MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

A woman’s allegation now outweighs hard evidence

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 9:31 pm Mon 8th February 2016

Check out this ridiculous case in Britain. Our guess is that the prima donna took objection to the accused man not giving way to her in the bustle of the London train station, so made up a claim involving serious sexual assault. The case shows that a woman can now lie about being sexually assaulted, her claim shown to be untruthful by video surveillance evidence, yet the police still prosecute the accused man for a serious sexual penetration crime. The witch hunt is in full swing. There is only one more step for the feminists, that is to corrupt or overthrow the jury trial process so that accused witches can be easily convicted regardless of evidence, reason or principles of justice. The feminists are busy towards this goal, trying to get an inquisitorial system for sex abuse trials.


  1. It is possible that the woman in this case is a very sick and cannot be held responsible for her actions but, and without any doubt, the CPS must be held accountable and not only pay compensation to Mr Pearson but also to sack the individuals who unwisely proceeded with the prosecution….the NZ police do the same thing here I can assure you and it is all kept hush hush. The punishment for the male is the process itself. The Police know this and don’t really care if the case doesn’t stick. …the Daily Mail goes on to say…..

    “But the greater part of his anger is directed at the Crown Prosecution Service which, having assessed the evidence, decided to charge him with ‘sexual assault by penetration’. He said: ‘It is just bizarre. Why couldn’t the CPS have used common sense?’
    Over the past year and more, the CPS has been repeatedly stung by criticism of its decision-making in a series of high-profile sex cases.
    At the same time, it has sought to deal with concerns that many women are put off reporting rape and sexual assault because they lack faith in the justice system.
    Mr Pearson wonders whether he is ‘a victim of the way the CPS is rigorously trying to redress the balance’. One of his supporters, author Erin Pizzey, the family care activist who founded the world’s first shelter for victims of domestic violence, certainly believes so.”

    Read more:
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Comment by triassic — Mon 8th February 2016 @ 11:24 pm

  2. The Hard Evidence; that’s enough of the schoolboy double entendre.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 9th February 2016 @ 9:37 am

  3. Do you think Feminists want an inquisitorial system?

    In Germany for example, this case would never have made it to court, even though they have an Inquisitorial System, because their burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, in both criminal and civil matters.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 9th February 2016 @ 11:39 am

  4. It was pleasing to hear this case discussed on Leighton Smiths show this morning. It is going to continue tomorrow.

    Comment by allan — Tue 9th February 2016 @ 2:22 pm

  5. It appears that the CPS attempted to falsify the evidence against Mr Pearson.

    But it can now be disclosed that – to the concern of Mr Pearson’s legal team – the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) supplied original CCTV depicting the alleged assault in an amended format which gave a misleading impression of the incident.

    Mark Bagshaw, the defence solicitor, said: “The CCTV was served on us in a way in which had been altered.

    “The few seconds when my client walked past the alleged victim had been slowed down so it looked like he had more time to commit the alleged actions than he in reality did have.

    Comment by Ted — Tue 9th February 2016 @ 6:30 pm

  6. The allegation on the internet is that the woman who lied about this is Souad Faress. I have no idea or evidence if it was Faress or not. She fits the description and those pointing the finger at her claim to have good sources. However that is simply an unsubstantiated allegation at this stage. Whoever it was, she needs to be on a sexual offenders list for the safety of the public. That should be just the start of the consequences.

    The head of CPS is a known feminist activist and she has more or less declared war on men in the Britain.

    What is worse is that feminists will try to claim that this has nothing to do with feminism. Makes you wonder what planet these feminists are on.

    Comment by Vman — Tue 9th February 2016 @ 7:03 pm

  7. Interesting video comment by Paul Elam:

    Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 10th February 2016 @ 7:57 am

  8. Reminds of this case: Rhiannon Brooker Cries Rape 11 times

    Interesting also that the CPS which supposedly set out to increase the percentage of successful convictions, has increased the numbers being prosecuted, but lowered the percentage of conviction.

    It’s probably lucky that this man wasn’t convicted on the basis of being able to manipulate the Matrix – imagine where that would go.

    Comment by Downunder — Wed 10th February 2016 @ 8:46 am

  9. Souad Faress is the name of the actress. Apparently she’s in Game of Thrones.

    Comment by Souad Faress — Wed 10th February 2016 @ 10:34 am

  10. Thanks John for posting that You Tube talk by Paul Elam. I now suspect the following:

    While the Crown Prosecutors (CPS) may well be acceding to feminist demands to increase prosecutions, another level of reasoning may be more important that explains why such ridiculous cases, doomed to fail, are pursued. The feminists have for a long time been demanding changes in justice systems that would make it easier to obtain sexual offence convictions on the basis of poor evidence such as simply a woman’s accusation unsupported by anything else. A frequent argument for this is that the percentage of sexual/rape prosecutions that result in conviction is relatively low. So if the CPS prosecutes ridiculous cases almost certain to fail, this will manufacture even lower conviction rates that will bolster the case for making it easier to get convictions.

    The real reason sexual offence convictions are difficult to achieve is that the alleged crimes seldom have witnesses or corroborating evidence. They usually involve simply one person accusing and one person denying. It’s difficult to see how any fair justice system can be confident about convicting on that basis.

    This isn’t so much of a problem for cases of stranger rape where all the complainant needs to do is to avoid showering etc until forensic evidence is obtained. Even then, many women don’t follow the widely publicized recommendations about this and expect that a complaint without forensic evidence made days, weeks, years or even decades after the event should still result in conviction. However, when it comes to date rape allegations or rape within marriage, it becomes more problematic because, unless there is physical injury from force, any genetic and forensic evidence says nothing about whether consent was present or absent. This problem is unfortunate but lowering the goal posts for conviction on the basis of the same inadequate evidence is a bad solution because it will inevitably lead to lots more wrongful convictions, as well as encouraging more malicious false cases. The feminist of course don’t give a damn about innocent men being convicted and punished.

    Incidentally, feminists have already achieved many significant changes towards easier convictions of men for sexual offences, that already will be resulting in increased rates of wrongful conviction, including
    – requirements that police treat sexual accusers as if their accusations are true,
    – allowing video interviews by police of the accusers, not under oath, to be presented as evidence-in chief, i.e. to stand as the complainant’s evidence,
    – allowing sexual accusers to make their accusations behind screens because they claim to be so traumatized by simply having to see the man they are accusing (think of the message that gives to a jury! And this removes the age-old protection against false accusation of allowing the accused to face his accuser),
    – serious restrictions on what can be asked in cross-examination to test the accusations,
    – almost guaranteed name suppression for the accuser,
    – usually done in hearings closed to the public and therefore public scrutiny.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Wed 10th February 2016 @ 8:44 pm

  11. A very good article and sensible clarification by MOMA.

    One aspect that hits me more than anything is from the point of allegation there is absolutely zero chance of the victim (the man) to lead a normal life forward.

    If it were this country, he would.

    1. Be entered on the NZ police red flag system

    2. Never be able to apply for a job or get a job requiring a police vet check

    3. Suffer from depression.

    4. Could lead to family and or relationship problems

    5. Suffer financial costs

    6. Could lose temporary or total access to his own children

    7. May lose employment or lose job promotion

    8. Have his future prospects limited

    It’s a forever thing without rest or respite until death.

    Effectively a totally ruined life.

    The people who did this to him are nothing short of repugnant. They should face criminal charges and serve long hard prison time equal to the everlasting suffering they have caused this man.

    The people, being the prosecutors, the complainant and police, senior police manager overlooking, courts could have stopped the destruction of this man at any stage. They bring shame on themselves and the whole legal system.

    Comment by Lukenz — Wed 10th February 2016 @ 11:16 pm

  12. There is a tendency here to blame the system, when it is the law that is at fault.

    What we are seeing is manipulation of criminal law.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 11th February 2016 @ 8:00 am

  13. so made up a claim involving serious sexual assault.

    This is were you’re missing the point.

    She made ‘a claim’ albeit a false one.

    There’s another post here, which explains this.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 11th February 2016 @ 8:15 am

  14. Downunder (#13): Sorry, we overlooked that post when we did this one. We would have commented on instead. We’re not sure what point you think we’re missing. The actress made up a serious sexual allegation because she wanted to put the boot into a man who did not step aside for her. We doubt she was thinking of jurisprudence issues when she did this; she simply thought she could get away with it (which of course she did but with less success than she may have desired). You may be right in believing that this case is an example of a move from ‘a prosecution by the crown that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt’ to ‘a prosecution by the crown on behalf of a civil claim that a jury needs convincing is probably correct’. This may be a form of rot spreading from family law principles that readily allow oppression of men and their children on the basis of unproven accusations. That process of spreading rot may well be related to the aim of the CPS to artificially lower the conviction rate in sexual cases to assist future lobbying to erode the standard of proof required in sexual cases. After all, it’s mainly men accused of those crimes so who cares about protecting the innocent ones?

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 11th February 2016 @ 1:59 pm

  15. The actress made up a serious sexual allegation

    You’re not thinking about what you’re writing, and you’re helping excuse the action of this woman.


    Comment by Downunder — Fri 12th February 2016 @ 7:35 am

  16. Your focus is on this woman. Bitch made this up. Got to get her.

    Let’s focus on what’s actually happening here.

    In law ‘Allegation’ has the opposite meaning to that in the English language.

    In the Criminal Justice system, this would be written off as there is the requirement of PROOF. These sort of complaints happen on a regular basis in New Zealand, commonly referred to as a false complaint, and never get to court.

    We rely on the police to investigate. That alone is a burden we men have to bear.

    In this case, the investigation found NO proof.

    It’s clear enough from the article, although not specifically stated, that this case has been moved into ‘Civil Jurisdiction’ where the woman’s ‘Claim’ is heard and the accused is required to answer.

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 12th February 2016 @ 8:22 am

  17. It’s just like our parliament – the House of the Bitch.

    Radio New Zealand has finally clicked on to this; “Insults fly as Beehive creaks back to life.”

    ‘Creaks’ being the operative word.

    Power Play – The wheels of Parliament have creaked back into life, with MPs back in their seats chucking newly orchestrated insults at each other with glee.

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 12th February 2016 @ 2:29 pm

  18. No idea what you’re on about Downunder. Of course she made up an allegation and there is no way saying that helps excuse her action. Claiming we’re not thinking about what we’re writing seems like some silly arrogance. ‘She made up an allegation’ is much the same as ‘she made an allegation’ and your capital letters don’t change that; either way she made it but it’s actually more correct to say she made it up before making it. The case was heard in a criminal jurisdiction not a civil one, even though you may be correct in suggesting that the criminal court adopted civil court principles.

    Does ‘allegation’ in law have an ‘opposite meaning’ to the word ‘allegation’ in normal use? we doubt it; can you point to evidence for this? Perhaps it has a somewhat different meaning but we doubt it’s ‘opposite’.

    You may be trying to make some valid point but what is it?

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 13th February 2016 @ 12:21 am

  19. No idea what you’re on about Downunder.

    I realise this, that’s precisely the problem.

    more correct to say she made it up before making it.

    Qualify your it. (the allegation)

    Oh, yes precisely, thank you for agreeing with me.

    Let’s try it this way then and see if you get it.

    This woman’s allegation was a trivial time-wasting load of rubbish (even if in her mind she held the firm belief the man had learned to manipulate the matrix) but because of the way the allegation was treated it had serious consequences for the man concerned.

    The ‘Allegation’ in English is the unproven assertion of the complainant.

    The ‘Allegation’ in law is the assertion which the accusing party undertakes to prove.

    Now you explain, why you think this was tried in the Criminal Jurisdiction.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 13th February 2016 @ 7:28 am

  20. #19 Downunder. I think MOMA’s assumption that it was a criminal trial is a correct one. Why else would CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) be involved ? If it was a civil case, it would just be Lawyers arguing the case. The “Crown” wouldn’t be involved.

    Comment by golfa — Sat 13th February 2016 @ 7:36 am

  21. #20 And Feminism is a State of Inequality.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 13th February 2016 @ 9:21 am

  22. Another example. Note the time delays and the suffering that these caused. Justice should be a wise, two sided word?
    Woman impersonates ex-boyfriend on Facebook and nearly wrecks his life

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 7th December 2016 @ 3:55 pm

  23. Evidence should be weighed cautiously and without too much prior assumption. Some of the time, we will never know the truth (unless we just make it up!). Thus we have to accept that sometimes we will never be able to close off a case file to our satisfaction.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 27th March 2019 @ 10:26 am

  24. And again here …

    I forget who it was now, but many years ago around the beginning of the Family Court one senior legal commenter said, this will bastardise the law.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st June 2021 @ 7:33 am

  25. One aspect that hits me more than anything is from the point of allegation there is absolutely zero chance of the victim (the man) to lead a normal life forward.

    Yes. You can see the confusion.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 1st June 2021 @ 9:40 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar