One of the greatest tragedies in life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts

There are those in society who, probably, would actually regard the victory of truth over ‘beautiful theories’ as a tragedy. In view of recent happenings, one such gang who are doubtless wringing their hands over the matter is the man-hating feminazi.

Their literature has always been a research-free zone as anyone who has read the ‘writings’ of Andrea Dworkin or the ‘surveys’ of Professor Stanko, will readily agree. But the success of these feminists over the past 30 years has been due to the fact that the media, who seem to possess the joint conscience of a slot-machine, has been willing to accept what they say as the truth.

It is more than refreshing today that so many erstwhile feminists are doing more U-turns than government ministers and are even owning up to the fact that what they have written in the past is quite untrue.

If I may mis-quote Stewart Steven, ‘In life, the lies are what you see in the media, the truth is what you hear whispered.’ Fortunately that whisper is now becoming a crescendo and the much publicised theory promulgated by the feminazi that ‘all men are evil and all women are saints’ has taken many severe body blows from which it, thankfully, can never recover.

The violent murderess, Jane Andrews, former dresser to the Duchess of York, was recently jailed for life for murdering her boyfriend after he had, quite frankly informed her that he no longer wished to marry her. In these days of ‘equality’ women must come to terms with the fact that a man’s ‘no’ means ‘no’. But Miss Andrews was unable to come to grips with reality and in an abhorrent and cowardly attack on Thomas Cressman while he was asleep, she cold-bloodedly murdered him.

Miss Andrews tried the usual feminine ploys often used in court, the tears, the remorse etc. She also tried the well used tactic of blaming the victim which was used very successfully by Sara Thornton and others to get away with murder. This caused the Chief Inspector who led the enquiry to comment: ‘Jane Andrews murdered him in life and murdered him again in death by trying to ruin his reputation.’

The great tragedy of this case is that Thomas Cressman’s desperate 999 call to the police asking for help before ‘someone gets hurt’ was ignored by the police. Had they responded to his call as they would have to a similar call from a woman, the whole tragedy might well have been avoided. The police should now take on board the reality of Home Office Report 191 and be prepared to act on the fact that women are equally as violent as men.

Claire Marsh, an 18-year-old woman received a seven year custody sentence for her part in the horrifying gang rape of a 37-year-old woman. After the gang threw her into a canal, Marsh hit her as she tried to climb out and tore off her top. She then helped the others to strip her naked and helped to hold her down while she was raped first by 18 year-old Marvin Edwards, a brain damaged boy who was neglected and beaten by his mother, and then by a 14-year-old boy. The latter two received sentences of five years.

The judge told Marsh, ‘As a woman, and an intelligent and well brought up one at that, you knew and appreciated all too well the horror of this attack.

‘As a woman you could only commit the crime of rape by aiding and encouraging others. Whatever precisely you did, your participation makes you as guilty as your co-defendants.’

In his book They Call It Justice, Brian Lawrence writes truthfully and from a sex-neutral point of view about his 36 years’ experience working in magistrates’ courts. On page 23 he says:

‘Judging by newspaper reports and television programmes, women are much more likely to be jailed than men. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wholly exceptional cases are seized on by the media as though they were normal. If magistrates find it difficult to send men to prison, they find it impossible to send women. It is such an infrequent event that I doubt whether most court clerks have ever seen it happen. Equality of the sexes has not yet reached the sentencing practices of the criminal law. Women can commit many offences without fear of punishment that, even today, men would almost certainly be imprisoned for.’

The Home Office has admitted that a similar situation exists in crown courts also with regard to sentencing.

I suppose, therefore, that the sentencing of Claire Marsh to a longer custodial term than her male co-conspirators must be unique.

When Ralston Edwards was found guilty in 1966 of raping Mrs. Julia Mason he was given two life sentences. For some reason best known to himself, the judge allowed Edwards to cross question Mrs Mason for six days about intimate details of her sex life. As a result this one trial was battened on as a ploy to stop all men accused of rape from questioning those women who accused them, and the government, with typical knee-jerk reaction, planned to go along with this.

It was with some relief that we heard in May that this proposed one-sided and sexist plan had been abandoned. It has been rewritten by the Law Lords in a test case under the Human Rights Act. Alleged ‘victims’ are now more likely to face cross-examination about earlier sexual encounters.

