< Innocent until proven guilty is a very noble principle which sustains our modern concept of justice >

NO IT DOESN’T!!

You’d be closer to the truth if you pointed at the sky on a lovely clear sunny day and asserted that it was red!

‘Innocent until proven guilty’ or even ‘innocent until shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ are just convenient words which might apply sometimes, but often just completely don’t!

I’ve totally had this tested out with the police and courts. Regarding a relatively minor traffic matter. I went to the police to report a piece of extremely bizarre and dangerous driving. But the offender was clearly someone that the police officer knew and was going to protect at all costs. He fabricated charges against me. The magistrate upheld them even though she had absolutely no grounds to do so. I couldn’t prove my innocence! On that occasion I had done utterly nothing wrong and indeed I did exactly the right thing – I kept my cool completely when submitted to an absolutely crazy maniac on the road.

The same sort of thing can so easily happen with alleged sex offenders. We need to be VERY careful about whether someone is in the wrong, and to what extent, and with what mitigating circumstances.

It is all too easy for people to be wrongly accused or for a case against them to be beaten right up out of all proportion.

Sorry Rodney, but I think your article is entirely misfocussed on the notion of the presumption of innocence.

Sure, the whole legal system could do with some fundamental improvements. Let’s start by making the presumption-of-innocence and the need for guilt-not-to-be-declared-until-it-has-been-shown-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt actually apply…. instead of just being weasel words!!

I think we should change our system to a bit more more like the French. If you are charged you are brought before an examining Magistrate who will question you. Refusal to answer or a "no comment" will mean no lawyer can represent you whilst you take that stand.
Then you are presented as guilty unless you can prove your innocence.
It does seem a bit harsh but then you couple that with mandated charges for Lawyers of so many days for a particular charge. It would result in a massive reduction in legal fees and free up the courts instantly.
Do not talk to me about better ten guilty men go free than an innocent man goes to prison! Any system that let's ten guilty men go free is guaranteed to jail an innocent man!

The only alternative to innocent until proven guilty is tyranny.
The road to hell is paved with the good intentions of fools

The system is heavily weighted at the moment in favour of one party.

Lawyers.

Our adversarial system of "justice" depends most heavily on the quality of the lawyers that you hire to defend yourself. Indeed, even if you find a talented lawyer from Outer Woop Woop to present your case, you might find yourself against a, say, Stuart Littlemore, whose celebrity status alone will undoubtedly sway a jury against you.

(In passing: definition of a jury - twelve people without the intelligence to get themselves out of jury duty)

The sheer cost of protecting yourself has risen to unconscionable levels. And ultimately in this environment, the concept of "truth" becomes subservient to expediency. Being taken to court on a frivolous (business related) issue by a serial litigator ran up a bill well into six figures before it was withdrawn. Fortunately, the business was insured, so the only losers were the insurance companies, and the only winners were the lawyers.

But there is one other angle that affects the onus of proof in sex crimes, and that is the actions of the media.

How many people, I wonder, already believe that Rolf Harris is guilty of indecent assault, even though his case will not even come to court until April next year?

It's not fair!

There I've said everything this piece said, & did not take up 3 pages doing it.

Come on Rodney, you have to come up with viable suggestions, if you want to be taken seriously.

I agree with Hasbeen - it is not fair!

Being in jail is such a horrible thing that I would release all prisoners if that means that I can save one innocent soul from that terrible experience. That one miserable soul could be anyone, including you or me.

Now if I release people with a reasonable chance of re-offending, I would not do it stupidly, but exile them instead to a distant land where they can do no harm, or in the case of sex offenders, as I rather have my genitals removed than being imprisoned, I would allow them that same alternative.

Seriously, the anxiety of innocent people who may be sent to jail in error is not worth the 'pleasure' of punishing.

I find the author's idea of "the victim's right for justice" disgusting. While taking measures to prevent further damage is understandable, it is sick to consciously want to see another suffering - yet the system encourages it.

