Judge acquits man of controlling behaviour because his partner was too strong and capable to be affected.

First topic message reminder :

CAMPAIGNERS blasted a judge after she acquitted a boyfriend of controlling behaviour - because his ex was too "strong and capable" to be considered a victim.

The second female judge this week who seems clueless in regard to crimes against women.

Paul Measor taught their one year old son to tell his mum to Fuck off, and encouraged the tot to call her a slut and a slag.
He subjected Lauren Smith to daily abuse, both physical and mental, which included spitting in her face.
District judge Helen Cousins decided because his victim was a " strong and capable" woman this didnt have enough effect on her to warrant finding him guilty of using controlling and coercive behaviour.
He was convicted of common assault and sentenced to 5 months in prison.

Do these judges not live in the real world?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7808081/abusive-boyfriend-girlfriend-too-strong/

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, they are responsible for not leaving, and if they have a kid with someone they don't get on with, or who is mean to them, they're just silly.

Wow

So to you , a victim of grooming over many years is responsible for what happened to her

As this happened over many years

Sorry, but thank you for expresssing why people rational wil never ever listen to you

He wasn't grooming her, he was mean to her.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was you who introduced honour killings - ie, murder (there's no honour involved). You have a tendency to extrapolate wildly instead of sticking to the point. We're talking a woman who stayed with a man who was mean to her, and she did so voluntarily.

Its all in the same ball park Rags

You being someone that blames actual victims of violence that they are to blame for not leaving shows you have never known anyone suffer this

He was more than mean, he taught the child to basically hate her

Do you think that is acceptable?

Seriously?

Killing someone and being mean to someone are two completely different things.

She should have taken the kid and left.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Wow

So to you , a victim of grooming over many years is responsible for what happened to her

As this happened over many years

Sorry, but thank you for expresssing why people rational wil never ever listen to you

He wasn't grooming her, he was mean to her.

So does being mean to people lead to suicide, violence and harm?

Yes or no?

Wopuld you like the stats on suicide rates of Jews under Nazi Germany?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He wasn't grooming her, he was mean to her.

So does being mean to people lead to suicide, violence and harm?

Yes or no?

Wopuld you like the stats on suicide rates of Jews under Nazi Germany?

It doesn't usually lead to that, no. I think the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany is a bit different, don't you?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Its all in the same ball park Rags

You being someone that blames actual victims of violence that they are to blame for not leaving shows you have never known anyone suffer this

He was more than mean, he taught the child to basically hate her

Do you think that is acceptable?

Seriously?

Killing someone and being mean to someone are two completely different things.

She should have taken the kid and left.

Do you think so?

It really shows why people like you are actuallyu quite ignorant

Being mean to someone, when they are vunerable can lead to them dying Rags

Wehther that be throigh violence through the person being mean, or being pushed to suicide

I see you failed to answer my question

Which to me makes you an utter coward

So I willask this again

He was more than mean, he taught the child to basically hate her

Do you think that is acceptable?

Seriously?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

So does being mean to people lead to suicide, violence and harm?

Yes or no?

Wopuld you like the stats on suicide rates of Jews under Nazi Germany?

It doesn't usually lead to that, no. I think the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany is a bit different, don't you?

How is it any different based on hate?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't usually lead to that, no. I think the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany is a bit different, don't you?

How is it any different based on hate?

You're obsessed with hate. It's nothing to do with hate.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Killing someone and being mean to someone are two completely different things.

She should have taken the kid and left.

Do you think so?

It really shows why people like you are actuallyu quite ignorant

Being mean to someone, when they are vunerable can lead to them dying Rags

Wehther that be throigh violence through the person being mean, or being pushed to suicide

I see you failed to answer my question

Which to me makes you an utter coward

So I willask this again

He was more than mean, he taught the child to basically hate her

Do you think that is acceptable?

Seriously?

The kid is only one, he wouldn't saying that stuff because he hates her - he won't know what it means.

