Woman who killed eight children probably not going to be punished

So Raina Thaiday, the woman who killed seven of her own children and one child of another family, probably won't be punished because she thought she was saving them.

But don't worry, she's being treated now and is allowed out into the hospital grounds despite having two relapses since being taking into custody.

Her schizophrenia, brought on by excessive cannabis use, was to blame, she's just an innocent victim in all of this.

Don't worry though, she's being treated.

Just forget about any kind of punishment of any kind because it's not like cannabis is illegal or that it's not her fault that she used to smoke more of it in a day than most people see in a lifetime.

It's also not like we force schizophrenic people from being treated, so I guess that's 'punishment' enough.

So I guess our benevolent lawmakers are happy to chalk all of these deaths up to mental illness and not Domestic Violence.  Because it's not socially acceptable to show a woman committing Domestic Violence.

I wonder how many cases of man on woman Domestic Violence could be discounted if they were allowed to do the same.  But we all know that the anti-male establishment wouldn't allow that.

I'll put money on her ending up with a lucrative government position as a spokesperson for mental illness and wind up as Australian of the Year, a bit like Rosie Batty.  Ironically, if they don't count Thaiday's victims deaths as Domestic Violence, then we can't count Luke Batty's death either, since his father had a history of mental illness.  There surely can't be one rule for men and another for women, can there?

I don't know what makes me more sick, the media excusing some of the most inexcusable actions of women (not one word of the article does anything other than try to explain how it wasn't her fault) or the legal system being 'compassionate' to women, deciding that she shouldn't receive any kind of punishment, not even for endangering children when she was smoking the excessive amount of cannabis that resulted in the condition that contributed to eight deaths!

The simple fact is that the media has an agenda, that gender is to paint men as violent and women as victims.  But if we're comparing Greg Anderson to Raina Thaiday, the score is 1-8, but I don't see a SINGLE MAN being promoted to the level Rosie Batty is for what Raina did.  But I guess Greg is an easier target for allegations for what transpired in the lead up to that fateful date, since dead men tell no tales.

Female author stabs man, media defends

So a woman has been sentenced to 13 years jail for stabbing her housemate 22 times, killing him.

Notice how the report leaves out that the 'author' is actually a woman in the title?  I guess it's kind of assumed given that the author was pregnant.

Then the report goes on to list out all of the reasons why she did what she did, thereby arguing that she's not really a bad person, she was just:

• Hungry due to suffering morning sickness;
• Pregnant;
• Suffering withdrawal from alcohol and cannabis;
• Angry that he hadn't been "providing for her like he promised"; and
• Craving cigarettes.

It's interesting that she got such a long sentence, although I guess it'd be hard to defend killing someone.  I mean it's not like she permanently disfigured a man, put him in a wheelchair for 4 months and injured him with a knife so badly he needed 243 stitches.  She would have only been given 3 and a half years for that.

First step in many - granting fathers less than half

So here we have a case of a threesome gone wrong, with the ex-wife (now in a lesbian relationship with the mother of the child) now awarded one-third custody of a boy.

One wonders why the woman, not the biological mother, even needed to be legally considered one since she's actually living with the biological mother anyway.

This obviously is a ploy to argue that the man's access to his son should be reduced since he's not half of the parenting equation, he's only a third.

Men, be careful with whom you have children and ALWAYS question the motives of any woman who accepts that you have a child with another woman whilst you're in a relationship with them.

Far too many men have been hurt by women who 'discover' that they're actually lesbians after they've had a couple of children with a man.

Woman defrauds men for $2 million, gets 18 months minimum

So a woman has defrauded multiple men out of more than $2 million, yet only gets 18 months jail minimum:

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/02/23/13/53/sydney-lonely-hearts-fraudster-gets-6-yrs

Contrary to what I normally do, I've posted the full link to the article because, as people will notice, the link itself reads "Sydney lonely hearts fraudster gets 6 years", which isn't even half true as the full sentence is only three and a half years, with a minimum sentence of 18 months.

As usual, the media focused solely on the poor woman, what drove her to doing it (she's a mother of four and takes care of her mother and brother) yet doesn't mention the impact on a single one of the victims, who may never get their money back since this poor woman is supposed to have spent the "money on cocaine, gambling and building a house".

This other 'news' website reports that she also spent the money on plastic surgery and cars.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but only one of those three things even remotely relates to taking care of anyone.  Gambling and using cocaine never helped raise children or look after relatives.

She really isn't a victim at all.  As usual, the stories of the real victims here, the men, will never be told by the media, who never want to paint men as victims or women as perpetrators, so will avoid it as much as possible.

Compare the 18 month sentence to the four year jail sentence issued to a man who 'only' stole $80,000 from 87 victims on Gumtree.  The difference was that this man had no contact with his victims, didn't continually lie to them, only the main lie that he was selling something that he didn't have.  So woman steals $2 million and gets 18 months jail, man steals $80,000 and gets 4 years jail.

I guess that's equality.  Feminists must be outraged!

I don't often agree with lawyers, but...

So a talk show host has been chatting with the lawyer of the man accused of killing his spouse and the talk show host was surprised when his lawyer commented that the man wasn't bailed soon enough.

Here's what we know so far:

• The 52 year old man with no criminal history had been in custody for 44 days before he was bailed; and
• His wife, who said she feared for her life, was later murdered after his release.

His lawyer is correct in that:

• The 52 year old man hasn't been found guilty of murder (yet), so should be presumed innocent (so the headline that reads "DV Killer Lawyer" is technically overstepping and would be open to a libel lawsuit should the man be found innocent; and
• The man has no criminal history and had been held for 44 days before being bailed.

Now, I'm not stating one way or another who did what, but to hold a person for 44 days before granting them bail is a sure-fire way to get someone pretty angry.

Imagine how you feel if someone just came along one day out of the blue, put you in a holding cell and told you that you couldn't even apply for bail for a month and a half.  Would your employer be happy to hold your job for you?  Would you even have a job?  Who would feed you pets, pay your bills, clean out your fridge, etc?  Remember, this isn't a man who went overseas for six weeks who could plan for this, this was a person who should be considered to be innocent until proven guilty.

Like I said, I may consider the outcome from this situation appalling (assuming he's guilty), but to assume we should just keep all men accused of domestic violence, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAVE NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, is completely doing away with the system of innocent until proven guilty for men (but leaving it in place for women).

A bit like how the justice system has let a female socialite and daughter of a politician out of jail after serving only 2 years for her part in a murder, when her accomplice, a man, was sentenced to 11 years jail.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Woman who killed eight children in 2014 still hasn't been tried / African assault in St Kilda

A few people may remember when a woman by the name of Raina Mersane Ina Thaiday is alleged to have killed eight children (seven of her own, one of someone else).

Interesting how the headline refers to the case by her last name, which wasn't widely released at the time, and the name of the obscure suburb of Cairns in which the incident took place, thus guaranteeing most people wouldn't bother clicking on the link.

Had the article read "Woman who allegedly killed eight children back in court" they would have gotten far more hits, however to news sites the narrative that all women are victims, never perpetrators is more important that hits on a news website.

It's not just HOW the media reports the news that determines whether it is Left or Right, it is WHAT the media reports.  A bit like how if a migrant is verbally abused on public transport it's front-page news and Australians are declared racists, but if 30 migrants assault random people in the street, the stories are tucked away and their identities hidden for the sake of the PC agenda.  Notice how the first article in this story makes NO MENTION of the nationality of the gangs at all, the guys were just set upon by some random gang that could have been white or Asian.

Three women charged with sexual assault, but not rape

Three women have been charged with sexual assault on a young man after luring him somewhere, getting him passed out drunk, then videotaping things they did to him.

As usual, the media ends the article with the usual "but they're not guilty of rape", although interestingly enough the word 'rape' is never mentioned, only "sexual assault by penetration" (the only form of 'rape' a man can legally be considered to be raped.

Had they all taken turns having sex with him and possibly getting pregnant to him, there'd be no charges at all, he'd just be a stupid boy.

I guess I have to be thankful for something though, at least they didn't wait until the 4th paragraph to mention the genders, although interestingly they're a "girl gang", although their ages are 26, 22 and 20.  Are they perhaps partly excusing the behaviour because "girls will be girls"?

Not only defend female sex offenders, they provide a platform for defence

So here's a woman who had sex with an underage boy and complains that he seduced her.

I don't know what's worse, the media portraying her as the victim, or the fact that she's being given a platform on which to defend her actions on television BEFORE SHE'S EVEN GONE TO TRIAL!

Any other country that'd be considered tampering with a potential jury, unless of course there won't be a jury, in which case she (or her lawyers) are trying to garner public sympathy.

Woman stabs man in the eye, walks free

So, here's a surprise.

Notice that her gender isn't specifically mentioned until about the 3rd paragraph, up until then she's simply "a student".

Are male students who do things simply "students" when they do the wrong thing?

Also, the whole article goes on to defend her actions for supposedly defending her friend from having a drink poured over her head.

So, the correct action to stop a drink being poured over one's head is now to stab a person in the eye with a sharp object.  Right, only if the person doing the stabbing is female.

Woman allegedly kills partner, allegedly attempts to kill his sons, media fairly quiet

So here's the story about a woman who has allegedly killed her partner and allegedly tried to kill his two sons, yet we don't know her name or anything else about her.

If this was a man who had killed his female partner and tried to kill her two children we'd know everything about the guy and would even have a photo.

Woman sentenced to jail for eight years, a change in the air?

Here's an interesting story about a UK woman jailed for 8 years for pretending to be a man.

It's interesting that the courts have come down so hard on this woman, which could be a sign of changes to come, or a one in a million.

I guess the whole full disclosure for full consent is going to affect women too!

Daughter dies in accident, father 'killed' her, article declares

I came across this article about a poor family who lost their daughter, but the media, as usual, is only too happy to spin it that the father killed his daughter on purpose.

The language is very telling: "a father who killed his nine-year old daughter".

What's interesting to note is that the article only mentions the mother is passing, that she "slammed" the sentence.  Did she think the sentence was too harsh, too light?  Which was it?

I would guess that, since they both shared the same surname, that the couple are still married and that she doesn't believe her husband, who obviously engaged in risky behaviour, should go to jail for as long as he has been sentenced.

Remember, there are two reasons to send a person to jail: to punish and to rehabilitate.  On one hand, the father in this case possibly should be punished, but using the same line of logic that people argue about women who've lost their children due to their own mistakes, "isn't losing his daughter punishment enough"?

As for rehabilitation, firstly I doubt he'll want to even look at another buggy, let alone do anything similar, so I doubt that the probably of re-offending is very high.

So the taxpayers have to pay for this guy to sit in a cell to think about what he's done and his family has to find a way to cope without him for longer than a lot of violent and sexual offenders get sentenced to for purposely committing crimes.

Oh well, I guess that's just par for the course.

Man glassed in slut-shaming social experiment, let's focus on poor women

So, a guy who was glassed during a slut-shaming social experiment doesn't even rate a headline, yet another example of a woman pretending to be drunk to gauge men's reactions does.  I wonder if this one is fake like the Australian one was, where the men were told how to act before being shamed for doing what they were asked to do!