Interesting response to comment about single mothers

Here's the response from a single mother to a politician who called single mothers lazy and ugly.

I don't agree with either of them much, but I completely disagree with her paragraph in which she writes: "perhaps we need to ask Aussie men, instead, why they're leaving their families in droves and the government is having to support their ex-families."

We don't need to ask them, because 70% of all divorces are initiated by women, so it's a safe bet that the reason the 'droves' of men 'leaving' their ex-families are doing so because they're being ordered to by the Family Court, who is being driven by the desire of their respective wives to get out.

I'd be curious to know who ended her marriage, because statistically speaking it was more likely to have been ended by her.

Disclaimer: some people claim that the higher number of divorce initiations by women is accounted for by the women filing when they discover their respective husbands cheating, or if the husband is abusive, however the same argument applies the other way.  Men aren't likely to just walk out because they're unhappy, a concept known as 'frivorce' (frivolous divorce).

Terrible stories, difference in reporting

So here we have two stories:

• Mother daughter found dead in Melbourne; and
• Violent husband who was out on bail kills wife.

Just to compare:

1. Title:  It's alleged that the mother daughter story is actually a murder suicide, but the news headline is 'found dead'.  The other article is about a violent husband.
2. Detail:  The first article doesn't mention details at all about what state the mother and daughter were in, so we don't know how the mother killed the child and then herself.  The second article clearly uses the words "murder" several times and reports about "stabbing multiple times".

I'm not looking to demonize women here, but the news clearly covers up or glosses over details when the perpetrator is female and sensationalizes details when the perpetrator is male.

Just like the case of that mother who killed six children: we don't know the names of ANY of the fathers of her children who lost their children, yet we know Rosie Batty's name even though she only lost one son.  We all know Luke Batty's name after his father allegedly killed him, yet we don't know the names of a single one of the children murdered by their mother.

This is why real news should include 100% of the details.  If you're only reporting 20% of the details because of the gender of the offender, then you're the fruit drink of news: a watered down substitute.

Man threatens people at site of Bourke St attacks

So, a man, whose face the media will blot out for reasons unknown, has gone around Bourke St threatening people.

Apparently he hasn't been caught, so why would the media want to protect the identity of the man the police are looking for?

Also, where's the physical description of the man?  Oh wait, he doesn't look white, so that must be why.

Forget I said anything.

Road rage, ethnicity withheld, par for the course

So a father has been knocked unconscious and his daughter punched in what is been deemed a road rage incident.

What's interesting is that the media, happy to name the alleged assaulter as being Danial Valusaga, isn't quite as keen to bother directly showing a picture of the man who assaulted several people.

Par for the course, really.

We know that had the attacker been white and male the media would have gone to the trouble of finding a profile picture of the alleged attacked doing a simple google search.

Must be that white privilege shining through again.

UPDATE: Man severely injured by ex-wife "in self defense"

So here's the media reporting on the case of a woman who stabbed her ex-husband multiple times and cut him open, leaving his intestines hanging out "in self defense".

So the media is going full defense mode for this woman, starting with the emotive "I don't want mummy to go to jail" headline, right down to all the eye-witness reports claiming the guy brought the knife and came at her.

The guy may have brought the knife, but the mere fact that the media has brought together all of the 'facts' that make this guy bad and haven't mentioned a single detail from the other perspective, except that the guy was "upset that one of his daughters didn't want to see him".

Remember, the media lies by omission.  Hopefully the courts won't be reading reports from these people and will actually be presented with ALL of the facts.

Because we all know that reasonable self defense ALWAYS ends in people with multiple stab wounds and intestines hanging out..

UPDATE:  So it appears the courts have judged her guilty with sentencing pending.  Apparently she could be sentenced for as many as 10 years in jail.  Only right since he wasn't only left with his intestines hanging out, he also needed "hundreds of stitches", a minor detail that the previous news article failed to include.

NEW UPDATE:  The woman in question has been sentenced to five years jail, with a minimum sentence of three and a half years.  I guess that's what you get when you give someone a 15cm wound to their bowel and a 10cm wound to their chest.  The attack put him in hospital for 28 days, had him confined to a wheelchair for 4 months and required a total of 243 stitches (105 in his chest, 138 to other parts of his body).

Despite the full extent of the damage this woman caused, the media still tries to portray her as a kind and caring woman.  I surely can't be the only person sick of the media playing advocate for women who commit gross acts of violence whilst blaming men for everything.

