Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

This is disturbing stuff - a bloke would have received a hefty sentence no doubt about it. I agree that the most worrying thing is that the magazine thinks its funny and, like you said, even fabricated the "pestered for sex" reasoning. I wonder if the lady (probably) editors of said publication would hold the same point of view and found much mirth in the story if it was a woman who had to have stiches in her reproductive organ? The law has to be applied fairly across the entire spectrum of folk - men, women, old, young, rich, poor etc. otherwise the notion of justice is just that - an idea.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Well I lost some for being merely being amused.:D
Maybe I should try to be more serious in future. ;)

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

To be fair, reporting of such items is usually slanted, if not downright biassed. Unfortunately Law Reports don't sell magazines and newspapers - if you read the actual trial report/transcript, things may seem rather different.

That said, there have been women who have been jailed for long terms for finally snapping and killing a husband who has abused them/their children for years. It's only in the last few years that the authorities (largely the police) have taken domestic violence seriously, and not all of them do now. AND, sorry, but it is a fact, the vast majority of domestic violence is carried out by men on women. Perhaps some people out there think that stories like the one that started this thread are simply redressing the balance.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

I don't approve of the idea of redressing of balances. The person or persons who suffer as a result are not the people who offended in the first place so where is the justice in that? It's like appologising for things our ancestors did. It may not even have been done by our ancestors but because we currently living in the country whose inhabitants carried out certain actions in the past we are by association assumed to be responsible and therefore should apologise. Which of course is nonsense.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

I didn't say I agreed with redressing balances, just that some people might think so. We are all responsible for our own actions, not those of others, and it's only our own actions that we can apologise for.

However, with the greatest respect to all you lovely honest men out there, I can see why some wronged wives cheered Mrs Babbitt on! When you find out the man you trusted most has been cheating on you, your fingers do itch to grab the breadknife - trust me, I know! (My ex is fortunate that he still has all the relevant bits - as far as I know)

I don't think violence ever solves anything, but I can see that there are times when it might make you feel better for a little while.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

The vibe I get from these sort of things is that it is acceptable and understandable if a woman attacks a cheating man, but not the other way round.

And another thing.....if we all have equal rights then cheaper car insurance for women should be abolished - this issue really riles me as it is blatant stereotyping and discrimination.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

No, violence is never acceptable - and anyway, I didn't do it, although sorely tempted. Anyway, how many times have you heard a man say that he only hit "her" because she'd asked for it?

Equal rights don't exist. I could quote you chapter and verse on that one.

However, the reason women get cheaper car insurance is that they have fewer accidents than men. Actuarial fact, not prejudice. You could equally well say that men under 25 are discriminated against as opposed to older men, because their premiums are higher. Same reason - they have more accidents than older men. If you smoke, your life insurance costs more. Insurance companies are not very into giving money away ...

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Yeah - but why should I personally be discriminated against just because men have more accidents, I and many others are paying the price for the actions of boy racers. I know the facts but I feel it is rather unfair.

Another gripe! Clubs and pubs with promotions such as free admission and free drinks for ladies.....

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

I could be wrong ceejache, but especially insurance companies, I feel it is more often a ploy to encourage half the population (female) to go to their company for their premiums. If anyone has an hour to waste on-line, it would be interesting if two identical insurance quotes (except one male and one female)could be had from just one company to compare prices. (you need at least that time to fill in their forms)

As for free drinks for the ladies, having witnessed the amount some of you guys drank at Micks party, the clubs would go bust!;) Saying that, the ladies weren't so far behind!!

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Hehehehe...:D Grego and myself went to Benidorm when I was 21. The clubs were all doing 2 shorts for the price of 1 for the ladies. I asked the barman why it was just for the ladies and he said that if a club is full of women, it attracts men, who drink like fish and spend a fortune and that's how they make their money. So, in a nutshell, if the men weren't looking to get off with someone, they would go somewhere else where the prices were fairer. The proof of this was in the state of the club we were in, as it was packed to the rafters with equal amounts of men and women..:D

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

So what were the women doing if they were'nt looking to get off with someone? Discussing the meaning of life?

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Of course not, Tealeaf, they were getting two drinks for the price of one! Legless, not leg....

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Yep..subsidised by men as usual.

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Oh my, I'm staying out of this one I think............

Re: Equal rights - but only when it suits?
 

Oh come on John, you must be getting used to storms by now ....