When the focus is on a woman's spending rather than a man's violence

The article literally says

last year she confronted her husband, branding him a 'liar' in a series of angry texts, causing McKie, who was a martial arts enthusiast, to flip and kill her with his bare hands.*
I like it when the self styled journalist tells you who they are like that.

This is not rocket surgery.

Indeed, it is not.

Why on earth are you so wound up by the spending habits of a murdered woman?

shkbby

Mmm well 50% of us will always live our lives below the standard of another 50% if you choose to rank humans. That is the outcome of looking at humans as percentiles in that way. I can't really compute that to be an emotionally intelligent way of observing the human race, it tells you more about the observer than it does the observed.

Why wouldn’t I post when I have to constantly correct the falsehoods consistently perpetuated by the least intelligent posters? This is not rocket surgery.

That’s exactly what I said upthread pallisers, but apparently this is just the DM stating facts.

The article literally says

last year she confronted her husband, branding him a 'liar' in a series of angry texts, causing McKie, who was a martial arts enthusiast, to flip and kill her with his bare hands.

She caused him to do it. it couldn't be any clearer.

(and as an aside what on earth does IQ have to do with getting into debt?)

shkrbby

Why have you been banging on for 5 pages about the spending habits of a murdered woman?

The intelligence and cognitive resonance of some people really astounds me sometimes. Then I have to remind myself that half the population has an IQ less than 100. I guess we can all not be intelligent. A bit like taking on, more and more, copious amounts of debt and not expecting some payback.

It's cognitive dissonance, and IQ doesn't work that way. About 70% of the population fall within the "average" intelligence range, which is one standard deviation above and below 100, so between 85-115 is average IQ. "An IQ less than a hundred" doesn't mean a person isn't "intelligent." If you're going to insult people, at least know what your insults mean.

Finally, what do you mean with that last sentence? "Expecting some payback?" People who take on debt outside their means can expect to have the wages garnished, property repossessed, bankruptcy, poor credit, that kind of thing. Not to be murdered.

You keep saying that you don't think that her spending habits justified her husband killing her, and yet you keep going on and on and on about how horrible she was to get into such debt. What's you point with this?

It's a wonder you persist in posting, given your low opinion of other contributors.

The point that you are repeatedly missing is that their spending and debt has got nothing to with the court case and the murder. So, some might ask why some journalists want to concentrate on the spending habits of the victim, rather than on the violence and spending habits of the perpetrator.

At least @Viviennemary get's it.

As for the vile and disgusting insinuation that my sub-text somehow infers that she deserved it. Not least dumb, but you are also utterly reprehensible and repulsive to make such baseless accusations.

Debt is not a method to run a fully functioning, successful family household. Never has been and never will be.

You cannot cast into doubt the emphasis and tone of the article if it succinctly sums up her lifestyle and the subsequent court case. As stated in the court of law:

“The family were in debt as are thousands of others. They were always in debt. There’s never been a time when they weren’t in debt and there was nothing new in September, 2017.There is no question and there can be no question in your minds that they have always lived beyond their means. Always.”

I do see why you thought this as there was a lot of emphasis on the lifestyle and spending in the article. But I just took that as part of the reporting procedure because the spending and lifestyle and the unable to keep up with the debts was what triggered it off so they reported that as factual which it was. That's journalism.

It was the emphasis and tone of the article that’s the problem.

The debt was the trigger (don't know about motive as we don't know it was pre-planned). It doesn't mean she was to blame. If somebody has an affair and they get murdered by their partner of course I wouldn't say it was their fault in any way and they deserved it. That would be horrific. No they didn't but it was the trigger in the other person's mind. Which is why this person has got a hefty prison sentence which was well deserved IMHO. So he was a violent murderer. I didn't read any subtext saying she deserved it.

Whose sub-text?

Shrkbby was the person I was referring to.

She was killed by a violent man. That’s the story. The subtext that she deserved it because .... is just horrific

Whose sub-text? There is nothing in The DM article saying she deserved it.

As VivienneMary has said there 2 separate things.

GreyGauntlet and shrkbby are both conflating the 2.

I did read a bit about this case. And I did wonder where did she think all the money was coming from. But it is still two separate things. He's now a convicted murderer. Plenty of people hide debt from their partners and don't end up murdering them.

@shkrbby you'll find plenty of accounts of financially feckless males on here, some of whom are fathers, shirking their fiduciary duty. Often appallingly so. Not one of them that I've ever seen on any thread on here has ever been murdered for it though. Something to think about.

shkr I’m out. You’re determined to get us to say that this victim played a role in her demise and I am not ever going to agree with that.

She was murdered by her husband. The rest is irrelevant.

There was an Australian family I read about, in which the man of the family had killed his disabled wife and his children. The press couldn’t stop banging on about what a pain this woman was to live with, with her disabilities and bad moods.

Sickening.

I think the GF has had more than enough sport on this thread now and should be ignored.

It is utter nativity to think otherwise.

nativity Ha. I love it when an imperious tone comes complete with, well, this kind of thing.

My DH is useless with money. From the moment we started to live together, he said "You do the money, Lang. I'll just fuck it up and spend it all." Quarter of a century later and he still goes nowhere near the household finances and still says "Is there enough for me to get this?" if whatever he wants to buy costs more than about £50. We could very, very easily be up to our necks in debt (we aren't, we have no debt, thanks to me running the finances!) and he would know nothing at all about it.