On another note, I do not agree with the author that sexual offences uniquely create 'severe psychic trauma' and 'an internal wound which never completely heals' more than other types of crimes. This is an insult to victims of other crimes, including other forms of physical assault. The claim on 'violation of the person's integrity and identity as a unique individual' is also total unsubstantiated nonsense. Being a victim is no excuse for losing one's integrity and how possibly can one's identity as a unique individual be affected by physical interference, bad as it may be.

This was a long but interesting article, and I share the author's frustration at the injustice of the court systems at times.
I can't see how anything is going to change re onus of proof and sex crimes though, until many more of those victims of sex crimes actually report it to police.

I think it is safe to say that there are far more unreported sex crimes than innocent offenders being charged.
The experience of being involved in these sort of court cases need to be made much easier on the victims.

Pericles is right about trial by media too, but in Rolf Harris' s case I very much doubt that any journalist would dare say anything against such a popular public figure unless they were extremely sure of their source?
I hope I am wrong though...

In NSW at the moment if one is unfortunate enough to be unlawfully attacked and one defends one's self and kills the attacker then the onus of proof is on the Prosecution to prove that one did not fear for one's life; clearly a near impossibility.
This is 'Innocent until proven guilty' and provoked a storm from the Greens when the then Shooters' Party successfully introduced the legislation.
The Greens called it a 'licence to murder'.

It remains, probably, the sole example where the Prosecution has to prove guilt and, theoretically the defendant does not have to prove innocence.

Antidiscrimation legislation requires the accused to prove their innocence. If an employee claims discrimination or harassment the onus is on the accused employer to prove it didnt happen.

I think you may have just illustrated my point, Suseonline.

>>...in Rolf Harris' s case I very much doubt that any journalist would dare say anything against such a popular public figure unless they were extremely sure of their source?<<

It doesn't actually work that way, though. The "source" that created the news in the first place is not the person who lays the charges, but the factual court record that Rolf Harris has been charged with indecent assault. Unless they have been specifically instructed otherwise by the Court, this is exactly what UK journalists will report.

A problem arises, however, when agencies outside the Court's jurisdiction report what is, after all, a fact. These can be foreign newspapers, blogs, tweets etc., who effectively put the information in the public domain. Once it is out there (and this is pretty much what happened in this case) then reporting it as "According to the Huffington Post/New York Times/Paris Match..." becomes legitimate, and that's that.

Obviously, complaints have been laid against Rolf Harris. But they have not been tested in court for their credibility - we have effectively "heard" only one side of the story. But actually, we have heard nothing that tells us what he has been up to.

Fact remains that innocent or guilty, Rolf Harris' reputation has been totally trashed, thanks to purely factual reporting, but without a shred of tested evidence. It is our imaginations that have filled in the detail.

I see your point Pericles, but how can this be avoided?
He would not have been charged and be fronting court without some 'proof' at least, surely?
I guess it is a price you pay for being famous.
You may be just fodder for someone else's nasty vindictiveness.

On the other hand, there are many, many other famous people who do not have these sorts of allegations levelled against them.

Look at Jimmy Saville's case.
Apparently his 'activities' were well known in certain circles.
How come it took so long for him to be investigated?
It is certainly a strange world we live in.

I've been reading 'Night Games' by Anna Krien, which deals a bit with the politics and intricacies of consent, and details a few of the more publicised rape trials involving sportsmen, footballers in particular. She notes the low rate of convictions in cases like the ones she examines, and explores many of the reasons for this. Even as a feminist, she doesn't always come down on the side of the complainant. The legal proceedings and definitions of consent can be technical and complex. After reading this, it became more understandable as to why juries find it hard to convict those accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The conviction rate of rapists would rise immeasurably if the principle that prior conduct can not be used in evidence in a court of law was repealed. The Jill Meagher case in Melbourne was a case in point where the offender was a repeat rapist who had been tried and convicted previously, and found innocent on other occasions due to lack of proof.

