The recent post England – A Terrorist State of Law discusses a report that brought into the light the activism of their Feminised Crown Prosecution Service.

It is centred on the case of Mark Pearson, accused of the sexual violation of actress Souad Faress.

Looking at this case, many people are asking, including the accused, “How did this end up in court?”

We have no idea what is going on in the complainant’s mind, and we shouldn’t speculate too much on that.

Rather, we should look at what actually happened, and who should be held accountable for Pearson’s traumatic experience.

The complainant made an allegation that she suffered a sexual attack in public but an investigation found no evidence that would support a prosecution.

Let’s just define this further:

Her allegation was her unproven assertion.

A legal allegation was not possible as no proof could be found, in fact the proof that was found was proof to the contrary, that this in fact did not happen.

Let’s look at some elements of Feminist philosophy; firstly, that all women are equal, and secondly, that all women should be believed when they say they have been sexually violated.

How can this be brought to court (this equality maintained) if these demands of Feminism do not qualify for prosecution within the Criminal Justice System?

You turn to Civil Law.

This woman’s claim, no matter how much it indulges fantasy, becomes a court case to which the accused man must respond.

The presiding judge expressed concern, but the CPS refused to withdraw, determined to bring the case to a conclusion. Thankfully it was a jury and not a Feminist judge that was presiding.

What we should also be concerned about is the fact that it is the Crown Prosecutor that brought this case to court.

Perhaps you might say, this was simply a political stunt, politicising the court, in order to achieve a lowering of the burden of proof for sexual offences in the Criminal Jurisdiction. I would disagree with you on that, it is not the end game of Feminism, but it would be a stepping stone.

Either way, and we should not forget this in any analysis; Feminism is a State of Inequality.

That is an evil WE cannot afford, and do not need, but the demands of Feminists will continue, and men and society must be vigilant in defending the State and the law we wish the Crown to preside over.