The House of Lords has ruled that a person who claims to be the victim of a sexual assault may now be cross-examined about a previous sexual relationship with the person accused of the assault if the evidence of their relationship is so relevant that there would be a danger that the defendant would not otherwise get a fair trial.

This four to one decision by the Lords is timely and fair. It has been estimated that there are at least 2,000 innocent men in prison after being accused by a woman of some sexual assault. At a time when our prisons are far too overcrowded it is time our decision makers established a level playing field for men in our courts. These recent events seem to indicate that they are trying to do this. Those who would like to see justice in our land for both men and women must surely hope that the work goes on apace.

The next logical step, of course, is that men accused of sexual offences should remain anonymous, and only named if they are found guilty. Under the current system, 91% of men accused of rape, and named in the press, are subsequently found to be innocent.

As many of their accusers proceed out of spite knowing the special protection they enjoy under the law, a further need is the handing down of severe prison sentences to women who make false accusations of rape.

Some say this will not encourage women to come forward to report cases of rape. That may be so but it is manifestly unfair to expect men to suffer incarceration falsely in order to encourage women to report an alleged crime which has less than a one-in-ten chance of a guilty verdict.

This quote from Robert Verkaik, in January this year illustrates a variety of opinions on the matter including some predictable ones from feminists who are anxious to retain the unjust status quo:

‘The law should be changed to grant anonymity to people accused of rape and child abuse, the Director of Public Prosecutions believes.

‘While David Calvert-Smith’s comments fall short of a direct call for such a move, his views have enraged women’s groups and reopened a debate among the legal profession as to whether defendants in sex cases should have the same protection as their alleged victims.

‘Asked whether he would support a change in the law Mr Calvert-Smith, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: “I would certainly not oppose such a proposal… It would not make the life of a prosecutor any more difficult, and a case could be made [for granting anonymity until conviction] for those accused of rape or other sexual offences like child abuse which is just as damaging to a person.”

‘By making it clear that conviction rates in rape cases currently running at about 10 per cent of all complaints would not be affected by giving anonymity to defendants, Mr Calvert-Smith has removed the main obstacle to change.

‘A spokesman for the CPS said yesterday that cases such as those involving Mick Hucknall, the singer with the band Simply Red, had raised the profile of the issue. Mr Hucknall was arrested by Surrey police after being falsely accused of rape in November.

‘The acquittal last month of David Jones, the former manager of Southampton Football Club, who was charged with child abuse, also prompted calls for the identity of defendants to be protected until an offence had been proved.

‘Groups representing rape victims said they were angered by Mr Calvert-Smith’s comments. A spokeswoman for Women Against Rape said: “The consequence of being accused of any serious crime can be devastating. We are against a special case where men accused of rape are singled out for special protection.”

‘She said women needed protection because rape was a “unique” crime and they would not come forward to report rape without it.

‘She said Mr Calvert-Smith’s comments would send the wrong signals to rapists.

‘The Labour MP Robin Corbett, Chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, welcomed the DPP’s comments. Mr Corbett, who helped introduce a 1976 Act which granted anonymity to alleged rapists as well as their victims, said: “It appears clear to me if you give the victim anonymity then you should also give it to the accused up until conviction.”

‘He added that an acquittal was not enough to repair the damage to the reputation of a person accused of rape or other sex crimes.

‘He said the right to anonymity had been “given away” in 1988 when the Conservatives gave the media the freedom to identify those accused of rape.

‘The Law Society said yesterday that it was time the law was reviewed. Malcolm Fowler, chairman of the society’s criminal law committee, said there was a “powerful argument” under the Human Rights Act for named defendants to claim, in cases where the complainant was not identified, that their rights had been breached.

‘Article six of the European Convention on Human Rights gave defendants the right to an impartial trial, he said, and identifying one party and not the other might create a perception of unfairness.

‘Stephen Kramer QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, agreed that a change in the law merited “serious consideration”. ‘

Doesn’t it strike you ask strange that, at a time when women’s groups are calling for ‘equal’ treatment of women, no one is calling for their equal treatment in our law courts; probably because they know that when it comes to treatment in our courts, women have it made. A woman can frequently be tried for murder, paedophilia and arson, and, even when found guilty on some of these counts, still walk away from the court with a suspended sentence.

Fortunately the position is improving as the above examples show. But we have a long way still to go before men receive fair treatment in court. One way they can speed up the process is to make known as widely as possible the cases I have outlined and others like them; there are plenty to choose from today.