20 October 2006
A woman with a long history of crying rape who sent an innocent man to jail was named in Parliament amid calls for a change in the law.
Shannon Taylor was unmasked by a peer who told the House of Lords her lies had put father-of-two Warren Blackwell behind bars for more than three years.
Lord Campbell-Savours used Parliamentary privilege to expose her identity and lambast the ‘shabby’ police investigation that saw Mr Blackwell imprisoned.
The Daily Mail led calls for her identity to be revealed before she put another innocent man through torment.
Yesterday, Lord Campbell-Savours – said to be motivated by ‘outrage’ at the case – stood up and publicly did so.
He asked fellow peers: “Is not the inevitable consequence of the workings of the law, as currently framed, that we will carry on imprisoning innocent people like Warren Blackwell, who was falsely accused by a serial and repeated liar, Shannon Taylor, with a history of false accusations and multiple identities?
Yesterday, a friend of 63-year-old Lord Campbell-Savours explained why he decided to speak out.
He said: “He named her because he was outraged. He doesn’t think it’s got anything to do with the issue of rape, he thinks it’s an issue of perjury.
“This woman made up the story and told lies and he can’t see why a person who has perjured themselves should be protected, irrespective of the type of offence.
Good on him. About time a bit of sense crept in to government concerning the excessive pampering women get when it comes to their almost complete immunity from prosecution or even being identified when they lie about rape.
Of course, it’s all a bit too late for many men whose lives have been ruined already.
No doubt some womyn’s group will condemn all of this, arguing that it will somehow put off “victims” from coming forwards, because, as we all know, womyn’s groups – and most of society – put a man’s right to any form of justice far, far below a woman’s right to be believed automatically.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:19 PM
At 6:03 PM, nevo said…
I apologise for this off topic article, I think every men should read it.
The principle of gene-by-gene comparison [between species] remains a powerful one, and just a year ago geneticists got hold of a long-awaited tool for making those comparisons in bulk. Although the news was largely overshadowed by the impact of Hurricane Katrina…the publication of a rough draft of the chimp genome in the journal Nature immediately told scientists several important things. First they learned that overall, the sequences of base pairs that make up both species’ [i.e., humans and chimps] genomes differ by 1.23% — a ringing confirmation of the 1970 estimates — and that the most striking divergence between them occurs, intriguingly, in the Y chromosome, present only in males.
It seems to me, reading about the scientist findings, the 1.23% difference is mostly found in the male gene, women are nearer to our ape relatives than men and that evolutionary forces has endowed men with a slight advance over women in the evolutionary race.
That may explain why feminists can only ape man’s behaviour.
At 6:05 PM, unpleasant bitter git said…
I read the Daily Mail feature and this is the bit that really caught my attention:
“Mr Justice Tugendhat admitted that similar tragic cases could follow because of the lies of the ‘Miss A’, adding that Parliament had not seemed to have considered this possibility when framing the law.”
Consider the possibility that women can lie???
That’s just not possible because women never lie. I know this is true because feminists told me so.
Just think of the wages these tosspot Judges and law makers “earn”.
At 6:32 PM, Anonymous said…
Not only should she have been outed, but she should go on a sexual predator notification list. She preys on men by screaming sexual assault. Wherever she moves and whenever she enters a pub her presence should be known and (by law) announced for public safety. What’s good for the goose…
At 6:52 PM, ditchthebitch said…
I was trying to debate this topic with a coven of Femarroids on a message board last night. The responses from the women was so typical- typical in their bizarreness and total disconnect from reality. I really can’t figure it out… can someone explain to me, what is it? I can’t tell if these women are slobbering idiots, insane, being sarcastic, or what. It seems their psychotic ‘rationales’ are sincere, but I can never tell. Their advice? Never go out with a woman ‘who would do something like that.’ Whaaa….? How in the HELL would any guy know when and if ANY woman would ever do something like falsely accuse a man of rape? Women are all so bizarre and screwy and never let their intentions be known anyway. Plus, you could know a woman for YEARS and she could still do something like this because the wind was blowing through her head in a different direction one day. Women do most of what they do out of spite anyway, which is why I recommend no man ever get themselves involved in a serious dispute with a woman over ANYTHING.
At 8:52 PM, nevo said…
My ex, under the advice of her solicitors ( a woman I believe)had written in the petition, outright lies.
At the date of pronouncement, I showed up in court to complain about my wife committing perjury.
The courts just ignored me. It was like talking to the walls.
I went back home feeling shaken and aggrieved.
I am still struggling to overcome my sense of unjustice, especially today when my solicitors reminded me I should be completely honest with the courts.
At the time I didn’t know whether I should wring his neck or just piss myself laughing about it.
At 9:12 PM, Anonymous said…
I was trying to debate this topic with a coven of Femarroids on a message board last night. The responses from the women was so typical- typical in their bizarreness and total disconnect from reality.
Hold the same debate, but talk about a man acting that way. Write his name is ‘Chris’.
The fembots won’t be able to unsheathe their knives fast enough.
After about 100 posts of screaming bloodlust interrupt the orgy of hate and announce you made a mistake.
‘Chris’ is actually female.
At 9:21 PM, Anonymous said…
Plus, you could know a woman for YEARS and she could still do something like this because the wind was blowing through her head in a different direction one day. Women do most of what they do out of spite anyway, which is why I recommend no man ever get themselves involved in a serious dispute with a woman over ANYTHING.
Yes, it’s best to always avoid women. Certainly NEVER live with one (esp these days). 10,000 years of experience with the female psyche led to the creation of a refined Patriarchy to control them. Our forefathers clearly had GOOD REASONS for attempting to control women. As is becoming all to clear…
Since the 1970s, removing the controls on women, has been like letting a pack of wild dogs loose to shit all over our lawns, streets, and sidewalks.
At 1:05 AM, MS said…
“I was trying to debate this topic with a coven of Femarroids on a message board last night. …Their advice? Never go out with a woman ‘who would do something like that.'”
There are two faults with their argument:
1. It presupposes that you COULD know her true nature, even when the police and the entire criminal justice system, with the vastly greater resources at their disposal, and with a far, far deeper investigation than is reasonable or even possible for a private citizen doing a pre-date background check, could not.
2. Worse, the assumption that you could have known, yet went anyway, implies consent on your part to what happens afterwards, and/or a negligent or cavalier disregard for your own personal safety. Therefore it’s your fault. Unfortunately, by the exact same logic, date rape would be the woman’s fault or is impossible because she consented by going on the date. Further, applying the same logic to a longer time period, fault would also rest with the woman for domestic abuse, infidelity, spousal murder etc. etc. Finally, using the same logic again but a slight extension to the chain of causality, finds us arresting as an accessory to child abuse, any woman whose child is ever abused by anyone she dates, since again, she could have known and is thus complicit or negligent.
What’s good for the gander is good for the goose; the advice these women gave you relies on logic that is good for neither.