This week Dan Dan the legal man believes that an investigation and interviews are a presumption of guilt.
Bernard Hogan-Howe is overturning a basic principle of British justice
How did we get to the point where innocent until proven guilty is turned on its head?
There are a number of important “take aways” from the astonishing interview Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has just given to John Humphrys on the Today programme. One could be his assertion – delivered without a hint of irony – that he and his force have been conducting their investigation into “establishment” child abuse “without fear or favour”.
This is the same Metropolitan police force that last year admitted it had continued to purse wholly false allegations relating to former Home Secretary Leon Brittan because “A decision to take no further action in respect of this allegation would undoubtedly have resulted in media criticism and public cynicism”.
It could be his angry response to the assertion his force had been “trawling” for victims. “The word “trawl” indicates we’re just going out looking for complaints”, he said.
Had he been listening to the Today programme back on 21 March 2015 he would have heard his own deputy, Steve Rodhouse, say “"If anyone has been a victim of non-recent sexual abuse I want them to come forward”. He would also have heard him say “We have seen lots of coverage this week around allegations of cover-ups, and I think it's helpful that this is being spoken about and people are coming forward”.
It could be his own admission that allegations of establishment child abuse and an alleged cover up of establishment child abuse had created an atmosphere that “if it wasn’t a moral panic, it was verging on one”. On that point at least he was right.
But all of these things pale into insignificance when set alongside his statement on how he believes the British police service should investigate allegations of child abuse going forward. They should, he said, move away from the current practice of requiring officers to assume an allegation of abuse is truthful, to one where they “test the accuracy of the allegations and the evidence with an open mind”.
It’s worth repeating that. The head of the Metropolitan Police force – the most senior police officer in the land – has confirmed that his officers are currently operating on a presumption of guilt until innocence is proven, rather than the long-standing practice of assuming someone is innocent until their guilt has been ascertained. Indeed, in an article in the Guardian today, he expands on it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... stice.html
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But Dan's astute readers can see who is behind this sinister culture
ManchesterIsRed • 28 minutes ago
This really isn't very complicated, perhaps I can explain. If you are a feminazi, you believe that there are two types of men - actual rapists and child abusers, and rapists/child abusers who just haven't started raping and abusing kids yet, but they will, because that is what men do. Therefore, trivial considerations such as evidence are entirely irrelevant. If all men are rapists, sending men to prison, irrespective of whether they have actually raped or abused anybody, is doing a public service to wimmin and making the streets safer by locking up another rapist/rapist in waiting. Hence, there is no need for a trial. If a woman in a tube station alleges that a man holding a newspaper in one hand and a bag in the other somehow, in the space of a couple of seconds, manages to flip up her skirt, get his hand in her knickers and his fingers inside her, well then she must be telling the truth, right? Because that is what men do. They are all beasts, they all hate women, they are all raring to get out there and get some raping done. So you lock them up. Guilt, innocence are neither here nor there. Possession of a penis is all the proof that is required. I have pointed out before that there are a lot of women out there who really, really hate men. Feminism has told them that hating men is not just acceptable, it is understandable, just and socially progressive. This ideology has now taken over the DPP's office and the higher echelons of certain police forces. This is why innocent men are going to go to jail (Hurrah! Shout the feminists) and why boys going to university are being forced to attend consent classes as if they are already convicted rapists. This is where a generation of man-hating feminazism has brought us. Now do you understand?
Michael C Feltham • 40 minutes ago
Ah; you have realised. At last.
Late to the party?
In the UK today, we now have trial by media: we had monarchy by media from the point of Diana.
And now, as jurisprudence has eroded still further, we have a complete reversal of legal principles established since the Bill of Rights, 1668 et al.
In far too many areas, England and Wales (Scotland's different) have covertly adopted the Code Napoléon where the accused is guilty until and unless they can prove themselves innocent.
Robjam01 • an hour ago
It's feminism that has got us here. It's the feminists who insisted we 'listen and believe' and feminists that now rule the Met Police. Hogan-Howe is nothing more than a useful idiot. Feminists are not happy unless they are punishing men as much as possible and taking away their presumption of innocence had them creaming their knickers. Their evil empire is now slowly unravelling but not after it has ruined the lives of many men. The latest victim of this insanity was Mark Pearson, accused of finger raping an actress as he walked past her at Waterloo station - the police simply listened and believed...
In fact most of the thread is like that; we're living in a police state because of the PC PCs stopping us for speeding and believing silly tarts have been raped just because you had your hand up their skirt.