More Corruption In Rape Trials

Women who delay making rape allegations because of 'shame and guilt' will no longer be penalised in court.

Once again we see that sex-assault cases are to be dealt with differently from all other criminal cases. The result of this particular decision will be - as is typical in this area - that more innocent men will be brought to trial and/or convicted on the sole basis of the testimony of lying women.


At 25 October, 2008 02:57, Anonymous poiuyt said...

But our own gender class feel that this is a good way for males to live and die. That is, that men should live a life of continuous subjection to unfair and irrational rules and proceedures wherever the comfort or convienience of females are concerned.

So the mens movement has to begin to ask of itself: what can be done to rehabilitate and restore prestige to our own gender amongst ourselves beforehand of tackling feminism. Feminism and its instutional consequences to males will in such an event quickly take care of itself.

But the ball is with us.

At 14 December, 2008 11:29, Blogger BrusselsLout said...

This is grossly unfair.

Suppose an innocent man is accused of a rape that took place 10 years ago (or perhaps that didn't even take place at all).

How is he going to be able to gather evidence from 10 years before to prove his case?

How is he going to remember where he was or who he was with on the evening of April-the-something, nineteen-ninety-something?

Because if he can't, the conclusion will be straighforward: GUILTY!

At 11 January, 2009 05:09, Blogger Andromeda said...

Hello Angry Harry

Very interesting! You may like to have a look at the Battlefield of Love blog on the subject of the Domestic Partnership.

I am also responsible for and hope to hear from you.

At 14 January, 2009 02:58, Anonymous Andrew Slade said...

The Disenfranchisement of Women

Feminists are certainly not stupid but are (like all ideologues) possessed of a certain vicious low cunning. They know how to manipulate the female masses, who make up the majority of the electorate (55%) to get power for themselves, at the expense of men -and of women too. Meanwhile, one third or more of ordinary women do not bother to vote at all (two thirds in local elections). Many women thus rightly accept that politics is a matter for their menfolk.

Switzerland, the most democratic Nation State in Europe, denied votes to women until the Nineteen Sixties. Italy granted them around 1919, then took them away again from 1924 to 1946. Italian women electors were perceived in both postwar periods as a useful counterweight to “Progressive” subversives. Women electors were perceived as family oriented, patriotic and conservative. Hence two of the most sophisticated polities in Europe have seen fit to deny women the vote at times in the last century. German women also lost the vote from 1933 to around 1948.

While conservatives felt that the female masses could be useful as a counterweight to demagogic fantasies, “Progressive” demagogues were able to whip up hysteria among female electors and this is why they themselves took votes away from the very women who had elected them, once their revolutions had seized power. Then another wave of conservatives (Adenauer in Germany & De Gasperi in Italy) gave women back the vote. Progressives beavered away promising bread & circuses to young women in exchange for votes.

So in 1980s England Marg. Thatcher bought female votes in exchange for privileges, thus combining both the progressive & conservative agendas. At the end of the 1980s bitter, man-hating feminists saw their chance to capture the female vote (by offering women even more privileges) & use it to put the left in power long term. Such an alternation in power (female capriciousness) enabled foreign invaders to seize territory by playing off both political parties against each other & seducing influential women to consolidate themselves. Young women came to prefer the rich & virile foreigners to older metrosexual indigenes. Sexual apartheid was imposed, with the regime's colonialist agenda boosted by the congress between native women and invaders (or native men & invaders, for that matter). Frantz Fanon saw, right back in the Nineteen Fifties, how Colonialism was driven by the sexual appetites of the conquerors. But he did not foresee that Frenchmen and Englishmen would become victims just as surely as Polynesians and Zulus had once been.

The U.S. State of Colorado was the first in modern times to give votes to women (c 1885) as an incentive to respectable women to come up and settle in the mining towns. New Zealand did the same in 1900, to encourage decent women to travel to the ends of the Earth and settle in the backblocks, have babies etc. But in both places this agenda has backfired as progressive politicians and feminists have bribed women voters with more & more privileges and driven underprivileged men onto welfare benefits. Without the energy and enterprise of men, the whole economy has spiralled into long term recession & mass imprisonment, leaving women too to face deprivation.

