A case of marital rape and the limits of legal protection


A horrible sexual violence case has collapsed in Exeter, in the south west England. Last year a woman reported to police that her husband had repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted her. After he spent four months on remand, the wife has now decided that she wants to move on with her life and is now unwilling to testify in court.

Because it is a case of marital rape allegations, the accused cannot be named as that would identify the alleged victim.

The description of the defendant, as reported by the local press, is terrifying. He is apparently a “devout Christian” and an advocate of ‘Red Pill’ masculinist thinking, which leads to this:

 

“The trouble comes from this defendant holding opinions about women which do not fit within the general views of modern society. His philosophy is that women are second class citizens who are there to do the bidding of men.

“He believes there is no such thing as rape within marriage and he is entitled to have sex with his wife regardless of whether she is consenting.

“Her view now is that she is able to move on with her life and extract herself from the marriage. She has strong religious beliefs and is a regular church goer and is unwilling to give evidence against her husband.

“She says the effect of the case being continued would have an extremely detrimental effect on her health and welfare. It is with reluctance that the Crown have decided they cannot continue.

As far as I can tell, every legal procedure has been properly followed in this case, and yet the outcome is terrifying and unsatisfactory. The man is now free to establish a new relationship with another woman who might very probably never find out about his alleged past. While a restraining order is being sought (and will presumably be granted) to keep this man away from his wife, there is nothing that can be done to warn other women of the risks he poses. He will not be listed on the sex offenders register and while he could be subject to a disclosure request under ‘Clare’s law’ or the vetting and debarring scheme, it would be highly unlikely a future partner would be motivated to make such a request.

The wife involved here is of course perfectly within her rights to withdraw the complaint and it would be abhorrent (and probably ineffective) to compel her to testify against her wishes. It is quite right that she be granted anonymity and unfortunate but understandable that this involves providing anonymity to the accused as well.

It should also go without saying that a person who is accused of a crime but not convicted cannot be treated or considered identically to a convicted criminal. Like it or not, he is now a free and (legally) innocent man.

Where does all that leave us? I’m not sure. I genuinely don’t know what else could or should be done in a case like this. But I present it here as a reminder that when we talk about issues of anonymity in sexual offence trials, there is no such thing as an ideal solution, no such thing as the obvious answer.

Comments

  1. Carnation says

    I wonder if this is the first time the manosphere has found itself discussed in a courtroom?

    This is the worst part, for me:

    “The judge imposed a restraining order which bans any contact with his wife other than through solicitors *to arrange access to their one-year-old child*.”

    Can, or do, the police visit an abusers new partner with a word of warning/disclosure?

  2. Ally Fogg says

    I’m no expert but I think the police would be exceeding their powers and subject to a lawsuit if they initiated a disclosure without it being requested.

  3. sonofrojblake says

    The man is now free to establish a new relationship with another woman who might very probably never find out about his alleged past.

    If he matches the description, she wouldn’t need to know about his “alleged past”. His avowed present should be enough to put her off. Obviously he has the option to keep his repellent opinions to himself and to enter into any new relationship on the basis of deception – but aren’t we all?

  4. Ally Fogg says

    Obviously he has the option to keep his repellent opinions to himself and to enter into any new relationship on the basis of deception – but aren’t we all?

    It’s not him I’m worried about

  5. says

    “A horrible sexual violence case has collapsed…” You couldn’t be clearer. You believe the man was guilty as charged.

    From the article:

    “The man, who cannot be named because it would identify his wife, denied three counts of rape, two of sexual assault, two of battery and one of criminal damage to his wife’s laptop. He and (sic) was found not guilty of all charges by Judge Erik Salomonsen at Exeter Crown Court.”

  6. StillGjenganger says

    SonOfRoj has a point: If this man openly holds such opinions, anybody who moves in with him will be to some extent warned. But that is specific to this case and makes no difference to the point of principle.

    As Ally says, there is no such thing as an ideal solution here.

  7. 123454321 says

    As Mike just said, he was found not guilty, wasn’t he?

    So which side of the fence in a case like this do you come down on? Female accuser or defendant found not guilty?

    “It’s not him I’m worried about”

    In such an unclear case such as this, and without knowing the full details, I’d be worried about everyone until the ambiguities are cleared up, which they probably never will be.

  8. Carnation says

    @ Mike & 12345

    Given that he’s a “Red-Pilled”, and that the police mounted a case against him, guess?

    Same with DV – most victims are still deeply emotionally involved with their abuser and therefore more open to the concept of withdrawing evidence.

    For many, just having the abuse stop is enough.

    But to both of you, could you explain how assuming that a victim is lying will help and support the many thousands of silent male sexual abuse victims?

  9. Ally Fogg says

    No, he wasn’t found not guilty. He wasn’t ‘found’ anything, as there was no trial and the alleged victim apparently continues to insist that the allegations were true despite not being willing to testify in court.

    As I say in the OP, he is and needs to be treated as an innocent man. That doesn’t alter the fact that there are very good reasons to believe he might be an extremely dangerous man who might well pose severe risk to other women.

  10. Ally Fogg says

    In such an unclear case such as this, and without knowing the full details, I’d be worried about everyone until the ambiguities are cleared up, which they probably never will be.

    Quite. That is pretty much exactly the point I make in the article.

  11. sonofrojblake says

    It’s not him I’m worried about

    Well, obviously. He’s just a man who has spent four months on remand on the word of a woman who cannot be named for legal reasons, and who now, having decided for herself that he has “suffered enough” exercises her right to decline to test her allegations in a court of law. Why would you worry about him? He’s free to continue his life – assuming he managed to keep his job and his house while on remand, obviously.

    The article is extremely ambiguous on what has happened, legally. For instance: “the Crown is seeking a restraining order on acquittal” – but you say that has been and can have been no acquittal, since there has been no trial? He was, quote, “found not guilty of all charges by Judge Erik Salomonsen” – so was there a trial? Or was that the case being thrown out? Or what?

    This may be a good example of something, but as an example of clear reporting it’s dreadful. For instance: did he spend his four months remand in custody? There’s nothing in the story to tell us either way.

  12. Carnation says

    I wonder if any journalist interested in such matters would care to delve deeper and perhaps do a more in-depth report?

  13. Ally Fogg says

    The article is extremely ambiguous on what has happened, legally. For instance: “the Crown is seeking a restraining order on acquittal” – but you say that has been and can have been no acquittal, since there has been no trial? He was, quote, “found not guilty of all charges by Judge Erik Salomonsen” – so was there a trial? Or was that the case being thrown out? Or what?
    This may be a good example of something, but as an example of clear reporting it’s dreadful. For instance: did he spend his four months remand in custody? There’s nothing in the story to tell us either way.

    “On remand” means in custody, so yes, he was in custody.

    The acquittal is the formal process where the defendant comes before a magistrate/judge to be officially told that the CPS is not pursuing charges and that he is legally considered not guilty.

    Unless I’m going batty, the news report has been updated in the last couple of hours to change the tense from “will be granted” to “has been granted” so I presume he has been and gone from court this morning, complete with new restraining order.

  14. Carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    Is there a requirement for the person requesting the restraining order to demonstrate need? If so, do you know what any of the tests are?

    Something I don’t know much about.

  15. Ally Fogg says

    I honestly don’t know, ask a lawyer. My impression has always been that the bar for a restraining order is set pretty low. I genuinely don’t think I’ve ever heard of a request for an order being refused.

  16. StillGjenganger says

    @Ally 15
    Sounds reasonable. If you need an urgent measure to prevent someone from approaching you (and possibly molesting you in some way), you can hardly be expected to have the time, money, and proof to go through a court case first. Presumably (and hopefully) the order can be challenged afterwards, if there are grounds to think it is in some way disproportionate.

  17. Archy says

    “It should also go without saying that a person who is accused of a crime but not convicted cannot be treated or considered identically to a convicted criminal. Like it or not, he is now a free and (legally) innocent man.”

    And that is why the future wife/gf will not know, it’s under that basis that she is not informed. There is no good solution that I see except to try find ways to help encourage victims to testify and make it safe to do so. But because we believe in innocent until proven guilty, we can’t go overstepping the boundaries of the law especially as that does result in real harms to the alleged perpetrator who hasn’t been found guilty.

    “”She says the effect of the case being continued would have an extremely detrimental effect on her health and welfare.”

    This is really the only thing that can be helped, to support victims testify against the alleged perpetrator and let the law do it’s job.

    On the small chance this was a false accusation, the alleged’s name has not been dragged through the mud so it avoids a lot of the harm done by false accusations. Honestly I think the victim and perpetator in all sexual assault cases should be kept out of the media until proven guilty, then you can go for goal n spread the perpetrators name whereever as long as doing so doesn’t hurt the victim more.

    “While a restraining order is being sought (and will presumably be granted) to keep this man away from his wife, there is nothing that can be done to warn other women of the risks he poses. He will not be listed on the sex offenders register and while he could be subject to a disclosure request under ‘Clare’s law’ or the vetting and debarring scheme, it would be highly unlikely a future partner would be motivated to make such a request.”

    Are you trying to suggest he is guilty? This is starting to sound awfully close to desires for guilty until proven innocent style tarring n feathering. I dunno about you but I don’t want to be in a world where people can simply be accused and have real damage done against them regardless of their guilt before it is proven. This whole article sounds like you believe her above him, unless I am missing something I don’t see any proof either way so in my eyes and the law’s eyes this is a case of one person alleging crimes from the other, and that alleged abuser has looked at the red pill and may be an asshole but still not proof of abuse.

    “”The trouble comes from this defendant holding opinions about women which do not fit within the general views of modern society. His philosophy is that women are second class citizens who are there to do the bidding of men.”

    Where was this proven though? By visiting the red pill on reddit? I read the red pill at times (and the blue pill and purple pill debate) and believe all people should be safe from sexual violence. That link is in my history, so is feminism, mens rights, and a whole bunch of other issues where I read both sides to get an understanding of what people are debating. I think the red pill is partly humorous at the paranoia many seem to have n partly sad that they believe it, and way too much generalizations about human behaviour but it’s also a good place to learn how to avoid those kinds of people too since their tips are like redflags.

