Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - selkie

Main / Good men are now worthless
Nov 07, 2006, 05:43 PM
Main / Uppity Men
Sep 22, 2006, 07:27 PM
Main / Scalding charge woman 'lied to nurses'
Sep 21, 2006, 11:08 PM

A mum accused of deliberately pouring boiling water over her five-year-old son admitted lying to nurses when she took him to casualty.

The woman, now 35, told staff at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, her child had been playing Power Rangers and caused the accident himself.

But Cardiff Crown Court heard yesterday that in her first police interview after her son made a complaint 11 years later, she admitted that was a lie.

The mum from Ely, Cardiff, told officers she had been shouting and screaming at the time.

And she said she had really been trying to kill off an ants' nest in her kitchen and had poured the boiling contents of her kettle over her son by mistake.

Referring to her first explanation, she told officers: 'The reason I said that was because I was frightened at what happened - I was terrified I would get into trouble.'

The boy, now 16, suffered burns to 21 per cent of his body in the incident in October 1995.

Cardiff Crown Court was told the mum, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had offered three explanations for what happened and had become agitated because the boy's father had not turned up to see him, and that he had started a relationship with another woman.

The jury also heard the mum had been beaten by her father as a child.

She told officers: 'I grew up with a father who didn't give a damn about me. I love my children and would never harm them. I admit I was shouting and screaming at the time because I was stressed. I boiled the kettle to get rid of an ants' nest in my kitchen.'

She told police she had the cordless kettle in her hand and accidentally spilled the boiling water over the five-year-old and her 18-month-old daughter after turning around.

The court was told the daughter was not scalded.

The boy's dad told the court his son, who has been living with him for the last year, 'did not go out, had no friends, no social life, nothing'.

He said: 'After my son told me what really happened, it took him maybe five or six months to go to the police. I was very upset. I kept asking why, why, why?'

During cross-examination Lucy Crowther, defending, said: 'Was it you who suggested to him that one explanation was his mum had bullied and threatened him?'

'No, absolutely not,' said the father.

The mother has denied a charge of causing grievous bodily harm.

. . .remains anonymous :evil:

An innocent man jailed for a sex attack was dramatically cleared after it emerged that his 'victim' is a serial liar with a long history of crying rape.

But because of laws that protect her anonymity, judges are powerless to name and shame her, leaving her free to make more false accusations against blameless members of the public.

Mr Blackwell, 36, hugged his loyal wife Tanya and wept as the Appeal Court quashed his conviction.

He described his accuser as "every man's worst nightmare".

Mr Justice Tugendhat admitted, however, that similar tragic cases could follow because of the lies of the woman, Miss A.

"Parliament does not seem to have contemplated this situation.

"There appears to be no means of displacing her entitlement to anonymity."

In the 1970s, the Daily Mail campaigned for women in sex cases to be granted automatic anonymity, but now there are questions about whether the law has gone too far.

Warren Blackwell's nightmare began when Miss A, now 38, claimed she had been seized with a knife outside a village club early on New Year's Day 1999, taken to an alley and indecently assaulted.

She later picked Mr Blackwell out at an identity parade.

There was no forensic evidence against him and he had no previous convictions.

'She needs to be stopped'

Yet Mr Blackwell, from Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire, was found guilty and spent three years and four months behind bars.

Eventually the case was referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) which assigned Detective Chief Inspector Steve Glover, to investigate. He discovered that the woman:
Has made at least five other fake allegations of sexual and physical assault to police in three separate forces.
Was married twice and made false allegations against both husbands - one of whom was a policeman.
Once accused her own father of sexual assault, but police concluded she had made it up.
Accused a boy of rape when she was a teenager, only for a doctor to discover she was still a virgin.
The CCRC concluded that in the case of Mr Blackwell, she had "lied about the assault and was not attacked at all, her injuries being self-inflicted".

The Crown Prosecution Service did not oppose the appeal.

David Farrell QC, for the Crown, said: "This conviction is unsafe. What has come out of the woodwork paints a picture of a woman with immense personal problems with serious difficulties in distinguishing between truth and lies."

