A jury had found Conor McGregor guilty of assault

[Cartwrightandson]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyrxl00151o

Nikita had such terrible bruising, a paramedic hasn't seen such extensive bruising, she had to have a tampon removed from her cervix, she's had her house/car attacked, mum threatened, intruders broke into her home and tried to stab her bf/ threatening her and her bf he tried to pay her off in 2019 for a million, she said no I want justice.

Let’s hope you don’t do a job that relies on reading comprehension, eh? Or did you just read the first sentence of what I wrote and decide you didn’t need to go any further?

For the avoidance of doubt, I think he shouldn’t be allowed within a million miles of those children. It worries me what they’re seeing, what they’re learning and what they’re growing up to think of as normal. I think the best thing in the world would be if she left him, moved away with the children and kept them far away from him and his associates. However, I understand that having lots of money means that you can afford very expensive lawyers. I also know that men like that tend to see their family as their possession and that the family courts regularly allow abusive men to have contact and custody of their victims, even without the expensive lawyers.

So ask yourself this question. If you wanted to leave a relationship with an abusive man but you were aware that he would probably have your children alone for a substantial amount of the time, and he’d also be likely to be very angry with you for having the temerity to leave him, would you go? Or would you think that he would probably do less damage to the children if you were at home looking after them while he was doing whatever he does away from the home? You could wave him off, telling him to go and have fun, and hopefully shield them from far, far more than you’d be able to shield them from if you left and had to hand them over to him every weekend.

Are you getting it now?

Condescending much, 🙄

How does Dee live with him? Her eyes look hollow. At best, he's admitted to coke fuelled rough sex so unfaithful. At worst, he's a rapist. Surely social services should get involved.

Well, yes… exactly what response did you expect? You made an incorrect and fucking insulting assumption because you couldn’t be bothered to read what I’d actually said in any of the dozen or so posts I’d said it in. Now I’m not expecting you to devour the words of a random poster, but if you’re going to suggest that their morals and care for children is that askew, then it might be an idea to at least have a vague understanding of what they’ve actually said.

Or did you expect me to apologise to you because you hadn’t understood it?

Social services don’t remove children from rapists or abusers.

Mmmmm ... MMA (mixed martial arts) seems to be the stuff of grown male 'dinosaurs'. People who get a mind trip out of MMA, boxing or other legally-sanctioned 'olde worlde' thuggery seem to have a few cans short of a six pack in the cranium department.

Women, girls and men of real substance do not need them and their crazy chest-beating and patriarchal denial.

They deifinyely would look into it, if he ever hits dee.

Absolute scumbag and I hope he dies in agony.

If she's that much of a battered, abused, and/or controlled woman, then her being in the house with them and him makes absolutely zero difference. You can't 'shield' your children from an abusive professional fighter if you're abused and controlled by him, to the point that you feel you 'have to stay' to protect the children. That's complete fucking nonsense.

If he's all that, he's going to bring them up as he pleases regardless of her presence, so it's all a bit of a nonsensical, silly lame excuse.

If he is all of this, then the children are better off living with her, away from him. Much better, with supervised or limited visitation, which is what she should be aiming for.

IF he is all this, the reason she is staying is purely selfish. Whether that's financial, or just pure fear based. Even if the latter, which is quite possible, it is selfish to make your children endure an abusive home, because you, as an adult have fear. Supposing all this scenario is true, imagine how fucking fearful the poor kids are.

But of course, we're all just guessing at the home life here. I can absolutely believe at the very least he is a cunt to women - that doesn't make him an abuser of children and as far as I'm aware, there's been nothing to suggest this. As usual on mumsnet, everybody gets carried away with the lynching, despite the fact we don't need to make up child abuse and domestic violence - rape is plenty bad enough and really is the only fact here that we know so far.

As an aside, a user pages back suggested McGregor tried to settlefor 1 million and Hand refused - I'd really love to see a source for that, because it's the first mention I've seen, and is pretty damning if that's an actual true report, and not some rumour.

For everyone criticising his partner, i imagine she's long suffering. She is likely to be a victim of him too. It would be very difficult for her to leave such a powerful violent man if she wanted to. The whole family is dodgy and involved in violent crime. She couldn't get away easily, she'll be likely with him until he says so. Fucking scumbag he is.

The amount of rape apologist comments I've read online about this case is unbelievable. All the "she was asking for it", "she drank alcohol and took cocaine", "she knew he had a partner", "why was she there if she had a partner", etc. ad nauseum. I'm utterly disgusted by what I've read, particularly as a lot of the comments were written by women. What part of "no means no" do people not understand? I don't care if she was pissed as a fart and high as a kite - she said no and tried to fight him off (and had the injuries to prove it). That's rape and that's all there is to it!

I agree.
She looks like a broken scared woman.

He and his circle are utter scum.

