General Discussions

[LP]

The Attorney General no less, has identified himself as the man at the centre of historical rape allegations.

As much as I love it, this is an example of where The Conversation has run off the rails;

So what now? Well, for one thing, says Michelle Arrow, women need to harness the rage that has built up in recent weeks. And that means turning the fury into a list of concrete demands for change, just as the women’s movement did in the 1970s. Rage is politically potent, and useful. But to make the most of it they need not only to get angry — they need to get organised.

The call is that there is no justice or that justice has failed, but there is no evidence either just an accusation unsupported by evidence, the plethora of voices offer unsupported opinion not evidence, the paragraph effectively calls for mob rule not really a demand for justice because there is no burden of proof in any of the demands.

The question of guilt is irrelevant in this, for me the problem is the procedural issues they want to bypass to allow the court of media and social media to rule.

I'm all for change, but it can't come at the potential persecution of the innocent in the absence of proof, it's somewhat ironic that the left calls for this given they demand we free teenage criminals caught in the act, but they want to hang draw and quarter the old white man without proof!

I read once that a female comedian made the feminist call in the USA, "Kill all white men", but qualified the call to arms with the disclaimer, " ........... but not my dad!" Apparently it was a joke, yet if I were to light heartedly include in a joke, "Do you think your ar5e looks big in that ..................................!" it's not so much funny and far more a misogynist sexual innuendo! Such is the hypocrisy of social media!