the fact you did not face a fair tribunal.
/r/MensRights17/02/21 08:03 PM
21

What country?
/r/MensRights17/02/21 07:58 PM
14

Supply and demand. Lower supply and more demand (due to the feds and more pedo's) means those with the means get up to their elbows in it
/r/MensRights17/02/21 07:57 PM
1

Nah. She 360'd him with a tomahawk and teabagged him
/r/MensRights12/02/21 07:10 PM
1

This is regular. She's plead guilty, gets reduced charges as she saved court time. Happens with everyone.
/r/MensRights09/02/21 11:39 AM
1

What exactly would the reason for him being struck off be?
/r/MensRights08/02/21 09:32 PM
17

For me the one which makes the least sense is the "patriarchy means we must wear make-up" spiel. I do not mind what my gf wears (within reason) or if she has make-up on because she's my gf. The problem is women telling other women they must wear this brand clothes or this make-up etc. There's a reason why Nicole Sherzinger, Amber Heard, Selena Gomez etc are used to advertise for these companies not BoJo. In my experience at school it was never the guys saying someone's make-up was shit or their …
/r/MensRights08/02/21 03:21 PM
20

The one for me is the "men think about sex every 5 seconds" thing. We don't.
/r/MensRights05/02/21 06:25 PM
1

The titles a bit misleading as it's not really an appeal. An appeal would be to rehear the case on case stated (facts remain but want new judgement) normally due to a failure of the judge or lawyer or if there was new evidence that would change the case. It is very promising though and will undoubtedly strengthen his case.
/r/MensRights04/02/21 10:59 AM
7

Surely this will be challenged. It makes no sense and means she can actually benefit from the murder.
/r/MensRights31/01/21 10:31 PM
1

I don't know a lot about American college life as someone who was rejected by Cambridge yesterday but all I can say is that it wouldn't be fair to label this a rape until we have all the facts otherwise we are no different to the women who treat every accusation as gospel.
/r/MensRights26/01/21 09:46 PM
8

The title of the post is misleading. She had sexual contact with the student which does not necessarily denote rape but intead any other form of sexual contact. She has been released from prison however, as a criminal complaint not a case is cited it is safe to assume she has been bailed. She no longer works for the district or school in question suggesting that the district is doing its job in safeguarding the students so this is actually a win for mens rights as she has been sacked and is bein…
/r/MensRights26/01/21 08:37 PM
4

She's not even saying its due to anything like abuse, #allmen, etc. so its not an issue. It is just this sub getting shit and thinking if someone does anything against a man its a mens rights issue where, in reality, its not. Like how if a male did the same it wouldn't be a feminist issue.
/r/MensRights25/01/21 02:25 PM
15

This means there will have to be female labourers and I don't believe a single firm will be eligible then as women don't work as labourers
/r/MensRights19/01/21 07:35 PM
1

I was unaware of this but thank you.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 03:09 PM
1

How?
/r/MensRights12/01/21 02:49 PM
1

Is there? That's more the fault of the defending attorney than the state given they are meant to represent their client and ensure that anything prudent to the case is done, such as this.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 02:14 PM
5

Yh. I am actually being down voted for clicking a link and checking the date of death as before when this was a legal possibility.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 01:13 PM
5

The issue with this case is that his iq was determined as 70 by his lawyers and 77 by the state. Therfore the question is one of interpretation did the court mean below 70 iq or below and including 70 iq. This is if the states evaluation is considered false too which would be problematic in itself. Therefore this is again a non-starter as there are actual legal reasons to explain the decision.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 01:06 PM
-3

Died before the 2002 Supreme Court precedent that meant that people with an iq below 70 could not be executed.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 12:33 PM
0

This is state not federal but is from before now and given the outcry against his execution it is clear that it was not something that is only afforded to men but Texan judges and lawyers being bloodthirsty idiots. If this was a repeated act I would agree but it is not. Though tragic a sole incident does not account for this but rather a continued course of action in which there is a difference between the two. Using the legal test for gender-based discrimination this is not discrimination as it…
/r/MensRights12/01/21 12:21 PM
-1

This is about her mental culpability and her attorneys have the stay because they have evidence to show she does not understand why she would be executed therefore she cannot be executed but she'll be imprisoned for life in a psychiatric hospital/prison instead if they can prove their argument. If not the execution goes ahead.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 11:38 AM
36

It is a win. He only lost as the case was brought to late for sexual discrimination cases but won as the regulations were not equally enforced
/r/MensRights07/01/21 07:44 PM
7