Queen Victoria used to recommend her ministers not to allow women to vote, on the grounds that their fickle mass would devalue the vote and enable irresponsible demagogues to seize power. Asquith took the same view & before the Great War, Churchill too. And so it has come to pass. Now, voting has become so devalued that a small coterie of professional politicians (“The Westminster Village”) and media hacks (“The Commentariat”) call all the shots. “If voting could make any difference, they'd abolish it” U.S. Feminist Emma Goldman, 1869-1940).

Despite the fact that women's brains are, on average, one third smaller than men's (10 billion neurones fewer, with a thousand trillion fewer synapses) this is not in itself reason enough for disenfranchisement.

The privileges they have voted themselves are, quite deliberately, destroying society. Mass abortion has murdered and tortured to death 65 million babies in the U.S. alone, since radical feminists seized power. Seven million more in the U.K., many, many millions more in France and Italy. Entire indigenous nations risk extermination in this, by far the greatest genocide in all the long and extremely bloody history of Mankind. Half those babies are male! Murdered by their own mothers. Fathers have no sa6y in the matter, powerless to prevent the killing and torture of their own sons by the Feminazi State. Women themselves are the first to regret this (after being tricked into infanticide by false promises of careers and happiness.

Women have arrogated to themselves the privilege of throwing their own husbands out of their houses for any reason whatsoever or none at all, often on a whim & without any proper trial or judicial process at all, thus depriving their own children of a much-needed father. For nothing. Then they demand lifelong alimony & up to18 years child support from their male victims – the men they have robbed and humiliated. The West does NOT have no fault divorce system: it has a system where women are never at fault, no matter how badly they behave; while men are blamed & treated like pariahs, no matter how innocent & on false accusations, without even a trial.

Even within traditional relationships, women have by far the upper hand. Feminists encourage false accusations as “empowering” (in other words all women should get their way through lies). Domestic violence, practised as a matter of course by women ever since Delilah emasculated Samson, is, nevertheless, blamed solely on men. British Retail Consortium statistics show that 80% of consumer expenditure is spent by women. Since they earn only 45% of income directly, the remaining £300 billion or so must be transfer payments from men to women (dating, alimony, housekeeping, gifts, child support etc). In other words, women say, “What's mine is mine & what's yours is mine too”. This has been the cry of the revolutionary through the ages.

But are the female masses really revolutionary now or are they just being manipulated?

At 14 January, 2009 06:09, Anonymous poiuyt said...

Angryharry needs to update more regularly or take on more activists to do so for him.

The dissatisfied mass of males in all manhating societies are bursting at the seams for a say and a voice!

At 28 April, 2009 08:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have little sympathy indeed for ANY man who marries a western woman.

White women are only 7-8% of the total number of females world wide. That leaves 92-93% of non-white women, who, in my mind, are far better than almost any white woman in every aspect.

So, why do men settle for low quality high maintenance women when the world is open to them?

At 06 August, 2009 08:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree entirely with the last poster (Anonymous).

Any man who marries a woman from the West is either a complete idiot or someone who has lived in a cave for 30 years.

However, I understand that a man who is too poor to visit countries where women are human, will eventually have to settle for a low grade western woman.

At 13 August, 2009 11:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! I don't think I've ever read any more hateful garbage than I've read here. Angry Harry you and your supporters are nothing more than pea-brained Neanderthals with small penises.

At 04 September, 2009 08:54, Blogger Michal said...

To the last poster. You idiot! You really can't find anything better to post, can't you?! Typical feminist.

At 20 October, 2009 02:02, Anonymous harold said...

You absolute cretin!
Why would you generalise that all feminists would post something like anonymous... would?

It is a clear statement, it is hateful. For love of C. it IS. He isn't calling himself ANGRYharry for nothing! Or did you think it was just a pun?

But the remark about your penii isn't necesseraly true. Though sadly likely! You must either be, extremely gay or just the owners of extremely small penii! Because you seem to be holding major grudges against women.
Sigmund has said it all!

No really, you are hateful. And no society isn't punishing us men for being men. Patriarcy, the system that we've creating is punishing oursleves. An equal society would be better for both women and men.

Get over it, it is as simple as that.

At 01 November, 2009 12:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can tell when feminist trolls get on a male oriented website. The messages go from a (mostly) rational argument to name-calling with really poor spelling and grammar...


