Man who tricked stupid women into taking their clothes off and performing porn star acts for him jailed by vengeful matriarchy for TWO YEARS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176585/Perverted-psychic-brainwashed-women-stripping-naked-help-contact-dead-jailed-years.html

In a rational more masculine world these women should have been humiliated for being so stupid so that any women stupid enough to have been tricked by a man in this way would think hesitate to waste the court's time.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s4_causing_sexual_activity/ suggests that he should appeal against the conviction on the ground that the judge misdirected the jury.

If I get you to take off your clothes and persuade you to entertain me by doing things a porn star would, by the sheer force of my personality and powers of my persuasion, you should not be able to have me imprisoned for two years just because you were stupid enough to accede to my requests but later felt a bit foolish after your friends told you what a ninny you had been for believing that you would get closer to your deceased loved ones the more outrageous the sex acts you performed for my gratification.

Questions the appellant's barrister might wish he had asked the women if he had not:



1.  Are you claiming you were hypnotised by the appellant?  [It doesn't matter if the answer is Yes or No.  If she answers No, then she clearly consented.  Even if she answers Yes, we all know that no one can be hypnotised without being prepared to be hypnotised.  If anyone challenges this, call an expert witness or Derren Brown.]

2. What was going through your mind when you were doing what the appellant asked you to do?

3.  What made you turn against the appellant?

4.  Did the appellant blackmail or threaten you?

5.  Did you want to believe the appellant when he said by committing those sex acts he asked of you you would become closer to your deceased loved ones?

6.  Did you enjoy the sex acts he asked you to perform?  I must remind you that you are under oath.

7.  Would it be correct to say that you were agreeably surprised by how much you enjoyed doing the things the appellant asked you to do?  I must remind you that you are under oath.

8.  Did you at any time fantasise about the appellant?  I must remind you that you are under oath.

8.  Would you have had sex with the appellant if he had asked you?  I must remind you that you are under oath.



http://www.queensquarechambers.co.uk/site/people/profile/nmf-rii

How do you feel about a law that privileges and rewards stupid and immoral women over a charismatic man with extraordinary powers of persuasion?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 30 second rapist

http://www.australian-news.com.au/anti_male.htm "Perth resident Kevin Ibbs was having consensual sex with Christine Watson on the night of 29 November 1986. Watson, a close friend of Ibbs's wife, Katrina Carter, was living in the same house with Ibbs and Carter. The sex act was taking place with the full knowledge of Carter who was in the house at the time. As Ibbs was nearing ejaculation, Watson suddenly withdrew her consent to sex (so she later claimed) and tried to push Ibbs away. He continued for a short time. Too late, he was trapped. He was charged with sexual assault and found guilty under the new law. The judge found that Ibbs had continued sexual intercourse for about thirty seconds without consent (for which he was later dubbed the 30-second rapist). The judge sentenced him to four years imprisonment." http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/46.html "Some years later Watson admitted to police that the whole incident was a set-up orchestrated b...
Read more

My interpretation of that wife-beating verse 4:34

Image
004.034 YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a wa...
Read more

Verse in Koran implicitly accepts the existence of brothels

024.033 YUSUFALI : Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them), PICKTHAL : And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye ...
Read more