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

[GreyGauntlet]

The Daily Mail really knows no bounds of decency. This article implies Leanne McKie was complicit in chasing a lifestyle she and her husband could not afford.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5538401/Inspector-strangled-wife-learned-secret-54-000-loan.html

Tte focus on their spending, rather than his violence is staggering.

How much does a woman have to spend to get murdered then?

What’s the price? Same as a nice granite topped kitchen island? Does that get you karate chopped in the throat then finished off with a throttling?

Just so I can clarify what a woman’s life is worth you see.

I’m suspecting not much, by reading the tabloids.

Just checked the official statistics:

THE AVERAGE TOTAL DEBT PER HOUSEHOLD – INCLUDING MORTGAGES – WAS £57,943

[source: themoneycharity.org.uk/money-statistics/ ]

So this couples spending were on the fringes of the extremities.

Until you answer this question, asked by @beenandgoneandbackagain, all your posts are pointless @shkrbby:

"Could you please explain to those of us who are pondering your repeated comments about her spending what relevance they have to either the trial or the fact that she was murdered? What subtext do you think the media and the defence were trying to create by their mentioning of the spending?"

I have already explained and will not be repeating it again, so to clarify here is a repost:

"I am addressing the posters on here who appear to be under the illusion that she knew nothing about her family finances. My postings have zero to do with seeking mitigation. He should hang."

My stance on the matter is that to get into such debt, at such an extreme extent, she had to know that they were living well beyond their means. It is utter nativity to think otherwise.

The title of this thread sums up most of skrbby's contributions ....

It's not relevant. Your continuous insistence on posting about their finances and the victims knowledge/participation in the debt is exactly what the issue is.

My stance on the matter is that to get into such debt, at such an extreme extent, she had to know that they were living well beyond their means. It is utter nativity to think otherwise.

Let’s pretend the worst for a moment. Pretend she knew, heck let’s pretend she drove the spending willingly.

THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY EXCJSE OR MITIGATE OR GIVE ‘A REASON’ FOR HER VIOLENT HUSBAND TO KARATE CHOP HER IN THE THROAT AND THROTTLE HER TO DEATH

It doesn’t matter if she’d committed the largest fraud in human history. It doesn’t excuse him fucking well murdering her.

And thus her knowledge of, or level of participation in, the loans and the spending is irrelevant.

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

@Hypermice no one said it did. Apart from you.

I will never shirk away from my the truth nor my responsibilities. Unlike some mothers.

What did you mean by this shkr? I can’t see what this post is responding to.

As a young married mother in a relationship you have a duty of care to your children and the relationship. This includes accepting and taking responsibility 50:50 for the family financials with the father. If we allowed ourself or our partners to spend excessively, unearned money no less, enjoying the finer things in life and ended up getting our family into £400,000 debt then we need to accept duplicity and not shirk away blaming it solely on the other partner.

it doesn't matter if she knew the extent of the debt.
He killed her. She's dead. It's all his fault.

She isn't shirking. She can't, because she's dead. Because she challenged him over trying to get another loan out. Which enraged him, and he killed her. What the hell do family financial responsibilities have to do with the violence that is being discussed here? To focus on and give pious little lectures about family finances shows that you, as many do, want to focus on what this woman apparently did wrong rather than on the violence of her killer.

shkr

I also am very financially aware, prudent, and careful.

If I wasn’t, would that make it ok for my husband to kill me with his bare hands?

You are implying that she failed in her financial responsibility to her family? And then....

Whether she was financially irresponsible or not is no excuse for murder. You bringing it up repeatedly insisting that she was spendthrift- it implies you think she deserved it

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.

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

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.

@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.

As a young married mother in a relationship you have a duty of care to your children and the relationship. This includes accepting and taking responsibility 50:50 for the family financials with the father. If we allowed ourself or our partners to spend excessively, unearned money no less, enjoying the finer things in life and ended up getting our family into £400,000 debt then we need to accept duplicity and not shirk away blaming it solely on the other partner.

This is one of the more appalling things I have ever seen on MN. So people with learning difficulties, dyscalculia, poor education, naïveté about financial matters should be aware they might get murdered by their intimate partners.

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.

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.

Whose sub-text?

Shrkbby was the person I was referring to.

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.

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