Don't hold your breath!

I answered.

Let me put on my feminist cap before answering.

There were 2 women and 1 man, so obviously the man has coerced those 2 poor vulnerable little angels into committing these vile acts, even though they only met for the first time in court, I'm sure he must have threatened them online into doing what they done.

And of course since my feminist cap is still on, I can't help but think those poor women were going through severe emotional problems or perhaps mental disorders, and the bad evil man took advantage of them.
Yes the women should not be held to account since they're poor delicate little flowers whose petals would fall off at the slightest breeze, but the man should be held fully to account, even for the women's actions, because as we know, women only do bad things when forced to by men, so he must have forced them into it, somehow.

The women will get a couple of hundred quid fine each, and ordered to go to counselling for an afternoon, probably able to happily return to their jobs, whereas the man will be put away for, oh, about 22 years is my guess.

Those women who were forced into this by that evil man should not have to suffer any more trauma, they're the real victims here, and that will be evident when hey appear on our leader's show, Oprah.

Cap's off now, wow, my intelligence has returned.

I watched a piece on Sky news (UK tv) today about the case, and they were speaking to a Michelle Elliot from Kidscape.

The reporter highlighted the fact that two of the three child abusers were women and asked how common it was. Elliot replied more so then people want to believe, and said that she had written a book about female abusers in the early 90s, but the professional community refused to believe it existed (no suprise there).

She also added despite the difficult circumstances, this case has served as an example that female abusers do exist, but society is reluctant to accept the reality of it. She also added that she had dealt with over 800 cases where boys were sexually abused by females, even their own mothers.

There was actually a third woman who was arrested in this particular case, but was released due to insufficient evidence.

Here's a link for Michelle Elliot's book, Female Sexual Abuse of Children (1993). http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/to_shop/3863...65-089862004X/

Quote from 6ame

I answered. Let me put on my feminist cap before answering.

There were 2 women and 1 man, so obviously the man has coerced those 2 poor vulnerable little angels into committing these vile acts, even though they only met for the first time in court, I'm sure he must have threatened them online into doing what they done.

And of course since my feminist cap is still on, I can't help but think those poor women were going through severe emotional problems or perhaps mental disorders, and the bad evil man took advantage of them.
Yes the women should not be held to account since they're poor delicate little flowers whose petals would fall off at the slightest breeze, but the man should be held fully to account, even for the women's actions, because as we know, women only do bad things when forced to by men, so he must have forced them into it, somehow.

The women will get a couple of hundred quid fine each, and ordered to go to counselling for an afternoon, probably able to happily return to their jobs, whereas the man will be put away for, oh, about 22 years is my guess.

Those women who were forced into this by that evil man should not have to suffer any more trauma, they're the real victims here, and that will be evident when hey appear on our leader's show, Oprah.

Cap's off now, wow, my intelligence has returned.

Haha, brilliant!

I was wondering how long this would take.......two women and one man are involved in this highly unpleasant and sordid case. Think on, guys - two women, one man.

Well, it didn't take long......for the media types to get going in their efforts to find every reason they could unfathom to trawl out all the evidence they could lay their grubby misandrist hands on to declare the man involved as the initial instigator of all this filth and depravity.

I listened to the discussion on BBC Radio Five Live earlier on today which went on endlessly about the case as it revealed itself, including live broadcast press interviews between the journalists and the local Police Service in Devon and Cornwall, and the male journalists tried their very best to concentrate on the part the man involved has played in the entire affair. The bloke appeared to have the whole press gang focussed on him and the part he has played in all this.

You can bet your boots HE will receive the most severe punishment...he will undoubtedly receive the longer jail sentence, no matter what evidence transpires in court.

This is Britain after all, and it's about time it was officially announced - that there is a two tier judicial penal system here in this Blessed Plot, this Other Eden of ours - one for men, and another for women, irrespective of the nature of the crime, and irrespective of which gender commits the more serious offence.

To misquote an old Labour Party mantra - tough on the male criminal, softly softly on the female, no matter what. Harriet Harman herself has said so, if not in so many words, that is what she has decreed must always be the case, but all that deranged woman's words are total gobbledegook feminist double talk gob$hite anyway.

Here are brief profiles of the three individuals, according to the Telegraph:

Vanessa George:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-profile.html

Angela Allen:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-profile.html

Colin Blanchard:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-profile.html

You judge if any of them have a reason for their behaviour.

On a related note, the NSPCC continue to bombard our TV screens with adverts pleading for our money to help them prevent "child abuse". Every single time that these ads refer to an abuser, it is always male. One ad tells us that a child is abused by his father, and another by her uncle. A further ad tells us that a little boy doesn't tell his parents, because of threats from his male abuser. If you listened to the NSPCC, you would get the clear impression that no woman ever abused a child.

The NSPCC would never admit it, but by deliberately concealing the extent of female abuse of children, and constantly placing the spotlight exclusively on males, they are helping to ensure that the Vanessa Georges and Angela Allens of this world get a free run, hiding behind the smokescreen so conveniently blown across the picture by the NSPCC and others.

The fact is that even if we identified every last male abuser and got them all safely penned behind bars, child abuse would not cease. It would continue at a level not enormously short of where it is right now. That is why the claim by the NSPCC that they are fighting to eliminate all child abuse, is as phoney as a three pound note. The supreme irony is that one of their slogans is "open your eyes". Quite breathtaking from an organisation that is blind to the perpetrators of the majority of child abuse, and seeks to pull the wool over our eyes too.

Quote from paul parmenter

The NSPCC would never admit it, but by deliberately concealing the extent of female abuse of children, and constantly placing the spotlight exclusively on males, they are helping to ensure that the Vanessa Georges and Angela Allens of this world get a free run, hiding behind the smokescreen so conveniently blown across the picture by the NSPCC and others.

I totally agree with this, because few people would believe a woman capable of such an act, they can almost do it with impunity.

Now this is no surprise at all.......

GMTV is a feminist run news/general chat program which is screened on the UK's ITV1 Channel 3 every weekday morning between 06:00 and 08:30 hours which is then followed by a bizarre, very girly, very flippant and totally brainless load of female obsessed rubbish presented by some loopy Scottish woman called Lorraine Kelly with an excruciating accent and an inane Cheshire cat grin.

GMTV focusses on the female point of view in just every issue except the sports section which is presented by one of the fembot-brainwashed mangina-type, feminist-agenda-inculcated male presenters, usually a fembot puppet called John Stapleton, still attached to his lead and making damn sure he doesn't say anything out of line which might remotely offend the females behind the scenes.

Andrew Castle, a former Wimbledon tennis ace, is also one such pussy whipped puppet who is constantly soft soaping his female co-presenters and ingratiating himself to them and all the females invited to the studio to air their views on that red sofa....the ratio of females to males invited to air their views on that sofa is about 8:2 in favour of the females. The ratio is very similar when it comes to the people out on the streets who are asked by the interviewers to give their opinions on any topic - even when the topic is very much focussed on men - often negatively.

In all their news bulletins this morning not one single mention was made in connetion with this shocking child abuse case featuring this woman alleged abuser Vanessa George. Not a peep - but what would else would you expect of GMTV? They invariably downgrade any cases focussing on female culpability, with either scant coverage, the bare minimum - or simply ignore them all together.

Male culpabilty, on the other hand, gets the widest possible coverage. As for Domestic Violence - according to GMTV it's a clear case of innocent female victimhood and guilty male perpetration.

the tip of the iceberg cause the feminit culture does not recognise wimyn as abusers

one can only imagine the length breadth and depth of the wimyns' forays into child abuse cause after all they are in control of children in the early years and completely in camera

wimyn certainly don't live up to the axiom that they are sugar n spice and just about all things nice ! hmmmmm more like a situation diametrically opposed

I get an image of Dworkin

Quote from Ledburian

Male culpabilty, on the other hand, gets the widest possible coverage. As for Domestic Violence - according to GMTV it's a clear case of innocent female victimhood and guilty male perpetration.

Strangely enough GMTV highlighted female on male violence several weeks ago.

They said that nearly 3,000 women were found guilty of DV last year (the tip of the iceberg!), up from 600 six years ago. However, from this point forth the feminist whitewash ensued. A report (can't remember by who) was mentioned, which cited the massive increase in domestic violence by females was due to stress caused by recession and Britain's binge drinking culture.

Clearly no presentation about male domestic violence against females would be littered with excuses for the perpetrators. Not one. The well touted phrase "there's no excuse for violence" doesn't seem to be applicable to women! I do also distinctly recall Stapleton asking "what made her do it."

One chap who was physically attacked by an ex-girlfriend over 16 months, recounted tales of being hit with irons and hammers, stubbing out cigarettes on him, pouring boiling water on his groin etc. The male presenter, John Stapleton (proven mangina), listened attentively, but then when he finished, Stapleton added "we have to stress that male violence against females is far far worse." The chap tried to reply, but was skillfully cut off. This lie was then repeated methodically as the piece resurfaced several times throughout the show.

Quote from Ledburian

the ratio of females to males invited to air their views on that sofa is about 8:2 in favour of the females. The ratio is very similar when it comes to the people out on the streets who are asked by the interviewers to give their opinions on any topic - even when the topic is very much focussed on men - often negatively.

The show that follows GMTV is just the same, it's called 'This Morning', and I know it may seem petty, but this is a picture I posted on this website before, and it shows what British daytime TV is all about, look at the guests, look how they're seated, the discussion was about children with disabilities if I recall correctly, and for some reason, the fathers are shoved to the back on a couple of bar stools, while the mothers are given a nice comfy sofa.
As I say, it may seem petty on my part, but it's these small details, as Columbo would say, that really bother me.

Quote from Celtic Druid

They said that nearly 3,000 women were found guilty of DV last year (the tip of the iceberg!), up from 600 six years ago. However, from this point forth the feminist whitewash ensued. A report (can't remember by who) was mentioned, which cited the massive increase in domestic violence by females was due to stress caused by recession and Britain's binge drinking culture.

No doubt said as if to be an excuse; of course, no amount of stress and/or alcohol will even BEGIN to be seen to excuse male-female violence.

Quote from Celtic Druid

One chap who was physically attacked by an ex-girlfriend over 16 months, recounted tales of being hit with irons and hammers, stubbing out cigarettes on him, pouring boiling water on his groin etc. The male presenter, John Stapleton (proven mangina), listened attentively, but then when he finished, Stapleton added "we have to stress that male violence against females is far far worse." The chap tried to reply, but was skillfully cut off. This lie was then repeated methodically as the piece resurfaced several times throughout the show.

Oh, brilliant. Some poor fucker finally gets the chance to speak up about his horrific experiences - speaking up on behalf of such men, effectively, given the lack of support for male victims of domestic violence - and, no sooner, has he finished, but some stupid mangina cunt has to say, before anything else, "we have to stress that male violence against females is far, far worse". Naturally, they can't POSSIBLY risk offending any female viewers, by suggesting that females are EVER anything less than PERFECT; well, unless they go out of their way to make the LIE that men are far, far worse; that comes before sympathising with any male victim of domestic violence, naturally.

Makes me fucking sick, it really does......

I really don't get it. How can some say that a type of violence is far worse, only because the genders are reversed? It is illogical. And I don't get all this stupidity related to DV - it should be tried on the same basis as any time of violence.