Misandrist claptrap in “masquerading as news” shocker…

I couldn’t help being drawn to this story in the Torygiraffe.


Neighbours of the former partner of Rebecca Minnock, who is on the run with her three-year-old son, have called for her to be given custody of her child.

The group of residents living near Roger Williams claimed he should not be handed Ethan full time.

They said he should stay with his 35-year-old mother, who has not been seen since May 27 when she fled with him amid a bitter custody battle.

A group of seven residents has written an open letter calling for the custody of the child to remain with his mother.

The group has criticised the "unfair" custody battle, which left Miss Minnock with no right to see her son and say she "has been served an unforgivable injustice".

Neighbour and friend Jan Worgan, 76, has known Mr Williams for "at least 15 years" and Miss Minnock since the beginning of their relationship.

She said: "Rebecca is a lovely person and she proved to be a very good mother. She is there trying to look after her boy and she’s being hunted down like an animal."

A close friend of Miss Minnock, who wished to remain anonymous said: "She’s a lovely girl and Ethan was always happy. She’s been let down.

"A mother takes care of their child from the moment they are born. Rebecca did nothing wrong as a mother or partner and the child should stay with her."

Next door neighbour Dorothy Wynne, 76, who has lived in Ramsay Way for more than 25 years, said: "Ethan is a lovely little boy. He used to love playing with my flowers and leaving stones on my doorstep. Becky never left him. She used to take him down the park.

"She was an awfully good mum. She looked after him beautifully."

With it so far? I think you’ll agree that’s a coterie of fine citizens, standing up for a good mother who is being shafted by the system.

But wait… Here comes the important bit.

Miss Minnock fled her home more than two weeks ago after judges ruled Ethan should live with his father.

She took off after it was ruled she was obstructing access to her son after she made "false" allegations about his father.

Miss Minnock said she had lost "all faith in the system" and her family revealed she would lose Ethan forever if she returned.

That puts things in a slightly different light than the first 75% of the article, does it not? In fact, they seem to have left the MOST IMPORTANT FACTS OF THE STORY towards the bottom, after the glowing tributes to this woman.

A woman who has absconded with her child, away from the courts and from the child’s father, having been found out by the court making “false” (read MALICIOUS) allegations about the child’s father, in pursuit of custody of the child.

Miss Minnock cries that she has lost all faith in the system, after she has been found out for LYING to the system, and the system responding accordingly.

Just what kind of spoilt, deluded bitch is this woman?

If we click through to that last link we find that

Miss Minnock said she felt "trapped" after the judge’s ruling.

She said in a telephone interview with the Sun newspaper: "I just lost all trust and faith in the system completely.

"I just couldn’t bear to leave my son. I just felt trapped.

"I know I’m going to be in a huge, huge amount of trouble.

"I’ve even got family members into trouble but it’s my son and I need to put him first over myself or anybody else."

Woah there, Missy.

The child is not just YOUR son… he is also HIS FATHER’S SON.

You know… the father to whom the court awarded custody, after you were deemed unreliable and/or untrustworthy by the court. In response to which, you acted in a deeply unreliable and untrustworthy manner by absconding into hiding with the child, when the proper thing to do would have been to fight the decision through the courts, the same as any responsible father has to do when a custody decision goes against him – something that is 10x more likely to happen to a father than to a mother.

So, Miss Minnock, Just. Fuck. Off.

You know, by the way, that with the slant of this piece, if there were a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the child’s father is not a suitable parent in any way at all, that information would at least have been alluded to in the article. After all,  it’s not as if the father is some kind of drug-addled criminal degenerate, looking at him.


So, enjoy prison when you get back, and quite possibly never seeing your son again, on account of your reckless, moronic, spiteful actions. You have brought it on yourself, and the consequences for your son will be unpleasant for him, and it’s ALL YOUR FAULT, Miss Minnock, you spoilt over-entitled kidult.

There are many ways in which this story is a tragedy, but there is one way in which it is not. In front of a different judge, it is quite likely that true injustice would have been served, and this ever so responsible, stable and trustworthy mother would have been awarded full custody, and the father locked out of the child’s life, all except the thousands of pounds that would have been extracted from him.

It’s almost as if justice is prevailing here, against all the odds.

I do have one thing that I can’t figure out though… on what basis have all these neighbours corralled to support this woman and set themselves against this father, who has been their neighbour for 15 years? Just WTF is going on there?

Ho hum.


UPDATE: Via @ObtuseMusings on Twitter, we have the summary judgements of the court hearings this week on the matter. Worthwhile reading for more background.


Well Worried about Everything

A while back I wrote this as a kind of placeholder until I got around to properly addressing the subject. I never quite got around to doing so.

Now, however, there’s no need for me to write anything, because Spiked have perfectly articulated my thoughts on the topic of Awareness Raising and the consequences thereof.


Why is rape special?

Help me out here, because I think I must be missing something.

I ask because of this:


Now, I’m not a lawyer (as should be obvious, really), and I labour under the (possibly false) assumption that those accused of a crime are, before the law, innocent until proven guilty.

This is why, in criminal cases, there is a burden of proof placed upon the prosecution – the defendant must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Blackstone’s formulation says that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

There are a number of things that I don’t understand about the claim that this new initiative represents “a move into the 21st century”:

The naive interpretation of this “move into the 21st century” would be that this is “progress”. I don’t see the voilation of Blackstone’s formulation as progress. Perhaps this “move into the 21st century” is just that. The direction in which this move takes us seems not to be forward to a more just system, but backwards into a less just one. Have I got this wrong?

More widely, and to come back to my titular question, why is rape special?

I’m not trying to trivialise rape – it’s is an incredibly serious offence, with potentially lifelong effects on the victim, depending on the nature of the event and the demeanour, resources and resilience or otherwise of the victim.

But I am questioning whether it’s special in so far as the victims of this crime are entitled to any rights which are not afforded to victims of a burglary, mugging, serious assault or other life changing infringements on the person or their property.

More importantly, in recognition of Blackstone, I question whether those accused of rape are to be stripped of the rights and protections afforded to those accused of burglary, mugging, serious assaults or murder?

Consider the person facially disfigured by a knife attack, rendering them unattractive and more limited in their opportunities to find as good a quality of life partner as previously. Or an assault rendering a person unable to start a family should they wish to. Or someone whose arm, leg, neck or back is broken by criminal act whose career and/or hobbies are curtailed.

Consider the physical, emotional, financial and social costs of these consequences of violent crimes.

Then I ask if this is the thin end of the wedge of justice denied. After all, if the undermining of hundreds of years of principles of criminal jurisprudence yields perceived benefits for the victims of rape, why would those benefits not be extended to the victims of the other crimes I mention above?

What are the chances that this special privilege will only ever be afforded to the victims of rape?

I can only see this whole thing as a terribly retrograde step away from true justice, and I hope it is duly dismissed as utterly incompatible with the principles of a free and fair society.

Any thoughts?


UPDATE: Words elsewhere

Breitbart.com: The New Rape Rules Which Will Infantilise Women and Criminalise Men

Imagur: UK: if you act “normal and reasonable” after a sexual encounter, it could be used against you as evidence of rape.

Guardian: Rapists use social media to cover their tracks, police warned

This room has an elephant in it…

This from the Tellygiraffe…


Quite apart from the loaded question and the “numbers don’t lie” bollocks (damned statistics), there’s a very significant thing that this otherwise fairly comprehensive article completely fails to mention.

There is a politically driven effort in the UK justice system, to keep female offenders out of prison.


The end of days…

You think you’ve seen it all. All of the brainless, scaremongering, hypochondriac horseshit that man can possible conceive of.

But you hadn’t counted on the Daily Mail.


The only question is.. how are they going to top this?

How hydrogenated water is making you fat?

The iron in your blood is leaving you susceptible to leukaemia from the earth’s magnetic field?

Anyway, this can only mean one thing.


Fuck’s sake.

By way of a silver lining, I’ll be sure to throw this into any arguments about passive smoking.


UPDATE: A perhaps more measured and sensible discussion of the “issue’’ can be found here.

Story of conformism and fuckwittery

Here’s a controversial one…


Honestly, in spite of everything I’ve written, said or implied before, I don’t think this story is about Islam.

It’s about 2 things:

1) A total arsehole

2) Stupidity and conformism

The total arsehole is obviously the bloke who wouldn’t interrupt his sky pixie conversation to help a woman who was in need of his medical care. The sad thing is he can’t be sacked for his negligence, because sky pixie.

The stupidity and conformism are two-fold. The first is the sky pixie wallah, but the second is key:

Mrs Shaw, who broke down and wept in the witness box, said she would have called an ambulance immediately after the fall but had only since discovered that staff could override a nurses’ decision.

I… err…  really?

Why, even if you had doubts, would you hesitate?

Idiot mindless conformism kills.


We’re all going on an ummah holiday…






Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers

%d bloggers like this: