Woman found guilty of defamation for describing her exh's DV

[Bluestitch]

He put his hands round her throat. But the judge decided he was only trying to silence her, not kill her so she shouldn't have used the term 'strangled'. And she has also been suffering cancer during this legal battle. She's taking it to the Supreme Court, good for her.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/23/woman-found-have-defamed-ex-husband-facebook-takes-fight-supreme/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

And one asking if people are attending the protest:

Anyone in London tomorrow morning? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3487793-Anyone-in-London-tomorrow-morning

It makes me so angry reading this.
That judge is wrong and needs removing.

This is so appalling.

The irony is that now he really is trying to silence her. I wonder what woman could ever seriously look at this man again. I wonder wa t his child will think of him.

If anyone wants to follow the case live.

www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Thanks for that link Bluestitch. Watching now.

It's not an easy listen tbh. I understand it has to be that way but there's something unpleasant seeing men discussing technicalities over a woman having a man's hands round her neck.

Unbelievable, I cannot imagine we have come to this when this man is able to do this further harm to the mother of his son. If I was his child I would cut contact with him. Utterly evil.

Yes, I've just watched two posh white men politely argue the toss about the meaning of "strangle", neither of them denying that the XH was arrested for putting his hands around his XW's neck and squeezing.

There are truly some dicks in the justice system

And the woman who is listening to it all (judge?) just laughed at some comment. This is fucking farce!

But the judge decided he was only trying to silence her, not kill her so she shouldn't have used the term 'strangled'.

So that would be alright then, for a man to try to silence his female partner by any means he deems necessary? And this judge feels that the law should reflect this, or already does?

Sometimes I wonder what skeletons are lurking in the closets of many prominent members of the judiciary.

Maybe there's an island in the Hebrides we could build houses on, Dangermouse.

I can't believe this ever even came to court.

Oh god what an awful thing to go through for that lady. Tbh I’m glad she’s pushing it because it’s highlighting even more what a horrible man her dh appears to be.
The way the courts speak of this is like were in an 18th century legal text book. Not a modern day court where women are apparently ‘equal’.

I mean, if we're going to nit-pick, this is libel too:

"Nicola Stocker accused her husband of trying to strangle her during an exchange with her husband’s new lover"

Metro

I mean, that didn't happen, did it? The strangling didn't take place during the exchange with the new lover. And those are professional journalists writing that caption.

But we're picking over the meaning of the word "strangle" as used on Facebook by a DV victim who was actually, you know, strangled.

I would think that the burden ought to be put on the perpetrator not to put his hands round someone's neck if they don't want their intentions to be misinterpreted. Isn't there some kind of reasonable belief defence to this?

I mean could you imagine this case happening with a stabbing or shooting victim? 'He tried to kill me'. No he only intended to injure you. FFS.

Is it Lundy Bancroft or some other author who said that if a man puts his hands around your neck you should assume he means to kill you?

Mr Justice Mitting said the comments wrongly painted him as a "dangerous and thoroughly disreputable man".

That's how the previous judge's ruling has been reported. It would be comical if it weren't so deadly serious.

I wonder what constitute's "disreputable" in these old men's eyes if strangling your wife does not?

I wonder what constitute's "disreputable" in these old men's eyes if strangling your wife does not?

Being poor.

Yes. Nice ties, chaps.

I'm seeing lots of comments about Mitting. Apparently he's overseeing the spycops case and is a known misogynist. Maybe we should be able to vote judges out.

Rage has ruined my punctuation there.

I think it's very serious that he's reviewing the spycops case. He really needs to be booted off that one. Does anyone know the mechanics of how these things work - ie, how can we get him removed from that case? Is it a parliamentary matter?

"What I submit is more realistic in the modern era is just to ... go for the right meaning."

Yeah, that would be good.