Maybe It Does Come From Being 'A Professional Footballer'....

...and maybe it comes from something else:

"You have shown no remorse and you have not got the faintest idea what you put this woman through. You are only interested in what you want and think you deserve.

"Whether or not that comes from being a professional footballer, I don't know, but arrogance like that is simply not acceptable in this society."

Well, look at the circumstances:

The court heard how Ada met the woman at a club in London's West End in February this year. It was told that the pair exchanged phone numbers and arranged to meet up the following night at the woman's home.

The jury heard how Ada, now playing for Conference team Ebbsfleet United, suggested bringing a friend along but could not get hold of one. He arrived alone and he, the woman and her friend drank vodka.

But the court was told Ada's demeanour changed after a few hours and he demanded to be with the victim alone. He told her he had made "the effort and sacrifice" to come to her, before forcing himself on her and making her perform sex acts.

And just where was the woman's 'friend' at this point? Did she leave as demanded? Why?

After being told to leave, Ada sent a text saying: "I am sorry, I was drunk" and then, in a phone call to her friend, said: "I am sorry I forced her, but she had led me on," the jury heard.

Yes, yes. I know. But did she really expect him to think he'd been invited over to play 'Scrabble'?

Ada was arrested the next day at the Brewers' training ground. The court heard he initially denied that he had touched her.

However, he later told detectives he knew his victim's "type", as they wanted to grab hold of a footballer as it would give them a better and more glamorous life.

To most feminists, he might well be a lousy raping scumbag (but then, to a lot, all men are, regardless).

But...he's not entirely wrong, is he? And the role of the 'friend' in this whole affair is an odd one, I think you'll agree...

20 Months? Is That All?

A woman who twice falsely cried rape against an ex-boyfriend has been jailed for 20 months.

Yup. Twice! They let her off the first one, of course:

Beverley Brandreth, 20, first lied that he had raped her in February 2010 when she said she was pregnant and it caused her to lose her baby.

That allegation fell apart when it was discovered she was not pregnant at the time but prosecutors advised that no charge be brought against her.

She pushed her luck too far, though:

Last November she made a second claim to police that he had dragged her into woods where she was beaten unconscious and raped, and he threatened to kill her if she reported the matter.

Her lies were unmasked again when the victim later proved he was in a DVD store with his new girlfriend when Brandreth claimed he attacked her.

He proved..? Isn't that the police's job?

We are spared the defence's babble in the local paper, but the Beeb helpfully adds it:

In court, defence lawyer Rebecca Tanner said Brandreth was "a complicated young woman, someone who has complex needs and a complex psychological profile".

She got what she 'needs'. Well, not enough of it, but still...

We get the same old boilerplate from the police, of course:

Det Con Chris Aunins said her claims "make a mockery of the experiences suffered by genuine victims".

"In investigating this false claim, officers wasted countless hours interviewing witnesses and on paperwork when they could have been dealing with a genuine emergency," he said.

"Not only that, but the man she alleged was responsible had to spend time in a custody cell, wrongly accused of an offence he did not commit.

"Unfairly, he has been put through a tremendous amount of stress when he is completely innocent."

And is that all her fault? Or...might some of it be yours?

H/T: Curmudgeon via email

Make Up Your Minds, Ladies!

Crime rates among women suffering from poor mental health or substance misuse would be cut by offering medical support rather than handing out jail sentences, a poll suggests.

A poll? Run by whom?

Oh. Of course. Our old friends:

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: "Most women in prison are serving short sentences for petty persistent offending and non-violent crime. Most have been victims of serious crime, domestic violence and sexual abuse."

"Solutions to women's offending lie not behind bars but in effective treatment to beat addictions to drugs and drink, mental health care and help to get out of debt."

And…how is that different to men’s offending?

Meanwhile, over in CiF, Yvonne Roberts is bewailing the ‘reversal of progress’ that the sisterhood claims to be seeing due to those eeeeeevil Tory cuts:

Polls tell us that this country cares deeply about equality. However, other events over the past week indicate that it's not only the Anglican church that talks the language of equality but significantly fails to walk the walk.

In every sphere of life, in the UK and the rest of the EU, in banking, the City, law, medicine, Westminster and Whitehall, inequality is embedded and, more shamefully, is treated as the norm.

You want to have a word with Juliet, love. Equality clearly just ain't where it’s at any more.

So, Riddle Me This....

...if the feminist crackpots regard anonymity for men accused of rape as an awful idea, preventing further victims from coming forward, why the double standard here?

A television actor has been charged with the rape of a teenage boy. The star, who cannot be named for legal reasons, allegedly attacked the 14-year-old at a theatre in the London area.

Is it because they think they've got all the victims already?

He is also accused of three other sex attacks and an "assault by beating" at a London school, Scotland Yard said.

Or is it because, if the 'Mail' is correct, the actor in question is only 17 himself?

But if so....doesn't that totally invalidate the crazy feminist's objection? Why should the age matter if the lack of anonymity is purely to encourage further victims?

I guess we might know in November, when he appears at court. They'll have to name him then, won't they?

What Should ‘Respect’ Be Doing In A Court Of Law Anyway?

Either you can prove the accusation, or you can’t:

Lawyers for the women said they felt the women's testimony had not been respected during the trial.

It’s not about ‘respect’, it’s about proof!

The women's minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, said the case had shown that better education on sex and sexuality was needed in schools.

Oh. Yeah. That’ll fix everything.

The women were hailed by their lawyers for their bravery in speaking out against a "culture of silence" surrounding sexual violence against girls on estates.

Not once in this entire story is the elephant in the room ever mentioned…

Dogfight!

It’s Kerry McCarthy vs Nick Clegg:

The Labour MP today challenged Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to also take a stand on the issue. Mr Clegg had previously said it would be "deeply illiberal" for the government to dictate the content of newspapers.

It must be like a Chihuahua attacking ….errr, a slightly larger Chihuahua!

Speaking in the House of Commons, Ms McCarthy said: "The Deputy Prime Minister, not for the first time, disappointed many people this week by refusing to support calls for the editor of The Sun to take the long overdue step of dropping page three, saying that it would be illiberal to do so.

"Does his version of liberalism really prevent him from taking a public stand against the objectification of women? Whose interests is he most interested in protecting?"

Stung by the yapping emanating from the small fluffy inconsequential creature, the other small fluffy inconsequential creature yapped back:

Mr Clegg said the Bristol MP had "entirely twisted" his words.

He added: "I said - I would be interested to know whether she agrees with this - that it would be wholly illiberal and wrong for this House to seek to compel any editor to determine the content of their newspapers. If that is the kind of authoritarian nonsense she believes in, then I am perfectly content to say that we entirely disagree."

Ouch! Those little teeth can leave a mark…

Speaking afterwards, Ms McCarthy said the No More Page 3 campaign was not looking to ban the pictures, but to persuade the newspaper to stop running them.

She added: "He ought to be supporting the campaign."

Be quiet, dear. Stop stamping your little feet. The grown-ups are working...