. Hi folks! Just back from a long weekend in Rome. Over there the good news is that I couldn’t pick up the BBC, the bad news is that I could pick up CNN. Whilst CNN is outrageously biased (“Cult of Obama” at its’ worst) I reckon it is perhaps somewhat less anti-British than the BBC, so small mercies and all that! Plus, of course, I do not have to fund such left-wing drivel.

Anyway, I tuned into the BBC this morning and see they have been pushing the “murder isn’t murder when an angry woman does it” line. This latest instance of Harman-esque man-hating proposes that when a “partner” (read woman) kills her other half, this should be not be seen as murder but rather manslaughter. The BBC shows its balance by giving another view. QC Geoffrey Robinson, that awfully nice chap, thinks that these plans to turn murder into manslaughter do NOT go far enough! It’s nice to be home…!!

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Ethan says:

    Harridan Hatemen strikes again!


  2. Jack Bauer says:

    In an ideal world Geoffrey Robinson QC would be horribly manslaughtered and his manslaughterer would be punished with community service, a small fine and… a stern telling off from the Judge.

    One can hope. (Not that I am advocating the manslaughter of our learned arseholes, m’lud.)


  3. Martin says:

    Interesting that according to a lawyer on the BBC radio 5, this could make ‘honour killings’ legal.

    Looks like sharia is already taking over.

    As for Harman, she’s just a man hating dyke.

    If a male politician had said what she said at PMQ’s the other week, a male MP would have had to apologise or resign.


  4. Anonymous says:

    everytime i turn R4 on its the same old bollox about homosexuality, environmentalism, how great Islam is, the credit crunch and them nasty yankees


  5. Emil says:

    As a Red Sox fan the Yankees are not just nasty but totally evil…….


  6. Neomancunion says:

    Here’s something to ponder.
    What would happen if a member of a Civil Partnership killed their partner?
    If a male killed his male partner, would he be charged with manslaughter because he killed a man or murder because he himself was a man?
    Would a woman who killed her female partner be charged with murder because she killed a woman or with manslaughter because she herself was a woman?


  7. Travis Bickle says:


    An interesting point. Might this be an issue over which Stonewall would not want equality?


  8. Cockney says:

    I think David’s is a ridiculously skewed ‘summary’ of what is actually quite sensible legislation (for a change). Surely in addition to giving some protection against wife beating filthbags this would also give legal support to people defending themselves against criminals, like that slightly wierd bloke whose name I can’t remember who shot dead a burglar?

    What amused me was that breakfast BBC1 this morning managed to find a bloke who was extremely in favour and a woman extremely against, both seemingly from the “I am a potential wife beater/murderer and the poor misunderstood murderers / wife beaters must be protected from me” school of liberal guilt.


  9. David Hearnshaw says:

    If someone did for Harman, could they claim extreme provocation!?


  10. Barry says:

    Scraping the barrel with this one in terms of bias aren’t we? My first reaction on hearing about the legislation was “would a battered MAN in the same situation get the same protection?” And yes, it does happen. Thought you’d have jumped on the guy OD-ing on caffiene as he laid into the evil BP chaps who had the audacity to make a profit last year. No mention of the fact that petrol companies make less than 1p a litre profit… that’s less than what they make on a bag of crisps.


  11. George R says:

    From left of centre blog, ‘Harry’s Place’:

    “More nonsense laws”



  12. Martin says:

    Cockney: Sorry but you’re wrong there. The general rule for someone breaking into you home is NOT to confront them.

    The Police will argue that if YOU instigated a confrontation with a Burglar in your home, you may well be guilty of a crime not the burglar.

    I friend of mine bumped a car in a car park. He got out and so did the driver of the other vehicle. The other driver punched him to the floor. My friend got up and punched the bloke back.

    When the Police looked at the CCTV, they decided not to take any action against the first driver, but my friend was given a caution by the Police.

