Feminists, such as Alison Saunders are ignoring the real rape crisis! #JusticeForChelsey

In the case of Chelsey Wright, many are asking why the police won’t take action. There are serious questions, which Amber Rudd, Home Secretary, minister responsible for the police, must answer, such as why the hell they let someone suspected of rape out on bail. However, blame also rests with Jeremy Wright, and Alison Saunders, who are responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service. When Northumbria police presented the CPS evidence so that one of the alleged attackers could be charged, they dismissed it.

When it comes to rape, this case has some of the strongest evidence possible. DNA evidence, proof Rohypnol has been used, and bruising to the body. The only more compelling evidence would be the unlikely, CCTV footage or an outright confession. Any jury would conclude this was blatant rape, but the CPS let this go before court. It appears to be protecting not the victim, but the perpetrator.

This is not the first time that Ms Saunders’ moral judgement has been called into question. On the 28th of June 2015, she defended her decision not to prosecute former MP Greville Janner, 86, on 22 serious child abuse charges involving nine victims because, it was claimed, the Labour peer was incapacitated by advanced dementia, despite no court assessment of his health ever having taken place. It’s about time she is dismissed from office.

We are now in the bizarre situation in the UK where men accused of the most heinous sex crimes against women or even children can escape justice for decades, yet men who had drunken sex with a consenting adult woman last Saturday night could find themselves facing years behind bars. Obviously, people can be so intoxicated they are not able to consent, but there was blatant hypocrisy when in 2015, Saunders initiated a change in the CPS rules for prosecuting rape cases.

The new rules made a drunk man responsible for everything he does (and anything a drunk woman does with him) while a drunk woman is treated as a child with no culpability at all, simply by virtue of her consumption of large amounts of alcohol. To all intents and purposes, this meant a man is effectively guilty of rape until proven innocent in a court of law, even if there is no evidence. But when there is actual evidence, as in the Chelsey Wright case, Saunders takes no action.

They look the other way when an alleged criminal is well-connected or from a certain religion. It is disappointing to see the inconsistency, the hypocrisy, of feminists, such as the Director of the CPS, Alison Saunders, on £205,000 a year, who do not show the same enthusiasm in prosecuting the Muslim rapist of Chelsey Wright, or former MP Greville Janner on 22 serious child abuse charges, as they do for demanding working class men, but not women, be punished for engaging in sexual acts when drunk.

Facebook Comments
Nb. The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of People's Charter or any associated group such as the Young Chartists.

About the author: Luke Nash-Jones

Luke Nash-Jones is the Director of The People's Charter Foundation. He is a passionate campaigner for "proper Brexit", who opposes open borders and Sharia law.

Has one comment to “Feminists, such as Alison Saunders are ignoring the real rape crisis! #JusticeForChelsey”

You can leave a reply or Trackback this post.

  1. Darryl Taylor - 16 June 2017 at 10:17 pm Reply

    I can only find outraged commentaries on this situation with Ms. Wright and her assailants, only in “Right” or conservatively leaning media, with an unusual paucity of information from any other news or media outlets. What, if any, is the reason given by the Crown Prosecution Service for not preferring charges in this case?

    There are some circumstances where (regrettably) there could be a justifiable reason to withhold criminal proceedings, but lacking even whatever rationale would be the official excuse, thin or impenetrable, it is impossible to fully form an opinion other than some sorrow for the victim.

    The Rule of Law (aside from and even possibly above the Crown) mandates that if a punishment or retributive justice is demanded, the particulars of the case must be known by all, else we descend into vigilantism and cast away the efforts of generations of our heritage to create a just, impartial, and even handed legislative and moral system.

    Without that core commitment “Lady Justice” must not be allowed her sword lest she harm the innocent, which in all honesty is ballox, the commitment to even handed justice should run fiercely enough through the people of the Commons that in the unfortunate cases where decisions must be made quickly and have a high stake entailed in the outcome, there is little room nor need for second guessing.

    I am calling “shenanigans” for now on any of the coverage that I have yet seen on this case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.