If this information had been known at the time of the trial, he added, "this case would not have made it off the ground".

Mr Blackwell said: "Clearly something has to be done about this woman. She needs to be stopped. The prosecution say she is psychiatrically disturbed, but insane people who murder are tried and if found guilty put away."

Mr Blackwell, who plans to sue police over his ordeal, will now have his name removed from the Sex Offender Register.

His accuser has a history of mental illness and self-harm - once inscribing the word 'HATE' on her body with scissors.

However, because she has changed her name at least eight times, and moved between addresses in at least three counties, it seems police never realised they were dealing with the same woman.

For Mr Blackwell, her accusations meant he missed more than three years of family life. His son Liam, ten, and stepdaughter Holly, 16, were three and nine when his ordeal began.

His 36-year-old wife said: "I never doubted him for a second. We were together six years before it happened, and ever since."
Main / At last I'm allowed to be a man
Sep 09, 2006, 09:38 PM
the link

James Delingpole makes his last stand for masculinity in a world increasingly tailored to women

Flashes and streaks of flame in the darkness. The smell of singed hair, burning cloth and paraffin. Roars of exultation; gasps of exertion; yelps of fear and pain. A fiery ball soars upwards, narrowly missing my face. "Come on Delingpole!" bellows the colonel. "Get stuck in there!" With a renewed surge of aggression and adrenaline I hurl myself back into the fray.

My first time in action with the Light Dragoons and I'm loving every second of it. War is hell? Pah! War is what men were designed for.

Not that this is actual war, you understand. It's just me playing a game of fireball hockey with a bunch of Light Dragoons officers after a black-tie dinner at their Norfolk barracks.

I have been invited to give them a short address on why it is that I would happily swap my glamorous career as a semi-famous writer and journalist for the life of an army officer. And this isn't just some sucky-up theme that I have devised to make myself popular: I envy these boys deeply and sincerely. It's my belief that in an increasingly feminised world, theirs is about the only career left where men are still allowed to enjoy being men.

A lot of my friends laugh at my military fixation. I'm a scaredy-cat and a wimp and I'm sure I would have made a lousy officer. But for all my weediness, there is still enough man in me to recognise that -- whatever the feminists may claim about patriarchy and male oppression -- we now inhabit a universe designed largely by and for girls.

It's a world where mostly female teachers treat the playground boisterousness of young male pupils as deviant rather than healthily normal; where the high pressure exams at which boys tend to excel are being replaced by more girl-friendly continuous assessment; where school sports days are turning non-competitive; where men who don't cook and wash dishes and take an equal role in childcare are viewed as antediluvian freaks; where to display more than a hint of male sexuality is to court accusations of harassment or even rape; where in television comedies and advertisements men are forever being mocked as useless monomaniacal slobs, while women are invariably depicted as wise, sparky omnicompetents; where force and strength are deemed primitive and "inappropriate" while negotiation, gentleness and empathy are blessed panaceas; where any form of risk is forbidden by an ever-lengthening list of health and safety directives.

To the feminists and liberal- lefties who ushered in this nonsense it may seem like proof of just how far society has progressed, how much more "civilised" we have become. But it flies in the face of human nature and it's deeply unfair on men. What if men don't want to spend their time changing nappies and nurturing their feminine side? Actually, there's no "if" about it: they don't.

Look at the popularity of The Dangerous Book for Boys. Look at the latest research from the Economic and Social Research Council, which shows that modern men just aren't interested in the paternity leave which the government is preparing statutorily to impose on business. They are much happier working long hours, avoiding childcare as much as possible and generally being men.

Which is more or less what I'm doing playing fireball hockey with the Light Dragoons. I bumped into their CO, Lieutenant Colonel Robin Matthews, at a party and it turns out that, besides being a big fan of a semi-pornographic autobiographical novel that I once wrote, he is the same age as me. "My God, I'm so jealous," I say. "In a parallel universe I might be you."

So I have come to see what life might be like in that parallel universe: a place which, if it didn't have such a dodgy ring, you could almost call Boy Zone.

Fireball hockey is a quintessentially Boy Zone activity. You wrap a roll of bog paper in chicken wire, douse it in paraffin, set it alight and play five-a-side hockey with it. When the fireball has burnt down to a size considered insufficiently dangerous, a new one is lit and the game carries on.

It gets quite scary, especially when your hockey stick catches fire or the ball flicks suddenly towards your face (if it hits it can leave chicken-wire-shaped burns), but I imagine that by military standards it's pretty tame. Nothing, say, on being RPGed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is where the Light Dragoons are going next.

As a specialist reconnaissance regiment, the Light Dragoons get to drive around in Scimitar light tanks. I'm allowed to have a go myself round a disused airfield. It's tremendous fun and surprisingly easy even when, following left/right instructions relayed by the commander through my headphones, I drive backwards blind at high speed. Afterwards I expect to be congratulated on my prowess. Instead I'm told: "Yeah, simple isn't it? The wives love it when they're allowed a go."

Men have always loved military hardware and until at least the mid-20th century this was encouraged. Boys played with lead soldiers, practised with catapults and bows and arrows, and later went out shooting with their dads. There was a time, indeed, in the Middle Ages when archery practice was compulsory for every Englishman.

Today, though, when grown men drool over jet fighters and fast cars, play Medal of Honor on their PlayStations or go off with their mates paintballing, it's giggled at as a sign of arrested development. Is it any wonder that so many of us look at soldiers and think meanly of ourselves for not having been one? In the army, after all, you can play with assault rifles and 30mm cannon with high-explosive shells and tanks that can roll over anything at speeds of up to 80mph, sometimes in authentic combat situations. And at the end of each month you actually get paid for it.

I loose off a couple of magazines' worth of 9mm Browning pistol rounds (rubbish grouping but no matter: I kill my target loads of times), before heading to the CO's office for a briefing on the regiment's history. An amalgam of the 13th/18th Hussars and the 15th/19th Hussars, its battle honours include Waterloo, the charge of the Light Brigade and D-Day where it provided the first allied tanks to land on French soil.

Later, in a sergeants' mess lined with framed VCs and MMs and paintings of great battles, the history lesson continues, with one senior NCO proudly recalling an incident 200 years earlier when a mere squadron of Hussars accidentally captured a whole regiment of Frenchmen in the fog.

This is one of the strengths of the British regimental system: the moment you join a regiment, its history becomes your history, with the great deeds of members past acting as a spur for members present to enact even more recklessly heroic deeds in the future.

If this sounds a bit archaic and GA Henty, that is because the British Army (its cavalry and guards regiments especially) still is. You see it in the unashamed way that it preserves the old social order. The mostly public school officers may be notionally in charge, but old-fashioned duty compels them to act more like the servants than the masters of the mostly working-class lads from Yorkshire and the northeast under their command. It's the working-class NCOs, meanwhile, who form the backbone of the regiment and stop the officers and troopers doing anything too stupid.

Dinner in the officers' mess is everything I had hoped: formal (it's the first time I've worn black tie in about a decade), polished silver, endless varieties of quality booze with each magnificent course; then afterwards, compulsory champagne in a room a bit like a gentleman's club library, with photo albums of Victorian officers after a day's pigsticking and wager books containing bets such as the one from 1914 where two officers lay money as to whether they are going to survive the war. (Remarkably, both do.) When you are a married man like me in the civilian world you get to go out drinking with a gang of blokes maybe once or twice a year if you're lucky. In the Light Dragoons it's compulsory at least once a week on formal mess evenings like this. And there are strict penalties for any young officer who retires too early (ie before the colonel): normally the others will trash his room and squirt him with fire extinguishers. Between drinking you are expected to indulge in high jinks such as kabaddi and, of course, fireball hockey.

To our feminised society this might sound pointless and puerile. In the army, though, it's an essential part of the training. It nurtures stamina, speedy reactions, camaraderie, joie de vivre, a sense of humour -- qualities that come in quite handy when the bullets start flying and your mates start dropping. This, you see, is what games are really all about: a form of ritualised combat, a preparation for war.

The officers of the Light Dragoons understand this. They are not a bunch of dim-witted hoorays, far from it. Beneath all that levity are the deep wells of seriousness and maturity which come from having great responsibility thrust upon you from a young age, from being overshadowed by the possibility of an early violent death.

They wear their burdens lightly, though, because that's what soldiers do. There's no point bleating or wearing your heart on your sleeve, as current modish practice demands. They are professional killers, not social workers.

Most of us today are quite squeamish about the profession of arms. We use euphemisms such as "peacekeeping". We choose to believe that it's possible to fight wars without collateral damage or the involvement of body bags. These are all the delusions of a politically correct society which prefers to see the world as it ought to be rather than as it actually is.

The army -- of necessity -- is a lot more realistic. It understands the nature of the world -- that it will always be violent -- and the nature of men -- that under the skin they remain hunters and fighters. We may think of the army as an old-fashioned institution whose values hark back to another age. But the age it belongs to is the age of reason. It's the modern world that has got it all wrong.
Main / Why do men need war? It's male bonding
Sep 08, 2006, 09:45 PM
here is the link

Men need threats, rivalry and war for them to work together the most effectively, according to a study of the "male warrior effect".

The issue of why men start wars has been investigated in a series of experiments by Prof Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent. They reveal that conflict is part of male bonding.

"We all know that males are more aggressive than females but with that aggression comes a lot of co-operation," Prof van Vugt said yesterday. While male co-operation lies at the heart of democracy and leadership, and men work better in hierarchical groups than women, it is a double-edged sword.

"Men might need wars to show off their altruism, to be celebrated as warriors and heroes," the professor added.

Women in general are better at co-operating. "Women leaders are more dovish than hawkish," Prof van Vugt said.

In a forthcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, Prof van Vugt and colleagues in Kent and at the University of Tilburg describe laboratory tests which show that rivalry drives males to make sacrifices for their group more than women.

The experiments involved about 300 students. Equal numbers of men and women were divided into groups of six who could only interact by computer.

They were each given 3 that they could invest for the group, when it would be doubled and divided equally among the group, or keep for themselves. Those who did not co-operate reaped the most benefit. They would end up with 3 plus any money divided among the group.

But when the group was told it was competing with other universities, "it was the men who started to be very altruistic and invest in the group fund. The women were less sensitive".

This "male warrior effect" is consistent with findings from other disciplines.

"Men are more likely to support their country going to war," Prof van Vugt said. "Men are more likely to lead groups in more autocratic, militaristic ways.

"Men have evolved a psychology that makes them particularly interested, and able to engage, in warfare."

Similar behaviours can be seen in a "pristine primordial form" in chimpanzees, he added.

"They go out on raids into neighbouring communities and kill off members of rival groups." Aside from warfare, the males do not usually co-operate, the professor said.
Main / Justice blind to gender
Sep 08, 2006, 09:41 PM
Quote from: K9
Quote from: Dr Evil
The writers name is Kevin Martin.  Here's his email:

[email protected]


I was reading that without my glasses; looked lke Selkie's own post.
I'm a bAAAAAAAAAd boy.

Sorry Selkie.

Main / Justice blind to gender
Sep 07, 2006, 09:36 PM
There's a misperception by a certain element in our society who feel the justice system is biased against men.

They'll rail when a woman receives what they perceive as a light sentence, or a female judge treats a con man harshly.

In fact, one such individual is prone to leaving me angry voice mail messages every time such a case crops up.

But with summer doldrums being what they are, his most recent rant involves a case culled from his personal archives -- a woman who launched a lawsuit after being crushed in a sliding door.

No man, he claims, would engage in such frivolous litigation as suing a retail outlet for injuries incurred on their premises as this woman did three years ago.

Suggesting she is some sort of swindler, he points to his personal experiences in which he suffered injury on someone's property without taking the matter to court.