Supposedly racist woman

So here we have a news report about a supposedly 'racist' woman verbally assaulting a couple.

What's very interesting is the, the woman who is supposedly 'racist' isn't even white, which the article makes no mention of.

Also, the woman is supposedly abusing a muslim couple, so given that Islam is a religion, not a race, how is abusing muslims racist?

Media still on the attack against Trump

So the media is doing everything it can to point out anything it can about Trump, starting with the size of the crowd at his inauguration.

I love how the Twits on twitter go on about how Trump is obsessed with the size of the crowd, yet it was the media doing the comparing.

There are some pretty good reasons why the numbers might have been less:

• The Democrats have been agitating and pushing people to protest, with some organisations actually offering to pay protester's bail if they get arrested - translation: if you're arrested whilst protesting (presumably because you're also being violent) some wealthy people will bail you out.  I'm sure many supporters aren't going to try to brave the potential assault;
• The inauguration of Trump may be a milestone for many people, but it's not as historically significant as the inauguration of the first African American president.  For African Americans in 2009 it was a momentous day, whereas Trump's inauguration doesn't have the same draw;
• The increased risk of attacks: with Obama fanning the flames of racial tensions in his 2nd term (remember how electing him was going to somehow bring blacks and whites together?) and Black Lives Matter rioting, many people might just be happy to watch at home from the safety of their living rooms; and
• A large percentage of Trump's support base is in "flyover" country.  Flying all the way to Washington to witness the inauguration of a new president who is going to be sworn in whether or not you're there is a bit of a luxury.

Let's not forget that, including all of the above, that Washington DC (can attend event with minimal effort and Trump didn't win) is more than 50% black, nearby states include New York (where Trump didn't win) with a black population of about 5 million.

So, for the reasons stated above, I believe that the inauguration was technically held 'behind enemy lines' due to historical tradition.  Had Trump held his inauguration in a pro-Trump state, the turnout would have been much higher.

Funny how the media is always happy to try to bully Trump, but then act all shocked when he bites back.  I guess they're just used to picking on Republicans, who never fight back.

'Ethnic gang' assaults woman, media does it's thing

So here we've got a story about a grandmother who was assaulted by a gang of three ethnic men.

What makes them ethnic?  What region or country were they from?  What was their general appearance?

No, the media is doing it's usual "hide the identities" thing because the "ethnics" involved are not white.

But they're happy to report, repeatedly, that all three of the attackers were men.

How come she was even free to murder a 2nd person?

So here we've got the news that a woman in Austria is being moved to a men's prison, presumably because she's so dangerous.

What the report DOESN'T go into is how a woman who killed her husband by walking up behind him and shooting him in the back of the head before carving the body up and storing parts of them in the freezer and burying the rest under her ice cream shop was able to get away with the first murder.

Is this because the Austrian police didn't do their job?  Or they did their job and they're just hopeless?  Or because they let her off with a warning?  Or did they give her a pass because of her gender?

All we know is that she'd killed two men that, as far as we know, weren't bad people, yet the media isn't telling the story of either of the poor men who died at her hands (or gun), only their killer.

You can be sure if it'd been the other way around there would have been a national vigil for the poor dismembered female victims of a brutal serial killer.  No, these were just males who died at the hands of a woman, who, incidentally, is too dangerous to imprison with other women.

Now THAT'S un-Australian!

Over the years the term "un-Australian" has be used in many different contexts, has been hijacked by Left-wing groups to attack anyone who doesn't agree with everything the Left has to say and has been replaced more recently by "racist" or "homophobic".

I'm pretty sure that people planning on stealing Australian flags and burning them would be considered un-Australian by most clear thinking people.

It's rather unfortunate that the Greens feel that they can't condemn it, since they'd be condemning their own.

Woman steals children 31 years ago, media plays it down

So a woman who took her children away from her husband 31 years ago, a man who apparently had been having an affair (and no mention of being abusive) but the media play down the impact on the man or the children and don't even try to contact the women to find out whether they knew their father was still alive.

Remember, child abduction isn't considered an international crime if the 'abductor' is one of the parents because, and this is key, the majority of children who are abducted from the family and taken to other countries are taken there by their mother, NOT their father.

If there were more men than women, you'd bet there'd be a law against it.

What's interesting about the case involving the four Vincenti sisters is that even this article makes out as though the father had used the law to abduct the children, when he actually used the law to enforce his daughters being brought back after 2 YEARS when they were only supposed to be in Australia for a ONE MONTH HOLIDAY!

