in ,

Feminism Is Perverting The Rule Of Law In Britain (Part 2)

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

If convicting innocent men of rape is not bad enough, exculpating women convicted of murder on compelling evidence is no better if not worse, yet that is the mission of the misnamed Centre For Women’s Justice.  Although this pernicious organisation has had charitable status since only 2016, it has been around a lot longer than that as Justice For Women, with which it is synonymous. Set up by the lawyer Harriet Wistrich and her lover Julie Bindel, its first big win came in 1995 when it secured the release of Emma Humphreys. Humphreys had been a juvenile delinquent and a teenage prostitute, graduating to murderess when she stabbed her lover Trevor Armitage through the heart as he lay in a drunken stupor. She had previously trashed his home which landed her behind bars, but foolishly he took her back.

Humphreys was convicted of murder in December 1985, and because of her age was ordered to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. Her first appeal failed, but after contacting Bindel and Wistrich, new grounds of appeal were invented, psychological so-called evidence on which the defence was permitted to piggyback claims of abuse against the victim. Her murder conviction reduced to manslaughter, Humphreys was released in 1995 to the cheers of feminist activists, but three years later, by now a drug addict as well as a serial false rape accuser, she was dead by her own hand. Humphreys being a quite despicable woman did not deter her supporters from initiating an annual prize in her name; one of them even wrote a song about her.

Wistrich and Bindel used similar tactics in their campaign to free Jane Andrews; this was a very high profile case because Andrews had previously been employed as a royal dresser. In September 2000, she stabbed and battered her lover Thomas Cressman to death as he slept, but this time the Court Of Appeal would have none of it. Even so, Andrews was parolled in 2015, but in July 2018 it was reported she had been recalled to prison for allegedly harassing a former lover.

Another high profile case was Sally Challen. In August 2010, Challen battered her estranged husband to death at his Claygate home. The murder weapon was a hammer secreted in her handbag, which clearly showed premeditation. In 2015, the imbeciles known as mental health professionals added a new affliction to the ever increasing list of mental disorders: dependent personality disorder. Once again, Bindel and Wistrich used an imaginary mental condition to take a case back to the Court Of Appeal. (A mental disorder is not an illness, it is simply a description of behaviour).

The Court Of Appeal allowed itself to be duped, but ordered a retrial after quashing Challen’s murder conviction. Instead of a retrial though, after her plea of guilty to manslaughter she was permitted to walk free time served. In the run up to the appeal, her victim was subjected to the same kind of abuse as Trevor Armitage and Thomas Cressman before him. He was said to have raped her and to have controlled her life throughout their thirty year marriage. Challen was supported by her two sons, who curiously had nothing to say at her trial.

Now, Bindel and Wistrich have set their sights on freeing two more women including Fariessia Martin (pictured above with her victim). Martin stabbed her on-off lover Kyle Farrell through the heart in November 2014, and like Jane Andrews claimed initially that some unidentified person was responsible. She was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court the following June, and was given the mandatory life sentence with the somewhat lenient tariff of 13 years. Now, surprise, surprise, we are told she was the victim, that she had been raped by Farrell on several occasions, and that she should have been convicted only of manslaughter.

Normally, the Court Of Appeal will allow fresh evidence only if it is genuinely fresh and if it is worthy of belief, two broad criteria.  Evidence of any abuse she claims to have suffered would not fall into that category because she could have made those claims at the time, but again supposedly fresh psychological evidence is being used to open the door to these new claims. It has also been claimed that Martin was raped by someone else when she was 15, although even if true the relevance of that is…?

This sort of legal abuse needs to be stopped now. In the wake of the 1995 Humphreys appeal, S.W. Greaves wrote to the London Times pointing out that its danger was that from then on, any woman who murdered a spouse (read any man) need only claim to have been provoked in order to avoid the full force of the law. We have long since passed that point. Feminist agitators and liars need to be reined in. Women are entitled to equality under the law, not a free pass for the most heinous of crimes.


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Trump at Davos Challenges Malthusian Agenda

How Michael Bloomberg’s ‘Journalists’ Propagandize for More U.S. Aggressions