    Sure we could use statistics to assume she is most likely telling the truth and that info about him being “red pill” might sway us to believe he is guilty but until that is proven in a court of law, I would not want the fact he was accused to be used as a potential weapon to sabotage future relationships. The law is there to do justice, not hurt alleged offenders and hope they don’t screw up some innocent persons life. I am sure this will annoy some people but if you want to be angry, be angry at the people who falsely accuse. If everyone was 100% honest guaranteed then the accusation would be proof enough but there’s a slippery slope to start infringing on peoples lives before being proven guilty.

    Since she isn’t going to testify against him, doesn’t this open her up to false accusation charges? Logically a man has had 4 months of freedom denied to him over an accusation where the case has been dismissed or whatever, the only way for that to be seen as a good thing is if he definitely did it…But this man is still legally innocent and has lost 4 months of his life over an accusation alone?

    I know people like to follow the train of believe the victim more so but there are 2 huge issues, one is a potentially guilty man going free because testifying is stressful as hell and the other is a legally innocent man (who was always legally innocent until proven guilty?) who was jailed for 4 months on an accusation alone which is a form of abuse by proxy surely? Statistically it’s most likely the accusation was real but it’s not 100% guaranteed.

    And before anyone accuses me of being a rape apologist or whatever, I detest rapists to the extreme. I also detest innocent people being harmed in any situation, especially if that situation harms the chances of legitimate victims getting justice. I do however agree the accusation alone is enough for a restraining order as long as the alleged perp gets to see their child (supervised if they have to) to err on the side of caution. The whole situation is messed up though.

  18. Archy says

    @Ally

    “As I say in the OP, he is and needs to be treated as an innocent man. That doesn’t alter the fact that there are very good reasons to believe he might be an extremely dangerous man who might well pose severe risk to other women.”

    That’s not treating him like an innocent man, you’ve made your mind up. Carnation has made his mind up, that alone is enough to potentially harm a person’s business relationships, personal relationships, and seemingly a desire to harm his romantic relationships based off an accusation. He’s already had 4 months of his life taken, jailed, he was never treated as innocent until proven guilty. The jailing alone can potentially beat a man down enough to plead guilty to a crime he is innocent of to try get it over with. The mere accusation alone already changes a lot of peoples minds about this man, even I think he’s more likely to be guilty than innocent based of statistics alone. If he dated my friend and I knew he had that allegation, I would want to tell her, that’s the power of the accusation especially one that made it so far to jail him for 4 months.

    What you both want to treat him as is a SUSPECT, not innocent. The general public can never be trusted with the identity of people accused of certain crimes such as sexual assault (especially against kids). What are the repercussions against her if she made it all up? 4 months of jail can have a huge impact on mental health if you are innocent.

  19. 123454321 says

    “I am sure this will annoy some people but if you want to be angry, be angry at the people who falsely accuse. ”

    My spider senses tell me that Carny’s fingers are already red-raw whilst furiously typing a response to that one! Can’t wait.

  20. Carnation says

    @ Archy

    If there is a case for anonymity for the accused in sexual crimes, it’s the same case for all crimes. It is not that the accused in sexual crimes have a special status, it is that they have the same status as others who stand accused.

    “But this man is still legally innocent and has lost 4 months of his life over an accusation alone?”

    I doubt that – there seems circumstantial evidence, and other witnesses, to support what he was charged with. However, the complainant would be the main evidential source, and without that co-operation, the trial would collapse.

    As ever, it’s a very grey, complex and disturbing area.

    A friend of mine was in a physically abusive relationship for some years. She wanted to go to the police out of concern for her former partner’s new partner. The police said that if they had evidence, they would have to act on it. She simply doesn’t feel she can cope with the judicial process. This sorry saga is replicated thousands of times every year in the UK, and the suffering continues.

  21. 123454321 says

    “Since she isn’t going to testify against him, doesn’t this open her up to false accusation charges?”

    That has happened before, but only when the accused has then chosen to pursue their own false accusation allegation and begin the charge process. But waiting to see what the guy does still won’t necessarily tell us anything.

  22. Carnation says

    @ 12345, Archy

    The quality of your character is evident from the crass, pathetic, gloating cliché that you offer up in response to a story of human suffering.

    You are, quite simply, pathetic individuals.

  23. sonofrojblake says

    @Ally – thanks for the clarification.

    So to reiterate my point from 11 more clearly:

    You pronounce yourself not worried about a man who has spent four months in prison, on the word of a woman who cannot be named for legal reasons, and who now, having decided for herself that he has “suffered enough” exercises her right to decline to test her allegations in a court of law. Why would you worry about him? He’s free to continue his life – assuming he managed to keep his job and his house while in prison, obviously.

    @Carnation, 20:

    If there is a case for anonymity for the accused in sexual crimes, it’s the same case for all crimes. It is not that the accused in sexual crimes have a special status, it is that they have the same status as others who stand accused.

    But sexual crimes are already treated as special cases. If I accuse you of common assault, my name will go into the press report alongside yours. If I accuse you of rape, it won’t. I get to be anonymous… but you don’t. And you’re being disingenuous if you’re trying to pretend that the public regard sex offenders as equivalent to other criminals.

  24. Carnation says

    “And you’re being disingenuous if you’re trying to pretend that the public regard sex offenders as equivalent to other criminals.”

    Expand on that? Aside from the statistically irrelevant number of celeb/high-profile cases, I don’t think there’s much in the way of evidence to support your claim.

    What about the campaigns of support for professional footballers?

  25. Staniel Smith says

    @Archy, 17:

    Since she isn’t going to testify against him, doesn’t this open her up to false accusation charges?

    For her to be tried for perverting the course of justice (i.e. a false accusation) there would have to be proof that her accusation was actually false. The fact that she isn’t testifying doesn’t prove that in any sense, just as her actually testifying wouldn’t prove her to be telling the truth.

    @sonofrojblake, 23:

    And you’re being disingenuous if you’re trying to pretend that the public regard sex offenders as equivalent to other criminals.

    I don’t know that I agree. Murderers, drug dealers abusers of children or the elderly etc. aren’t exactly popular.

  26. Archy says

    @Carnation
    “@ 12345, Archy

    The quality of your character is evident from the crass, pathetic, gloating cliché that you offer up in response to a story of human suffering.

    You are, quite simply, pathetic individuals.”

    Sure, let’s just string the man up based on her accusation alone, like that hasn’t been done before. How dare a person be concerned that the justice system try to remain fair, and keep the honor of innocent until proven guilty. How dare a person have critical thought? Her suffering is obviously the only issue at play, that’s all that matters right?

    “If there is a case for anonymity for the accused in sexual crimes, it’s the same case for all crimes. It is not that the accused in sexual crimes have a special status, it is that they have the same status as others who stand accused.”

    If you cannot grasp why sexual crimes are a special breed apart, then you obviously haven’t thought about it enough. Being accused of stealing 10000bucks is far less damaging to the reputation than being accused of raping a woman, or especially a child. People have been killed over the accusation alone. Google Luke Harwood, or do you believe he truly was a rapist?

    If someone was going to falsely accuse you of raping a woman or of stealing $10,000 in a public place so all of your friends, family, workmates, etc and the paper would hear about it…Which would you choose? If your theory is correct then neither is worse.

  27. Ally Fogg says

    You pronounce yourself not worried about a man who has spent four months in prison, on the word of a woman who cannot be named for legal reasons, and who now, having decided for herself that he has “suffered enough” exercises her right to decline to test her allegations in a court of law. Why would you worry about him? He’s free to continue his life – assuming he managed to keep his job and his house while in prison, obviously.

    That is the nature of remand. People who are accused of committing serious violent crimes are generally held in prison until they are either convicted or acquitted.

    There are all sorts of ethical and practical issues around people being remanded before trial, but I’m not sure what you think should be done differently in a case like this? Do you think people accused of multiple counts of rape & sexual assault should be routinely released on bail pending trial? Because I can see a lot of potential problems there.

    What are you suggesting?

  28. Carnation says

    [DELETED BY Af]

    Carnation, you have been crossing way too many lines of personal abuse lately.

    Consider yourself on a yellow card, and have some respect for me and other readers please!

  29. Ally Fogg says

    Archy [18]

    That’s not treating him like an innocent man, you’ve made your mind up.

    My mind is irrelevant. The point is how the system treats him. I don’t believe he should be imprisoned or otherwise punished. I don’t believe he should be treated as a suspect, because that implies he is still under investigation when he is not.

    At the same time, I am suggesting that based only on what little we know, there are reasonable grounds to consider that he may pose a significant risk to other women whom he forms relationships. I’m pointing out that this is an unfortunate but unavoidable situation.

    If you want to extrapolate, however, I am also saying that this case demonstrates why offering anonymity to rape defendants (something which I do, incidentally, cautiously support under certain circumstances) is not necessarily an unproblematic position.

    I do think that it would probably be in the greater good if this man could be publicly named, even if he is being publicly named as a man who has been acquitted of sexual offence charges.

  30. Ally Fogg says

    Just deleted a post above for personal abuse.

    Reminder to everyone, happy to host robust opinions and robust exchanges of views, but personal abuse does no one any favours.

  31. sonofrojblake says

    @Carnation, 24 and Staniel, 25: You don’t think the public are generally interested whether there’s a rapist living in their area?

    Aside from the statistically irrelevant number of celeb/high-profile cases[…] What about the campaigns of support for professional footballers?

    Make your mind up. Are high profile/celeb cases relevant or not?
    Sex offenders (convicted ones, because hey, we have a justice system) are required to sign a register. This sets them apart from other kinds of criminals – there’s no drug dealers register, no murderers register. Do you think this rule was brought in for shits and giggles, or was there perhaps some demand for specific measures to deal with sex offenders in particular?

    @Ally, 27: I’m not “suggesting” anything in particular – I was responding to your airy dismissal of this man in post 4, was all.

