SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003
A scientific survey reveals that the majority of prostitutes say their own sexuality and money are the main reasons for selling sex; 68% consider their line of work as part of their sexuality.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was introduced by David Blunkett (now Lord) during the time of Tony Blair and Harriet Harman. This was an unfortunate period in British history concerning human rights abuses, with the Prime Minister invading Iraq in denial of United Nations protocols and David Blunkett have an extra-marital affair with his secretary that is sure to have clouded his judgment. Harriet Harman is know better known for the offensive anti-Semitic joke she told during a recent TV chat show appearance.
At the same time Legal Aid cutbacks prevented cases where multiple witnesses should have been called and expert evidence needed to be rebutted by a defence expert, from being adequately defended, again in violation of the Article 6 right to a fair trial, that these British politicians were doing their level best to increase the conviction rate of sex crimes, to the detriment of justice and a level playing field.
In 2013 the situation became so bad that English barristers were threatening strike action that took place in 2014 and in March of 2018 with further cuts in funding threatened, Britain's barristers are again threatening strike action, citing all of the reasons we are repeating here.
In addition, cuts to police budgets are forcing crime scene investigators to cut corners and not fully investigate or seal a crime scene, further defeating the objective to discover if a crime has been committed and by who.
In many cases there has been no sexual crime at all. The only crime is when a girl, woman, boy or man (person) makes a false allegation and these falsehoods are not normally followed up to a prosecution, sending a clear signal to jilted girlfriends (mostly) that they can make unfounded claims to gain revenge for being dumped.
Under Blunkett law, not a shred of evidence is required by the prosecution to gain a conviction. The usual warning that a Judge is required to give a Jury in cases where their is no physical evidence or direct witness testimony as to a supposed rape or other assault to support an allegation - this requirement has been scrapped in sex cases. Wow! it is a license for what is now a common term for revenge seeking women: "Bunny Boilers," to cause incredible credibility and character damage to their victims, also causing loss of employment, houses, cars and other social status as loans, etc., can no longer be serviced.
What kind of a Government and what kind of politicians thought this scheme up? What are they like. Especially, where David Blunkett and Gordon Brown were both at it with their secretaries in some kind of moral denial. Wow, hypocrites or what, or are are politicians exempt from playing fair?
Without any doubt whatsoever, after reading this series of articles you will be able to understand how these Nazi like tactics are akin to a eugenics programme as surely as if you had rounded up the accused citizens (Jews and Poles in Nazi Germany) and marched them into the gas chambers at Auschwitz, Buchenwald and Dachau.
NO WARNINGS FOR SINGLE MEN
One of the most dangerous scenarios for single men, especially those who are vulnerable, is the clever single parent mother, typically a nurse, social worker or psychologist, or something in between where these women know how vulnerable a male can be at certain times and also know about Blunkett Law, that will allow them to blackmail a male partner into remaining in a relationship, or else they will make up a story and get him locked up. There is one such case that we have been furnished details of, and there are literally hundreds of similar cases that are only reported in the media with scant information as to how the women or girls concerned concocted such a foul plan and followed it through with the help of a little coaching from the police and social services.
Having set up the justice system with no safety net for those who are wrongly convicted, where the Criminal Cases Review Commission is currently allowed by the High Court to "take a view," there should be a system of vetting available to men who are considering entering a relationship with a woman who has young children.
There is such a system for women who are considering entering a relationship with a man who has been convicted, where she can check to see what she is facing. Such imbalance constitutes Article 14 discrimination where men are not warned as to the potential dangers they may be facing, such as a prison sentence and a lifetime of signing a register - that will prevent him from ever having a family and passing on his DNA, hence the right to life and not to be treated in an inhuman or degrading manner, with reference to Articles 3 and 5 of the (United Nations) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, appears to have been violated, and this applies to Article 8 of the Universal Declaration where everyone is entitled to an effective remedy, but that Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights has been omitted from the Human Rights Act 1998, along with Article 1.
DON'T DO IT - Getting married is the next and statistically the imminent step to getting divorced. You are far better off staying as common law man and wife. Then, if the crunch comes, any pre-nuptial agreement is still binding and you can ditch the bitch or bastard without losing everything you have worked for. Imagine also the savings in legal bills.
Call off an engagement and see what happens. Based on a true story.
This website is Copyright © 2018. Max Energy Limited is an educational charity aiming for social equality and justice for all.