Words Fail Me.....

[Gettingagrip]

Man kills wife over roast beef dinner

Fair enough I skip yours as well TBF. which is why I addressed the way in which you were presenting your argument (3x"probably", 1x"I'm suspicious of" and 1x "I wonder") rather than the content because as you say life's too short to deal with someone you will never understand.
But would you mind indulging my curiosity seeing as you did address me in your last post what does "MRA stuff" mean?

I find it very odd that he left the scene for 20 minutes. Surely if it was done in the heat of the moment, anybody would immediately call for an ambulance to see if anything could be done? He obviously panicked, but I still find it hard to see how he could leave his wife like that for 20 minutes without seeking help.

haha just found out it means Mens Rights Activists. Brilliant. In a thread where I claim a man should have gotten a longer sentence and criticised the judge for his old boys club speech. You truely are delusional.
I'd actually class myself as a feminist if you must know.

look it up MQ.

I'm afraid I'm not very interested in you squabbling with dittany, but I am interested in this case, which I think is fair enough because someone is killing their wives and partners every week, and this judge seems to be loathe to punish one such killer for his actions.

I am willing to take "i got angry when she asked me to wash up" at face value, more or less, because he is admitting something. I am not willing to take "then she started throwing plates at me" at face value because this is the salient detail that led to this being classed as retaliation, instead of just plain shocking violence. If she threw the plates, many people will (and do) sympathise more with his actions. So excuse me for being cynical and thinking that someone who could be up for murder might lie about the supposed mitigating factors.

He obviously took hurting her, even killing her, lightly. Men do this all the time - that is not an exaggeration. Isn't it fair to say that the kind of blokes who kill their partners perhaps have a less than great attitude to the value of those partners' lives? Maybe they think they own them? If you don't hit your wife round the head, why not?

x post, good you did.

"He obviously took hurting her, even killing her, lightly. Men do this all the time - that is not an exaggeration."

I'm not sure that is obvious. If you believe his version then it doesn't look like he took it lightly. If you don't as you clearly don't then yes it does look like he had a lax attitude to hitting his wife.

"Isn't it fair to say that the kind of blokes who kill their partners perhaps have a less than great attitude to the value of those partners' lives? Maybe they think they own them? If you don't hit your wife round the head, why not?"

On a broader discussion yes it is, obviously anyone who hits their wife doesn't value them and has issues. As for this specific case I'm not sure what your point is because once again it will come down to the same thing as above. If you believe that she was throwing plates at him then you could argue she had similar disdain for his well-being as he did for hers. If you don't believe she threw any plates then yes as above he obviously didn't value her at all.

-"I am not willing to take "then she started throwing plates at me" at face value because this is the salient detail that led to this being classed as retaliation, instead of just plain shocking violence."

Just on this point, have I missed something in the article linked. where does it say this lead to the attack being classed as retalliation? I thought it said his claim of self-defence was rejected? Not trying to be pedantic, genuinely interested as this would be a major fact. I would have thought the reason for not charging murder would be that it would have been almost impossible to get a conviction on such a charge.

ah same old same old on these threads I see. Never mind that the thread has been shown to be in line with other similar crimes where men have died, it's obviously all just a big misogynist conspiracy.

all agreed? good stuff. now, anyone got a good recipe for lemon drizzle cake?

I saw this in the papers.

The sentence and the judge's comments were utterly depressing. Someone earlier said that it was an accident, and there was no history of DV. But we don't know that, and the judge didn't know that. As teh wife is dead. What the judge said was

"That success encompassed what I believe to be a loving and harmonious domestic life.

'That was brought to a tragic end during a tiff between you and your much-loved wife which in many other instances would have caused bruising but in this instance caused her death.?

He added: ?It's an important feature of this case that there's no suggestion of previous domestic violence."

The judge believed that it was a loving and harmonious domestic life. He only has one side of the story. The judge said there was no suggestion of previous DV. Again, he only has one side of teh story.

The fact that he describes an altercation where one person hits another person that hard in teh region of the head, as a tiff, says it all really.

There was anotehr one like this recently wasn't there.

patronising sexism? No, just a reaction to your consistent nonsense pushing I'm afraid.

10/10 for bringing up sexism in response though. Top marks, truly.

Could you have been any more patronising Someguy?

The background of this reaction is that 2 women are killed by men known to them every week, and many many more are victims of terrible DV and other violence and yet once again a judge makes comments which dismiss a terrible physical attack as a minor altercation.

You can't take each individual case in isolation, these things happen in the context of a society where violence against women is often considered understandable, forgivable, justifiable and unimportant. That is why the judge's comments garner a "FFS" response.

bullshit dittany.

I made several arguments here before you turned up, which you chose to ignore, spouting your standard 'women haters' diatribe, insouciant as to the facts or prior posts in the thread.

And then when mayorquimby had the temerity to disagree with you you resorted to your usual insults and ad hominems.

The fact is it's pointless even bothering trying to have a discussion when you're around because you consistently insult and attack your opponents and won't tolerate any dissent from your viewpoints.

You just end up preaching to yourself dittany.

I know you're not stupid and are fully aware that lemon drizzle cake is a mumsnet meme, an uncontroversial subject that I'd much rather be discussing than listening to any more of your shit, having seen that you've got fuck all intention of responding to what I said, because it doesn't fit into your own twisted worldview. I'm not surprised to see you twisting it round and accusing me of sexism though, you couldn't be any more predictable if you tried TBH.

Perhaps dittany meant to type patronising arsehole, is that better than sexist?

in other words 'you're a man, fuck off, your opinions are worthless'.

Daftpunk has been getting shit because she is an 'out and proud' supporter of the neo-nazis. No surprise there.

Standing in my kitchen cooking dinner while I read your snide derision of mayorquimby, what came to mind was that it's pointless arguing with you, and that we'd be better off discussing [uncontroversial concept] than continuing in a thread with your usual 'I'm ignoring you' sentiments.

A point you've since proved very well, by trying to paint me as king of the sexists for saying so.

I'm on here a fair bit and never heard the lemon drizzle cake line before

lemon drizzle cake: www.mumsnet.com/Recipes?call=RecipePage&pid=871&allcomm=allcomm

you really are something else, SG, I meant:

"I've never heard of lemon drizzle cake being an appropriate way to shut down a conversation about the killing of a woman in her own home"

understand now?

are you getting some kind of kick out of this? Insulting and stifling conversation about a) soft porn in full view of children and now b) domestic violence in its most extreme form?

Why not be nice for a change?

No one is saying all man are perverts or killers. Get out from behind the sofa and have a proper grown up conversation for once.

That judge shows clear evidence of social prejudice in his comment on the case:

You're a man of hitherto good character who has led a respectable and successful life. That success encompassed what I believe to be a loving and harmonious domestic life.
...
It's not a case of the sort of yobbish violence in public which is so often a feature of one blow manslaughter cases.

So if a man is socially successful, has a good career and isn't 'yobbish' then killing his wife is forgivable? I wonder... what if this case concerned an unemployed man living on benefits on a rough estate, who had a similarly alcohol-soaked evening and launched a similarly foul-mouthed tirade at the police? I'd say there's a good chance that the judge would have given him the maximum sentence, regardless of the lack of a history of violence in the marriage.