Who says she was vulnerable? You? She stayed with him and then complained later that he controlled her. That's just silly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

How is it any different based on hate?

You're obsessed with hate. It's nothing to do with hate.

Avoided the question

Yes I am obsessed with hate to unerstand this, to ensure less people die

How is that wrong?

You avoided the question

Try again

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're obsessed with hate. It's nothing to do with hate.

Avoided the question

Yes I am obsessed with hate to unerstand this, to ensure less people die

How is that wrong?

You avoided the question

Try again

The question is invalid. She wasn't going to die, she put up with him being mean.

Anyway, we don't want yet another thread to turn into one about Jews do we?

Raggamuffin wrote:If they let themselves be controlled, I can't see how they can complain later.

I agree with what you say raggs but I think it was more of an impact statement than ''complaining about it''

I'm afraid I'm with didge on this one, botyh you and quill are talking outta your backsides....

quill quotes agency and you just...well, your sanctimonious side is showing yet again

Do either of you realise that the AIM of the abuser is to destroy "agency" and quill yes that does render the victim "incompetent" in the legal sense....

by destroying self confidence and self reliance, by destroying restricting and negating independence and creating a "dependency" upon the abuser the abuser gains control of the victims "agency". its a form of "brainwashing" or rather mental manipulation and conditioning that can be virtually impossible to escape from.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Do you think so?

It really shows why people like you are actuallyu quite ignorant

Being mean to someone, when they are vunerable can lead to them dying Rags

Wehther that be throigh violence through the person being mean, or being pushed to suicide

I see you failed to answer my question

Which to me makes you an utter coward

So I willask this again

He was more than mean, he taught the child to basically hate her

Do you think that is acceptable?

Seriously?

The kid is only one, he wouldn't saying that stuff because he hates her - he won't know what it means.

Who says she was vulnerable? You? She stayed with him and then complained later that he controlled her. That's just silly.

This coming from a person that has never raised a child and has no understanding of how children are so influenced

Children are very much influenced at the earliest ages

For a child to believe its okay to deman a woman, where the father mocks her. Will be very much influenced to do the same

You have no idea what you are talking about

For you to look to excuse this behaviour shows you see no wrong in what he did

So lets ask a simple question

Do you think everyone is able to control themselves emotionally?

Lord Foul wrote:I'm afraid I'm with didge on this one, botyh you and quill are talking outta your backsides....

quill quotes agency and you just...well, your sanctimonious side is showing yet again

Do either of you realise that the AIM of the abuser is to destroy "agency" and quill yes that does render the victim "incompetent" in the legal sense....

by destroying self confidence and self reliance, by destroying restricting and negating independence and creating a "dependency" upon the abuser the abuser gains control of the victims "agency". its a form of "brainwashing" or rather mental manipulation and conditioning that can be virtually impossible to escape from.

+1

You are wasting your time mate

Some here have no idea

But I am open to you reasoning better than me

You certainly do that better than me

Lord Foul wrote:I'm afraid I'm with didge on this one, botyh you and quill are talking outta your backsides....

quill quotes agency and you just...well, your sanctimonious side is showing yet again

Do either of you realise that the AIM of the abuser is to destroy "agency" and quill yes that does render the victim "incompetent" in the legal sense....

by destroying self confidence and self reliance, by destroying restricting and negating independence and creating a "dependency" upon the abuser the abuser gains control of the victims "agency". its a form of "brainwashing" or rather mental manipulation and conditioning that can be virtually impossible to escape from.

I have no idea what this "agency" thing is. She had the confidence to record him and take him to court. She had a kid with him even though he was mean to her, and she did nothing when he taught the kid to abuse her (even though the kid wouldn't know he was abusing her). People need to take responsibility for themselves. I don't believe in brainwashing.

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If they let themselves be controlled, I can't see how they can complain later.

I agree with what you say raggs but I think it was more of an impact statement than ''complaining about it''

Okay, you are a strong person Gelico

So how can you compare this to people less strong than you and say you agree with her?