    Obviously you were implying that it was his hypothetical future girlfriend/wife you were worried about, disregarding the point that anyone who reached entered a long term relationship with this person – IF he conforms to the description given – does so at their own risk and on their own cognisance. This isn’ t Misogynistan, where downtrodden, veiled, powerless women are forced into relationships, marriage and motherhood with odious Red Pillocks under the theocratic hegemony of a backward patriarchal culture enforced by their parents and the elders of their village. It’s 21st century England, where if you’re not happy, you can swipe right and move on to the next. Or not – your choice.

    @Archy, 17:

    doesn’t this open her up to false accusation charges?

    Theoretically, yes. In practice, the man in question would have to make a criminal complaint against her, and it would then be required for him to prove that the accusations were false, and furthermore that she knew them to be false. The second bit would be easy… the first bit, not so much. Even if the accusations were false (does anyone really believe this?), even then his best strategy is probably to shut up and move on. The police/CPS won’t go after her independently for obvious reasons to do with it not being in the public interest and the vanishingly tiny likelihood of getting a conviction.

  32. Thil says

    I think it’s perfectly correct that he should be allowed to get on with his life without incident. Whatever her claimed motives for not doing so, she chose not to testify against him and as a result he was not convicted.

    In an ideal justice system all people who go to court but are not convicted should be able to return to their lives without incident

  33. Ally Fogg says

    Obviously you were implying that it was his hypothetical future girlfriend/wife you were worried about, disregarding the point that anyone who reached entered a long term relationship with this person – IF he conforms to the description given – does so at their own risk and on their own cognisance.

    Except it is not quite that simple. The risks that this man is a serious sex offender are considerably higher than the risks that you or I or any other random person is a serious sex offender.

    The state (via the criminal justice system) knows who he is.

    The state has a duty of care to protect citizens from specific risks where possible.

    In this case, the state is unable to protect citizens from specific risks in these circumstances.

    Theoretically, yes. In practice, the man in question would have to make a criminal complaint against her,

    Point of fact, this isn’t true. The police could decide to press charges. Technically it is the crown that is the ‘victim’ of a crime of perverting the course of justice, not an individual.

    But everything else you say is true. There is absolutely nothing that has been reported here to suggest the police do think she has made false allegations. If they were going to charge her, it would more probably be for wasting police time (which does sometimes happen to people who report crimes then later withdraw them, usually because the police think they are doing it out of malice or mischief, which is unlikely to be the case here.

  34. Thil says

    “The state has a duty of care to protect citizens from specific risks where possible”

    you don’t think that’s a little too sweeping? I mean can’t you argue a lot of things and people pose possible “specific risks” to the public?

  35. Marduk says

    The story here isn’t the anonymity, people choose not complete cases all the time. Yes its a problem, yes it always has been, yes it always will be, no I do not want “risk based policing” of individuals based on unproven allegations.

    The only special circumstance here is over-reaching by the police into “peripheral evidence”. Welcome to the brave new world of the internet act. This is something that anyone who uses the internet should be concerned about.

    The website in question is Reddit. The source for “what they believe” is an article in The Telegraph, the source for “what he believes” is the prosecutor.

    I’m surprised a man (who on his own website admits to being branded a misogynist!) who recently held a public audience as some sort of leader on the same male supremacist website has failed to notice the problem with this. Its almost as if, if you want to represent someone in a certain way its never very hard if you’re selective in what you bring up.

    If there is anything shocking about this case, it looks like we’ve found a guy who has literally never visited a porn site in his life or they’d be talking about that as well.

    This is utterly ridiculous and when you take a step back from this you’ll realise in any other circumstance you would not be thinking that the police and the courts had been unfairly foiled at least in terms of “peripheral evidence” at least. Lets say its a devout Muslim who has been reading websites critical of the British government’s foreign policy (I’m talking about the Guardian but hey, websites are what I say they are now and The Telegraph tells me its filled with communists and people who want to bring down Britain). I’m going to assume that unless you are a late convert to Trumpism you’d consider a bit of circumspection might apply before the person gets put on a list.

    None of this is really much to do with the case which is very serious and it is unfortunate it won’t be concluded.

  36. Thil says

    Marduk

    I’ve never visited a porn site. It’s not a universal thing to be turned on by watching other people have sex

  37. Marduk says

    #37 Well actually the point is it doesn’t matter why you visited it. Prior to the early 2000s it was virtually impossible to avoid, Google has made things a lot better in terms of fake links, banner ads, typo squatting etc. Back when Altavista was the biggest search engine in the world, Altabista was the most visited porn site in the world (this makes sense if you have a QWERTY keyboard anyway).

    I agree with #35 though. The road to hell is rarely that well signposted.

  38. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    Um… isn’t the important part that the now acquitted *believes* in the male supremacy spouted on the Red Pill?

    The article, and judge, alludes to this, no?

  39. Marduk says

    #39

    I have no idea what he believes, neither do you. In any case, people are free to believe what they want. What they do is different of course.

    But given that this stuff is put far more clearly and directly in the book of Corinthians than it ever would be on a website, and he was a “devout Christian”, should we start rounding people up because of their religious beliefs as well? If we’re going to do that because of their Reddit browsing history which really requires a lot less personal investment then it would seem like we should.

    Point is, just because you are scumbag it doesn’t mean they aren’t talking smack about you. In fact, the more of a scumbag you are the more likely it is, Al Capone for example was very ill-treated by the IRS (and obviously very well treated by the electric chair he wasn’t placed on).

    Be very careful what you advocate around abhorrent crimes because it might look a bit different when applied to the next case on the docket. Its very easy to get carried away but we have to be careful.

  40. Marduk says

    Let me put it this way, on a human level I share Ally’s concerns. Its a worry. But I don’t actually advocate doing anything about it (its hard to write that) and really, I’d challenge him to advocate exactly what he’d do about it using the word “innocent man” throughout his explanation. He doesn’t say in his piece (which is more circumspect) and he doesn’t say in his comments (which are less so) and I would respectfully say there is a reason for that.

    If its the case we’re both worried and this is a shame, then fine. But then there isn’t a dilemma here in the first place and it really genuinely is that simple.

    What I don’t agree with is what I see in #29 and #34 when applied to someone who has been convicted of no crime and actually, where no evidence exists.

    I know this is inhuman but that is the point of having system. We can’t determine these things by feelings.

    As ever I’m standing in the dirt defending things I abhor on the whole but nobody ever argues about the limits of these things when its a nice person who wants to do good things in the dock. I could be complaining about why Martin Luther King shouldn’t have been under the surveillance of the CIA and the FBI but you aren’t going to have that argument with me are you.

  41. Adiabat says

    I don’t know about the actual case but in the general situation of a case where the accused is likely guilty but it falls through because there’s no way to achieve a conviction without the accuser, couldn’t a lesser charge be sought after which the CPS could a prosecution on but where they don’t need the accusers cooperation? Assualt maybe?

    At least then there’s some googleable public record.

  42. Adiabat says

    Oh, and I appear to be on moderation on the ‘Ask me anything’ thread. I assume it’s the number of links in the post, though maybe you’ve finally had enough of the asshole who swings by every now and again and brings down the tone of the blog… 😛

  43. sonofrojblake says

    @Ally, 34;

    The state has a duty of care to protect citizens from specific risks where possible.
    In this case, the state is unable to protect citizens from specific risks in these circumstances.

    Well, yeah. And?

    The police could decide to press charges [against the woman for false accusation]

    I believe I did implicitly say that, when I pointed out that they won’t based on public interest and no chance of conviction.

  44. Paul says

    ps I submitted it at 3.03am so it’s either gone into the spam folder or disappeared forever into the ether.

  45. StillGjenganger says

    The point here is the we all think he is actually guilty. But we do not know. As Marduk pointed out, we do not really know even what his opinions are, beyond some selected comment from his prosecutor. And of course the fact that we assume that people ‘would not lie about something like this’. For what it is worth, I believe the same thing as the rest of you, but I am guessing.

    Ally is quite right that someone who has been just accused of rape is a much bigger risk as a bedmate than someone who has not. In the same way, someone who has been merely accused of paedophilia is a much bigger risk as someone who has not. In either case it is exceedinglhy hard to actually prove that the accusation was false, and unless you are rich enough for a private prosecution nobody will find it worth their while to try, once they have decided that they are not going to charge you. But do we really want to organise society so that just being accused makes you a public target for hate and disgust, and makes it impossible for you to get a girlfriend (if you have been accused of rape) or a job near children (if you have been accused of paedophilia)? I would say that we do not want that. And I would accept,. up front, that this will mean that we let some tragic crimes happen that could have been avoided.

  46. sonofrojblake says

    The interesting thing here is that the stereotypical (i.e. probably not entirely accurate) SJW reaction to this is to bemoan the fact that we can’t irreversibly ruin this man’s life based on the accusation. It bears some similarities to people who argue in favour of capital punishment. In both cases, those most fervently in favour are notably only in favour when they are certain that the sanction will never be applied to them. As in – public shaming/execution are acceptable punishments for those people who deserve them, i.e. those other people.

    The acceptance that some tragic crimes are unavoidable might be said to be part of growing up.

  47. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    The judge, acting on information received, said the following: “”The trouble comes from this defendant holding opinions about women which do not fit within the general views of modern society. His philosophy is that women are second class citizens who are there to do the bidding of men. He believes there is no such thing as rape within marriage and he is entitled to have sex with his wife regardless of whether she is consenting.”

    And of course he is free to believe what he wants – but acting on it can break the law, and it’s not a stretch to imagine that he might also have some far out ideas about child-rearing, for example. The question is, what can be done about that? And that’s pretty dicey.

    You wrote: “Let me put it this way, on a human level I share Ally’s concerns. Its a worry. But I don’t actually advocate doing anything about it (its hard to write that)”

    I’d agree with one proviso – I think that where a person is a danger to other groups of people, the police should have power to inform those at risk of a person’s past (subject to audit. measures et al to ensure due process and non-abuse).