The 'Ryde rapist" case in Sydney was another case in point. In this case, a convicted rapist who had served his sentence was arrested for the crime of raping a woman who had been sitting at a bus stop, late one night. The alleged victim claimed that the man had approached her with a knife and forced her into a car, where he had informed her that he would kill her if she resisted, or left any mark on him. The accused insisted that he had had sex with the woman, but that this had been consensual.

Without any evidence other than the woman's complaint, the jury found the man innocent. After that, the man was twice more arrested and tried for the same offence by women claiming to have been raped, who informed police that the man used exactly the same method as the first woman who had claimed he had raped her.

Jurists complained to newspapers that had the jury known of the accused's police record and about the series of alleged rapes at the trial, they would have certainly convicted the accused. That numerous women could falsely claim to have been raped by the same accused who had already been convicted of rape beggared belief. But this vital evidence was withheld from the jury on the grounds that it immaterial to the case and prejudicial to a fair trial.

This same principle could also be applied for repeat offenders in several other classes of crimes. A person's prior history of offending, especially where this history presents a clear pattern of behaviour, should be a factor in evidence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25089367

False rape claims are reaching epidemic proportions and this guy thinks laws are against claimants.

What a joke.

All it takes is one vicious claim to ruin a man's life. The false accuser is almost never punished and we have no idea how under-reported the problem is because so many false claims are made in the family court where reporting is banned. Mabe in France there is presumption of innocence but not in Australia.

For many other crimes, covering one's tracks. With murder, there are a significant number of people that evade justice by making sure that a body is never found.

However, if caught either murder, rape or other sex offenses carry huge penalties, and there are a significant number of alleged perpetrators that are actually innocent that are targeted for reasons including mistaken identity, deliberate framing, or in sex offenses, to sway the balance in divorce trials.

Removing the onus of proof is an easy way to catch the few that play the system, but will also convict many who are innocent.

Dane and Shadow Minister must know more than most judges and legal practitioners by complaining about all the 'false' rape claims in divorce and custody disputes.

If rape charges are notoriously hard to prove, how do you guys know all these 'terrible' women made it up?
Maybe the rape charges couldn't be proved?

Those divorce and custody disputes go both ways in any case, as far as lying is concerned.
Many bitter ex-husbands and fathers lie about their former partners too, accusing them of neglect of children and drug abuse etc, that never happened...

Suseonline,

What evidence do you have that the numbers of false accusations/accounts are likely to be any lower than for other crimes?

Unless you believe that women would not make a false report or one of mistaken identity of course.

This article gives some estimates and possible reasons for false allegations:

http://tinyurl.com/kkfalp5

SOL,

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said a significant number are innocent, not most or even many. However, false claims of rape are far from unknown.

The requirement to prove rape requires more than the word of a victim, it need corroborating evidence. Most cases of rape carry obvious signs of sexual assault, and this is normally sufficient to convict. Most rapists escape justice not because they have covered up the crime, but simply because the crimes are not reported.

Suse,
I dont see why rape claims would be hard to prove. There are so many laws which have stripped defendends, I.e. men, of their rights so now all it takes is a woman's bitter claim to ruin a man's life.

You might think why would women be bitter when they get basically everything in divorces, but unfortunately a substantial minority of women feel their 'hurt' feelings alone justify any behaviour.

If lying goes both ways in divorces then judgements certainly dont. Judgements invariably favour the woman so obviously only one side is being believed. However, I congratulate you for even admitting women can lie. When all these made-up offences like date/marriage rape were made law, a woman's word was seen as sacrosant. As if women, the poor creatures, were incapable of lying. So it is nice to see you have at least given them back some free agency.

Suse,
Btw. Dont know any judges - just their victims.

Dane, I would say that there isn't enough evidence either way you want to look at it.

Both men and women can be, and are, bitter after relationship breakdowns, so I doubt we can make a contest of it.

