#HimToo: Women’s groups fear for victims of harassment after Alex Salmond case - Salmond's funding appeal for legal costs raised more than £100,000 in just three days.
It appears to have been censored. My comment in full:
== BEGIN ==
As I understand it, Salmond intends to take the Scottish Government to court in the matter of recent changes to its investigation procedures, and failures of it, that he believes have resulted in his inability to adequately defend himself -- not (at this stage) the women making the accusations. The Scottish Government has advertised in turn its intention to defend itself to the fullest extent possible i.e. to use the legal resources of the State against an individual. To ensure fairness, Salmond will require top-flight legal counsel rather than legal aid. Under new rules (intended perhaps to compromise mens' ability to defend themselves properly), having in effect declined to apply for legal aid, his legal costs will not be recoverable even if his case is proven.
Far from being "unprecedented", the practice of employing crowd-funding for legal action is being pioneered, ironically, by women pursuing speculative private prosecutions for allegations of sexual misconduct. The incentives (for women) make this attractive: The minimum award for securing a conviction has been increased from £7,500 to £11,000 per instance (Jessica Beale falsely accused 15 men of rape before being detected and imprisoned), and the woman's costs are reimbursed in full even if the allegation is disproven. In a private prosecution, however, any man with a disposable joint income of more than £37,500 is ineligible for legal aid. Legal costs are charged at commercial rates, not legal-aid rates. Even after he proves his innocence, the man is reimbursed only legal-aid rates, leaving him out of pocket to the tune of tens or thousands of pounds for the difference.
Of course, no wrongdoing by Mr Salmond has been proven, yet he has been named while his accusers - who may be filing speculative false claims - remain anonymous. In court, they will be permitted certain types of evidence denied Mr Salmond, even if they prove that the claims are false.
These are all fairly recent and ongoing changes to the criminal prosecution system. They are being brought about largely by stealth under the influence of a highly effective feminist lobby, who invented the #MeToo and related moral panics to manufacture the political support necessary to set aside the foundational principle of "innocent until proven guilty" that protected our society from totalitarianism. They have led to a significant increase in the rate of wrongful imprisonment, and in England to the sacking of the feminist Director of the Crown Prosecution Service on the complaints (by, for example, Cressida Dick, the head of the Metropolitan Police Force) that her feminist policies were undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system.
A spotlight is now being shone on the injusticies being introduced into our criminal justice system by Feminist Jurisprudence. This may explain why Ms Pederson is engaging in such vigorous defence of them. And readers may detect a certain irony in Ms Pedersens claims, in a full length article in a paper of record in Scotland, that this is an example of "the dominance of male voices in the media", and the relative lack of treatment in the media of these very worrying changes to our legal system.
None of this constitutes evidence of wrongdoing, or its absence. It is all at this stage about procedural fairness in our justice system, and our confidence in it. Sadly, men and women are the victims of feminism here. It is now impossible to eliminate the possibility that a woman has, in fact, lied in court even if her claim was valid.
(These comments are based on my understanding of law in England and Wales and I'd be grateful, in the comments, for any corrections to improve my understanding of arrangements for compromising mens' access to justice in Scottish Law).
[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hackableyou 18 points19 points20 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]hackableyou 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheImpossible1 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy 10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Imnotmrabut[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheImpossible1 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]RichardJLyon1 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
It appears to have been censored. My comment in full:
== BEGIN ==
As I understand it, Salmond intends to take the Scottish Government to court in the matter of recent changes to its investigation procedures, and failures of it, that he believes have resulted in his inability to adequately defend himself -- not (at this stage) the women making the accusations. The Scottish Government has advertised in turn its intention to defend itself to the fullest extent possible i.e. to use the legal resources of the State against an individual. To ensure fairness, Salmond will require top-flight legal counsel rather than legal aid. Under new rules (intended perhaps to compromise mens' ability to defend themselves properly), having in effect declined to apply for legal aid, his legal costs will not be recoverable even if his case is proven.
Far from being "unprecedented", the practice of employing crowd-funding for legal action is being pioneered, ironically, by women pursuing speculative private prosecutions for allegations of sexual misconduct. The incentives (for women) make this attractive: The minimum award for securing a conviction has been increased from £7,500 to £11,000 per instance (Jessica Beale falsely accused 15 men of rape before being detected and imprisoned), and the woman's costs are reimbursed in full even if the allegation is disproven. In a private prosecution, however, any man with a disposable joint income of more than £37,500 is ineligible for legal aid. Legal costs are charged at commercial rates, not legal-aid rates. Even after he proves his innocence, the man is reimbursed only legal-aid rates, leaving him out of pocket to the tune of tens or thousands of pounds for the difference.
Of course, no wrongdoing by Mr Salmond has been proven, yet he has been named while his accusers - who may be filing speculative false claims - remain anonymous. In court, they will be permitted certain types of evidence denied Mr Salmond, even if they prove that the claims are false.
These are all fairly recent and ongoing changes to the criminal prosecution system. They are being brought about largely by stealth under the influence of a highly effective feminist lobby, who invented the #MeToo and related moral panics to manufacture the political support necessary to set aside the foundational principle of "innocent until proven guilty" that protected our society from totalitarianism. They have led to a significant increase in the rate of wrongful imprisonment, and in England to the sacking of the feminist Director of the Crown Prosecution Service on the complaints (by, for example, Cressida Dick, the head of the Metropolitan Police Force) that her feminist policies were undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system.
A spotlight is now being shone on the injusticies being introduced into our criminal justice system by Feminist Jurisprudence. This may explain why Ms Pederson is engaging in such vigorous defence of them. And readers may detect a certain irony in Ms Pedersens claims, in a full length article in a paper of record in Scotland, that this is an example of "the dominance of male voices in the media", and the relative lack of treatment in the media of these very worrying changes to our legal system.
None of this constitutes evidence of wrongdoing, or its absence. It is all at this stage about procedural fairness in our justice system, and our confidence in it. Sadly, men and women are the victims of feminism here. It is now impossible to eliminate the possibility that a woman has, in fact, lied in court even if her claim was valid.
(These comments are based on my understanding of law in England and Wales and I'd be grateful, in the comments, for any corrections to improve my understanding of arrangements for compromising mens' access to justice in Scottish Law).
==END==
[–]iainmf[M] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link