  48. Ally Fogg says

    Marduk [41]

    Let me put it this way, on a human level I share Ally’s concerns. Its a worry. But I don’t actually advocate doing anything about it (its hard to write that) and really, I’d challenge him to advocate exactly what he’d do about it using the word “innocent man” throughout his explanation.

    I’ve already said in the OP that as far as I can see, there is *nothing* that can be done in this case. My motivation in writing was largely to point out that there are cases in this type of area where there is no legal framework that is satisfactory and that sometimes debates about issues like anonymity of rape defendants simply do not have ideal solutions, merely least bad outcomes.

    Regarding your points in [36] it carries no weight whatsoever, but I’d be inclined to think the man’s religious beliefs and gender politics beliefs are both a reflection of his personality rather than the other way around. So I’m not particularly concerned because people read the r/RedPill or Corinthians chapter whatever, but here have someone who has been accused but never convincingly cleared (despite being legally acquitted) of sex crimes while simultaneously holding the belief that even if he had done the things of which he had been accused, he would have done nothing wrong.

    That strikes me as an unusually frightening and dangerous individual.

  49. Ally Fogg says

    Carnation [49}

    I’d agree with one proviso – I think that where a person is a danger to other groups of people, the police should have power to inform those at risk of a person’s past (subject to audit. measures et al to ensure due process and non-abuse).

    Yeah, the problem is that because he is an innocent man, he has no probation officer, no contact with the police etc, so who is going to monitor him to find out if and when he has embarked on a new relationship?

  50. Ally Fogg says

    Adiabat – your comment was caught in the spam filter, now approved.
    Paul. No sign of yours, sorry!

  51. Carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg #51

    …”so who is going to monitor him to find out if and when he has embarked on a new relationship?”

    This is where there is a justifiable but flawed gap in policing powers.

    There are some people who simply put will abuse whatever position of power they find themselves in – some predatory paedophiles seek out partners with children and the police and/or social workers can put care plans in place – I am not sure whether or not this can only be done after a conviction and/or assessment.

    Echoing what has already been said, policing can’t be perfect – civil liberties for all guarantees this.

    In terms of stalking, DV etc, I’ve long thought that certain types of abuse (what could be termed “campaigns” of abuse) should be dealt with under a cross between terrorism legislation and existing DV legislation – powers to detain for prolonged periods, monitor, curtail. Scary police state stuff, I know, but it would save lives.

    That said, it simply wouldn’t affect this case.

  52. StillGjenganger says

    Seeing that we are all being so reasonable, I think I should add a bit of nuance to what I said.

    The damage to repuration and life that you get from a rape accusation is also one of those things that cannot be helped. There is enough pain to go around that the accused (innocent or guilty) will also get their share. Anyway, it was always the case that the local gossips knew what to say and whom to blame. The issue is how to deal with it in a world of Google and internet mobs, where thousands of random strangers can band together and campaign to get you fired, and where even emigrating to New Zealand will not allow you to escape the gossips. How far should officialdom act for or against the various parties (bearing in mind that the prohibition on reporting the name of rape victims is already an intervention)?

  53. sonofrojblake says

    he is an innocent man, he has no probation officer, no contact with the police etc, so who is going to monitor him?

    Progressive blogger bemoans absence of Big Brother?

    Scary police state stuff, I know, but it would save lives

    Yes… but is it worth it?

  54. Archy says

    Carnation, this issue is far bigger than the tragedy against the victim. Those of us in the comments who worry about the slippery slope and thought-crime aspect (it’s not illegal to believe a woman is beneath you, as disgusting as that is) and the reprimand are not unsympathetic to the woman, or future women. Yes you could potentially increase the safety of women by infringing on this man’s rights but that is the problem right there, there has been no conviction and it amounts to profiling him as a risk based on the accusation alone + his apparent shitty thoughts towards women. Defending innocent until proven guilty is extremely different to defending a rapist and accusations alone do not prove guilt.

    I do not like rapists to the point if it’s 100% guaranteed a person is a serial rapist without remorse, I think they should simply get a bullet to the head but I know there’s a hell of a lot of issues with that too. I also don’t like police state’s nor harms done to people without major proof. I think it’s ghastly there have been suspected terrorists locked up for years without trial for instance.

    Now if he truly was innocent and if people did inform a new partner, would every single one of those people be charged with a crime for hurting his reputation? Would the policeman be jailed or do you think the end justifies the means and we throw innocents under the bus? I could go along with some monitoring in a way that doesn’t harm his life but jailing is a bit much.

    I think the best option is she gets a restraining order whilst the whole mess is sorted out, and major work needs to be done to make it more comfortable and safe for victims to testify. If the judge feels there is a risk, then potentially make it so he is ordered to not pursue any new romantic relationships but even this starts to really overstep the innocent until proven guilty.

    Now if he was shown to have messages talking about how he did ignore consent since that is admitting it pretty much then I would definitely agree with jailing until the trial. If he simply believes there is no such thing as marital rape and has shitty misogynist views, that still doesn’t suggest he would commit that crime even though I personally think there’s a huge chance he did when coupled with her accusation.

    However, I firmly and ultimately believe “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” and that is by far 7 billion times more important than the tragedy and harms against her because it’s designed to stop more suffering. The justice system cannot be used as a weapon to harm innocents and Blackstone’s formulation is one of the most important protections against a horrible society to live in.

  55. Staniel Smith says

    @Ally, 51:

    Yeah, the problem is that because he is an innocent man…

    Whilst he’s innocent in the criminal sense there is a restraining order against him now, so perhaps something could be done regarding that?

  56. mostlymarvelous says

    Anyway, it was always the case that the local gossips knew what to say and whom to blame.

    In this particular case, that’s not much help. I’ve known a couple of women who sought help (after being raped by their husbands) from their religious community. One was literally turned away from her neighbour’s door – the one she’d chosen specifically because the family was “Christian” – in the middle of the night when she turned up distraught and in tears. These groups already know what men like this do, and their attitude is that a woman has to put up with it. (It took her about 20 more years to make up her mind to actually get away from him.) Only ‘weaklings’ or ‘traitors’ tell anyone outside their not-quite-closed societies. Going to the police is more or less admitting you’re willing to go to hell.

    As for the bloke being publicly humiliated or scorned, that’s not going to happen within his own reasonably small circle of similarly inclined religious fanatics. The important thing is that it’s not society generally that “we” have to worry about. The ones who really worry are the cops.

    They see their role as preserving the public peace and preventing crime as much as catching up with criminals after the event. They really, really want to be able to inform and warn potential victims when a bloke has a criminal record for serious and-or repeated assault, sexual or otherwise, against a previous partner &or that the current restraining order is against him for good reason.

    I looked up this article http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-24/ferguson-australia's-domestic-violence-crime-wave/6970460 but I couldn’t find any link to the cop I thought I remembered talking to the camera/interviewer. He says that it’s heart-breaking for them to see a bloke known for violence against previous partners, and exes in particular, take up with a new partner. They want to be able to give a sensible but serious warning to individual women at risk before they’re harmed in any way, let alone raped or hospitalised. (I suspect I’d have to re-watch the whole 3 hours worth of videos to check what I’m thinking of.)

    It’s one thing for people’s details to be on a publicly available register. It’s another thing entirely if the information is confined within a more or less closed circle where the only people involved are the bloke, the cops, and past or current partners.

    You’d need good law, good policy and good training to do it right, but it’s worth making the effort.

  57. David S says

    @Ally

    The description of the defendant, as reported by the local press, is terrifying.

    Well yes, but before jumping to any conclusions about the case it is worth considering how inaccurate press reports of sexual offence cases can be. It is instructive to look at a few cases and compare the reports that appeared in the media with the story that is actually revealed in court documents. Consider for example the court documents regarding the Strauss-Kahn case or the Neil Evans case (the one where the victim was described as “predatory), or the A v R case in which the defendant was rather misleadingly described as having been convicted of falsely retracting a true allegation. In all of these cases newspapers have significantly distorted what actually happened. I am not sure whether this is because they need to sell copies and get clicks, or because they have idealogical positions to prop up, or some combination of the two, but the fact remains that what you read is not what happened.

    I used to be a regular reader of the Exeter Express and Echo, and I don’t think it is any worse than any other paper, but I would still treat anything I read about sexual offences in it with caution. Even if everything in the report to which you linked is true, one would need to be aware of the potential for misdirection. For example it would be a good idea to distinguish what we know about the defendants beliefs from what a reporter has alleged that the prosecution has alleged (or was intending to allege) about those beliefs. Maybe he is a monster as depicted, or maybe he has been “monstered” by a newspaper in search of readers. Until we get some actual court documents we can’t really say (and we possibly would not be able to say even if we did have them).

  58. Marduk says

    #50

    He doesn’t need to be “convincingly cleared”, he needs to be proven guilty.

    I appreciate this is not very constructive but I feel things like this are beyond debate really, the rules are the rules for good reason and we should stick to them. Nuance need not apply. I’ve always been unhappy with feminist efforts to bid this stuff down.

    The law on this is more facilitative than people think anyway. For example, DV/rape cases actually ignore whether the victim withdraws their claim or not – the reason there was a judgement here was that the court had to decide to end the case themselves and they were under no duty to do this, this is what you are actually reading in the newspaper story, the court arguing for why on this occasion it is listening to the victim’s wishes as they have to justify this. The prosecution would have been allowed to admit third party testimony about things they’d been told in this case and that would have been given the same standing as a proxy for the victim’s withdrawn testimony so long as it agreed with the prosecution case. I feel like the law has made enough allowances that the over-riding principles can apply.

    There is of course the Scottish system which would stand as an example of what could be changed but we know that doesn’t work because the public don’t understand the outcomes. Over a period of decades, public opinion about what the different verdicts means has a habit of flipping. People used to think “not proven” was an exemplary exoneration but now they believe it means “guilty but we couldn’t make it stick”. Doesn’t seem helpful.

