The witch hunt against men in UK justice system continues

v638sg7k1a92bx

Is this a wind up. The victim maintains that the accused hypnotised her to perform certain acts and they actually secured a conviction? Is hypnosis an exact science, then if not how is this evidence been admitted in court, seriously?

PucaMama

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

Is this a wind up. The victim maintains that the accused hypnotised her to perform certain acts and they actually secured a conviction? Is hypnosis an exact science, then if not how is this evidence been admitted in court, seriously?

He agrees himself it happened according to that article

Edit how exactly is this a witch hunt against men

v638sg7k1a92bx

PucaMama wrote: »

He agrees himself it happened according to that article

Edit how exactly is this a witch hunt against men

"He agreed the incident had escalated and he misread the situation."

PucaMama wrote: »

how exactly is this a witch hunt against men

Michael LeVel, operation Yewtree, the CPS bringing charges based on the alleged victims testimony alone. It's a joke! If you're unfortunate enough to be a male in the UK, all that is required is for someone to allege that you sexually assaulted them and the CPS are trying to secure prosecution. Hopefully, if the Michael Le Vel trial is set any precedent, the jury will throiw the charges out in a matter of hours, but not without the accused being tarred and feathered while the alleged victim goes back to anonymity.

pwurple

I dunno, she was paying him for hypnosis services for weight loss at the time. Whether or not hypnosis is a pile of nonsense, she still was paying for one thing, and got something quite different. Not sure how it's a witch hunt against men in general? This individual guy sounds like a total weirdo.

I'd be reasonably annoyed if an electrician/cleaner started doing this... or indeed anyone else selling a service, who came in when I was on my own there and instead of doing the job they were paid to do, had a **** in my house. Poor woman was probably frightened.

ancapailldorcha

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

Michael LeVel, operation Yewtree, the CPS bringing charges based on the alleged victims testimony alone. It's a joke! If you're unfortunate enough to be a male in the UK, all that is required is for someone to allege that you sexually assaulted them and the CPS are trying to secure prosecution. Hopefully, if the Michael Le Vel trial is set any precedent, the jury will throiw the charges out in a matter of hours, but not without the accused being tarred and feathered while the alleged victim goes back to anonymity.

The CPS don't act on accusations alone, they must have had something on LeVell to actually get as far as count. As for the article you posted, the man is clearly guilty and deserves to be treated as such.

PucaMama

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

"He agreed the incident had escalated and he misread the situation."



Michael LeVel, operation Yewtree, the CPS bringing charges based on the alleged victims testimony alone. It's a joke! If you're unfortunate enough to be a male in the UK, all that is required is for someone to allege that you sexually assaulted them and the CPS are trying to secure prosecution. Hopefully, if the Michael Le Vel trial is set any precedent, the jury will throiw the charges out in a matter of hours, but not without the accused being tarred and feathered while the alleged victim goes back to anonymity.

This victim mentality is well over done by now. No one is having a witch hunt against men. None of those cases have anything to do with the case in the article you posted.

v638sg7k1a92bx

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The CPS don't act on accusations alone, they must have had something on LeVell to actually get as far as count. As for the article you posted, the man is clearly guilty and deserves to be treated as such.

From reviewing the evidence presented in the Le Vel trial, the only thing that was presented was testimony and the prosecution trying to drag his personal life into the public domain. No witnesses, no physical evidence.

As for the the article, clearly the guy pleaded guilty to avoid a longer sentence. The article says "The amateur hypnotist then persuaded her to expose and touch her breasts while he performed a sex act on himself." WTF, he persuaded me to take off my top and fondle my breasts therefore she acted consensually. So what happens when guy goes on a night out and persuades a girl to sleep with him, is that not consensual?

As for the judge "Regrettably one of your recent hobbies or interests in recent years is to be engaged in an amateur way in hypnotherapy and hypnotism.
"You have had no formal training and it is of concern that you engaged in such activity with a number of females without learning anything of the dangers or restrictions."

How can you get formal training in something that is not real. What's next, you didn't get formal training in quack medicine?

PucaMama

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

From reviewing the evidence presented in the Le Vel trial, the only thing that was presented was testimony and the prosecution trying to drag his personal life into the public domain. No witnesses, no physical evidence.

As for the the article, clearly the guy pleaded guilty to avoid a longer sentence. The article says "The amateur hypnotist then persuaded her to expose and touch her breasts while he performed a sex act on himself." WTF, he persuaded me to take off my top and fondle my breasts therefore she acted consensually. So what happens when guy goes on a night out and persuades a girl to sleep with him, is that not consensual?

