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

I've just looked at the instagram (morbid I know!)

Obviously she totally deserved to be killed by her abusive husband because???? Is it the carpet? Is it the choice of boring wall colour?

What exactly about her social media accounts is it that demonstrates that she absolutely got what was coming to her?

Yes. And through those comments, she could be perceived as a somewhat materialistic person, in my opinion.

But that is neither here nor there, is it?

Just to clarify, although it was their renovation project, it was quite clearly her Instagram feed and her comments.

Actually I’ve just looked at the Instagram feed and the only comment I have to make is that the last picture was posted 2 days before she died, which I just find quite chilling.

@MrsMaisel I am sorry but it was up to the jury, once presented with all facts and financial figures, to find motive, not an online kangaroo court. In your case, your motive for him, was not found.

I have not looked at their Instagram feed, no, because it is of no interest or relevance.

I would like to ask the posters on here if they have digested through the Instagram account of their renovation project?

www.instagram.com/burford_home/

I don't think she's being intentionally thick, no.

The point shkrbby is he had motive. Irrelevant whether it was correctly founded. Are you being intentionally thick?

you are clearly missing the point to my postings entirely lolol

@Popchyk Unfortunately I am going to have to stop responding to you because you are clearly missing the point to my postings entirely, and I certainly do not have the time, nor inclination, to repeat posts until they sink in, fully comprehended. My apologies.

@waterlego I have to agree to your rephrased sentence. It is more succinct than the original, however, I would change your word 'killed' for 'murdered'.

And yy to bored Daily Hate journalist. That’s exactly it. It annoys me that someone can earn a decent wage writing such bollocks. It would be nice if these people gave a shit about the impact of their words, but I don’t think they do. Either that or they are mind-bogglingly dense.

I would rehash the sentence thus:

Mrs McKie....confronted her husband over the debt, and an argument ensued, during which McKie killed her.

Well, you don't need to criticise his social media.

In exactly the same way that you don't need to criticise hers.

If you offered a balance between the two social media presences then it would be one thing (still utter nonsense, of course). But you're not.

You are choosing to focus on her and her perceived shortcomings (based entirely on judging her social media content), and not him.

You are demonstrating exactly what is wrong with the original article, although I don't think you are quite aware of that.

No I don't believe that in this instance that it is appropriating blame. For all we know this article was written by a bored, tired, poorly paid Daily Hate lackey who simply copy and pasted the defence verbatim. Incidentally how would you rehash the sentence?

Why do I need to criticise his social media content when he is already guilty in my eyes and under a court of law? Again I refer you to the raison d'être of my posting.

Blame, not balm 😬

Does the use of the word ‘causing’ not sound like apportioning balm to you, shkrbby?

Because you haven't criticised his social media posts, shkrbby.

Only hers.

@Popchyk please try to keep the debate civil.

It would also be interesting if you could detail how you believe he is exonerated, while she is damned.

readers of the daily mail have to take some accountability too - I remember all the articles on Mugabe and the focus was on what his wife had spent money on, it's awful that this is of interest to anyone given the many acts of violence by the Mugabe regime.

The headline there should've been 'surprising news: violent tyrannical dictators also allow govt funds to be misused on extravagant shoe purchases' - the emphasis is in the wrong place, always.

And don't get me started on how Cherie Blair was hounded about her clothes, what she spends money on, etc.

I've already clearly stated above what I believe should happen to him, and I've also outlined the purpose of my postings. I will not be reiterating this to anyone on here who has trouble in the reasoning and comprehension departments.

In a murder trial I can assure you that what someone "probably figured" and what they "actually achieved" is closely scrutinised. This is not a kangaroo court or mob justice scenario.

"What did you glean from Darren McKie's social media?"

So the answer is nothing. Which, of course, exonerates him. And damns her.

It is an interesting experiment of Trial By Instagram Conducted By Thickos though. Channel 5 should do a programme.

It's been reported pretty fairly on our local news (NW) but that articlear is typical Daily Mail misogyny. That he could claim it was manslaughter is unbelievable. He tried to get rid of her body FGS! She seems to disappear as a person in any reports. I would take his assertion that it was the first time he was violent with a serious pinch of salt!!

It’s a disgusting article. All the focus is on the spending, which is totally irrelevant, regardless of who was doing the spending, and regardless of who knew about the spending.

The article tells us that ‘Mrs McKie....confronted her husband, branding him a ‘liar’...causing McKie to flip and kill her with his bare hands’

Causing

It’s there in black and white. She caused her husband to murder her. It was her fault.