  59. David S says

    @Carnation[49]

    The judge, acting on information received, said the following: “”The trouble comes from this defendant holding opinions about women which do not fit within the general views of modern society. His philosophy is that women are second class citizens who are there to do the bidding of men. He believes there is no such thing as rape within marriage and he is entitled to have sex with his wife regardless of whether she is consenting.”

    If I am reading the Express and Echo article correctly, it was not the judge who said that, it was the prosecution barrister. So far as I can make out, the only thing the judge is recorded as having said regarding the defendant’s beliefs is that “There is peripheral evidence about his visiting a website named Red Pill and other information about his use of the internet.” The words “peripheral” and “visiting” suggest that the links between him and this Red Pill group might not be as strong as the article suggests, and that it might be a bit rash to assume that he shared their opinions.

    I am not a lawyer, but it sounds to me as if the prosecution barrister might have been a bit out of order. Rather than simply saying that the case had been dropped, she seems to have used its withdrawal as an opportunity to make allegations against the defendant which she knew he would not be able to contest.

  60. mostlymarvelous says

    … allegations against the defendant which she knew he would not be able to contest.

    Have you ever known any blokes like this? I very much doubt he’d care. He’d be pretty _angry_ that a legal person (a woman! pfffft) would have the gall to say bad things about him, but shame or embarrassment or social unease are not part of the package. Because he’s right and they’re wrong.

    Blokes who don’t believe in a legal quibble like rape in marriage are very much like the men who believe they have a right to assault their wives and children regardless of what the law might say about such behaviour. They believe they have an inalienable personal right to control their household and everyone in it. The way they do it is their choice even if, perhaps especially if, that way includes violence. No one else has any say. If the courts, the cops or the parliament disagree, that’s unfortunate but irrelevant. Add in an unshakable belief in *correct* reading of religious texts, and such people are more or less impervious to any general opinion, or political statement, or legal decision to the contrary.

    I realise I’m one of very few people here, maybe the only person, old enough to have married before 1970 and to have known thousands of other men and women of similar vintage. But I am constantly amazed at younger people (yes, I’m playing the old fogey card) who seem totally unaware – oblivious – of the laws, behaviours and attitudes of those times, and to the signs and signals of them continuing – and changing, relaxing, sometimes worsening – in the current era. There are still a lot of men with the attitude that they own all rights in their families, and their wives and children have little or none. Any social, legal or police actions or statements to the contrary are an unwarranted, unforgivable intrusion into their lives.

    As for that “worsening”. I’m getting the impression that people who can no longer rely on their attitudes and behaviours being socially taken for granted, or ignored, or even defended in the past, are now becoming more aggressive, or at least _vocal_, and persistent in advancing their own individual “right” to do as they please in their own homes.

  61. David S says

    @Thil
    AFAIK the anonymity offered by courts is rather limited. It simply means that he cannot be named in newspaper reports about the case. Anyone who was present at the hearing could know who he was, I would imagine others can work out who he was, and anonymity does not prevent them from telling their friends and acquaintances who he was, so long as they don’t do this through the letters page of the newspaper.

    That said, it could be that the prosecutor’s comments were related to the arrangements for the restraining order, rather than as an attempt to cast aspersions. As I said, we haven’t seen any court documents so we don’t know. It would be particularly interesting to hear how the judge responded to the prosecutor’s comments (if he did).

  62. David S says

    @mostlymarvelous[62]

    Have you ever known any blokes like this?

    You are assuming that we know what this bloke is like, and what his beliefs are. In fact all we know is what a journalist said a prosecuting barrister said about his beliefs. Prosecution barristers are paid to present a case against a defendant, and journalists are paid to write stuff that will interest readers. Furthermore the quotes from the journalist and the prosecuting barrister don’t tell us anything about the evidence that was to be presented. The only person covered in the report who is paid to be even-handed is the judge. He is also the only one who has actually told us anything about the evidence in the case, and it sounds as if it only offers rather limited support for the line being taken in the article.

    Of course it could be that the prosecution barrister’s statements are entirely correct, and that the journalist who wrote the article has accurately summed them up. However given the past history of journalistic coverage of such cases it would be rash to assume that (to be fair I’m talking about newspapers in general, not the E&E).

  63. mostlymarvelous says

    You are assuming that we know what this bloke is like, and what his beliefs are.

    Not exactly.

    But first things first. The question is still there, do you know, have you ever known, any blokes like this? A man who behaves in the way described, whether or not it’s based on those kinds of beliefs, is hardly an orphan.

    My impression of police and prosecutors is that they rarely proceed on such cases because it’s extremely hard to get a conviction. If they were so keen, and only discontinuing because of the witness/complainant/victim withdrawing, then I’m inclined to the view that this was one of the rare cases where they thought they could get a conviction in the face of determined resistance from the accused.

    Especially since the local paper reported … the church which his wife attends. Several other witnesses also come from that church. We do not want to restrict this man’s ability to worship, so long as it is not at that place. This suggests that this particular bloke’s behaviour is so egregious that even the people who you’d normally expect to agree with (or to ignore) his opinions or his approach to such matters are willing to openly participate in putting him away.

    His resistance and defence to the charges wasn’t based on contesting facts – like whether sexual activity was consensual, which raises ye olde he said, she said problem – but on disputing the validity of the law – that consent to sexual activity is required during marriage. Marriage vows are not a once-and-for-all, get out of jail free card for anything a husband does for the rest of a wife’s life – even if women willingly use the “obey” wording in religious marriage vows.

    Adding up the willingness of this devoutly religious woman to report him in the first place, the wish of the police and prosecutors to continue with the matter and the church community’s continuing support for her I’m inclined to the view that, had the prosecution continued and he’d been convicted only of the battery and criminal damage charges, and none of the sexual offences, he’d still be a pretty undesirable marriage partner or church member.

  64. mostlymarvelous says

    Here we go. Ally wrote …

    while he could be subject to a disclosure request under ‘Clare’s law’ or the vetting and debarring scheme, it would be highly unlikely a future partner would be motivated to make such a request.

    I looked up Clare’s law while I was writing that last comment. Came across this from Staffordshire Police.

    The scheme works in two ways:
    Right to ask:
    Victims (potential and actual), third parties (parents, neighbours and friends) and agencies can all make requests under the scheme.
    Right to know:
    The police make a proactive decision to disclose details when they receive information to suggest a person could be at risk.
    If police checks reveal the individual has a record for abusive offences or there is information to suggest a person is at risk, the police will give consideration to sharing this information with the person at risk or a person who is best placed to protect the potential victim.
    The scheme aims to help the potential victim make an informed decision …

    http://www.staffordshire.police.uk/info_advice/victims/domestic_abuse/clares_law

    Regardless of whether a future partner or her family or friends see the need to make a request of this kind, the police are free to give consideration to letting her know anyway. Seeing as they are not restricted to criminal records only but can take into account any information they have indicating that a person is at risk I think all the bases are covered.

    Looks to me as though the police were asked about this during the drafting of the law. They – and everyone else involved in domestic & intimate partner violence – would have pointed out that many people who kill, rape or seriously injure current or former partners might have very little in the way of a criminal record or none at all before that particular event, but they could have an arm’s length list of family court and civil court matters, AVO’s and other keep-away orders in their past which would have indicated that they were a high risk for the eventual, serious, inescapably criminal offence.

    In the end, it will come down to various police forces doing a risk assessment about this bloke and then, if a new partner appears on the horizon, they’ll have to consider whether they approach her before she or her relatives approach them. At least neither their hands nor their tongues are tied if someone asks about him in the future.

  65. StillGjenganger says

    @MostlyMarvelous 66
    Yours is a very convincing account (and well, I did write above that I believe this bloke is guilty, just like everybody else does). In fact you can speculate that he got a wife that would actually accept a lot of his (illegal) behaviour, and pushed her so far that even she went to the police.

    All I (and I think Marduk) is saying is that we are guessing – we do not really know for sure on the basis of what we can read in the papers – and that giving anonymity to the accused might be the right thing even if it – admittedly – means some crimes are not prevented. Clares law apparently lets the police pass on information without having a conviction to base it on. That law does worry me a bit, but if it stays limited to actual girlfriends and does not end up all over the internet I guess it could be worse.

  66. David S says

    @mostlymarvelous[66]
    I think you are constructing a rather circular argument here. Your line of reasoning seems to depend on us assuming the truth of the statement that is at issue. You are also reading things into the article that it does not say (and in some cases could not say). To answer your specific points:

    But first things first. The question is still there, do you know, have you ever known, any blokes like this?

    In order to answer that I would have to know what this bloke is like. As I have already tried to explain, I don’t. All that I or, you, have got to go on is a newspaper article in which a journalist tells us what a prosecution barrister has told us about the man’s character. It is possible that the picture they present is true. but we have to assume that the prosecutor is being selective in her use of evidence, because that is her job, and it is fairly safe to assume that the journalist is being selective in her presentation of the selective observations made by the prosecutor. In other words we are looking at statements made at third hand where we know that the first and second hands are biassed.

    If what you meant was have I met people whose character is similar to that which you think the defendant has, then no I haven’t, at least not directly, but I am not sure what relevance that has.

    Especially since the local paper reported … the church which his wife attends. Several other witnesses also come from that church. We do not want to restrict this man’s ability to worship, so long as it is not at that place. This suggests that this particular bloke’s behaviour is so egregious that even the people who you’d normally expect to agree with (or to ignore) his opinions or his approach to such matters are willing to openly participate in putting him away.

    You are assuming that these would have been witnesses for the prosecution. So far as I can see the article does not say that.

    His resistance and defence to the charges wasn’t based on contesting facts – like whether sexual activity was consensual, which raises ye olde he said, she said problem – but on disputing the validity of the law –

    So far as I can make out, the trial was abandoned before the defence even took the stand. How do you know what his defence would have been based on? You seem, once again, to be assuming that you know things that you don’t know, and in this case they are rather unlikely things. A defence based on questioning the validity of the law would be unlikely to get him anywhere.

  67. mostlymarvelous says

    I would have to know what this bloke is like.

    I thought I was clear, sorry. You don’t have to know (or agree or presume) what ‘this bloke’ specifically is like.