As for the judge "Regrettably one of your recent hobbies or interests in recent years is to be engaged in an amateur way in hypnotherapy and hypnotism.
"You have had no formal training and it is of concern that you engaged in such activity with a number of females without learning anything of the dangers or restrictions."

How can you get formal training in something that is not real. What's next, you didn't get formal training in quack medicine?

A) you have no proof hypnotism doesn't work
you have no intention of a discussion on this its obvious you have decided he's innocent and the woman is in the wrong

v638sg7k1a92bx

PucaMama wrote: »

A) you have no proof hypnotism doesn't work
you have no intention of a discussion on this its obvious you have decided he's innocent and the woman is in the wrong

The way science works is that the onus is on you to prove your theories rather than just accepting them as fact. That's like saying you can't prove God doesn't exist therefore he must be real.

PucaMama

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

The way science works is that the onus is on you to prove your theories rather than just accepting them as fact. That's like saying you can't prove God doesn't exist therefore he must be real.

Your theory is that hypnotism is fake so go ahead and prove it.

v638sg7k1a92bx

PucaMama wrote: »

Your theory is that hypnotism is fake so go ahead and prove it.

I don't need to, there is no science to prove the authenticity of hypnosis. If I were to say to you that tea was the cure for cancer, would you believe me? Based on your argument I can say to you that Tea is the cure for cancer and ask you to prove that isn't.

That's the way science works, a theory is developed and the it is proved as fact.

Are you suggesting that hypnosis is real?

PucaMama

I'm suggesting you explain why you think its fake. YOU are the one who made a claim about it either way.

iptba

I don't see myself using this myself as an example of a witch hunt against men in the UK justice system.

pwurple

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

The article says "The amateur hypnotist then persuaded her to expose and touch her breasts while he performed a sex act on himself." WTF, he persuaded me to take off my top and fondle my breasts therefore she acted consensually. So what happens when guy goes on a night out and persuades a girl to sleep with him, is that not consensual?

I think the method of 'persuasion' makes quite a difference here. Holding a knife to someone's neck and 'persuading' them would be slightly different to consensual sex for example. I would feel threatened on my own at home with a stranger who started that kind of stuff.

You have to be fairly suggestible to volunteer for hypnosis in the first place i'd hazard, but it still doesn't mean you are asking for some sex act to be performed in your living room when you phone up a hypnotist and ask for weight loss hypnosis.

This was clearly not the same as going on a night out and hooking up with someone.

v638sg7k1a92bx

pwurple wrote: »

I think the method of 'persuasion' makes quite a difference here. Holding a knife to someone's neck and 'persuading' them would be slightly different to consensual sex for example. I would feel threatened on my own at home with a stranger who started that kind of stuff.

You have to be fairly suggestible to volunteer for hypnosis in the first place i'd hazard, but it still doesn't mean you are asking for some sex act to be performed in your living room when you phone up a hypnotist and ask for weight loss hypnosis.

This was clearly not the same as going on a night out and hooking up with someone.

They had met previously on a number of occasions and she was comfortable enough to let him into her house "while her husband was away". Also, there is no suggestion that he used a weapon so your analogy is not relevant.

Question, if she was under hypnosis, and if we accept the courts assumption that hypnosis is real otherwise they shouldn't have accepted her testimony as evidence, how can she remember what happened if she was supposed to be under hypnosis?
For arguments sake, if we accept that the hypnosis in this case is real, as the courts have, then how can we accept her evidence that she remembered what happened otherwise she couldn't have been under hypnosis!

Can anyone see how silly this argument is, what we are effectively saying is that a person under hypnosis is not responsible for their actions. What if that woman "under hypnosis" had robbed a bank or committed a sexual crime on a child, would we absolve her responsibility on the basis that she was hypnotised? It's a joke.

pwurple

I think if you disregard the hypnosis entirely, the crime is still there.

PucaMama

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

They had met previously on a number of occasions and she was comfortable enough to let him into her house "while her husband was away". Also, there is no suggestion that he used a weapon so your analogy is not relevant.

Question, if she was under hypnosis, and if we accept the courts assumption that hypnosis is real otherwise they shouldn't have accepted her testimony as evidence, how can she remember what happened if she was supposed to be under hypnosis?
For arguments sake, if we accept that the hypnosis in this case is real, as the courts have, then how can we accept her evidence that she remembered what happened otherwise she couldn't have been under hypnosis!

Can anyone see how silly this argument is, what we are effectively saying is that a person under hypnosis is not responsible for their actions. What if that woman "under hypnosis" had robbed a bank or committed a sexual crime on a child, would we absolve her responsibility on the basis that she was hypnotised? It's a joke.

she hasnt done any of that. hasnt done anything wrong. just because she let the man into her house when her husband wasnt there doesnt mean he has a licence to do what he wants to do to her, or that shes at fault. you are just on a mission to say the woman is at fault here. and i think if the hypnotism thing was left out you would still be against her.

v638sg7k1a92bx

pwurple wrote: »

I think if you disregard the hypnosis entirely, the crime is still there.

How did you work that one out? If you disregard the hypnosis, what you are left with is a woman who let a man that she knew into her house while her husband was away, he then persuaded her to take off her top and and allowed him to touch her breasts while he masturbated. At no point did he use force, sounds like two consenting adults to me.

Newaglish

pwurple wrote: »

I think if you disregard the hypnosis entirely, the crime is still there.

I don't really follow how?

pwurple

Newaglish wrote: »

I don't really follow how?

You hire someone to come and do a job, and he has a disgusting **** on your sofa instead? In front of you?

Yup, I think that's still a crime.

discus

pwurple wrote: »

I think if you disregard the hypnosis entirely, the crime is still there.

She performed an act on herself, he performed one on her. Sexual misadventures of a woman who realised she was married, and perverted opportunism of a man who thought he was getting a woman into a bit of on-the-side. Where is the crime?

v638sg7k1a92bx

pwurple wrote: »

You hire someone to come and do a job, and he has a disgusting **** on your sofa instead? In front of you?

Yup, I think that's still a crime.

No, you hire someone to do a job, woman removes her top and fondles her breast while man watches and knocks one out.

I mean seriously, do you really believe that this woman had no control over her functions and that she was genuinely hypnotised? She removed her own top and fondled her own breasts what has this guy done wrong?

Not realised he was on call and left immediately, thats what. Assuming he didn't set it up maliciously in the first place

Pawwed Rig

Whatever about the case referred to I don't know all the facts so won't commet on it. On a general point on hypnosis, I never really bought the guy on the stage who gets people doing funny things but I understand that people have been helped with phobias and addictions by hypnotherapists so I am kind of agnostic towards the practice.

I found this article on the NHS website
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/hypnotherapy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

A relevant quote being
What to expect

You are fully in control when under hypnosis and don't have to take on the therapist's suggestions if you don't want to. If necessary, you can bring yourself out of the hypnotic state.
Hypnosis doesn't work if you don't want to be hypnotised.

That would have been my understanding of the process.

pwurple

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

No, you hire someone to do a job, woman removes her top and fondles her breast while man watches and knocks one out.

I mean seriously, do you really believe that this woman had no control over her functions and that she was genuinely hypnotised? She removed her own top and fondled her own breasts what has this guy done wrong?

Please tell me you haven't done this?

censuspro

bluewolf wrote: »

Not realised he was on call and left immediately, thats what. Assuming he didn't set it up maliciously in the first place

Sorry what post are you referring to? Are you saying the fact that he left immediately is what he did wrong?

v638sg7k1a92bx

Article in today's indo re student and taxi driver in phoenix park.

Article is here

PucaMama

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

Article in today's indo re student and taxi driver in phoenix park.

Article is here

Are u just out to try to prove every rape accusation wrong

Pawwed Rig

Walter Warm Sparrow wrote: »

Article in today's indo re student and taxi driver in phoenix park.

Article is here

Mod note - As this is an ongoing investigation please do not comment on the specifics.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

PucaMama wrote: »

Are u just out to try to prove every rape accusation wrong

did you even read it?

PucaMama

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

did you even read it?

Has the op read it? She had hid number because he gave it to her. His post about it is blaming her of course.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - Warning already given. Posts have been edited removing offending materials. I will leave the article there for people to read if they wish but any more discussion on ongoing investigations will result in bans.

enfant terrible

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You are fully in control when under hypnosis and don't have to take on the therapist's suggestions if you don't want to. If necessary, you can bring yourself out of the hypnotic state.
Hypnosis doesn't work if you don't want to be hypnotised.

That would have been my understanding of the process.

Yes if you think logically for a second if it was real, I'd imagine the KGB and CIA would have plenty of uses for it.