The media loves to tuck this information down towards the bottom of the article and if they bothered to actually report the whole story, they'd see that the mother had been using the media (and the girls) to try to negotiate a custody arrangement that suited her more because she's too busy to visit her OWN FOUR CHILDREN in Italy because, you know, work and University.

More global warming alarmism

So, apparently the earth's temperature is the hottest it's EVER BEEN and it's only going to get worse.

Keeping in mind, this is coming from an organisation that doesn't mind doctoring data to suit it's message.

And again.

And again.

And again.

You'd think that someone would have said "hey guys, we're just making stuff up now, how about we lay low a while and report the truth for a while".

But maybe someone did just that.

And he's now unemployed and no one in his field will touch him any more.

The golden rule of anything is DON'T ASK A BARBER IF YOU NEED A HAIRCUT!

So they each want a house of their own, not just a safe space to sleep

So, here we have a kind of Occupy situation going on in Melbourne at Flinders Street Railway Station, the major train station that's closest to the Australian Open courts.

Apparently these 'poor' people have repeatedly denied temporary assistance from the likes of the Salvation Army because they apparently deserve a house of their own, "all these people have to have a house, every single person here".

So they're holding the city to ransom so that each and every one of them gets handed a half-million dollar asset outright (because who is going to lend any of these unemployed people money) because it's the only way to move them on and they want it to be permanent, so nobody can give them a house to use for a year or two, they want to be looked after.

Notice that it's a HOUSE and not an apartment or a unit.  It's got to be a house for each and every one of them.  They may stick together now, but they're not prepared to share.

If the government does give them something, it'd set a dangerous precedent whereby young people, or indeed ANY people, can simply camp out at a major landmark until they get whatever they want.

The solution I think is to rent the entire site to Metro for $1 and then Metro will then have the ability to evict trespassers on private property.  But this sort of lateral thinking isn't going to be well received by Left-wing people, who incidentally aren't lining up to take in any of these people.

We can tell which side of the discussion the media falls on by the way that the ONLY photos we've seen of these people is of the blonde woman (we even know more about her story than anyone else there), despite homelessness being a predominantly male problem.

Same story, different reporting between men and women

So we've got virtually the same case of a mother who killed most of her children by driving them into a lake and a father who killed his children by driving them into a lake.

Notice the difference in language:

• the man "had no interest in saving his kids", the woman "plead guilty to"
• the man was "evil", with no mention of his history of depression, but the woman was under stress from her partner's ex who supposedly got a witch doctor to put a spell on her
• the man killed his children by driving them into a dam, she drove her children into a lake, killing them (the order of details in both sentences is important, the latter inferring that she did not intend to kill them).

The end result is that the man won't be released until he's in his 70's, she'll probably be out before she's 50, but let's wait to hear how leniently she's treated by the courts.

The man's history of mental illness and actually seeking professional help has not helped him in any way, but I'm sure the courts will take into account whatever hardships the woman has been through and reduce her sentence accordingly.

At the end of the day, both people made a conscious decision to end the lives of their own children, yet because of their respective genders (and race?) will be treated very differently.

Pretty soon, it'll just be a form to give women a pass to kill their husbands

Pretty soon, it'll just be a form to give women a pass to kill their husbands rather than simply leaving them.

Remember, there's NO CRIME OR ACT in Australia that a person can commit that will result in the death penalty and the law looks down on vigilantism.  So why is it that we're slowly turning down the punishments, and stopping deportation, of people who take the law into their own hands and end the life of another human being.

The whole article is written in such a way to induce feelings that this poor woman was justified in taking a hammer to her husband's head and that she's really unfortunate to have to spend any time in jail.  Notice also the headline is "Doctor who killed her husband" rather than "Woman who killed her husband".  I don't see many articles where the career of a male perpetrator is used to describe him, except when he's done something positive.

Besides, who is to say that it wasn't the wife who looked up the perverted stuff to plant incriminating evidence against him?  I know I don't look up that stuff, but I don't have a separate login to my wife, so she could potentially log in under our common login, type a bunch of sick searches into Google and when she kills me claim it was after years of abuse.

I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but remember that she wouldn't have been sent to prison if the if the judge/jury hadn't decided that she was responsible of the man's death BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.  If a man breaks into my house and I knock him out I'm justified in protecting myself and my family.  If I then kill the man after he's been incapacitated, then I'd be charged with the death, regardless of the man not supposed to being there.

I'm surprised she was sent to jail at all.  I do note, though, that Rosie Batty intervened on her behalf.  I guess birds of a feather got to stick together.  I'll give more credit to Batty the day the full interrogation of her ex-partner by police is released UNEDITED.  Those missing minutes before he just stands up and sits in the corner (which are clearly cut when a person looks at the time stamp) are clearly something where the police said something to antagonize the guy that the media and/or police didn't want us to see, possibly the police telling the guy they don't need anything more than Batty's word for them to act, maybe.  I especially like the YouTube video where someone has pulled together all of the interviews with the supposed "witnesses" to her son's death and the cameraman has to correct a few of them on the weapon used, which is "a bat", then "a ball" and even "a knife".  I'm amazed the media had the gall to even air the incorrect witnesses who couldn't even keep their stories straight.

I'm not going to turn this into an Anti-Batty rant, but we all have to agree that her story stinks and has lots of conflicting information and witness statements.  The tragedy of her son dying shouldn't automatically mean nothing she did / said prior to or after her son's death should be taken as pure and gospel.  She may have been a vindictive ex who was using the police to rough her ex up using the existing legal framework until he snapped.  This possibility, however, can never be explored because she's politically untouchable thanks to her victim status.  Please note, the real victim is her son who along with his father (her ex) can NEVER give any conflicting testimony to the events that lead up to that fateful day.

The axe attack with conflicting media agendas

So a person attacked some people with an axe in a convenience store.  The media showed the video but didn't post any photos of the person who actually perpetrated the attack.

The story, however, has an interesting twist to it, which now how the media posting up photos and details about the person here and here.

So it turns out that the person is a woman named Evie Amati who was born a man named Karl and who transitioned from male to female four years ago.

Ah, how conflicted the media must be: "must hide gender if female", "must report if male", "wait, must defend if male who transitioned to female".

The first article basically lays out the whole defense for the perpetrator as though it's being paid to defend this individual.

Alternatively, I notice how no mention has been made about the increased rate of mental illness of people who transition genders, but then, the media has rarely been consistent.

Media finally reporting appearances of non-whites, mum carjacked and beaten

Here's a story about a mother who was carjacked and beaten in the process.

Maybe the media is tired of trying to conceal the racial identity of the majority of the perpetrators of this recent crime wave.

I don't remember Asians, Greeks or Italians forming up gangs going around carjack innocent people, but then, maybe I'm too young and the media was 'hiding' identities even back then.

Then again, I'm told 30 years ago people didn't bother locking their doors.

I wonder whether this article is an outlier or the beginning of a new trend.

I thought we're supposed to vote on policies...

Here's a young, WHITE woman claiming her own political party (Labor) is sexist, racist, etc.

I say give her what she wants and promote every man or woman who is NOT white ahead of her.  She's all for equality as long as it means she's given special options.

I honestly thought that we're supposed to vote for people based on their policies, but apparently Australia is still homophobic because we've yet to elect an openly gay candidate.  I can't think of any openly gay candidates in my area, which is about the only place my vote goes.

I hope her party tells her off for her little outburst, but something tells me she'd just label any backlash as sexism.

Nepalese man punches woman, media excuses

So here we've got another case of the media rushing in to defend a Nepalese man who, whilst drunk, punched a random woman he thought was attacking him.

Notice how the media starts off from the first paragraph describing how the poor otherwise innocent man punched a female bystander.

If the man had been white the case would have been reported as: "man assaults woman whilst drunk" and then towards the bottom of the article it would mention "he mistook her for one of the people attacking him".

So, what about the brawl?  Sounds like several women were involved, although we'll never get the full picture because the media has an addiction to hiding genders if women are involved.  If women weren't involved, then why would this man punch a woman if the brawlers were all men?

Woman runs over partner, Australian media hides extent

So, here we have the unfortunate case of a woman by the name of Jess Lee Donker in Australia who allegedly ran her car into and killed her partner Richie Powell (the father of her two children).

Consider these three articles:

Nine news - http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/01/08/08/28/homicide-detectives-investigating-after-man-killed-by-car-in-sunbury

Daily mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4098796/Sunbury-father-dead-run-car-partner-Melbourne.html

Yahoo7 - https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/33745896/hit-and-run-driver-charged-with-murdering-partner/#page1

Now consider the difference in reporting information:

Nine news leaves out the woman's name and photo (even the Herald Sun had blurred her face in that family photo in the printed edition), whereas the Daily Mail included her photo and name.  Yahoo7 (late to the game) has almost the same information as the Daily Mail.

Nine news left out any mention of any argument between the couple and only characterized the relationship as "volatile", whereas the Daily Mail reported that Richie was walking along with his suitcase (a sign that he was leaving) and that witnesses reported that "she tried to run him probably five, six times".  Yahoo7 includes the quote, but includes a quote from police: "it appears that there may have been a number of events that led up to this incident" - translation: "the guy might have deserved it or antagonized the woman".

I wonder if this incident will be chalked up to violence against men, or just a simple driving accident.

I doubt we'll hear much more from this story as they'll probably bury it on page 10 as a foot-note, or feature it from the "she's a victim" angle and try to get her off on self-defense (I'll bet she even did 'defensive driver' training too).

If she does get sentenced, she'll get a four or five year sentence and be out in two with good behavior. Remember, her defense team will argue that taking her away from her children (who have already lost their father) would be too traumatic.

The MSM really is a thing of disgust sometimes and they don't even realise it.

Four African Americans torture man for days in US vs white guy yells at foreigners

Four African Americans torture a (supposedly) mentally handicapped white man for days and their race is withheld from the article entirely and no photos of the perpetrators is included at all.  Note how they don't mention that the group was 50% female until about the 6th paragraph (but only if you can guess the genders of the names) and how it was only considered a hate crime because of the diminished capacity of the victim.  Had the poor guy just been white, then it wouldn't have been a hate crime.

Contrast that with the report of a white man who only verbally abused people in a park.  The report didn't point out that he's white, because they put both video and images of the man in the article.  The media even goes so far as to put up that he's "definitely a Pauline Hanson supporter".

Ok, so the next time I see a muslim of any kind giving a non-muslim a hard time about anything I'll be within my rights to call them ISIS supporters.  No, of course I wouldn't because that would be stupid and racist.

Group of Sudanese men rob jewelry store at gunpoint, ethnicity held back in report until end

So, this is par for the course: a group of Sudanese men robbed a jewelry store in Melbourne yesterday (Wednesday 4th January).

The whole article goes the whole way through peppering throughout that all the perpetrators were simply "men", but it's not until the final sentence that we find out (assuming we're still reading) that the perpetrators were "of Sudanese appearance".  What a great example of the 4th paragraph!

I've got a novel idea for the newspapers: actually report the news without PC bias (or better yet, flip bias and go right-wing) and see your drop circulation reverse.

I know I will never buy a newspaper as long as they keep tweaking the news and omitting details so as to not offend certain non-white groups.  Had the perpetrators been white, that detail would have been in the headline or in the first few paragraphs.

Ramming a car into your spouse ok, if you're the wife

UPDATE: So it turns out the the media, the original purveyors of Fake News, got it wrong and that the poor suffering, jaded wife of a mean and nasty cheating husband got it wrong and that he wasn't cheating with another man's wife.

The woman who was driving the car that rammed the camper van has now been charged with "a series of dangerous driving offenses".  I still notice several inconsistencies in the story including why is the heading read "allegedly ramming husband's camper van" yet the description reads "also rammed the car of the woman she suspected of having an affair with her husband".  So she rammed two vehicles?  That's twice as many!  I guess if it has just been the husband's vehicle they were happy to write it off, but now that an innocent and unconnected woman's car has been intentionally assault, well, that's different!

Also, I had it when news websites can't even spell check, particularly when writing about my favourite "camper CAN":

ORIGINAL POST:

So the media is reporting on a case where a woman who has found her husband cheating on her with a younger woman (the woman herself is 57 y/o, the younger woman is 40 y/o) and rams a ute into the van the husband and the younger woman are occupying.

The typical media virtually explains the older woman's reasons in the headline.

Had the genders been reversed the headline would have read: "Man being investigated for assaulting wife with car" and leaving the part about the cheating further into the article.

Interesting how, despite having VIDEO EVIDENCE of the wife 'allegedly' ramming her vehicle into another vehicle, the police aren't charging her with anything and are treating it as a domestic.

Had either the man or woman in the van gotten out at the wrong time they could have been seriously injured or killed from this angry woman's actions.

Here's a list of criminal offenses the woman could have been charged with, even without the husband or other woman wanting to press charges:

• Reckless driving
• Driving with the intent to cause injury
• Endangering the lives of others
• Attempted murder

There are probably others (and probably more correct terminology, I'm not a lawyer) but I just goes to show that when it comes to domestic violence, the media is only about reporting one side of it as serious, the other side is, apparently, comical.