As far as rape is concerned, I don't have any proof about the number of rapes that go unreported because of the dreadful ordeal they go through in the court system, but I would suggest they would feel at least as bad as the guys who are wrongly convicted.

Of course, we shouldn't forget the terrible rapes and sexual assaults amongst gay men too. They are even less likely to report their rapes.

Suseonline,

It isn't only gay men. It isn't a crime with one gender as the perpetrator.

< Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Queer Community

Sexual assault and domestic violence are serious concerns for members of LGBT/Queer communities, as they are for all people. Sexual assault and domestic violence can affect LGBT individuals in a number of ways:

Bisexual, transgendered, lesbian, and gay people experience violence within their intimate relationships at about the same rates as heterosexuals (Waldner-Haugrud, 1997; AVP, 1992)
- 30% of lesbians report having experienced sexual assault or rape by another woman (not necessarily an intimate partner) (Renzetti, 1992)
- 15% of men living with a male intimate partner report being raped, assaulted or stalked by a male cohabitant (CDC, 1999)>

http://www.wcsap.org/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-community

.

Dear Suseonline,

.

There is no doubt women are more often victims than perpetrators when it comes to sex-related crimes. That some make false accusations is inevitable. But given the extremely low conviction rates for rape (2.6% in the UK this year), the case of Natasha Foster in Northern Ireland, posted by “dane”, must be about as likely as being run over by a car when crossing the street.

I certainly don’t wish false accusations or street accidents on anybody but it goes without saying that most of us consider that crossing the street is a risk we are prepared to take. The same goes for breaking-up with girl friends.

The false accusation of Natashia was prompted by the off-handed way her boyfriend broke off the relation by sending a text after he had sexual relations with her. Though not very elegant, it does not legally qualify the sexual relation which preceded it as rape. But on the spur of the moment, shocked by this unexpected announcement (she was probably led to believe there was more to it than just sex), it is comprehensible that she did feel she had been raped.

Two days after declaring the rape Natashia realised it was a false accusation and admitted it. Her ex-boyfriend was cleared of all charges. She spent three months in jail.

The psychology of the sexes is quite different. Natashia probably thought she was having a love affair. Her boyfriend thought he was just having sex (though he probably did not tell Natashia). It was a rude awakening to both.

In the end, Natashia’s boyfriend’s good name and reputation were cleared. Natashia was punished twice: she felt she was tricked into having sexual relations under false pretences and was condemned to three months in jail.

As for the article in “The Forensic Examiner” posted by “onthebeach”, the author clearly indicates at the beginning of the 6th paragraph from the end of his long, scientific analysis:

“There is no way of knowing the number of defendants who have been convicted of rape on the basis of a false allegation”.

.

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

Your statistics are interesting but a bit outdated. Perhaps you might like to consider the following:

- There were 121 000 marriages but also 50 200 divorces in Australia in 2010.
- Roughly 50% of divorces each year impact on children aged less than 18 years
- 41% of all reported sexual assault victims were aged 0-14 years (Aust. Institute of Health & Welfare, 2009)
- 19% of women and 5.5% of men reported experiencing sexual violence since the age of 15 ( Aust. Bureau of Stats. survey, 2005)
- 25% of women experienced intimate partner physical violence at least once in their lifetime and in the last 12 months, 1995–2006 (UN Stats. Division:

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/WW2010%20Report_by%20chapter%28pdf%29/violence%20against%20women.pdf)

- Family Violence costs Australia about $8 billion per year, a substantial proportion of which is borne by the victims themselves (Vic. Health, 2004)

According to a survey by The Aust. Institute of Criminology in 2003 :

- 20.8% of all homicides involve intimate partners. This represents approximately 76 homicide incidents within Australia each year.
- Over three-quarters (76.9%) of these intimate partner homicides involved a male offender and a female victim.
- Of these homicides, 65.8% occurred between current spouses or de-facto partners, whilst 22.6% occurred between separated/divorced spouses or de facto partners.
- 10% occurred between current or former boy/girlfriends, and
- 2% occurred within same sex relationships

Even if there were to be just as much intimate partner violence in same sex marriage as there is at present in heterosexual marriage, at least the protagonists would be boxing in the same category !

On the basis of the latest available statistics, same sex relationships only count for 2% of all intimate partner homicides.
Also, about 50% of all heterosexual marriages today, end up in separation or divorce. The children end up living with a single sex parent, generally, the mother.

I posted all this on OLO on 08.05.2013. Here is the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14983#258446

.

Thanks for that Banjo.
It is always good to see the truth of the matter there in black and white.

The truth is never enough for bitter people like Onthebeach and Dane though, as they prefer their own twisted logic...

To the charge that women make false claims of rape, the police are fully aware of that fact and police profilers have discovered that those women who make such claims usually have a long record of histrionic (attention seeking) behaviour.

Banjo, your stats are worthless. The domestic abuse industry has redefined abuse to mean anything women want it to.

Suse, you always fall back to name calling. It's all you have.

Btw. Suse, if you want to see twisted logic, take a look at "Banjos" fist post.

Apparently it's ok for women with hurt feelings to accuse ex-boyfriends of rape, and that's just a risk they have to take 'like crossing a road'. And it was ok for for Natasha to falsely accuse her ex of rape because he hurt her feelings by the way he broke up with her.

Did you ever consider he might have broken up with her because she might have been an attention-seeking, histrionic, lying, vindictive b1tch? I mean, she did hope he would go to jail for many, many years and be falsely labelled a sex offender for the rest of his life all just because she had hurt 'feelings'.

And you say I have a twisted logic. What is wrong with you?

Suseonline, "The truth is never enough for bitter people like Onthebeach and Dane though, as they prefer their own twisted logic"

Says the poster who demands that others always provide proof, but provides none herself, preferring to scoff and dismiss wherever facts get in road of her world view of hatred towards men and constantly blaming them and not the offenders themselves.

Banjo Paterson,

You have yet to mount any relevant argument to dispel the statistics and findings in the source I quoted.

Dane and Onthebeach can't even look at crime statistics without immediately deciding they are 'rigged' by women and/or feminists to their own advantage!
Really?

Ooh, just look at all those nasty, clever women.

Would the male dominated criminal justice system, and their statisticians, really allow that do you think?

Open your eyes and look at the proof on any Australian Government crime statistics site without thinking of all the nasty women that obviously inhabit your own insular worlds.
I'm certainly not going to bother to look at these sites again, when I know what I will find.

I actually do feel a little sorry for the awful, angry existence you must struggle through...

Suse,

Thanks for your concern about my existence. Despite the full-force of the feminist bureaucracy bearing down on us men, we are doing ok. We might work longer hours, take less sick leave, retire later and take less extended time out of the workforce than you women, only to die earlier, but we are generally not bitter. We accept that you women are just so much more important than us and that this is our lot in life.

However, I do think, that when it comes to breaking up relationships, men having to spend years in jail and being labelled sexual predators for life just because they hurt their Ex's feelings is taking things a bit too far.

We men know how much more mature and logical you women are so I'm sure you'll stick to your promise of not reading these forums again. I wish you well. That is, I guess, if you manage to take your fingers out of your ears and stop jumping up and down long enough to read my bitter and twisted response.

Dane, I am glad to see you finally making sense : )

However, where did I promise not to read this forum again?

Heh, heh, somehow I don't believe that the bellicose Suseonline represents women or feminists. More the sort of person who would pick a fight in a phone booth and then depart, feeling better for having vented her spleen. For some, getting angry and being rude is a time-wasting pastime and an addiction. What a posting record,and for years. LOL

Oh dear me Onthebeach, if we are discussing rude posts,
I am not even in the same league as you.
You and Dane should join a mutual admiration society!

I should probably leave this thread now before I get thrown off...

.

It seems to me appropriate, at this point, to pause for a moment and hail the departure of Nelson Mandella, one of the world’s greatest political leaders of all times. He died on Thursday, 5th December and is due to be buried on Sunday, 15th December.

Mandella was a Methodist. He told the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1999. “Without the church, without religious institutions, I would never have been here today.” In speaking of his 27 years in prison under apartheid, he declared: “Religion was one of the motivating factors in everything we did”.

Margaret Thatcher denounced him as a terrorist, and former US vice-president Dick Cheney voted against a Congress motion calling for his release from Robben Island prison. But as the Anglican Archbishop, Desmond Tutu observed: “To virtually everyone else, he was held in the highest possible regard, almost as a paragon of virtue and impeccable integrity – indeed, almost of sanctity. The ANC and the anti-apartheid movement were able to use his extraordinary moral stature to galvanise support for their efforts to bring about fundamental change in South Africa and as a rallying point for their call to release all political prisoners”.

Nevertheless, Mandella was not lacking in critics and political opponents. Most of the criticisms directed against him were probably true. He never wavered from his singular objective of vanquishing apartheid and reconciling the multi-cultural peoples of the South African nation. Everything he said and did contributed to the attainment of that sole objective.

He seems to have considered that the ends justified the means. He consistently denied being a communist, for example, despite evidence that he was a member of the communist party early in his career. If he was, it was obviously not because he believed in communism but more likely to gain a useful ally to help further his cause.

His victory over apartheid and rise to power were accompanied by an unprecedented reign of tolerance, forgiveness and reconciliation – in striking contrast to the far less admirable means he had employed in order to achieve his final objective.

.

Banjo Paterson,

Hi. You may not have noticed the thread on Nelson Mandela. See here,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6132

Your comments are interesting but I will not add to them here. Maybe if you copy to the other thread?

.

Mandela was a Methodist. He told the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1999. “Without the church, without religious institutions, I would never have been here today.” In speaking of his 27 years in prison under apartheid, he declared: “Religion was one of the motivating factors in everything we did”.

Margaret Thatcher denounced him as a terrorist, and former US vice-president Dick Cheney voted against a Congress motion calling for his release from Robben Island prison. But as the Anglican Archbishop, Desmond Tutu observed: “To virtually everyone else, he was held in the highest possible regard, almost as a paragon of virtue and impeccable integrity – indeed, almost of sanctity. The ANC and the anti-apartheid movement were able to use his extraordinary moral stature to galvanise support for their efforts to bring about fundamental change in South Africa and as a rallying point for their call to release all political prisoners”.

Nevertheless, Mandela was not lacking in critics and political opponents. Most of the criticisms directed against him were probably true. He never wavered from his singular objective of vanquishing apartheid and reconciling the multi-cultural peoples of the South African nation. Everything he said and did contributed to the attainment of that sole objective.

He seems to have considered that the ends justified the means. He consistently denied being a communist, for example, despite evidence that he was a member of the communist party early in his career. If he was, it was obviously not because he believed in communism but more likely to gain a useful ally to help further his cause.

His victory over apartheid and rise to power were accompanied by an unprecedented reign of tolerance, forgiveness and reconciliation – in striking contrast to the far less admirable means he had employed in order to achieve his final objective.

I posted this “opinion” on the following thread. “Onthebeach” suggested I post it here for comment:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15789#273502

.

there are two types of law
criminal..is personal/injury/damages law
the other..is civil..or statute..[civil/written/contract-law]

one dissolves disputes..by negotiation..[civil]
resolvable..by the contracted terms/conditions

the other...criminal..simply needs
proof of injury..and certainty..of abuser/event.

if you/do the crime
you do the time..

