Good luck Harry The Owl

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Court case today.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop

And the jury would have reached the verdict in the NC case, not the judge.

That tweeter appears to be a GC radfem rufflecrow, to be fair to her.

Someone is upset they can no longer freely insult women?

Jury reached the verdict but judge passes sentence, and 3.5 years isn’t anywhere near the maximum for manslaughter - but as a PP says, without access to every piece of evidence and mitigation, we can’t know what the judge heard. So far as I’m aware (but happy to be corrected) there has been no unduly lenient sentence appeal lodged in Natalie’s case?

I have only ever seen that "factual acronym" used with hate and venom by misogynists.

It reminds me of MRA arguments I've seen on the subject of "bitch is a factual description of some women's behavior". Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Excellent point OnlyTheTit
Thank you.

Can you also explain Lady Hale and spider brooches please?

So you know what else is a factual acronym?
WoDHaP

Women don’t have penises!!

So far as I’m aware (but happy to be corrected) there has been no unduly lenient sentence appeal lodged in Natalie’s case?

There was Onlythetitoftheiceberg - I know I sent an email - but the Attorney General did not allow the appeal. John Broadhurst was allowed to appeal to have his sentence reduced but it was refused. However, we shouldn't forget it was the CPS who went for manslaughter, not murder which obviously affected the length of the sentence.

Can you also explain Lady Hale and spider brooches please?

Jumping in here FannyCann as I am excited that I know this. Lady Hale has a collection of insect/spider brooches. She was wearing a spider brooch when she gave the Supreme Court verdict that Boris Johnson gave the Queen the wrong advice about proroguing parliament so lots of people added spider emojis to their social media profiles.

I saw Lady Hale's brooch mentioned on a Brexit thread here, not sure if we were meant to think she's Shelob in disguise or just a witch. And that was when I decided to stop reading the Brexit threads.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/broadhurst-sentencing-remarks.pdf

Paragraphs 8 to 19 are particularly distressing to read. The rest of the remarks also discuss horrible sexual violence.

This is worth noting:

I bear firmly in mind that the offence to which you have pleaded is one of gross negligence manslaughter by leaving Natalie unsupervised at the foot of the stairs without contacting the emergency services in circumstances where there was a risk of death as a result of her condition which would have been obvious to a reasonable and prudent person.

as is this:

The authorities are clear that a person cannot in law consent to being subjected to actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm for the purposes of sexual pleasure, and I reject Mr Vullo’s submissions to the contrary.

Paragraphs 40 to 42 provide some explanation of why Broadhurst got such a light sentence.

I'd type another factual acronym but if I did it would most likely get reported and deleted for being transphobic due to one of the letters referring to a three letter word that starts with m and ends with n.

There have been lots of threads on MN about Natalie Connolly where other websites and SM platforms weren't bothered. This one,

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3459253-To-ask-you-to-sign-these-petitions-Natalie-Connellys-murder?msgid=83558464

contains links to other threads and a link to the Judge's sentencing remarks

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/broadhurst-sentencing-remarks.pdf

It is a grim and heartbreaking read, but I read it this morning to understand the detail. It was the Crown Prosecution Service who accepted the manslaughter plea and dropped the murder and unlawful penetration charges. The Judge then outlines his sentencing rationale within the sentencing guidelines. I do not agree with his sureness on many points, particularly the injuries to Natalie Connolly's vagina and eye socket. However his reasoning is laid out for inspection.

I have cross-posted with nauticant

I don't agree with the sentence passed in the Natalie Connelly case. I think it's symptomatic of a wider problem though.

The people trying to push back against Harry's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death.

This.

Autumn, I have just read your link. As you say, it makes horrendous reading. I have thought for a long time that sentencing in the UK is woefully inadequate and this case is yet another grim illustration of this inadequacy. It makes me very angry that this young woman died in such a manner and her killer has received what I consider to be a grotesquely lenient sentence. Another thing occurs to me about this case. If she had a blood alcohol level of almost five times the legal limit, how could she have given consent?

If she had a blood alcohol level of almost five times the legal limit, how could she have given consent?

Yes, exactly.

The people trying to push back against Harry's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death

God yes, this ^^

Just saw this brilliant article on this case by Andrew Doyle (Titania McGrath is his creation)

www.spiked-online.com/2019/11/22/putting-the-thoughtpolice-on-trial/

The people trying to push back against Harry's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death.

I agree. I hadn’t heard of the Natalie Connolly case before and reading that link was shocking. It’s absolutely bloody appalling

The people trying to push back against Harry's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death

Excellent point TheProdigalKittensReturn. Let us never forget the self avowed interest in extreme porn that can be found in the timelines of so many of the opponents to women's sex based rights. All evident in plain sight.

"The people trying to push back against Harry Miller's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death"

Works as a tweet, just checked that it fits within the character limit.

Well done Andrew Doyle, good article.

Would very much like to see the argument that T**f is a harmless and factual descriptive label without any associated slur that is perfectly appropriate to coercively assign to others put forth in court. It's one of many of points of incoherence that need a great deal of evidenced discussion in full public gaze.

behaviour which isn’t a crime but which is perceived by the victim, or anybody else, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on the five protected characteristics’ (race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability). Note the use of the word ‘victim’ rather than ‘complainant’ – the presumption of innocence so casually dismissed through rhetorical sleight-of-hand

Great article by Andrew Doyle. Good that he cites the absurd case of Karl Beech, which was amplified and legitimized in the HOC by the partisan, politically motivated actions of Tom Watson.