This is very good as if there's anything judges don't like it is people lying to their faces like this.
/r/MensRights07/01/21 06:04 PM
59

I belive it is the first federal execution since 1953 because she travelled between states to commit the crime. And I read so on the BBC.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/01/21 05:10 PM
1

You could say she should've been more "gentle"
/r/PussyPassDenied18/12/20 08:03 PM
6

Is in the UK so no death penalty but it is also standard practice for criminals to be released on licence in the UK halfway through a sentence. She only got 17 years because the fire spread quicker than she could have expected I believe but it may have also been part of a plea-deal; not to sure on the exacts but that is what I would expect
/r/MensRights29/11/20 09:48 PM
3

The big problem is the manner in which he lost the case, to the complete defence of fact, which will not be overturned on appeal.
/r/MensRights26/11/20 08:23 AM
1

Well its not libel because, to the best knowledge of the Sun, it was true. The semantics or where you stand in the argument doesn't matter as it was fact. The Sun provided evidence which showed he had abused her, no matter how tenuous or what you say the court accepted it so it is good enough for me, so they win the case easily on the 'fact' complete defence. He has to pay fees for the Sun as is normal in the civil court system because he lost as unlike in America we believe the wronged party, o…
/r/MensRights26/11/20 08:21 AM
1

Why would I simp for the matriarchy. If you checked my comment history you would know that I support many mens issues yet because I've had enough of people spewing bullshit about the law and the case I'm a simp for matriarchy. The simple facts are: Jonny Depp abused Amber; Amber abused Jonny Depp; The Sun won their very easy libel case; why has neither launched a civil case of both are so staunchly the victim? If you step back and analyse the facts and laws maybe you'll realise that some fights …
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 09:57 PM
-4

Or a member of r/toxicfemininity thinks that he is better than a court at proving the provenance of evidence. https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-27/johnny-depp-libel-trial-enters-closing-stages There is a 'wealth of evidence' proving Jonny abused Amber https://www.legalcheek.com/lc-journal-posts/a-critical-analysis-of-the-johnny-depp-libel-trial/ 'Of the 14 incidents of physical violence alleged against then-wife Amber Heard, 12 of them had been proved to the civil standard. For the two incidents …
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 08:19 PM
-6

The problem here is you say its uncorrobaorated and you can argue the toss about it all you want yet she still got a restraining order for it and it was used in trial as admissible evidence so the court and her lawyers saw it as real. Stop bringing Amber on Jonny into it as we all know it was reciprocated - went both ways - and it has no bearing on the case in any way. Its like mentioning the fact someone who was accused of murder got an A- on a geography essay.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 08:03 PM
-2

He did also hit her. For example the bruised face she had when she got her restraining order against him. The s.47 battery he comitted against her is certainly enough for a judge to say the article is factual and that the Sun was justified. The case has nothing to do with her abuse as it is simply - is the word 'wife-beater' justified - which it was.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 07:48 PM
-7

The case was libel and the Sun, rightly, won the case as both an issue of public policy and to the best of their knowledge Depp had battered Heard. It doesn't matter whether or not she abused him.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/20 04:23 PM
7

This has to be /s
/r/MensRights10/11/20 08:41 AM
13

The case is a little more complex than that. The main thing that he, his lawyers and all of this subreddit forgets/is unaware of is that whether or not Amber is a husband beater is out of the question. Her abuse has no basis upon the case in any way as the case is solely to do with whether the use of 'wife-beater' was justified. The statute in this case is the defamation act 2015 for those who care but the important legal issues here are; whether the term 'wife-beater' was factual (to the best o…
/r/MensRights06/11/20 09:51 PM
2

She admitted to it on tape yet he is framed as the sole abuser is the main thing that pisses me off with the case.
/r/MensRights03/11/20 07:28 AM
1

Its a crock of shit but it does explain the judgement fairly well
/r/MensRights03/11/20 06:35 AM
1

BBC News - Johnny Depp loses libel case over Sun 'wife beater' claim https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54779430
/r/MensRights02/11/20 10:16 PM
0

There won't be any change as the legislation is in no way defective apart from the fact that women can't commit rape yet sexual assault carries the same sentencing powers so this has no material effect on cases
/r/MensRights02/11/20 09:02 PM
-2

Two of the incidents against him were found to be true on the balance of probabilities therefore the claim that Jonny was a wife beater was true
/r/MensRights02/11/20 08:32 PM
3

No thats not wrong. There was another incident where she had the marking
/r/MensRights02/11/20 07:01 PM
2