At 18 November, 2009 03:49, Blogger 123 123 said...

Nice post you got here. I'd like to read more about this topic.
By the way check the design I've made myself Russian escorts

At 18 November, 2009 04:35, Blogger Michal said...

I hope this finally works. Ah HAROLD! You complete an utter moron! Not only do you "respond", and I use the term loosely, in the utmost illogical and unrespectful manner, BUT YOU CAN'T WRITE FOR SHIT! You're ridiculous, pathetic and a complete idiot! Learn to spell!!! AND you're a homophobe! For a retard claiming to be pruuuuhteckting women from us evil slavers, you can't come-up with anything better than calling others gay or small-membered?! This truly is a testament to the intellectual inferiority of feminists, especially their insignificant males.

At 30 November, 2009 17:24, Anonymous Nathalie said...

Well well...
'However, I understand that a man who is too poor to visit countries where women are human, will eventually have to settle for a low grade western woman.'
A westerm woman who can speak for herself, who is not so veiled that she trips over her own shoes for lack of vision; a woman that can go outside in the street without a male (who can be a small child) with her... You're right, western women are low grade: they are your equals!

At 03 February, 2010 21:12, Blogger J Paul said...

I didn't read this post. I need some help. I'm being gangstalked by psychotic feminists. I've been framed for something and I don't know what. I know who the source is and I may have enough names involved to start building a case by establishing a connections through a cyber trail. Their network has ruined my life. I need the right lawyer in San Francisco badly.

At 03 February, 2010 23:29, Blogger 自己 said...

happy new year............................................................

At 19 February, 2010 09:12, Blogger ScareCrow said...


Sorry, but studies show that most foreign women are actually better educated that western women.

The only difference between western and foreign women is the lack of male-hatred in foreign women.

Perhaps, someday, you'll realize that hating 50% of the population is not in your best interests.

Also, maybe, you'll realize how much hatred of men has been installed in you...

P.S. Dang AngryHarry - you sure do get some "live ones" in here...

At 19 February, 2010 09:15, Blogger Michal said...

To be really honest, we may as well call this a Germanic-Bitch problem. Since feminism is most present in Anglo and Scandinavian countries, hell, it's a Germanic problem and yes, they're spoiled, mannerles whores good for only one thing now. Bomb the West, it's failed the test!

At 17 March, 2010 19:11, Anonymous logic said...

There is only one answer to every post and question on every website like this: Women have no sense of right and wrong whatsoever.
They also have no sense of objectivity. They literally believe what they want to believe and they do not get rid of emotions and use logic or evidence. They see no shame in this - its completely normal from their point of view. Every time a woman makes a statement in a subject where her emotions are involved you should prefix it with: "This has nothing to do with reality, its just what I want to believe..."

That is it.

Men will collectively realise this and deal with the situation appropriately when the time comes.

Its easy to check on, people with no conscience have no idea what a conscience is. You could ask, "do you have an internal mechanism that makes you work for the greater good?" She will say "No, that is impossible, - and what is the greater good anyway?"

See for yourself.

Oh, and in reference to an ironic comment by Anon 13th August, note the following anthropological facts:

There is a pronounced bottleneck in the Mitochondria that is not accompanied by a bottleneck in the Y-Chromosome.
This can only be explained by a complete replacement of the female line.
There is also a disparity between the age and point of origin of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam.
This can only be explained by the concept that we actually are males and females of different species.
The older, East African female line corresponds to Homo-Erectus.

In other words, European women actually are descended from Neanderthal.

At 29 May, 2010 22:21, Blogger A feminist open to criticism said...

This is interesting.

I am a 22 year old female, feminist.

If you want to attack me solely on the basis that I am a feminist or that I am female, go ahead, but it will just show your hatred.

Hatred being an emotion, anger also being an emotion, something that females allegedly can't seperate from logic. Yet you are the ones mounting an emotionally driven tirade on women. Whereas I lack hatred for anyone male or female.

I will now respond to a few of the statements in here. Yes men's brains are typically larger, but that is because they themselves are typically larger and need more brain power to keep their body functioning.

Everyone is descended from neanderthals, who cares, that's hardly relevant here.

I would be interested in seeing studies that show eastern women are more educated then western. Typically from what I have read on the subject, women are far less educated in more extremist patrarchial societies due to less access to educations systems.

Now to respond to the original posting. Have you read up on some facts to do with rape? There is an overwhelming lack of women reporting rape at all, never mind in a "timely fashion" that is convenient to rapists.

Anyone who thinks that men are convicted based on an accusation really need to actually read up on these issues. Rape is the hardest crime to prove, it is very rare men are accused and convicted, and if they are it is very rare this is for an extensive period of time.

I have recently started a blog of my own, and would like rational people open to intellectual debate to come and read what I have to say and respond.

At 08 June, 2010 19:12, Anonymous logic said...

Dear 'A Feminist open to criticism'

From your point of view, what do you think is the difference between right and wrong?

What do you think objectivity is?

What do you think a conscience is?

If you were a man, would you be a rapist or would you vote to give women sexual choice?

At 09 June, 2010 10:50, Blogger A feminist open to criticism said...

"From your point of view, what do you think is the difference between right and wrong?"

Depends on the issue

"What do you think objectivity is?"

It doesn't exist in a forum of opinions.

"What do you think a conscience is?"

A moral compass

"If you were a man, would you be a rapist or would you vote to give women sexual choice?"

My gender is irrelevant in regards to being a rapist. I am not a rapist, I don't see why having a penis would make me more inclined to be one (other then statistically), but with the same personality in tact, no I would not rape.

Do these questions have any relevance?

At 09 June, 2010 11:05, Blogger A feminist open to criticism said...

I realised in regards to a conscience you may mean personally rather then in general, in light of that I will give you a more detailed answer.

My conscience is the annoying logic and desire for human decency that forces me to do what is right, even when what is right isn't easy. For an example here you could take my vegetarianism. It is more difficult for me to eat at restaurants, at home, with my friends and also more difficulty to maintain levels of iron and such. However my conviction (based on examination of the issues and my own motivations in consuming meat) that financing an industry that profits from torture and death prevents me from giving in to what is easy. That to me is the work of my conscience.

Furthermore I have on occassion slipped on my strict no meat diet, and on these occassions have experienced guilt. This I also attribute to my conscience.

My conscience is what directs me to embark on furthering the causes I believe in, even to my own detriment.

As a consequence to accuse someone of not having a conscience is to accuse someone of not having any humanity. In my eyes at least

At 11 June, 2010 08:44, Anonymous logic said...

Dear ‘A feminist open to criticism’

Thanks for your prompt reply. Here are some more questions, these are more specific.

Is the moon still there when you are not looking? Or if no-one is looking?

Do you believe what you want to believe? What about when you are considering moral issues?

Here is a hypothetical example. It is about a woman who has a mind similar to your own:
Imagine you saw this woman being unfaithful, but later on she regrets it (maybe she values her relationship, etc). The next day she denies it to her boyfriend. From her pointof view – is she a liar? Was she still unfaithful?

In general, how fixed are past events?



At 12 June, 2010 00:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Is the moon still there when you are not looking? Or if no-one is looking?"


"Do you believe what you want to believe? What about when you are considering moral issues?"

I generally only form solid opinions after I have examined all the relevant information.

"Imagine you saw this woman being unfaithful, but later on she regrets it (maybe she values her relationship, etc). The next day she denies it to her boyfriend. From her pointof view – is she a liar? Was she still unfaithful?"

Well I don't know, I only know my point of view not hers. Her point of view is dependant on many things I would imagine. Hazarding a guess based on what I would think in the same circumstance. Yes shes still a cheater and a liar and should see herself that way.

I am not sure why you compare her to me. If I am to answer your questions can you at least explain.


At 12 June, 2010 08:05, Anonymous logic said...


I am not comparing her to you. In order for you to imagine things from her point of view it is required that I define that her mind is of the same general type as your own. The question could be rephrased as “If you were unfaithful...” I phrased the question in that particular way in order to avoid seeming accusatory.

Regarding you answer “I generally only form solid opinions after I have examined all the relevant information.” That doesn’t really tell me if you believe what you want to believe or not.

Concerning the morality of feminism:

Is it acceptable for women to trick their husbands into raising another man’s child?
Would it be similarly acceptable for a man to prevent a woman from having children of her own and then use her as a meal ticket with all her money going to funding the child her husband had with another woman?
Should women be punished for paternity fraud? If a jail sentence, then how long would you specify?
Since this is such a widespread behaviour - both across time and across the world - should men be given paternity assurance as a human right in the same way as sexual choice for women is?

Is it acceptable for women to make false allegations of rape or domestic violence? Should they remain unpunished? (Rather than debate how often this occurs I specify the hypothetical circumstance that false allegations greatly outnumber genuine ones).

Should women have equal pay whilst at the same time taking vast amounts of money from men through divorce and other means, even when no children are involved? Do you say that this is fair?

Is it worse to kill a child or sexually abuse one? Is abortion a lesser or greater evil than paedophilia?
Women often argue ‘my body, my choice’ - are you an extension of your own mother’s body or are you an individual in your own right?

Should the Bobbitt woman have been punished? What jail sentence would you give her?
Would it be different if a man mutilated a woman’s genitals or cut off her breasts? Should he walk free too?

Why do so many feminists make jokes about the above? If a man had done this to a woman there would have been plenty of men protesting. Why have I never seen women protesting for men’s rights? I have never witnessed women voluntarily agreeing to allocate rights to men, but I never cease to see men allocating rights to women. This is not recent; referring back to the rape example men have always said that rape should be punished, but I never seen women say that false allegations should also be punished.

What do you think about the SCUM manifesto? Why is this part of Women’s studies courses?
If it were up to you, what would you do about this? Would you have those women punished? What if men copied them and did exactly the same thing? Should they be punished?



At 13 June, 2010 05:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...


My last comment din't get posted, so perhaps we should take this covnersation elsewhere, it is derailing the topic a little.


At 16 August, 2010 11:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I agree entirely with the last poster (Anonymous).

Any man who marries a woman from the West is either a complete idiot or someone who has lived in a cave for 30 years.

However, I understand that a man who is too poor to visit countries where women are human, will eventually have to settle for a low grade western woman.

06 August, 2009 08:38

Not all of us. This is why;

Anonymous said...
Wow! I don't think I've ever read any more hateful garbage than I've read here. Angry Harry you and your supporters are nothing more than pea-brained Neanderthals with small penises.

13 August, 2009 11:33

Typical example of a western woman or a feminized misandrist male, which IS highly common in the U.S.

Michal said...
To the last poster. You idiot! You really can't find anything better to post, can't you?! Typical feminist.

04 September, 2009 08:54


To those who wish to visit/live in the U.S., this is the attitude you will experience plus that of the very plentiful number of chivalrists/manginas.

At 14 February, 2011 22:05, Blogger Dulantha said...

There is something important to know behind these false rape cases. That is women cannot do any thing without men. How women can proceed the law and punish men for rape either cases are true or false. The fact is there are feminist men as well as feminist women. Both of them getting together and doing all these unfair things. Other thing is in this case feminist women are controlling the minds of feminist men and they are using the feminist men against the other men who are living close to the nature.
There is another thing that we must get understand here. That is today the gender role are more complicated and sex drive of both male and female is also being complicated. So that we cannot tell what all the sexual abuses related to women are doing by men.
Lesbians and bisexual women are also sexually assaulting and abusing heterosexual women and girls. On the other hand homosexual and bisexual men are continuously abusing boys of younger ages. In cases of such things feminists are behaving like blind people. At last the primary object of these feminists is fully destroying the heterosexual natural sex drive. They will never successful, but the people must be clever to remove the authority from the wrong and stupid people like feminists.

At 01 September, 2012 21:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for sharing.

At 30 September, 2013 16:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I miss the days when the US Constitution mattered. I mean, when did we not care about "Due Process" and "Innocent until Proven Guilty" did we not like? I agree any sex crime is horrible and should be heavily punished, but I would like them to be PROVEN GUILTY. What is the point of the "Constitution" or the "Bill or Rights" if we through it out on a whim for Feminism? Why cant all the Feminists just move to Australia?

At 04 April, 2014 06:03, Blogger Richard Ford said...

Slightly off topic but very interesting. I am in the British Library- that bastion of free speech- and your main site is blocked for intolerance.

This is worthy of a campaign I think.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home