    The question is about knowing blokes-who-can-be-described-like-this – regardless of whether the judge-prosecutor-newspaper is accurate in describing this particular person in that way. I’m only asking because of my chronic recurring surprise that so many people seem to think these people don’t exist.

    A defence based on questioning the validity of the law would be unlikely to get him anywhere.

    There are always some who try it. They seem to have common characteristics of being unbelievably stubborn to start with and convinced that they’re right and everyone else is wrong regardless of the area of law involved to complete the annoying picture. Some of them – especially in domestic violence cases like this – do it from a kind of sadism. They want to force their partner or ex to have to look at them and speak to them in court even though they refuse to do so everywhere else.

    You are assuming that these would have been witnesses for the prosecution.

    Seeing as the woman is continuing to attend the church (and he is now banned from worship there) I think it’s reasonable to for me (you don’t have to agree) to conclude that the woman feels supported there. I’d find her apparent comfort _very_ surprising if more than one or two of those people, if any, were testifying on her husband’s rather than her own behalf.

  68. StillGjenganger says

    @David S, MostlyMarvelous.

    You are right, David, that we do not know, in this particular case. But I have to say that MM’s story sounds very plausible to me.

    There was a UK case, not that long ago, that established that if someone consented to sex on condition that the bloke did not come inside her, and he then went on to come inside her anyway, he could be convicted of (I believe) rape. The general principle sounds rather dodgy to me, but the specific case was amply justified. The couple was muslim rather than Christian. And apparently the bloke had got his wife’s agreement that he could essentially have sex on demand. He demanded sex, and got consent, even though the couple was in a rather rocky state. His wife was very much against becoming pregnant again, having had too many difficult pregnancies already, but accepted that the man had unprotected sex. Her one condition was that he withdraw before ejaculation. And he then proceeded to deliberately and intentionally come inside her anyway, saying that he could not accept being commanded by his wife, or something. And the case, and the divorce, came when it turned out that she had become pregnant.

    Those are the guys that make you want to start tearing somebodys hair out (possibly your own). I mean, this bloke is living in hog heaven, he gets it handed to him on a plate, and he insists on going ahead and smashing the plate??!?

  69. David S says

    @mostlymarvelous[70]

    The question is about knowing blokes-who-can-be-described-like-this – regardless of whether the judge-prosecutor-newspaper is accurate in describing this particular person in that way. I’m only asking because of my chronic recurring surprise that so many people seem to think these people don’t exist.

    Well I am quite happy to accept that blokes-who-can-be-described-like-this exist, but I don’t see why you are asking the question. I haven’t denied that blokes-who-can-be-described-like-this exist, and the point at issue is not whether they exist. It is whether the bloke in this article actually is a bloke-who-can-be-described-like-this, which is a proposition for which the evidence seems a bit thin.

    Seeing as the woman is continuing to attend the church (and he is now banned from worship there) I think it’s reasonable to for me (you don’t have to agree) to conclude that the woman feels supported there. I’d find her apparent comfort _very_ surprising if more than one or two of those people, if any, were testifying on her husband’s rather than her own behalf.

    Again, you are assuming that you know things that you don’t know. It is quite likely that both defendant and alleged victim attended this church, that both had friends and supporters there, and that both might have continued to attend had the judge not intervened to prevent it (hence the restraining order). The order prevents them both from turning up, which is probably a good thing for lots of reasons, but I can’t see how you could make any assumptions about who was on whose side without a crystal ball.

    If I shared your taste for evidence-free speculation then I’d guess that some of the witnesses due to be called would have testified against the man’s character, some would have testified in its favour, and some would have been called simply to assert or rebut points of fact. However they weren’t called, so speculating about it would just leave us looking like the kind of gullible types who are easily swayed by newspaper articles that are long on confident assertions, and short on facts.

  70. 123454321 says

    Open thread needed for this one really…

    What do people think of Milo and what specifically do they disagree with in this video?

  71. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “What do people think of Milo”

    He’s an unpleasant, narcissistic reactionary troll, and the darling of other unpleasant reactionaries, and weaklings who have no identity of their own.

    “and what specifically do they disagree with in this video?”

    I have no idea. Life is way, way too short to waste on such stupidity.

  72. Lucy. says

    It’s unsatisfactory because unsatisfactory decisions have been made all round, for morally weak reasons.

    This is how to resolve this conundrum.

    Firstly add sex to the anti hate legislation allowing a ban on sexist groups as hate groups and sexist propaganda (including the religious kind) as hate speech. It’s a sexist omission.

    Secondly legally compel the woman to give evidence. She is a witness to a state prosecution, which makes it her civic duty. You say is that this would be probably be ineffective, what evidence is there for that statement?

    It may very well be upsetting, we assume, again with no evidence, that it would be traumatising. But there was no mention of a psychiatric assessment suggesting this would have a detrimental effect on her mental health. Wanting to move with life isn’t a good enough reason to withdraw an allegation or not attend court.

    But supposing there were? Then that is a different issue. When we stop using this ineffective, combative cross-examination system invented by men of yore for men of yore, and start using up-to-date thinking on how to extract accurate information from witnesses, it might be a whole lot less traumatising for female witnesses.

    Much as I hate to say it, we probably shouldn’t have anonymity for victims of any crime either. Justice is meant to be transparent for a reason. And this is that reason.

    Sexist harassment and victimisation of female witnesses to sexist crime can’t be cured by hiding them. It only be cured by combatting hate speech and hate crime. Return to Go.

  73. Lucy. says

    12345678

    “What do people think of Milo?”

    If you’re a fan, I think he’s going to be thick and sexist.

  74. David S says

    @Lucy (75)
    Compelling the woman to testify would be a risky strategy. As I understand it, the situation at the moment is that she has withdrawn her allegation against the defendant but still maintains that it is true. If she is compelled to give evidence then events might follow a similar course as in the (widely misreported) R v A case from a few years ago. The danger is that, as in R v A, the woman might claim that her original allegation was false, not necessarily because it really was false, but because she does not want to testify.

    This would put the CPS in a difficult position, because they would have evidence that an attempt had been made to pervert the course of justice. Under other circumstances they would be able to avoid prosecuting the woman herself, because they could argue that it would not be in the public interest to do so. However in this case the man had not only been charged, but had spent several months in prison on remand. This would mean that, although the guidance to prosecutors normally gives the CPS substantial leeway not to drop cases, they would probably have to prosecute her. It probably wouldn’t end up in quite such a monumental mess as the R v A case, because the guidance has changed since then, but it could still end up pretty messy.

    Of course that is not the only thing that could happen. It might be that events would follow the course that you (I assume) want them to follow. That is to say that the woman would stick by her allegation, and that it would be tested in court. However I think it would be foolhardy for the prosecution to assume that this was going to happen.

  75. David S says

    @Lucy (75)
    I seem to have got my links the wrong way round in my last post. The words “R v A case” are hyperlinked to the guidance for prosecutors and the words “guidance to prosecutors” are linked to the details of R v A.

  76. David S says

    Also the words “substantial leeway not to drop cases” should have been “substantial leeway to drop cases”. Any chance of an edit button on this site?

  77. D506 says

    @Lucy. (75)
    “Firstly add sex to the anti hate legislation allowing a ban on sexist groups as hate groups and sexist propaganda (including the religious kind) as hate speech.”

    This is pretty much the poster child for “be careful what you wish for”. Sure, laws like this might further marginalize insignificant internet ranters and the like. That’d be nice, I guess. But it’s going to be those in power, as it always is, deciding which types of sexist groups and sexist propaganda will be illegal. “All men are privileged” might start to sound a lot like hate speech to those you’ve given the tools to punish it.

  78. That Guy says

    @Lucy

    Amongst the fairly monstrous and slightly fascist talk of compelling victims of sex crimes to re-live their experiences because of ‘civic duty’, there is a very good point about the adversarial nature of the UK justice system.

    What is the best way to approach sensitive cases of sexual assault? Is an inquisitorial approach more sense, striking a balance between victim trauma and conviction of (genuine) criminals?

  79. HonestAndCivil says

    I watched the Milo video. Very powerful arguments there. It would be difficult to try to refute them. The best approach may well be to attack Milo personally in the hope of preventing people from hearing them, and never, ever, engage.

  80. Bronan says

    HonestAndCivil:

    Dafuq? Did you forget to write “[/snark]” or are you a Milophile?

  81. Adiabat says

    Bronan (83): Snark or not, I thought HonestandCivil’s post was an accurate summary of the far lefts response to Milo actually.

    The arguments in the video aren’t original of course: Milo’s best arguments are always ones he’s taken from elsewhere and then presented in his particular style (i.e. rephrased in such a way that’ll piss people off the most – which just entertains everyone else). The reason they’re so strong is precisely because they’ve been around for years and never really been adequately addressed. The only reason the ideas he criticises are still around is due to the level of institutional and establishment support in promoting them.

    The ‘best approach’ described in the post is precisely the approach that is being taken by his critics, and to be fair it probably is the best approach to take because his critics can’t really win on the facts. It’s a bit like watching an episode of House: the fact that he’s right enables him to get away with acting the way he does, and makes his critics look ridiculous. It’s what makes watching the show so much fun.

  82. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    Speaking as someone critical of the ridiculous “man-o-sphere”, I can confirm that Milo is an absolute gift. A total clown from an entirely disreputable website. There was a period of time that MRAs looked like they could co-opt the language of social justice, but right-wing knee-jerk buffoons like Milo eclipsed them.

    Long live Milo. With that narcissistic cliché as a figurehead, those he represent will stay right where they are: the lunatic fringe.

    And you, as per usual, regard this as a victory. Classy stuff, Prince x

  83. HonestAndCivil says

    @Bronan

    No snark here. It’s impossible to get people to engage with those arguments, for reasons @Adiabat explained. I wouldn’t try to get a response. I just like to point out the fact of non-response. It’s kind of a consolation.

    It’s possible to deny some obvious facts, but what I’m saying here is impossible to deny because the absence of a response is immediately visible.