    Their ‘argument’ was he was not acting in self defence as he got up from the floor and hit the other guy back.

    This is why this proposed law change is nonsense. If you are under provocation, you should walk away. There is no excuse for a woman to kill her partner unless she is being physically threatened at the time and even then she should still have court as any of us potentially would (like Tony Martin did) for killing someone.

    This is just another step by the “I hate all men” Julie Bindal lesbians who now run much of the media and Government,


  13. Travis Bickle says:

    IMO This is a far from sensible solution to a real problem, and depending on the quality of defence lawyer they can afford will no doubt allow some people to, quite literally, get away with murder.


  14. Cassandra says:

    These days there is no excuse to stay in an abusive relationship as the ‘help systems’ are fully established now and every abused woman has a refuge place for her and her children and real assistance from the police services. This is just another example of the ill thought out contortions of a failing ‘we gotta do something’ socialist regime. Established English common law is all we need with enough sensible judges to make reasonable judgements based on different circumstances. This Nu set of laws is only a quick fix for the other ill thought out and failed quick fix laws that the NuLab nincompoops rushed out previously. The moral of the story is, dont mess with an established legal system for the sake of being seen to be doing something/anything. In the words of my hero, Dont just do something, stand there!


  15. F0ul says:

    We are quickly getting to a point where real people don’t know what they can do within the law.

    We’ve already seen that there are loads of different interpretations of this law just on this thread, so how are you going to read it when your wife is throwing things at you when you come home late from work?

    Maybe you can walk away from that, but what happens when she starts slapping you? or hits you in the face with a hot cup of coffee?

    Most women on men violence is the sort of drip drip effect where the trigger point may not be something which, by itself, can justify murder.

    The problem as I see it, is that Women can get away with it, while men can’t – and putting this new interpretation of the law into the public space will make it even more difficult for men to do the right thing – while giving the female bully more ammunition to go even further!

    The BBC really need to show the other side of the story in an adult way and stop being a lefty tabloid!


  16. WoAD says:

    Dictionary definition of manslaughter i.e. accidental killing

    “the unlawful but not deliberately planned killing of one human being by another”

    In the case of the situations that this law from Harman pertains to, I think, according to the actual definition of these crimes, that Harman and New-Labour are legitimising murder – premeditated killing.

    One should not sympathise with or “understand” evil because that is how one grows to identify with, apologise for, and finally ally with evil.

    Though I have come to expect evil from vegetarian and pro-abortion feminists.


  17. Martin says:

    F0ul: Many women don’t kill men in a violent way, they often do it by poison. There was a case quite recently of a woman who poisoned her husbands food.

    So according to ‘dyke’ Harman that will be acceptable as well?

    We’ve had all this nonsense before over rape.

    How often do you hear the lesbians say that ‘men get away with rape?’

    Now I thought the law said innocent until proven guilty?

    But no, according to the dykes, men ‘get off with it’

    I think the classic was where a woman can get pissed out of her head and NOT be accountable for her actions, but for a man that defence doesn’t hold.

    Shouldn’t it be that if you get so blind drunk you don’t know what you’re doing, that’s YOUR problem?

    Harpie also holds up the old belief that women cannot be predatory when it comes to sex or that women don’t make up cases of rape just to get back at a man. Harman says those are rare? How does she know? Read her article, she doesn’t seem to have much sympathy for men falsely accused of rape.



  18. Original Robin says:


    The man in Norfolk who shot that burglar was Tony Martin.
    The burglar(s) got was coming to them and he should not have even been charged, never mind sent to jail.
    He may have been an oddity, but that is not against the law. He was inoffensive in his life.
    Strange ,harmless people should not be victimised as he was.And it`s a pity more criminal scum aren`t shot dead.


  19. Joel says:

    I appreciate the argument about how far our right to defend our homes, property and lives should go, but Tony Martin was always a bad test case to base it on.

    ‘To Kill a Burglar: the Tony Martin Story’ showed what he really got up to..and it wasn’t ‘harmless’.


  20. Iain says:

    Martin: “The Police will argue that if YOU instigated a confrontation with a Burglar in your home, you may well be guilty of a crime not the burglar.”

    Are you sure? I know the Police say that you should not chase after a burglar who is running away, but this?

    Very sensitive, these members of the burglary community.


  21. Original Robin says:


    Tony Martin had been burgled before Fallon and the others trespassed there in pursuit of crime. He was an afraid, lonely old man.
    It doesn`t need to be a test case for anything else. Just justice for innocent people.


  22. John Bosworth says:

    It’s nice to live n a theoretical world. One is absolved of any RESPONSIBILITY.


  23. Lee Moore says:

    Barry : Scraping the barrel with this one in terms of bias aren’t we?

    No I don’t think so – this is an excellent example of what Andrew Marr is talking about in the sidebar to this blog. These reforms are motivated primarily by two perceived problems, both of which seriously exercise progressives. Criminal justice should be about understanding and rehabilitation, not about punishment. Most murderers are just a bit mixed up and we must NOT think about them as like the Yorkshire Ripper. The law should reflect that fact that most murderers should be returned, rehabilitated, to society as soon as possible and that can’t be done by tarring them all with the same brush. Second, equality is all. Since women are too weak to murder their husbands when out of their minds with fury (and since they aren’t allowed to have guns) they have to grin and bear their moments of fury. Instead they have to kill their husbands when they’ve calmed down and planned it out. This isn’t fair.

    Obviously, this is all nonsense, because the explanation for treating a killing done in the heat of the moment differently from one done with premeditation is to do with whether the killer is in his or her right wits at the time of the killing, and has nothing to do with wanting to favour men over women. But in order to even things up between the sexes, apparently, we must be willing to allow some premediatated murders, so as to preserve sex equality in the murdering community.

    None of this has anything at all to do with party politics – instead those who believe that it’s important to eliminate any element of indirect sex discrimination in murder opportunities are overwhelmingly progressive/liberal. The BBC stands proudly on this ground.


  24. Cockney says:


    I agree with you (genuinely couldn’t remember his name).

    Given the new proposals even if he couldn’t convince a jury of his innocence I would’ve though he’d have a case for claiming to be “seriously wronged” and hence get the sentencing benefits of the reduced charge even if the original verdict (that he’d intended to kill) had been upheld. Which is progress, surely?


  25. Cassandra says:

    This Nu law is just another sick role reversal of the guilty and the innocent? The killer becomes the victim enabled with more excuses and the murder victim becomes the guilty party unable to defend themselves from any excuses the murderer can conjure up! Socialism is about giving people easy excuses for their behaviour and evading personal responsibility for anything, in their minds nobody is to blame for anything and any wrongdoing can be explained away and excused. The national socialists/soviet socialists gave people easy answers and convenient scapegoats and look how those ugly socialist experiments ended up. We are now seeing the end result of the creepy mental illness that is socialism.
    Its acceptable in their eyes to murder,persecute and discriminate against native white males because they are seen as the ‘class enemy’? As with the USSR there is only one way this is going to end and that will involve copious amounts of tears for us all.


  26. Martin says:

    Iain: Yep, the Police will argue that for example if you attack a burglar who isn’t armed himself that could well not be defined as reasonable force.

    This is where the whole legal system falls apart. In the case ofTony Martin, he didn’t know how many people were in his house and he didn’t know if they went away they might come back better armed.

    Attacking a burglar in your own home could lead you into a court case.

    Remember the Police don’t care about “law abiding people”. To them there is no such thing.

    A crime is a crime and it looks good on the clear up books if they can get you to admit to over reacting.


  27. NotaSheep says:

    “Martin: “The Police will argue that if YOU instigated a confrontation with a Burglar in your home, you may well be guilty of a crime not the burglar.””
    Surely the burglar instigated the confrontation by entering your property uninvited?


