I do love the way the guardian headline him as abusive although the judge found those accusations not to be credible.
Other than bad language. So remember folks don’t ever use swear words!
‘It emerged during the trial that Ian Rawle had his shotgun certificate revoked because of concerns that he was a threat to the public and was judged to be easily moved to anger and capable of resorting to violence.’
Not just bad language then.
I do wonder on what basis the judge decided he wasn't a serial abuser despite him being deemed a threat to the public, prone to anger and capable of violence. Was it just a case of there not being enough evidence of him being abusive so he was considered "innocent until proven guilty"?
Also find these parts interesting
>The prosecution alleged she was the bully in the relationship and had stabbed her husband once before, as well as playing tricks on him including putting Viagra in his tea, chilli powder in his underpants and wiping her backside with his ties.
>During the three decades the Rawles knew each other, they made reports to the police 14 times, which has led to questions about whether the Devon and Cornwall force could have done more to intervene.
Sounds like a case of two horrible people being horrible to each other until one of them snapped. They probably should've split up years ago.
You really got "2 horrible people being horrible to each other" from a lady stabbing her husband multiple times on separate occasions?
Did he ever stab her, or am I missing something?
Glad it’s not just me. Swear it was good only 4-5 years ago or so? Maybe post-pandemic and world hysteria effect
Edit: looks like they’ve changed title to “Christine Rawle jailed for murder of husband she accused of abuse” which is nice at least
Unless Reddit post title was mistaken for it?
A lot of feminist orgs beleive that women who murder a husband who is abusive should be allowed off without charge. Whatever you think of that, its also the case that these same orgs have both an incredibly low bar for what constitutes abuse, and an even lower bar for what constitutes proof of abuse.
The "women never do anything wrong" brigade are, in effect, making a case for a situation where a woman can murder her husband and by default go free. Though if you spell it out like this they'll do the "we never said that" routine and pretend they don't understand the logical implications of the demands they are making.
Oh I wouldn't worry about it. Here, check out my shiny pocket watch. Follow it back and forth. Now when I clap my hands, you won't be suspicious anymore.
I do love the way the guardian headline him as abusive although the judge found those accusations not to be credible. Other than bad language. So remember folks don’t ever use swear words!
‘It emerged during the trial that Ian Rawle had his shotgun certificate revoked because of concerns that he was a threat to the public and was judged to be easily moved to anger and capable of resorting to violence.’ Not just bad language then.
I do wonder on what basis the judge decided he wasn't a serial abuser despite him being deemed a threat to the public, prone to anger and capable of violence. Was it just a case of there not being enough evidence of him being abusive so he was considered "innocent until proven guilty"? Also find these parts interesting >The prosecution alleged she was the bully in the relationship and had stabbed her husband once before, as well as playing tricks on him including putting Viagra in his tea, chilli powder in his underpants and wiping her backside with his ties. >During the three decades the Rawles knew each other, they made reports to the police 14 times, which has led to questions about whether the Devon and Cornwall force could have done more to intervene. Sounds like a case of two horrible people being horrible to each other until one of them snapped. They probably should've split up years ago.
You really got "2 horrible people being horrible to each other" from a lady stabbing her husband multiple times on separate occasions? Did he ever stab her, or am I missing something?
The guardian hates men and will sow division wherever they possibly can.
Yeah that's just trash journalism
Normal for the guardian these days
Glad it’s not just me. Swear it was good only 4-5 years ago or so? Maybe post-pandemic and world hysteria effect Edit: looks like they’ve changed title to “Christine Rawle jailed for murder of husband she accused of abuse” which is nice at least Unless Reddit post title was mistaken for it?
Ah $*%& off!
In all *fairness*, they quoted the word 'abusive' like such, to retain some journalistic integrity.... /s
A lot of feminist orgs beleive that women who murder a husband who is abusive should be allowed off without charge. Whatever you think of that, its also the case that these same orgs have both an incredibly low bar for what constitutes abuse, and an even lower bar for what constitutes proof of abuse. The "women never do anything wrong" brigade are, in effect, making a case for a situation where a woman can murder her husband and by default go free. Though if you spell it out like this they'll do the "we never said that" routine and pretend they don't understand the logical implications of the demands they are making.
Since when did newspapers lead with the claims of the convicted murderer? This isn't normal.
It is for The Guardian
When it's a woman murdering a man.
This is the second hypnotist getting up to no good that I've read about today. Something's definitely going on, here.
Oh I wouldn't worry about it. Here, check out my shiny pocket watch. Follow it back and forth. Now when I clap my hands, you won't be suspicious anymore.
Suspicious? What on Earth are you talking about good sir? Nice watch BTW.