but then..the elites needed to..control..the slaves
and invented statute law..[for legal [persons]..aa 'person..is CREATED..under the act..thus subject..only to the act

but..we arnt persons..there is noo legalcopntract
[no equal/meeting of minds..the living cannot make contract..with the dead[ie the state..or others 'persons'..AS DEFINED UNDER THE ACT

by this simple trick..they have given..rights to person
by taking gods givenrights from the living

a clever lawyer can drive..through any loophole
mainly because people are dumbed down..to/be imbeciles

[imbisiles is a legal word..indication a PERSON's-status/under the law][ie meant only/for corperate 'person'[under the act]

the kids must survive pre trial..inquisition..THREE times
and the slightest difference gets off on..appeal

because the world is full of imbeciles[on-juries]
the law of jury nullification..become vital

see a jury..out ranks a judge
it has MORE POWERS..see judges only can judge..by preceedant law
but a jury..can judge the law,,[plus the crime]..thus the safe guard..of appeal..a good lawyer..plays the evidence..a great lawyer sets up the appeal

but so sadly..the great became judges
they wrote the statute..they judge the statute..but dont serve justice

forget..sex crimes..[thats just the big stick]..the threat..of exposure,
buys total PARTY..loyalty..why would govt need criminal kiddy fiddlers?

its not rocket science[you take peoples kids]
by sending the parents to jail..so child services..
can..obtain..an unlimited 'supply'..of kidies..to keep the govt/public service..lawyers /judges/polies..etc..sullied with their perversion/need..but stay loyal..to their masters..FOR FEAR% OF EXPOSURE*

but..also..note..the low conviction rate
plus..the minumum time served..plus a directory..liist of other perverts networking out of prisons..but no one[not even alex..is talking about this.

its how you do great evil
by taking others lesser evils..
and threatening..to expose your dirty/little kiddy/fiddling habit
or your foot fetish..or seat sniffing

they jump..to obey
lest they get public dirt

thats how real-evil..does its truly vile

but we dont know true evil

http://rss.infowars.com/20131208_Sun_Alex.mp3

alex gives us a clue..but they too got the dirt on/him
some things he wont touch..either..yet he is showing a new way

he dont have advertizers..instead promotes partnerr business[a bit too much]..but just think..its a model..that works

advertize your own product

anyhow a few days ago..alex was reading stuff from his stack
about how the different specialist police enforcement/oversightgroups are deeply attracted to/the perversion..being policed

yep the deck..is stacked
its worth just hearing his first 5 minutes stack

http://xml.nfowars.net/Alex.rss

must be a kiddy shorrtage..in..usa

http://freebeacon.com/federal-prison-population-grows-27-percent-in-10-years/

of course a lot of that was cause govt contracts..[for private prisons]..AGREED..to..keep up supply..of the slave labor

[private prison corporations/stock price is at..an all time high

even Victorian prisons are full

some of the worse crimes..[3 rd generation..sterility
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/12/105-scientists-slam-gmo-rat-study.html

poisend waters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/cdc-study-camp-lejeune_n_4398826.html

lying to congress
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/james-clapper-prosecution_n_4399623.html

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_on_the_pathology_of_the_rich_20131206

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/another-batch-of-wall-street-villains-freed-on-technicality-20131204#ixzz2mhxu8Whh

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/06/national/secrets-bill-poised-for-passage/#.UqMf0yflfzO

Ex Tory Cabinet minister 'caught on camera at child sex party'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-tory-cabinet-minister-caught-2903907#.UqO2PLYJPoA.twitter

The video, along with several photographs, allegedly places the ex-MP, a household name, at a depraved orgy organised by a paedophile


I think we have the answer why the British Government was giving thousands of pounds to a notorious paedophile group!

Government 'gave money to child sex ring in 70s'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520083/Probe-claims-government-gave-money-child-sex-ring-70s.html

The head of the Home Office has ordered an investigation into shocking allegations that the Government gave tens of thousands of pounds to a notorious paedophile group.

http://www.zippittydodah.com/2013/12/the-gollum-progression-and-grinch-from.html