Are they now at fault, because people have manipulated them?

You may be strong willed, but even more now today, many are not. They are mollycoddled

Does that make the child at fault

I respect you gelico, but how can you even see her point?

I hate PC, but a get a grip on this

To claim that people are at fault for not removing themselves from a situation they feel entrapped, shows you lack empathy on this

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The kid is only one, he wouldn't saying that stuff because he hates her - he won't know what it means.

Who says she was vulnerable? You? She stayed with him and then complained later that he controlled her. That's just silly.

This coming from a person that has never raised a child and has no understanding of how children are so influenced

Children are very much influenced at the earliest ages

For a child to believe its okay to deman a woman, where the father mocks her. Will be very much influenced to do the same

You have no idea what you are talking about

For you to look to excuse this behaviour shows you see no wrong in what he did

So lets ask a simple question

Do you think everyone is able to control themselves emotionally?

You're assuming a lot about me. I don't talk about my private life so you have no idea what I've done.

You're getting nasty and abusive yourself. I'm surprised you're not taking his side. After all, you do your best day after day to try and control people on here. Of course you generally fail but you keep trying.

The kid won't remember it - don't be so stupid.

I know that you can't control yourself, emotionally or otherwise. However, do you blame others for that?

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If they let themselves be controlled, I can't see how they can complain later.

I agree with what you say raggs but I think it was more of an impact statement than ''complaining about it''

Didn't she want him to be convicted of controlling her?

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:



I agree with what you say raggs but I think it was more of an impact statement than ''complaining about it''

Okay, you are a strong person Gelico

So how can you compare this to people less strong than you and say you agree with her?

Are they now at fault, because people have manipulated them?

You may be strong willed, but even more now today, many are not. They are mollycoddled

Does that make the child at fault

I respect you gelico, but how can you even see her point?

I hate PC, but a get a grip on this

To claim that people are at fault for not removing themselves from a situation they feel entrapped, shows you lack empathy on this

Child? She's 24.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I'm afraid I'm with didge on this one, botyh you and quill are talking outta your backsides....

quill quotes agency and you just...well, your sanctimonious side is showing yet again

Do either of you realise that the AIM of the abuser is to destroy "agency" and quill yes that does render the victim "incompetent" in the legal sense....

by destroying self confidence and self reliance, by destroying restricting and negating independence and creating a "dependency" upon the abuser the abuser gains control of the victims "agency". its a form of "brainwashing" or rather mental manipulation and conditioning that can be virtually impossible to escape from.

I have no idea what this "agency" thing is. She had the confidence to record him and take him to court. She had a kid with him even though he was mean to her, and she did nothing when he taught the kid to abuse her (even though the kid wouldn't know he was abusing her). People need to take responsibility for themselves. I don't believe in brainwashing.

So because she acted later, this now makes her wrong, that she did not act before?

That because she never found the strengh, she is guilty, because she later found this?

You dont believe in brainwashing?

Explain the Hitler Youth to me?

How could children willing give thier lives in the believe its a good thing?

This is happenning today with Jihaddis

It happened in world war two with Kamikaze

If you do not believe in brainwashing, how then do people willing give their lives, based on bullshit?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

This coming from a person that has never raised a child and has no understanding of how children are so influenced

Children are very much influenced at the earliest ages

For a child to believe its okay to deman a woman, where the father mocks her. Will be very much influenced to do the same

You have no idea what you are talking about

For you to look to excuse this behaviour shows you see no wrong in what he did

So lets ask a simple question

Do you think everyone is able to control themselves emotionally?

You're assuming a lot about me. I don't talk about my private life so you have no idea what I've done.

You're getting nasty and abusive yourself. I'm surprised you're not taking his side. After all, you do your best day after day to try and control people on here. Of course you generally fail but you keep trying.

The kid won't remember it - don't be so stupid.

I know that you can't control yourself, emotionally or otherwise. However, do you blame others for that?

Okay, so now, the victimology comes out of you here, when challenged

You are again avoiding my points

Try again

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Okay, you are a strong person Gelico

So how can you compare this to people less strong than you and say you agree with her?

Are they now at fault, because people have manipulated them?

You may be strong willed, but even more now today, many are not. They are mollycoddled

Does that make the child at fault

I respect you gelico, but how can you even see her point?

I hate PC, but a get a grip on this

To claim that people are at fault for not removing themselves from a situation they feel entrapped, shows you lack empathy on this

Child? She's 24.

Sine when was Gelico 24?

seems to me you condone violent criminals that take their violence out on women......

you must have led a very sheltered life....

I have seen this at work first hand, with the bastard that tried his coercive behaviour on my daughter, fortunately I caught him out and dealt with it, covertly from behind the scenes, and turned the tables on him...cost him 3 jobs in a row (and his jobs are "high flying" financial roles)
and left him almost unemployable, becuase those who need to know, now know what he is, and understand very clearly that employing him could be "damaging" to their company reputation....


now HE knows what its like to be "coerced"....and that actions have consequences......

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I have no idea what this "agency" thing is. She had the confidence to record him and take him to court. She had a kid with him even though he was mean to her, and she did nothing when he taught the kid to abuse her (even though the kid wouldn't know he was abusing her). People need to take responsibility for themselves. I don't believe in brainwashing.

So because she acted later, this now makes her wrong, that she did not act before?

That because she never found the strengh, she is guilty, because she later found this?

You dont believe in brainwashing?

Explain the Hitler Youth to me?

How could children willing give thier lives in the believe its a good thing?

This is happenning today with Jihaddis

It happened in world war two with Kamikaze

If you do not believe in brainwashing, how then do people willing give their lives, based on bullshit?

Oh, we're back to Nazi Germany again, which is nothing to do with the subject, but since you ask, I don't think they were brainwashed. I don't think Jihadis are brainwashed either.

I didn't say she was guilty, I said she put up with it and stayed with him so she shouldn't complain later. The assault is a different matter.

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:



I agree with what you say raggs but I think it was more of an impact statement than ''complaining about it''

Okay, you are a strong person Gelico

So how can you compare this to people less strong than you and say you agree with her?

Are they now at fault, because people have manipulated them?

You may be strong willed, but even more now today, many are not. They are mollycoddled

Does that make the child at fault

I respect you gelico, but how can you even see her point?

I hate PC, but a get a grip on this

To claim that people are at fault for not removing themselves from a situation they feel entrapped, shows you lack empathy on this

''by destroying self confidence and self reliance, by destroying restricting and negating independence and creating a "dependency" upon the abuser the abuser gains control of the victims "agency". its a form of "brainwashing" or rather mental manipulation and conditioning that can be virtually impossible to escape from''.


but not completely impossible as this woman has now proved

listen, didge, i'm not for a moment suggesting that it is an easy thing to do. It isn't, as for not having empathy, my daughter was involved in a very abusive relationship so I know exactly what the technique of the abuser is and the resulting effect it can have but ultimately, each individual has to take personal responsibility to change their situation. That just a hard fact of life. My daughter had to, this lady in the article had to

no matter how difficult, it can be done

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Child? She's 24.

Sine when was Gelico 24?

I'm referring to this bit.

Does that make the child at fault

Which child are you referring to?

Lord Foul wrote:seems to me you condone violent criminals that take their violence out on women......

you must have led a very sheltered life....

I have seen this at work first hand, with the bastard that tried his coercive behaviour on my daughter, fortunately I caught him out and dealt with it, covertly from behind the scenes, and turned the tables on him...cost him 3 jobs in a row (and his jobs are "high flying" financial roles)
and left him almost unemployable, becuase those who need to know, now know what he is, and understand very clearly that employing him could be "damaging" to their company reputation....


now HE knows what its like to be "coerced"....and that actions have consequences......

We're not talking about violence though are we? We're talking about "controlling", which is not the same thing.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're assuming a lot about me. I don't talk about my private life so you have no idea what I've done.

You're getting nasty and abusive yourself. I'm surprised you're not taking his side. After all, you do your best day after day to try and control people on here. Of course you generally fail but you keep trying.

The kid won't remember it - don't be so stupid.

I know that you can't control yourself, emotionally or otherwise. However, do you blame others for that?

Okay, so now, the victimology comes out of you here, when challenged

You are again avoiding my points

Try again

You're not challenging me, you're getting personal and nasty. You see? I don't put up with it.

Okay, I am going to ask Gelico some simple questions here

Was I ever being personal to rags, or simple asking questions?

Why is it you never challenge beliefs made by female posters on views controversial, but happily do on mine?

You do realise you do this Gelico?

You give a certain amount of slack to female posters

I not going to bother answering Rags on this any more, as she has badly evaded just about every point to her and she is excusing abusers and you gain remain silent on this

Why is this?

Now either you want to be liked, which I know you do not, or you are afraid to call people out when female when talking bullshit, as rags is.

So explain to me why?

I do not mind, but you do show a huge bias

Rags, has lost any credability on this debate

You know this and I know this, as how often does Rags turn this into a personal victimology on herself?

Oh dear, Didge has gone into victim mode.

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh dear, Didge has gone into victim mode.

I rest my case Gelico

Do you think I am trying to be a victim here?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:seems to me you condone violent criminals that take their violence out on women......

you must have led a very sheltered life....

I have seen this at work first hand, with the bastard that tried his coercive behaviour on my daughter, fortunately I caught him out and dealt with it, covertly from behind the scenes, and turned the tables on him...cost him 3 jobs in a row (and his jobs are "high flying" financial roles)
and left him almost unemployable, becuase those who need to know, now know what he is, and understand very clearly that employing him could be "damaging" to their company reputation....


now HE knows what its like to be "coerced"....and that actions have consequences......

We're not talking about violence though are we? We're talking about "controlling", which is not the same thing.

yes it is....it is a form of psychological violence that is just as harmful as physical violence...perhaps even worse in some cases as the effects can be hidden and corrosive....

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not talking about violence though are we? We're talking about "controlling", which is not the same thing.

yes it is....it is a form of psychological violence that is just as harmful as physical violence...perhaps even worse in some cases as the effects can be hidden and corrosive....

We're not on the same page then because I don't consider that being mean is the same as violence.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

yes it is....it is a form of psychological violence that is just as harmful as physical violence...perhaps even worse in some cases as the effects can be hidden and corrosive....

We're not on the same page then because I don't consider that being mean is the same as violence.

Tell 6 millions jewish victims that

I am merely giving my opinion on the story and the circumstances

no one has to agree with me - we are all entitled to our own thoughts on it

until a person can find the courage, determination to change their situation, no one else can help them. once they have decided to do that then there is help out there available for abused victims, be they female or male (as is also many times the case)

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not on the same page then because I don't consider that being mean is the same as violence.

Tell 6 millions jewish victims that

You think that murdering Jews by gassing them is being "mean" to them?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Tell 6 millions jewish victims that

You think that murdering Jews by gassing them is being "mean" to them?

Absolutely.

What do you call it?

Also  it started with mean words an controlling them

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not on the same page then because I don't consider that being mean is the same as violence.

Tell 6 millions jewish victims that

what on earth??

the jews were rounded up at gun point and forced into concentration camps and subsequently, starved, beaten, worked to death or just gassed

she was in a relationship of her own choosing

i see no connection

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think that murdering Jews by gassing them is being "mean" to them?

Absolutely.

What do you call it?

Also  it started with mean words an controlling them

Are you suggesting that this man tried to gas his girlfriend?

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:

Tell 6 millions jewish victims that

what on earth??      

the jews were rounded up at gun point and forced into concentration camps and subsequently, starved, beaten, worked to death or just gassed

she was in a relationship of her own choosing

i see no connection

You see no connection

Let me spell it out for you then

Jews were in a relationship with Germany as citizens

They were then denied this citizenship, based on control, by an abuser

Do you think because many did not escape at the time they are at fault for being starved, shot, gassed later?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Absolutely.

What do you call it?

Also  it started with mean words an controlling them

Are you suggesting that this man tried to gas his girlfriend?

Cathy Newman alert

I agreed that murdering Jews is being mean to them

You by your words disagreed

Do you not think murdering people is being mean to them?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting that this man tried to gas his girlfriend?

Cathy Newman

I agreed that murdering Jews is being mean to them

You by your words disagreed

Do you not think murdering people is mean to them?

Um, I think we have a definition problem here.

Are you seriously saying that murdering Jews by gassing them deliberately is the same as being "controlling" and "manipulative"?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Cathy Newman

I agreed that murdering Jews is being mean to them

You by your words disagreed

Do you not think murdering people is mean to them?

Um, I think we have a definition problem here.

Are you seriously saying that murdering Jews by gassing them deliberately is the same as being "controlling" and "manipulative"?

How is it not the same?

Would you like a lesson in how the Nazi's created a fake train station to make Jews feel more comfortable when they arrived at a concentration camp?

Do you not think that is being maipulative?

How stations were created to lie to Jews, slavs, homosexuals etc?

You wonder why I insult your ingnorance?

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:

what on earth??      

the jews were rounded up at gun point and forced into concentration camps and subsequently, starved, beaten, worked to death or just gassed

she was in a relationship of her own choosing

i see no connection

You see no connection

Let me spell it out for you then

Jews were in a relationship with Germany as citizens

They were then denied this citizenship, based on control, by an abuser

Do you think because many did not escape at the time they are at fault for being starved, shot, gassed later?

your analogies are so extreme and ludicrous

this woman was in a relationship that did not involve politics nor changes in the law nor the army FFS!

she was not chained up in the house, this bloke had his own business. she could have at any point grabbed the kid and gone and sought refuge with him.

i've said before, i know it's not easy and she had to get to a point where she had had enough and wasn't going to take any more, good for her.

if there was a thread discussing the best chocolates you would somehow bring it down to the jews and the nazis

FFS! It gets so boring

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not talking about violence though are we? We're talking about "controlling", which is not the same thing.

yes it is....it is a form of psychological violence that is just as harmful as physical violence...perhaps even worse in some cases as the effects can be hidden and corrosive....

We're not on the same page then because I don't consider that being mean is the same as violence.

Thats because you are incapable of understanding the difference between "being mean" and psychological violence

I'm "being mean" to my grand daughter when I tell her shes got a big bum (even though she hasnt and knows it)
I was psychologically violent to my daughters ex when I posted to his employers copies of the vile and soul destroying messages he sent my daughter, resulting in his dismissal, then sent the entire bundle to his next two employers after he was with them a few months, not to mention the barrage of solicitors letters, complaints to the police about his behaviour...which although below the bar for prosecution was sufficent for them to put in place some sort of safeguard and pay him a few visits.......etc etc etc.....

the difference is...what I did was justifiable AND legal.....what he was doing wasnt

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:

You see no connection

Let me spell it out for you then

Jews were in a relationship with Germany as citizens

They were then denied this citizenship, based on control, by an abuser

Do you think because many did not escape at the time they are at fault for being starved, shot, gassed later?

your analogies are so extreme and ludicrous

this woman was in a relationship that did not involve politics nor changes in the law nor the army FFS!

she was not chained up in the house, this bloke had his own business.  she could have at any point grabbed the kid and gone and sought refuge with him.

i've said before, i know it's not easy and she had to get to a point where she had had enough and wasn't going to take any more, good for her.  

if there was a thread discussing the best chocolates you would somehow bring it down to the jews and the nazis

FFS!  It gets so boring

Why?

AllI ever see is you constantly defend women

Its very telling gelico, even when the argument made by Rags, makes grooming gang victims and domestic violence victims to blame ands yet you tak Rags side

You ignore all her arguments and go off nothing you know about this woman and make a judgements on what you have read in the paper

You should be ashamed

You have no idea of her her mental health and made views on a media story?

How about you stop acting like a child and actually act like an adult for one and admit when you might be wrong Gelico?

I have no problem doing this

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not on the same page then because I don't consider that being mean is the same as violence.

Thats because you are incapable of understanding the difference between "being mean" and psychological violence

I'm "being mean" to my grand daughter when I tell her shes got a big bum (even though she hasnt and knows it)
I was psychologically violent to my daughters ex when I posted to his employers copies of the vile and soul destroying messages he sent my daughter, resulting in his dismissal, then sent the entire bundle to his next two employers after he was with them a few months, not to mention the barrage of solicitors letters, complaints to the police about his behaviour...which although below the bar for prosecution was sufficent for them to put in place some sort of safeguard and pay him a few visits.......etc etc etc.....

the difference is...what I did was justifiable AND legal.....what he was doing wasnt

I think that what you did was wrong actually. It was up to your daughter to sort it out, it wasn't up to you to try to destroy his life and his future. You stalked him basically. However, you weren't violent. Don't tell me I'm "incapable" when you're clearly off your head.

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:


your analogies are so extreme and ludicrous

this woman was in a relationship that did not involve politics nor changes in the law nor the army FFS!

she was not chained up in the house, this bloke had his own business.  she could have at any point grabbed the kid and gone and sought refuge with him.

i've said before, i know it's not easy and she had to get to a point where she had had enough and wasn't going to take any more, good for her.  

if there was a thread discussing the best chocolates you would somehow bring it down to the jews and the nazis

FFS!  It gets so boring

Why?

AllI ever see is you constantly defend women

Its very telling gelico, even when the argument made by Rags, makes grooming gang victims and domestic violence victims to blame ands yet you tak Rags side

You ignore all her arguments and go off nothing you know about this woman and make a judgements on what you have read in the paper

You should be ashamed

You have no idea of her her mental health and made views on a media story?

How about you stop acting like a child and actually act like an adult for one and admit when you might be wrong Gelico?

I have no problem doing this

She's speaking for herself - nothing to do with me. You're now getting nasty with yet another person - another woman.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Thats because you are incapable of understanding the difference between "being mean" and psychological violence

I'm "being mean" to my grand daughter when I tell her shes got a big bum (even though she hasnt and knows it)
I was psychologically violent to my daughters ex when I posted to his employers copies of the vile and soul destroying messages he sent my daughter, resulting in his dismissal, then sent the entire bundle to his next two employers after he was with them a few months, not to mention the barrage of solicitors letters, complaints to the police about his behaviour...which although below the bar for prosecution was sufficent for them to put in place some sort of safeguard and pay him a few visits.......etc etc etc.....

the difference is...what I did was justifiable AND legal.....what he was doing wasnt

I think that what you did was wrong actually. It was up to your daughter to sort it out, it wasn't up to you to try to destroy his life and his future. You stalked him basically. However, you weren't violent. Don't tell me I'm "incapable" when you're clearly off your head.

So someone absued to you, because they did not act quick enough is in the wrong to you

This is what is wrong here

Why are you not even talking about what he did wrong?

Its what bores me with Gelico

She is intelligent but fails to see what is wrong when she defends idiots like you

The view is to castigate the victim only

When have you actually talked about what this wanker did?

I mean maybe youd and gelico are epxerts in mental health and nobodys suffers mental abuse and they shiuld simple get up and leave

The pair of you are inherantly ignorant on this and should ashamed

To place the blame on the victim here, shows neither of you have a clue