Thank you for the report Riddley. The march was a huge and sometimes very difficult organising effort by a small group of people. I too was disappointed by the msm's "nothing really happened" reports.

In the end though, the most important thing was a very large group of people (for many it was their first march), I'd agree about 600-700 at its peak, who had a really inspiring and empowering experience. I'm not sure the msm knew quite how to deal with a very large, non-confrontational and well-organised community action. But the people who came certainly did.

So chur!

I'm getting a little frustrated with others (earlier on) pushing the "this is how the system works" line. It does not have to. Things can change for the better. That's what progressiveness in a society is about.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do not see why, at least in rape cases, there cannot be legislative change. It seems simple and fair to me that if a rape-victim must have her entire history trawled through by wealthy, morally-redundant QC's, the same should apply for the defendant. I'm not saying that previous convictions should be part of most trials; I see good reason why they should not.

But with rape cases relying often purely on "He said, she said", and add to that an incredibly sexist and patriarchal legal system, I see no good reason why a person facing rape charges, currently in jail for rape (of a very similar nature), should have that (rather crucial fact) suppressed.

There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath-water here, but serious reform to our legal system is plainly necessary. Comments such as "the legal system is like this, has always been like this, and should always be like this" is hardly a rational (let alone a moral) argument.
max