There was. Heard was able to show that he had abused her - I think they had a massive fight in Australia and she had a facial bruise when she filed her restraining order
/r/MensRights02/11/20 06:26 PM
3

It also extended to what really is libel as the Sun was well covered by statute and just showing she hit him too doesn't help his argument unless he can prove that the abuse she suffered wasn't due to him
/r/MensRights02/11/20 04:25 PM
15

The case wasn't libel. In UK law honest opinion (what the Sun claimed the article was), truth (NGN's lawyers were able to prove that their claims were essentially or substantially true), and the publication was in the public interest. All of these are complete defenses under the 2013 Defamation Act meaning that they cannot have been libelous/defamatory. Even though Heard was abusive to Depp the Sun was able to prove that he had beaten his wife thus making the initial statement - he was a "wife-b…
/r/MensRights02/11/20 04:23 PM
1

He lost the case but I reckon he'll appeal the verdict.
/r/MensRights02/11/20 10:50 AM
1

The issue you bring up was one of human rights as marriages and civil unions did not entail the same legal freedoms whilst the law on rape is not the same as though they are not the same offence they are treated, legislatively, the same with the reason the MoJ gave behind not backing the decision being that the law was existing so there was no reason to alter it.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 04:15 PM
55

The MoJ is stating here that they see no reason to change the legislation as it is not defective and though rape can only be committed by a male there are other offences which have the same maximum penalty for a woman forcing a man to have sex. This, in my mind is a very shallow change for us to want given that there is an offence for women which has the same sentence and though its not labelled rape in practice s.4 offences are treated very similarly to them and sentencing is very similar.
/r/MensRights25/10/20 08:22 AM
3

Like the previous case that spawned from a defamatory comment by a news presenter from a vague description in Ulrika Johnson's book.
/r/MensRights22/10/20 07:36 AM
1

More people will be paid hourly now
/r/MensRights20/10/20 08:38 PM
1

A sentence of up to 5 years - depending upon the circumstances involved. Sex offenders registry is too harsh as they haven't committed a sexual offence. Possibility of damages civilly - defamation, libel and other damages caused by the claim (lost earnings etc.)
/r/MensRights19/10/20 10:01 PM
3

Something tells me this would get challenged as a judgement though as I believe CPS guidelines are not legislation.
/r/MensRights19/10/20 06:47 PM
6

Everything has to start somewhere
/r/MensRights13/10/20 08:15 PM
4

Innicent until proven guilty. The law of suspects and the subsequent terror in France and the assassinations of the Romanov dynasty in Russia show the failings of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment clearly.
/r/MensRights11/10/20 07:57 PM
4

We should all work together then to get plain t-shirts for kids. Good luck with your "quest"
/r/MensRights08/10/20 08:15 PM
5

All of shit you said is true however, I do have a problem with the rape but as the legislation was written in a way that only a man could be guilty. In the UK a forced sexual act by a woman is a sexual assault however, the sentencing guidelines mean that these instances are treated akin to rape. Women are treated more leniently because they are still seen to be the care giver meaning that courts don't like to separate mother and child because they see the bond as stronger between the two and rem…
/r/MensRights29/09/20 06:10 AM
6

Looking at it they were but also, given her age, I don't she was a radical feminist and more of the equal rights 1st or 2nd wave
/r/MensRights21/09/20 08:45 PM
9

There is a definite stigma around mens rights with most people worried bringing up a male issue (even sexual assaults) as they fear they will get laughed at fired, threatened etc. yet the vast majority of us are traditional first and second wave feminist in the viewpoint that everything should be equal between the sexes. It astounds me that some people complain about the female position so much as there has been massive improvements. Yes there are still issues with sexual offences and to a limit…
/r/MensRights20/09/20 04:24 PM
37

Not rape. JUST sexual assault and paedophilia
/r/PussyPass20/09/20 01:14 PM
11

If someone stole a BLM hat from a child and discarded of it because it was against their political beliefs would you agree with what you're saying? I don't care for Trump as he has definitely not helped heal racial tensions in the US however, even if you don't like him, given the legal status of free expression this is really a hate crime.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/09/20 09:04 PM
12

Yh. Legally for rape to occur the assault must be by penetration, in the UK at least. This is why sexual assault and rape carry the same maximum sentences so they can be treated somewhat equally. Edit: the use of 'slept with' was due to the presumption of innocence and also to protect their asses against a libel suit if she is acquitted.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/08/20 07:45 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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