It's also difficult to leave a man when you have kids as we all know.

It's not impossible.

But the thought of likely separation from your kids 50/50, if you leave, keeps people with their partners.

This.

No wonder it's extremely difficult to get a rape conviction with so many rape apologists around. No wonder so many women don't report.

This is a weird and untrue comment

I think you read it wrong.

I think she meant that social services won't remove children from a man who has raped another woman, or who has assaulted another woman.

Like in the case of conor mcgregor. Social services won't be going to his door.

However if dee said to social services that he raped or assaulted HER then social services would look into it.

He is probably a street devil and a house angel. A pussycat with family, and a thug elsewhere. Who knows?

But I'd be terrified of him, one way or another.

@Toenailz

I refer you to my comment made yesterday at 20:38. I cannot be bothered to explain it, yet again, to someone who can’t be bothered to RTFT.

It is a comment I’ve made because if reading what happens in family courts.

For example, the little girl, Sara Sharif, recently repeatedly battered and then killed by her father, was put in her father’s custody though he was reported as having abused her birth mother.

Mothers who try to report abusive husbands can be accused of lying and causing the children ‘parental alienation’ from the other parent.

One of the girls raped by one of the Rotherham men, had a son as a result of the rape. Social services put the father, who was in prison, in touch with him. Apparently it is the child’s right to see their other parent, but in fact in practice it works tge other way and is called ‘Parental Rights & Responsibilities and speaks if the parent’s rights over the child.

This, published in February of this year, is a special study on the effects of dealing with family courts both on health, and the outcomes leaving children vulnerable to an abusive parent.

“Child Custody and Litigation Abuse
Health-related experiences of family court and domestic abuse in England: A looming public health crisis”
Excerpt:
^Abusive fathers may use legal proceedings in England as a weapon to continue abuse and control (Barnett, 2020a, 2020b; Birchall & Choudhry, 2022; Hunter et al., 2020; Katz,
2022).^Hester (2013) highlighted that child protection and public law frameworks require victim-survivor mothers to leave and protect children from perpetrators.
However, within PLP, mothers are expected to support child contact with "good enough" fathers despite these fathers having a history of perpetrating DA and/or DA convictions. This leaves mothers in a "lose-lose" situation.

Excerpt:
^This and global evidence cite inherent biases in favor of fathers' testimonies and that courts are proliferating a "pro-contact approach" (Barnett, 2020b, p. 41) between children and abusers, placing children in harmful contact situations (Barnett, 2014,
2020a, 2020b; Hunter et al., 2020; Khaw et al.,^
2021; Meier, 2020; Spearman et al., 2022).
Allegations of parental alienation (PA) were described in the report as being used systematically to silence and diminish abuse allegations, placing victim-survivors at risk.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26904586.2024.2307609

…………..
5
September
2024
Fathers accused of child sexual abuse given legal access to their alleged victims

Content warning - please note there is distressing content in this press release.*
Nine fathers were given legal access by private family court law proceedings (PLP) to the children they were accused of sexually abusing, according to a qualitative study.
The groundbreaking UKRI funded paper, published in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, was carried out by University of Manchester researchers in partnership with members of SHERA Research Group and The Survivor Family Network.
It is based on the experience of 45 women from across England in PLP who along with some of their children accused the men of abuse, including child sexual abuse (CSA) in nine cases.
A tenth father, a convicted paedophile, had groomed the mother as a child and been convicted of child sex offences but hadn’t yet harmed the child sexually. Other fathers convicted of child sex offences were also given direct access to their children.
Of the 45 studied, fathers were given access in 43 cases.
https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/fathers-accused-of-child-sexual-abuse-given-legal-access-to-their-alleged-victims/

I absolutely did not care for an apology from a patronising woman like you. Do you speak to everyone you encounter in that tone. You must be popular 😁

Your username speaks volumes btw

No, of course I don’t speak to everyone I encounter in that tone. But if I encounter someone who makes completely unfounded and insulting assumptions about me, based on their lack of comprehension, then I probably won’t react with sweetness and light. If you’re used to people just rolling over and accepting your nonsense, then that’s on you.

Now I think we’ve both said enough. I’m not going to continue derailing this thread by bickering with some random whose name I’ll have forgotten in ten minutes. So if you really need the last word, then feel free to have it on me. Otherwise, I wish you a lovely afternoon.

That was in answer to:

@leia24

re:
”ScrollingLeaves · Yesterday 23:18
Social services don’t remove children from rapists or abusers.”

to which @leia24 - Today 09:18
replied
”This is a weird and untrue comment”

It wasn’t a private prosecution. She sued him. People sue people everyday. It isn’t prohibitively expensive and you can get law firms who will do the work and only get paid if you win.

She took a civil case because the dpp wouldn't prosecute , apparently not enough evidence. He's a disgusting creature there are other women who have come forward . His poor partner and kids