To be surprised the lady that stabbed the paedophile got 3 and a half years?

[m1nniedriver]

Just that really. I thought she would get longer. The world is a better place without him but still .... She murdered him.

We don't know exactly what happened with the knife. She lost control. Maybe she lost control for the entire 15 minutes she grabbed the knife and ran off to his house. Maybe she went to his house, was provoked, lost control, ran out and got a knife and returned. as other posters have pointed out the judge and jury heard the case and they believe it wasn't premeditated- how can we disagree?

In any case, lush, I'm staggered that a number of people in here are actively celebrating what she did, rather than seeing it as the all round sad story that it is.

When notorious criminals come to harm in prison there are always outcries from the victims who state that an early death has made their pain worse not better because real justice hasn't been served.

Regardless wannaBe, you DO NOT know whether kiling him has contributed to the suffering of the children she sought to protect rather than alleviating it as a whole. You just don't. So you need to not label it as a fact when you've no idea if it is or not. To do anything else is presuming to speak for the victims.

The upset caused to five children being separated from their mother for potentially three years is a certainty. Nobody can say for sure that there would be more upset caused by putting this man on trial and making him serve a sentence in accordance with the law. In fact the asssumption that his death has in fact caused less suffering is a dangerous road to go down, because it takes away the need for proper justice.

And yet you apparently think it's fine to not only assume that it caused more suffering, but state this as fact.

We don't know exactly what happened with the knife. She lost control. Maybe she lost control for the entire 15 minutes she grabbed the knife and ran off to his house. Maybe she went to his house, was provoked, lost control, ran out and got a knife and returned. as other posters have pointed out the judge and jury heard the case and they believe it wasn't premeditated- how can we disagree?

The jury never found OJ Simpson guilty either.

She got an obvious plea bargain because the man was a pedophile with a record. If this man was some random old dude with nothing but an accusation from those boys, she'd be locked up just as the people who killed that other accused guy accused of being a pedo should be.

But if "losing control" is a good excuse to lighten the sentence, then perhaps we should let off all domestic abusers since they "lost control" while beating their partners? Or rapists who "lost control" while raping a woman, since it was heat of the moment? It's not their fault is it? Either losing control is a valid excuse or it's not.

Unless she had a seizure which forced her limbs through no fault of her own to stab him multiple times, she did not lose control. She chose to stab him.

Sigh. Senpai, I'll repost. Loss of control assumes there is a qualifying trigger which needs to meet the qualifying criteria:

^the defendant’s loss of self-control was attributable to the defendant’s fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another person or,
the defendant’s loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which:
(a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
(b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged or

Furthermore a fact that a thing said or done constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.^

So it would not cover domestic abuse. It would probably cover a mother who discovered her child had been sexually abused by their father, but it wouldn't cover a father killing a cheating wife or one who hadn't got his dinner on the table on time.

It's the matter of provocation and the law is very clear that it has to be an extreme provocation. Suggestions it could be used for domestic abusers are nonsense.

NB: We don't do plea bargains in this country.

That's not the way the courts work in this country.

I've seen no reports of her going "threateningly" with a knife either.

Loss of control has been used successfully as a defence in the past. If someone goads another person into commiting an act, that's a point in law. Hasn't a woman been executed this week for persuading another person to kill?

That's why we have trials, judges and juries to listen to the evidence and decide if the defendant has a legitimate case.

Can I just point out we don't have plea bargains. The defence can put forward a partial defence of manslaughter due to loss of control.

This was not a plea bargain but was accepted by both the Judge and Jury. We also are not aware of whether the loss of control was before she left the house with the knife or when she was at the door, so speculation is useless.

Interestingly the CPS prosecutor agreed with the decision and confirmed they wouldn't be appealing this decision. That hints that her manslaughter conviction was credible and strong - otherwise the CPS would have rights to appeal if they felt the decision was incorrect in either fact or law.

From this conversation thread another poster who did not like what he was hearing on here or where this thread was going, decided to start a new thread which has now been suspended called
'is it a crime to be a paedophile?' and now I can see that the same posters defending the murdered 'victim' on here and his untimely ending, were the same ones on there and trying to convince us all that we should be more 'supportive' of paedophiles....

What does that tell you?

There is plenty of support alive and well, and definitely kicking for child abusers and paedophiles it seems on the internet and are happy to come onto MN and force their views, and some of them seem to have clubbed together on this occasion, and I thought it would be worth warning posters on here of the situation.

The last conversation ended with abuse survivors being seriously undermined. It was probably the worst thread I have ever read.

as an abuse survivor I don't condone her actions at all - I am very glad my mum did not kill my abuser - I would have a) felt like I was responsible for his death and b) lost me mum

she's not a hero - it's just sad

Maybe her children will feel proud, Ghosty, if they have been abused or hurt maybe they will actually feel relieved he is not around anymore to hurt them.

I am sure she is a local hero and will be out soon, I can not think of a single mother of the 26 convictions he has who will be mourning his death.

I do not condone taking the law into your own hands, but we have no idea about the circumstances, so we will have to hold fire with any verdict. I am sure she will tell her story one day.

oh and that thread was 'to think being a paedophile isn't a crime' and it's not suspended any more

lot's of your posts where deleted though

maybe her children are scared, motherless and wishing they had never spoken up? you don't know and neither do I

I would never had told a soul if I had thought it would lead to his death - I would have stayed silent forever :(

Would you like children of abuse to stay silent forever Ghosty?

Would you like children of abuse to stay silent forever Ghosty no that's why I set up and ran 2 incests survivors groups and worked for rape crisis for 6 years

what have you done to help other than blather on about peados online ?

I am not sure why, if you are running survivors groups that you should say that victims of abuse should/would keep quiet forever if they knew the consequences? This seems to be a confused message. Surely the survivors in your groups have all spoken out, and assuming they are with you for support and some of those would have had just as difficult outcomes as the children connected to this case? So where does that leave your comment about children staying silent forever in fear of consequences?

Children must always come forward, regardless of consequences Ghosty, otherwise the abuse would NEVER stop, surely you would agree with that?

I never said the should - you obviously find it difficult to follow posts - I said I would

You are just illustrating how little you understand the issue

for example if the consequence is death and the abuser is your dad ...

Adults and children who have been abused need to come forward in a way which is safe and protects them - and considers their feelings

Please don't misquote and twist my words - you have accused me of lying about my rape - which is EXACTLY what keeps people silent

Sigh. Senpai, I'll repost. Loss of control assumes there is a qualifying trigger which needs to meet the qualifying criteria

Oh.... I didn't realize it was a legal term. My bad. :)

lilycabbagerocks
From this conversation thread another poster who did not like what he was hearing on here or where this thread was going, decided to start a new thread

Hi, I am not a man and I didn't start that other thread because I didn't like where this post was going or what I was hearing. I started it because I think some people are stupid and can't wrap their little brains around the fact that the words "paedophile" and "child abuser" are not the same.

She's done her community a huge favour. I hope they throw her a huge party when she gets out.

She hasn't accused you of lying about your rape.

"But if "losing control" is a good excuse to lighten the sentence, then perhaps we should let off all domestic abusers since they "lost control" while beating their partners? Or rapists who "lost control" while raping a woman, since it was heat of the moment"

Sorry, neither of those examples are valid as it's well known that most DV attackers and rapists are not losing control, they are exercising control when they attack their victims.

Not a single person me included accused anyone of lying about rape, that is very underhand of you. I simply wondered why you would think it was a good idea to suggest children stay silent forever because of consequences, why should they live in fear and remain being abused.

If that abuser is there father there is no reason to think they would feel any differently, they would still feel frightened and afraid of him.

Ghosty, you have no idea of my background so it is probably best if you do not directly comment me anymore.

Thank you Badger, I of all people, would never do such a thing.

I was simply challenging the thought that children should remain silent for fear of consequences, to me, that sounds very threatening.