  28. Jonathan Boyd Hunt says:

    David Vance:

    Re: Geoffrey Robinson (sic)

    The leftwing warrior who poses as an honourable man, whom you saw on the Beeb, was undoubtedly Geoffrey Robertson, head of Doughty St Chambers, and the husband of fellow Australian, fellow member-of-the-Blair-and-Brown inner circle, fellow media darling, author Kathy Lette.

    It’s a common mistake so you’re in good company.

    For your information the evidence proves overwhelmingly that Robertson was part of a lawyers’ conspiracy, together with Fayed lawyer Stuart Benson and Geraldine Proudler, the head of litigation of media lawyers Olswang, to procure false witness in the Hamilton ‘cash for questions’ affair.

    To find out what Robertson, Proudler, Benson, and others did, read: “The Concise True Story of the ‘Cash for Questions’ affair”, which you will find in Section Two of my website http://www.guardianlies.com .

    If this stirs your interest, then read “Guardian Lies” Nos. 6, 7 and 8, which can be found in Section Three.

    And then ask yourself why I’ve never been sued.


  29. Rob Clark says:

    Surely if a person (or persons) unknown break into your property with the intent of committing a crime, you should be allowed to take action against them?

    Where Martin was ‘unlucky’ was that a) being a farmer he had access to a gun and b) the criminal he shot was only 16 years old.

    He may have overreacted, but as none of us were there, it’s hard to say for certain, but the original trial clearly got it wrong as his sentence was cut from life to 3 years on appeal and the burglars were not allowed to seek damages from Martin.


  30. Jonathan says:

    Barry: Scraping the barrel with this one in terms of bias aren’t we?

    Did you have the misfortune to watch the one o’clock news? Just a couple of quotes from the Harman interview…

    Justifying the abolition of the defence of provocation, Harrman says…

    a. “You can’t just kill out of anger and blame the victim”.
    b. “Relatives said to me it absolutely unbearable not only to have lost a sister or daughter but to sit at the back of a court and hear her blamed for the fact that she was killed”

    Fair comment. Except of course, by now allowing a defence of ‘domestic abuse’, in murder cases, isn’t Harperson giving women the green light to do both?

    So why wasn’t Harman challenged on this apparent inconsistency? Indeed why was the whole tone of the segment (especially Mark Eaton’s puff piece) supportive? Shouldn’t a public broadcaster give equal air-time to both sides of the argument?

    One final point • on a simple point of Equality. Why was Harman allowed to continually describe all victims of domestic abuse in wholly feminine terms, i.e. daughters, sisters, women etc… Not once in the whole interview did she or the interviewer accept or acknowledge the possibility that a man might be subjected to abuse by a woman. Yet, according to some academic surveys; up to 1 in 6 men suffer or have suffered some form of domestic abuse. Would the BBC have allowed a man (and a so-called Equalities minister, to boot) to have been so sexist in his language?


  31. Ron Todd says:

    The reports I read but not from the BBC suggested that one of the proposals was if somebody thought they had been sufficiently insulted before commiting murder it could be downgraded to manlaughter.

    So ‘he was dissing me’ becomes a defence. And if the dissee was black and the diser white he would probably get away with it as we all have to be culturaly sensative.


  32. Martin says:

    The BBC 6PM news just gave two examples of how the new law would work.

    In one example. the woman stabs her violent drunk husband to death whilst he sleeps.

    A couple of points. Suppose he woke up just as she was going to stab him and he then killed her instead? What happens then?

    What if she stabs him more than once?

    And finally, if he’s drunk and asleep why not simply leave or call the Police?

    Is it not the case that many women are rather stupid and don’t follow through with having their husbands arrested and prosecuted?


  33. Martin says:

    Jonathan: When I served in the RAF we had a guy (little bloke) who was married to one of the biggest and fattest women I’ve ever seen.

    We know she used to beat him (he often had bruises on his arms). One day he came into work with the imprint of an iron on the side of his face.

    No one ever did anything about it though. In fact it was seen as a bit of a joke. She was a nasty piece of work though.


  34. Gibby Haynes says:

    One day he came into work with the imprint of an iron on the side of his face.

    I laughed out loud at that. I know I shouldn’t’ve, but…I’m only human.


  35. Martin says:

    I see ITV news mentioned the story about Harman plotting to overthrow Broon, but the BBC?

    Oh and presumably Harman thinks this woman should get off with it?



  36. Jon says:

    How is it that Labour passes new laws almost every day – yet not one of them were in their manifesto.? They just seem to make things up as they go along.

    “Mr Blair also outlined a tough message on law and order and immigration and asylum, promising a justice system which put the “victims first” from the 2005 manifesto.

    Here is the 2005 manifesto, courtesy of their media wing the BBC

    Click to access 13_04_05_labour_manifesto.pdf

    Nothing about changing what constitutes a murder.


  37. Moses says:

    Which bit of “thou shalt not kill” do you not understand?


  38. Martin says:

    Jon: Didn’t they promise us a vote on the Lisbon treaty as well?


  39. jimbob says:

    this is an example of the kind of laws that will be coming thick and fast if harperson becomes PM.

    anyone want to guess who beeb will back for next leader of labour party ?


  40. Martin says:

    jimbob: There are plenty of those short fat dumpy ‘wimmin’ with short hair at the BBC.


  41. DP111 says:

    This latest instance of Harman-esque man-hating proposes that when a “partner” (read woman) kills her other half, this should be not be seen as murder but rather manslaughter

    Will that apply to a Muslim woman murdering her allegedly abusive Muslim husband(partner)?. I think not, if this governments pathetic appeasement to any Islamic custom is a guide.


  42. David Preiser (USA) says:


    Of course Muslim women will not be able to take advantage of this new legal development. By the time this comes to pass, they will be living under Sharia in Britain (with the ArchB of C Seal of Approval), which will be much harsher.

    But it will be okay because their religion compels them to do it, and it is conventional wisdom that Muslims are devout by nature. They are the only people whom the Leftoids at the BBC do not ridicule for being devout. Indeed, they seem to expect it from people with darker skin.


  43. Atlas shrugged says:

    Which bit of “thou shalt not kill” do you not understand?


    Simple laws are the best, because we all know where we stand.

    The powers that be want us as confused as they can make us. We now can not use our own language as we used to, and have little idea what is now legal or illegal.

    This is not an accident this is being done deliberately to undermine society to the point of breaking it entirely.

    This is the Common Purpose of radical politics. Which is a brainwashing exercise carried out by our own establishment in our universities many decades ago. Which is now bringing forward its most divisive of fruits.

    Now you can carry on believing its all a coincidence or just the rather nasty by-product modern society if you like. Or you can start to seriously wise up and realize that these things simply can’t happen without a conspiracy going on at the top.

    In the sixties and seventies crazy ideas like redefining what constitutes MURDER, where blamed on subversive individuals and movements being financed and promoted by mainly the USSR.

    Surely we can see now that since the old Soviet Union effectively died off nearly 20 years ago. That the people who are driving this destructive social and economic agenda are our own establishment. Otherwise this sort of nonsense and countless other examples could not, so would not happen under any circumstances.

    Please be reminded yet again.

    The BBC is not run by a bunch of six form commy rejects. It is the mouth piece of the British and therefore worlds establishment. Who are also the people who have invested countless billions in AGW scams and the now simply massive productive capacity of communist/fascist China.

    The BBC represents the looters and the moochers of the world. The BBCs mission is to destroy all that is , hardworking, fair, reasonable, honest, sensible, productive, or harmonious. In short conservative, in all classes of this society.

    If you really want to know what is happening rather then just moaning the rest of your short lives away. Please get a copy of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and read it. If you cant work it all out after properly doing so, you are either a looter, or a moocher, yourself, or just plain thick.

    Or if you cant be bothered to wade though over 1000 pages. Here is a brief summery of the books basic message.

    When the ‘looters’ represented by large collectivist industrial and banking corporations conspire wittingly or not with the ‘moochers’ represented by lazy good for nothing misfit scumbags on the make. Things like prosperity, individual liberty, common law, property rights, effective democracy, world peace, justice, civil rights, and normal family life, among many other perfectly human and wonderful things, go permanently out of the proverbial window.

    For evil to win, all it takes is for good people to do nothing to stop it.

    Unfortunately good people have precious little idea who is trying to destroy their existence and have even less idea why these evil psychos are so incredibly determined to do so.

    How can they? If sexually and morally confused brainwashed misfits like Harriet Harman have no idea who has long since been controlling there mind. How the bugger is the great unwashed supposed to know?


  44. George R says:

    “What if Harriet Harman was PM?”

    (by Quentin Letts).


    “The BBC will be given extra money to start a new women’s channel, designed along the lines of the BBC Asian network.”



  45. George R says:

    Politically correct correction to above: first line, not ‘Harman’ but ‘Harperson’.


  46. Martin says:

    Victoria Derbyshire is babbling on about why drugs should be made legal. (She of course owned up to taking dope in the past – why am I not shocked at that?)

    Everyone is agreeing (some of the callers sound like they are still on drugs)

    Here’s an ideas. Give alcoholics free extra strong lager (very popular in Scotland me thinks)

    Oh and free DVD players for tea leafs.

    How about giving car thieves free cars?


  47. George R says:

    “Record fine over BBC’s phone-ins”


    “The BBC has been fined £400,000 by media watchdog Ofcom for misleading its audiences by ‘faking’ phone-ins.”



  48. David Preiser (USA) says:

    George R | 30.07.08 – 12:47 pm |

    I think the penalty is far too small. Stewart Purvis is wrong about the fine being proportionate to the damage done. Even he uses the BBC defense that they weren’t making any real money on this, as these weren’t premium phone-ins. Money is entirely beside the point.

    Liz Kershaw faked competitions on pre-recorded shows 17 times?! That’s practically a deliberate criminal act. Not only that, but these offenses are across the spectrum of BBC programming. There are far too many instances of this throughout the entire organization for any excuses at this point.

    But if Purvis feels that the fines are appropriate to compensate for what is essentially chronic deception of the public, then he and Ofcom must feel that the public didn’t trust the BBC very much in the first place.

    At one point, Purvis reveals something really ugly, something which shows without a doubt how callous, arrogant, and wrong-headed so many are at the BBC.

    The Beeboid off camera asks him if he was confident that the BBC had put its house in order after all this. Purvis says he is, and begins to talk about staff education.

    “…there has been very positive feedback from BBC staff themselves on what they’d learned from this training course…”

    I can well imagine the positive feedback: “Lying and cheating the public is frowned upon? Who knew? Thanks, Ofcom!”

    Can they extend this training to the News department?


  49. Sutekh says:

    Jonathan: When I served in the RAF we had a guy (little bloke) who was married to one of the biggest and fattest women I’ve ever seen.

    We know she used to beat him (he often had bruises on his arms). One day he came into work with the imprint of an iron on the side of his face.

    No one ever did anything about it though. In fact it was seen as a bit of a joke. She was a nasty piece of work though.
    Martin | 29.07.08 – 6:23 pm | #
    My mum (now 73) used to tell me about neighbour of theirs when she was a kid in the 40’s. This neighbour was a tiny , bad-tempered woman, married to a 6’4″ gentle, amiable giant of a man whom she would nag from dawn till dusk.

    On Sundays she’d nag him into making the lunch and while he was bending down, she’d knock him unconscious with a frying pan and then kick 50 shades of shit out of him while he was unconscious.

    This happened almost every week and like the above example, was seen as a bit of a joke and no-one did anything about it.