But contrary to his misperceived reality, the justice system doesn't play favourites based on one's gender any more than it cares about the colour of your skin.

Yes, it can be said women appear to have the upper hand in divorce and child custody battles in which they normally get the kids and financial support.

However, setting aside the natural bonding between mother and child, women more often than not "win" custody and support because of society's bias against them, not for them.

Women are vastly disadvantaged when it comes to re-muneration in the workplace and almost always the par-ent asked to sacrifice career for the sake of child raising. Courts recognize this reality and act accordingly.

As for the alleged "swindler" in our angry caller's mind, there are countless lawsuits involving men seeking compensation for injuries suffered while on business premises. If any of those are actual fraudsters, they are far more likely to be men than women.

One need look no further for proof than daily court dockets where the vast majority of frauds allegedly perpetrated within our community are by men.

Crime as a career path may not be the exclusive domain of males, but statistically the number of women resorting to criminal behaviour is near negligible compared to men.

Certainly there are examples where women receive light sentences, but if gender plays any role, it's only in the area of general deterrence.

One of the primary sentencing objectives of any court is to set an example for others that whatever crime has been perpetrated it won't be tolerated by our society.

Crimes which become prevalent, such as the relatively new phenomenon of cyberstalking, will receive harsher penalties in an effort to put a stop to them.

This concept of general deterrence recognizes some individuals will be punished more severely because they chose to commit a crime which needs to be dissuaded.

Since females rarely resort to illicit behaviour, there is seldom a need for a judge to hand one a tougher sentence in order to prevent others from acting similarly.

While there will always be exceptions which individuals who believe a judicial gender bias exists can point to, there will equally be cases which support the opposite opinion.

Another search of the archives might uncover the notorious case of convicted murderer Deborah Point.

Point was handed a life sentence in 2001, without parole for at least 20 years -- double the mandatory minimum. The judge who handed out the harsh punishment? Justice Suzanne Bensler.

No doubt Point doesn't believe a judicial bias exists -- unless it's against women.
Main / Wife who killed husband is freed
Aug 22, 2006, 10:50 AM

A woman who killed her husband with an axe because he had an affair with her niece has been freed by a judge after serving 10 months in prison on remand.

Wadanahalugeder Chandrasekera, 59, of Port Close, in Bearsted, Kent, had admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Woolwich Crown Court heard she had suffered mental abuse at the hands of her 57-year-old husband, Sarath.

She was given a three-year community order on Tuesday.

The couple, who had two children, were separated when Chandrasekera discovered her husband was living with her niece and they had a daughter together.

During one of his visits to the family home in Bearsted on 22 October last year, she struck him 11 times with an axe.

Chandrasekera was originally charged with murder, but her guilty plea to manslaughter was then accepted.

Det Insp Derek Cuss said: "Two psychiatric reports stated that at the time she committed this offence, she was both depressed and desperate.

"This was a tragic and sad case whereby the defendant had been subjected to a number of years of emotional abuse.

"It was a horrific crime and we don't condone that.

"However, there were unique and exceptional circumstances surrounding this incident and I think this was reflected in the judgment."

A statement from the couple's son and daughter - Thusara, 24, and Harshani, 20 - said: "We love both our parents dearly and don't blame anyone for the break-up of the family.

"We did not want to lose another parent [and] we are grateful to the court for releasing our mother."

The judge at Woolwich Crown Court concluded that Chandrasekera had not planned to kill her husband, but said she would have to live the rest of her life with the knowledge that he died at her hands.
Main / Hypocrisy and SYG? What do you think?
Aug 14, 2006, 11:20 PM
Quote from: "Christiane"
........  three????       :?

umm . . . overkill?

Getting back on topic . . .
Main / Hypocrisy and SYG? What do you think?
Aug 14, 2006, 11:08 PM
Quote from: "Darth Sidious"
Quote from: "Christiane"
Damn Selkie....  This is hard work.

It is suppost to be. :lol:

suppost - lol - thats great darth 8)