British men now held so low that the word of just *one* slag is worth more than that of *two* professional footballers

The Koran at http://quran.com/2/282 suggests that a man's testimony is worth twice as much as a woman's, even when the testimony of both male defendants corroborate each other's.

This is so even when all complainant are in effect financially incentivised to report rape, because if the accused is convicted, she would receive £11,000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7555299.stm

Not only are they already financially incentivised, they are now also encouraged by the CPS to report rape.

In 21st Britain the word of one slag is worth twice that of two professional footballers, and the UK Court of Appeal affirms this.

This is what "rape culture" means for men.

What would you prefer? Islamic State or this sort of shit? Or is there a middle way?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Ched+Evans


Ever wondered why our courts have a Leftist bias?

Leftie bishops, liberal judges, a biased BBC and how the gutless Tories lost control of our national institutions

Sex with consent ‘can still be rape’ says libtard judge Lord Judge

Igor Judge is a LIBTARD, a running dog of the feminazis and a feminazi apologist

SHOCK HORROR: arrested female judge also an SSM!

@mcelderrytruth LOGICALLY, uncorroborated evidence is INFERIOR to corroborated evidence, but our lawyers are too dim/afraid to notice/say.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth If it is a case of "Yes, you did" and "No, I didn't" then any decision must LOGICALLY be in on the balance of probabilities.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth It is utterly disgusting Ched Evans' lawyers did not point this out or if they did it was not taken by the Court of Appeal.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth It is a simple basic legal first year law undergraduate point to make but no one made it, all the way up to Appeal Court ...
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth Directions are along the lines of "If you believe B had sex with A knowing she had not consented then you must convict ... "
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth " ... but you must be sure beyond reasonable doubt that B had sex without reasonable belief that A had consented and .. "
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth " ... and that A was so drunk she was incapable of giving consent. Sure beyond reasonable doubt means at least 75% sure."
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth "You have to bear in mind that both Defendants corroborated each other's testimony while the Complainant offered ... "
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth " ... no evidence at all because she said that she was so drunk that she could not remember anything. You must also ... "
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth " ... bear in mind that the night porter independently testified that that he heard while listening outside Room 14 ... "
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth " ... the sounds of people having sex and that he had heard both female and male voices squealing, panting and groaning ..."
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth " .. He also said that he heard a male voice ask for oral sex in a playful manner." She cannot have been that drunk then.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth It is so black and white, open and shut, but the libtard judiciary refuse to acknowledge this.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth Lord Chief Justice Judge is a libtard who said a husband having sex with a wife who consents could later be accused of rape.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@mcelderrytruth LCJ Judge probably didn't want to upset the slag by allowing Ched Evans his appeal. That was probably all it was.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@Herbeatittude @PhilGiddingz @daveleachuk @sashh Rape is thoughtcrime ...
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@Herbeatittude @PhilGiddingz @daveleachuk @sashh Having sex is legal, but having sex without reasonable belief in consent is thoughtcrime.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Sexual intercourse with a consenting adult = legal Sexual intercourse without consent = illegal
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Having sex is not a criminal act per se, but having a sex with a non-consenting person is.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude The defence to rape is reasonable belief in consent, which Ched Evans had, IMO.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude To *intentionally* rape someone you would have to believe they were *not* consenting to sex.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude It is possible to negligently or recklessly rape someone too.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude The concept of strict liability only occurs in cases of statutory rape where consent even if given is invalid.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Some crimes require the additional element of mens rea as well as the actus reus eg murder and rape.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Murder is INTENTIONALLY killing someone. Rape is having sexual intercourse without consent.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude If you killed someone but didn't mean to, it becomes manslaughter, a less serious crime with a lesser penalty.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude If your sex partner accuses you of rape, your defence would be that you REASONABLY BELIEVED SHE HAD CONSENTED.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude If you are pleading reasonable belief in consent, you would have to explain why you thought she had consented.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Ched Evans said he reasonably believed she had consented cos she asked him 4 a sexual favour which he performed
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude If the jury did not believe him, they were just taking a punt because she herself offered no evidence.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Basically, it was a slut saying she was raped but saying she couldn't remember anything.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude As she said she couldn't remember anything, she could not affirm or deny the defendants' version of events.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Both defendants corroborated each other's testimony, which was that she asked Ched Evans for a sexual favour ..
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude ... and that he performed it as she requested. Having done what she asked, he had reasonable belief in consent.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Despite the corroborated testimony of the two defendants, the jury chose not to believe Ched Evans.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude The jury chose not to believe Ched Evans even when an independent witness testified that she was not dead drunk
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude The night porter said he listened outside the room and heard noises of enjoyment, male and female.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Night porter also said he heard Clayton McDonald ask her 4 oral sex in playful way so she cdnt hv bn dead drunk
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude A rapist who has a dead drunk woman in his room wd not be talking to her, but would rape her while unconscious.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Do you understand how blatantly biased the whole trial was?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Ched Evans had the benefit of evidence of independent witness ie night porter *and* co-defendant IN HIS FAVOUR
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015

@PhilGiddingz @Herbeatittude Complainant offered no evidence at all, but jury decided to IGNORE all 3 factors and prefer slut's non-evidence
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 17, 2015