There was a post at my place called Evil left wing bastards, which was not my comment but that of a Corbynista named Martin Freeman.
One of the topics covered was the man who’d passed “an award winning actress in her 60s” at Waterloo rush hour, she had then had him tracked down via his Oyster card, he’d been raided, charged with sexual assault and the jury took 90 minutes to acquit him on zero evidence.
As someone pointed out, he was damned lucky CCTV caught it all, otherwise he’d have been gone. Another asked: “Why 90 minutes? Why not 90 seconds?”
Below, in comments at my place, came this exchange:
Rossa, February 8, 2016 at 08:24
The strangest thing IMO was that the CPS went ahead even though the CCTV cameras clearly showed him with one hand on the strap of the bag over his shoulder and he was carrying a newspaper in the other. The camera took a photo every second and the defence showed he’d passed by her in less than a second. Yet she claimed he’d not only penetrated her for 2-3 seconds but then violently hit her shoulder, then took off running towards the ticket barriers, when he did no such thing as the incident never took place.
The CPS had to have known what was in the footage as they’d had to use it to identify him and cross match it with his Oyster card before he was arrested.
James Higham, February 8, 2016 at 10:04
This is a case, it seems to my feeble eye, of indoctrinated feminists in the CPS who respond like Pavlov’s dog to stimuli. Man – word “rape” – arraign.
That’s it. Further, when I did CAB work, I saw it at close quarters. Social policy was taught to us, I had to go to Liverpool for a course on it. I asked in the session what about when a man’s rights are infringed?
Blank look. Er, I was gently steered away, as if an idiot, which I was playing [no comments, control yourself], and it was explained that social policy wasn’t about that.
Why not? Well it’s not part of SOC. That was meant to be the concluder.
Looking further at the CAB
However, it’s been, by definition, slave to leftwingism, PCism, as long as govt has been PC. It has no choice, it MUST follow govt. policy, explain it to people, help them find their way around it and resolve their immediate issues.
Is it better to have the CAB or not have it at all? Even now I’d say it’s better overall to have it.
However again, just glance at this from Wiki:
The twin aims of the Citizens Advice service are “to provide the advice people need for the problems they face” and secondly “to improve the policies and principles that affect people’s lives” a research and campaigns agenda known as “social policy”.
That second one is the killer. The govt requires, by law, that Social Policy is “taught” or explained to every single person going into that office and that is overreaching, that is political.
I need to say here that my supervisor was a lovely lady with a big smile and good sense of humour, self-deprecating as well, and she sure knew her stuff – she was up on every last change to the tax code, every nuance in the changing UK. She’s one of the civil service who really earns her money.
Naturally, we got on famously, as she did with everyone but when I chided her over Social Policy, in the guise of a klutz newbie who knew nothing [close to the truth], her reaction was interesting. She did not get hostile, as so many leftwingers do on blogs, but she patiently and “beamingly” explained why things were as they were.
I understood at that point that not only was she doing the govt’s bidding, at the same time delighted to be at odds with govt in supporting individual citizen’s rights – that was her rebel bit – but she’d actually also bought the Narrative lock, stock and barrel.
It’s chicken and egg – had she been employed because she was PC or did she become PC as she went on?
Her explanation did not in the least consider, even for a second, despite me asking her to consider it, that such gross favouritism towards the four stipulated groups meant gross discrimination against excluded groups and to be fair – she was not allowed to consider that for a second, not officially.
Yet even had she been allowed, she would not have done so, IMHO. The point here is that she was not, in any way, shape or form, an SJW, the types of tin cans we’ve seen in the media and at demonstrations. She was far more insidious – a true believer or, as Nero Wolfe said in the fictional take on such people – a fanatic. A quiet fanatic.
There was an episode of Nero Wolfe which profiled such a person wonderfully, the true fanatic:
The clip shows far less of how she operated but the episode as a whole showed a person who had signed up for an idea and had joined a fictional govt agency, not unlike the CAB, and as people do who wish to shine or star in their organization, she “became” the organization, defended and promoted it as she would her own family.
The word “smug” does not quite cover it – it’s maybe more the need to belong, to be part of, to be totally immersed in an idea, seeing as you’re the one who part wrote it. As the Eagles sang – you can check out any time you want … etc.
And such people are utterly impervious to reason. The philosophy has long since been overtaken buy the day-to-day promoting of some people and the doing down of others. It’s a monster which has gone beyond any one human being.
At my attempts to catch the “Ms Gunther” of the CAB on some of her statements, she chuckled, understanding full well what I was doing but was so encased, so enclosed in her Narrative cocoon that it was pointless – she knew it, I knew it, I gave it away until that meeting in Liverpool.
I believe another answer as to why the CPS arraigned that man over the spurious charge is that in the civil service, there are discretionary elements and non-discretionary. They know the gobbledegook backwards and knew that it was not discretionary – they had to arraign him.
And who made such things non-discretionary? The hazy people one and two echelons above, often career men but now including some women. And this is the level at which Common Purpose operates – leading beyond authority. It takes that man, on orders from above, to alter this month’s standing orders and voila – operatives are exhorted to go out looking for cases to pursue.
There’s yet another element and this comes from the private sector. Let’s say a client has an IT project wanting doing for a couple of million pounds. He approaches known firms, they second their best or second best man according to many criteria.
He then hires and establishes the process, the procedures. All he needs to do is build the team for the project, do all the projections and away they go.
However, there are others floating about in that organization too – Business Oversight Managers and the like, bean counters and they are determined that their input is “needed”. So they try to interfere, demanding that the PM submit the details to him and then he syphons off this member of the team or that for side projects he is organizing.
Unless the PM is strong and curmudgeonly, he finds his people eaten away, so to speak and projected finish dates are down the drain. It’s not just in the public sector that such things happen. All the peripherals are trying to justify their existence. They even get involved in assessments and bonuses – they make sure they do. They’re trying to sink claws into the walls of the organization so that they can’t be dislodged.
This is also behind the decision to arraign that man, methinks. There were procedures put in place after meetings caused by directives from above, they had to proceed.
So we’re getting into here the whole way the British private and public sectors are run but that’s too much for one post.