    @Carnation is reduced to trying to spin it positively. And maybe it’s even true that Milo makes the things he says look bad (although I doubt it — his being a flamboyantly gay conservative seems to me to send a different message than that suggested), but @Ally Fogg, look at what your “free thought” blog has been reduced to: actual gloating over the power not to respond with reason. Actual gloating that some reasoned position is relegated, by the power of non-reason, to a “lunatic fringe.” That’s “free thought” for you.

  84. Adiabat says

    Carnation (86): It seems that you agree with me that the ‘best approach’ described above is the approach that has been adopted by his critics. Thanks for providing an example of the point right after I made it, with the level of self-awareness we’ve all come to expect from you.

    Meanwhile everyone else notices that you, or anyone else, never actually address the arguments that are being made. To be fair your approach will work as long as your fellow ideologues have the power and influence to successful smear and side-line rather than address the arguments.

    But I don’t think it’s something the far-left are going to be able to maintain forever.

    There was a period of time that MRAs looked like they could co-opt the language of social justice

    It’s a good job they didn’t or you would’ve found it so Triggering that you can’t. even.

    that narcissistic cliché

    I’m pretty sure referring to a flamboyant gay man as a “cliché” is homophobic.

  85. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    “Meanwhile everyone else notices that you, or anyone else, never actually address the arguments that are being made.”

    Here’s the thing, though, why on earth would I want to take the time to watch a video by a self-declared feminist hating right-wing gamergater? He’s already demonstrated that his views are beyond stupid. Life’s too short to spend time laughing at the latest man-o-sphere YouTube offering of The Truth, you know?

    “To be fair your approach will work as long as your fellow ideologues have the power and influence to successful smear and side-line rather than address the arguments.”

    No, it will continue to work as long as the “arguments” are being made by such easily dismissible cretins. It’s not Buckley on those videos, it’s not even Douglas Murray, it’s a poor man’s Richard Littlejohn, playing to the most pathetic and ineffective online gallery imaginable.

    “I’m pretty sure referring to a flamboyant gay man as a “cliché” is homophobic.”

    Then you possess less intelligence that I believed possible.

    Enjoy the ICMI in London, Prince x

  86. Adiabat says

    Carnation (89): So you haven’t watched the video, but feel that you can dismiss the arguments made within it because of who made them. Again, thanks for proving my point.

    You’re free to watch what you want, and make any kind of argument you want, no matter how pathetic. Just don’t be surprised when people point out that you’re making a fool of yourself, yet again. You fail to understand that who gets defined as an, as you put it, “easily dismissible cretin” is often due to the groupthink of which ideology currently has power and influence. That’s why critical, rational thinking and ‘freethought’ typically encourages addressing arguments rather than people, to prevent our own bias and ideology from leading us to dismiss arguments that have merit based only on who’s making them. It stops us from becoming ideologues. Now, sometimes (and it is discouraged), it may be forgivable to take a “shortcut” and simply dismiss all arguments coming from a particular source if that source has had many of their arguments addressed to a high standard already, but you and your ilk always seem to skip the part where you have to address arguments first before dismissing people.

    In addition, I think it’s sad that you’re doubling down on your homophobic statement: calling any gay man who happens to be a bit flamboyant a “cliché” serves to dehumanise them and promotes bigotry against LBGT people. Your attitudes are outdated and disgusting.

    And I have no idea what the ICMI is, but I find it funny that you now seem to be stalking some random internet guy called Prince because you’ve convinced yourself it’s me. You really need to get some help to sort out this obsession you have with me; it’s creepy.

  87. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    “Just don’t be surprised when people point out that you’re making a fool of yourself, yet again.”

    But who is the fool? The fool or the fool who argues with the fool?

    You fail to understand that who gets defined as an, as you put it, “easily dismissible cretin” is often due to the groupthink of which ideology currently has power and influence.”

    Nope, in this case it’s a self-declared Gamergater who supports Donald Trump, and in fact describes him as “daddy.” Furthermore, this is an individual who, as Ally pointed out, supports and endorses Fox News. So he’s an idiot, and I don’t waste my time on idiots, particularly when his videos are being propagated by other idiots.

    “I think it’s sad that you’re doubling down on your homophobic statement: calling any gay man who happens to be a bit flamboyant a “cliché” serves to dehumanise them and promotes bigotry against LBGT people. Your attitudes are outdated and disgusting.”

    True to form, you’re confused, bamboozled and unable to justify anything that you say. I didn’t mention his sexuality or that he’s “flamboyant”: you did.

    But if the publisher of this blog feels that what I wrote was remotely homophobic, I’ll withdraw my comments.

    “And I have no idea what the ICMI is”

    Yes you do, you’re lying.

    “… but I find it funny that you now seem to be stalking some random internet guy called Prince because you’ve convinced yourself it’s me. You really need to get some help to sort out this obsession you have with me; it’s creepy.”

    Or, maybe, you’re wrong again, and I have dubbed you Prince? You seem very keen to accuse others of “stalking” you and describing them as “creepy” – this says far more about you than it does about me.

    Enjoy ICMI, Prince x

  88. Adiabat says

    Carnation (91): All you’ve done is dismiss him because of an affiliation with other groups you previously dismissed without tackling their arguments either. No doubt you dismiss those groups because of some affiliation that you’ve previously dismissed without addressing their arguments (It’s turtles all the way down). At no point have you made an argument as to why any of these people you dismiss are wrong. This habit of finding any reason, whether true or not (no matter how farfetched or how much it relies on uncharitable readings of what people say), to dismiss people is the sign of an ideologue.

    Ally made a logical leap from Milo’s claim that sometimes Fox news reports on things other mainstream outlets don’t report on so he could claim Milo thinks that Fox never lie. It was blatant to anyone who watched the video, which you never did (again, to protect your worldview). All Ally did is what you do: try and find any reason to attack the person so you don’t have to deal with the arguments.

    And the ‘daddy’ thing is a joke: camp humour used purely because it seems to annoy people like you (I mean the far left in general, not just homophobes) and causes you to make yourself look silly instead of tackle his arguments. He’s happy to debate anyone, so he says, but it’s much more beneficial to him for the far-left to do exactly what you are doing. You just look like people who find excuses so you don’t have to debate the facts, and making you look like this just builds his profile. And the best part is that even when this dynamic is explained outright, you still continue your side of it, making yourselves look even more foolish. I think that’s my favourite part of all this.

    It’s why watching all this unfold is all so much fun. 🙂

    I didn’t mention his sexuality or that he’s “flamboyant”: you did.

    Stop backpedalling after your unthinking homophobia was called out, and stop hiding behind Ally like a scared toddler hiding behind your Daddy. You called him, a flamboyant gay man who regularly mocks the GOP establishment, a cliché. Unless you think flamboyant gay men are right wing clichés, or are “manosphere” clichés, which are both unlikely, the reasonable interpretation of your comment is that you think he’s a gay cliché. Otherwise tell us, what type of cliché is he? Why haven’t you just explained your comment already instead of trying to deflect attention away from your homophobic comment against a gay man you don’t like?

    Yes you do, you’re lying.

    Do you have any basis for this claim whatsoever? Or do your delusions simply require me to be lying?

    I’ve just googled the acronym and got nothing useful, so after googling it with ‘London’ added, and assuming you don’t mean the International Conference on Machine Intelligence, which sounds awesome and I sooo want to go to, it seems you’re referring to a men’s rights conference that appeared near the bottom of the search results. It appears that this is another case of: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CV94b_EWIAAx8Zl.jpg in your little delusional world.

    Nope, not interested as I’m not an MRA. I care about arguments not groups. In the context of this discussion though I find it funny that you’re attempting to designate me an MRA so you can have one more reason (in your head) to dismiss any argument I make. Your lack of self-awareness on how it’s always you makes yourself look like a fool in these debates is hilarious: It’s never me that does it, I just point it out. Do you just not see the flaw in a worldview that refuses to debate “idiots”, thinks MRAs are idiots, then insists that anyone you don’t like is an MRA? Do you not see that your entire worldview is clearly built so that you never have to address any argument that challenges it?

    Or, maybe, you’re wrong again, and I have dubbed you Prince?

    No, that makes no sense whatsoever. Nice use of “maybe” though so you can suggest that explanation without it actually being true.

    You seem very keen to accuse others of “stalking” you and describing them as “creepy”

    Nope, just you and based solely on things you have posted here on this blog. If you don’t want people to think you’re stalking them don’t refer to obscure comments made elsewhere that you found (but which say nothing different from what I say here). Also, don’t refer to them with a different handle in some weird, and failed, ‘gotcha’ moment, then in a later thread refer to some obscure conference that whoever has that handle is, I assume, going to attend. That just looks like you’ve found out where this Prince guy is going to be: and since you think that’s me it’s just really creepy to bring it up in the middle of a debate. If I was Prince then this is just harassment as a common form of harassment is to send messages to the victim showing that the harasser knows where they are or will be; it could even be viewed as threatening.

    And if all these separate incidents are all a big misinterpretation on my part, which is possible (but less likely every time you post something that makes you look like a stalker – though mainly of someone who you only think is me, which somehow adds an additional layer of creepiness), then perhaps be clearer in your posts? Or just troll better; I can appreciate a skilled troll. Finally, if you’re just trying to give this impression of stalking so you can go “Hurr Durr. I was only pretending to stalk you so you look silly” than that’s no different to this: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-was-only-pretending-to-be-retarded.

  89. Carnation says

    @Adiabat

    “All you’ve done is dismiss him because of an affiliation with other groups you previously dismissed without tackling their arguments either. ”

    Nope, I dismissed him because of his infantile arguments and political beliefs and because the blog that he writes for is disgustingly reactionary.

    “Do you have any basis for this claim whatsoever? Or do your delusions simply require me to be lying?”

    Yes, your touching endorsement of the people and blogs involved in organising it.

    “Stop backpedalling after your unthinking homophobia was called out, and stop hiding behind Ally like a scared toddler hiding behind your Daddy. You called him, a flamboyant gay man who regularly mocks the GOP establishment, a cliché. Unless you think flamboyant gay men are right wing clichés, or are “manosphere” clichés, which are both unlikely, the reasonable interpretation of your comment is that you think he’s a gay cliché. Otherwise tell us, what type of cliché is he? Why haven’t you just explained your comment already instead of trying to deflect attention away from your homophobic comment against a gay man you don’t like?”

    I know it’s very exciting for people like you to be able to use someone’s sexuality to attempt to prove a political point, but it’s of no interest to me whatsoever. You and yours are so reliant on “gotchas”, it’s embarrassing. Keep going though, kiddo, like the EDL, it’s always amusing to see right-wingers suddenly so concerned about homophobia. You’re the one talking about his sexuality and “flamboyance” – it’s your fixation, not mine. And it’s “so much fun” watching you awkwardly try to understand homophobia.

    Enjoy ICMI, Prince x

  90. says

    Adiabat (92): By ‘ICMI’ Carnation is referring to the second International Conference on Men’s Issues, to be held at Excel London, July 8-10. 20 speakers (five of them women) and people coming from 16 countries so far. Surprised Ally didn’t explain what ICMI stands for.

    Conference website below, still a small number of tickets available:

    http://icmi16.wordpress.com

  91. Carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Hi Mike, hope all is well. Adiabat knew about the conference, he’s pretending he didn’t because he claims to be embarrassed by what you guys do, despite his beliefs being identical. It’s a crude “debating” tool that he uses.

    I hope the conference is every bit as successful as last years.

  92. Adiabat says

    Carnation (93):

    I dismissed him because of his infantile arguments

    Seriously? You just said that “life’s too short” to spend finding out what those arguments are. You’ve spent several posts justifying that position based on who they are. Now I’ve shown that position to be foolish, now I’ve shown what that position says about you as a person, suddenly it’s because of his arguments?

    Time to call it a day Carny, no-one’s buying it.

    Yes, your touching endorsement of the people and blogs involved in organising it.

    Lol. You’re full of shit, as usual.

    RE: Your homophobia.

    You’re flailing around trying to find something to stick so you don’t have to address your homophobic comment. C’mon, what cliché were you referring to? Why, in your opinion, does homophobia become okay when it’s against people you don’t like?

    #94: Thanks for the info Mike, but I don’t think it’ll be my cup of tea. All the best though.

  93. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    Anyone who tweets “Islam is awful” is as infantile as they are bigoted and misinformed. Likewise, for those who offer support, particularly when as sycophantically enthusiastic as you and yours.

    And you support, indulge and in fact see in him a great champion. That really speaks volumes about you, doesn’t it? And you accuse me of a form of bigotry… Laughable.

    Now here’s the really fun part. You’ve again chosen to characterise your hero as a “flamboyant gay man” and assume that that is what people would notice and comment on about him, this being basically what passes for debating strategy among the sad-case Twitter mob who idolise him. Of course, that’s *your* prejudices showing, not *mine*.

    I’ll help you out though, because you’re very slow. His “Islam is Awful” Tweet reaffirmed for me, once again, just how much of a narcissistic cliché he is, and how pathetic you are for so unquestioningly supporting him.

    Oh, by the way, if you do your due diligence, you’ll notice that I described 123454321 as a cliché earlier in the thread.

    You also referred to me as a cliché, if I recall correctly.

    Hilarious

    Its *so much fun* watching you pretend you didn’t know about the ICMI, Prince. Enjoy it x

  94. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat & others

    Doesn’t it concern you that your idol and intellectual guru does absolutely nothing in terms of actual activism for men? Don’t you see that his trolling changes nothing for men in any tangible, positive way?

    I’m guessing you care about as much as he does.

  95. Adiabat says

    Carnation (97):

    Anyone who tweets “Islam is awful” is as infantile as they are bigoted and misinformed.

    Not if they have a good argument supporting that position. And the same goes for any other position. But as you’ve already said: you have no interest in finding out what the argument is.

    The difference between your approach and mine is the difference between an ideologue and a freethinker. I’m happy to read and debate his argument (whatever it may be in this case) and either change my mind or disagree, while you close yourself off to his argument because you don’t like the conclusion he’s come to.

    And you support, indulge and in fact see in him a great champion.

    Because with you it’s always all or nothing of course. Not condemning a person or group you dislike is the same as complete and unconditional support. This attitude is another sign of an ideologue.

    As I said before: I find him entertaining, but I’m fully aware his strongest arguments are taken from elsewhere, and the rest seem to be mainly designed to wind people like you up. His best arguments have been made by serious people, anonymous people, professionals; all of whom you no doubt found an excuse to dismiss rather than tackle the arguments. It’s why you’re in a position where someone can come along and use those arguments to make the progressive left look ridiculous. The more ridiculous he acts, the more ridiculous you look because you’re unable to argue against what he says. He may be a clown, but you make yourself look worse than a clown.

    Of course, that’s *your* prejudices showing, not *mine*.

    Are you seriously now claiming that you were unaware of the “narcissistic gay” stereotype when you used that cliché to describe him? Because it seems that way when you call it ”my prejudice” for pointing out that calling a flamboyant gay man a narcissistic cliché, and using that as an attack against him, is homophobic.

    I bet you always call anti-racists “the real racists” as well, don’t you?

    His “Islam is Awful” Tweet reaffirmed for me, once again, just how much of a narcissistic cliché he is, and how pathetic you are for so unquestioningly supporting him.

    But you don’t know his reasoning*. So really all that’s happened is that you were ‘triggered’ and unquestioningly dismiss him because of that trigger. All you’ve done is find a poor reason to not have to address his arguments. (And, of course, even if he was wrong on one point it doesn’t mean that you can dismiss every argument he makes.)

    * Off the top of my head that position can be supported simply by invoking Islam’s principle of emulating their prophet, juxtaposed with some of the awful things that prophet actually did when he was alive. Or maybe how the rise of influence of Islam within the empire, and increasing intolerance of deviation from the Sunnah, effectively (and literally) killed scientific pursuits in the Ottoman empire at a time when they were scientifically ahead of the rest of the world. As someone who is a progressive in a more literal sense of the word (before it was co-opted by regressives), I consider that awful. Counter arguments can be made of course, and a debate can be had: whether something is ‘awful’ is ultimately a subjective opinion which people may disagree on, much like if Christianity or Atheism is awful. (And of course simplifying these arguments to a single tweet worded a particular way is just one way to get some entertainment out of easily triggered people and make them look silly.)

    Oh, by the way, if you do your due diligence, you’ll notice that I described 123454321 as a cliché earlier in the thread… You also referred to me as a cliché, if I recall correctly.

    I don’t remember this, but so? You really don’t understand what’s wrong with referring to a gay man as a narcissistic cliché, and using that as a reason to dismiss them, do you?

    Previously I just thought you knew but were just blustering to save face rather than admit that you were unthinkingly homophobic to a gay man you don’t like, an easy mistake to make in the heat of the moment (and I was having fun rubbing your face in it), but now I’m thinking you really are just an ignorant homophobe.

    #98:

    Doesn’t it concern you that your idol and intellectual guru does absolutely nothing in terms of actual activism for men?

    Firstly, this ridiculous characterisation of my view is a cheap tactic, designed to attack the person rather than the argument, providing further evidence to support the initial claim about the progressive far left. Secondly, why would it concern me? He’s not an MRA and neither am I. I’ll cheer on anyone who aims to help people who need it, but I’m not going to get “concerned” because someone who has no responsibility to do so doesn’t do it.

    Do you see now how believing your own delusions about people leads you to make nonsensical arguments? It makes you look silly.

    Besides, Milo raises money for and runs a scholarship scheme for boys with disadvantaged backgrounds, to enable them to go to college. It’s called the ‘Privilege Grant’. In a short space of time Milo has done more for men and boys than Ally has done in years; does that concern you? (Not that it’s a competition of course: just mirroring your concern trolling)

    Don’t you see that his trolling changes nothing for men in any tangible, positive way?

    Apart from the fact that the Privilege Grant started as an elaborate troll: his trolling is entertaining, and serves to make people like you figures of fun for hundreds of thousands of people. I consider that a tangible, positive contribution. I’m not even being snarky here: it’s a positive contribution because the more the far left become figures of fun (hereby designated FOF’s) then the less effect that their attempts to smear and side-line will have. This opens up discussion and promotes reason and debate.

  96. Carnation says

    Oh, Adiabat

    Bless your heart.

    “But you don’t know his reasoning*. So really all that’s happened is that you were ‘triggered’ and unquestioningly dismiss him because of that trigger.”

    I do know his reason – he linked to a typical “EVIL MUZLAMICS” article and, cliché that he is, denigrated a cohort of billions.

    You would love it if I was “triggered”, but again, we’re dealing with your fixations, not mine.

    “As I said before: I find him entertaining, but I’m fully aware his strongest arguments are taken from elsewhere, and the rest seem to be mainly designed to wind people like you up.”

    1/ You find him to be a “flamboyant gay man”, that, not his politics, are for you his main characteristics. I’m not like you in that respect. Make of that what you will. I presume you don’t know many gay people and are overly reliant on stereotypes to interpret the world.

    2/ Er, I think you’ll find that I described him as “a gift” – as long as he’s the public face of the man-o-sphere, it will stay right on the lunatic fringe, where it and you belong.

    “I don’t remember this, but so? You really don’t understand what’s wrong with referring to a gay man as a narcissistic cliché, and using that as a reason to dismiss them, do you?”

    Quite the opposite, *you* don’t understand what is problematic about using someone’s sexuality as their defining characteristic. That’s what *you* did, and do, not me.

    Now I know that you’ll continuously try to prove me a homophobe, but you’ll Just. Keep. Failing.

    Whilst we’re at it, isn’t there a video in which Milo makes some pretty homophobic comments in it himself? You’re just like your idol, so you can take comfort in that.

    Have at it, though, Prince. You’re no match for me.

    Written on a Samsung on a train xx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *