Tuesday, 16 April 2019

This Is What The #PussyPass Gets You...

...an ever-growing sense of entitlement:
A mother-of-two who was acquitted of murdering her abusive boyfriend following years of beatings has revealed how she is still waiting to get her children back - two years after she was cleared.
As if those two things should be related somehow. 'Oh, the jury thought it was OK to kill a man rather than leave him? Well, you must be a perfect mother!'
Elizabeth Hart Browne, 29, who stabbed Stephen Rayner in the neck (Ed: three times!) and accidentally killed him at their home in Acton, west London, has slammed the justice system and says that the courts need to do more to support women trapped in abusive relationships.
Why is it 'the courts' issue to resolve? There's plenty of services out there; there's Relate for idiots who think it's a relationship worth saving, and National Express for smart women who decide to leave the brute.

The courts only get involved when someone decides to take a life. As they should.
Elizabeth told the Mirror: 'No one comes from a perfect family home. And mine wasn't perfect. Far from it.
'But I don't think that because I have made that mistake I should have my children taken off me for the rest of my life.
'It seems like a further way to punish me because I didn't get the punishment the court wanted me to get. I didn't get life. This is my penance that I have to pay.'
Now, I made 'a mistake' once; I misread the recipe I was following and put a tablespoon of salt in, instead of a teaspoon.

I wouldn't call stabbing the man you've failed to leave for two years three times in the neck 'a mistake'. I'd call it murder. Why didn't the jury?
Jurors heard she had knifed Stephen twice before - but acquitted Elizabeth of murder at the Old Bailey after deliberating for 14 hours and 55 minutes.
You'd think this dim, self-absorbed bitch would thank her lucky stars she got a panel of idiots, and quietly fage into obscurity. But no. Because - emboldened by the acquittal - she now thinks she should be a mother again.

She doesn't seem to have learned she wasn't a fit mother before she plunged a knife three times into 'the man she loved'. Why on earth should she be considered one now? 


Bucko said...

Bloody hell! And she killed him, so that means she won't be able to pick him up from prison on his release

Feral said...

Don't know where my other comment went.
This mother deserves to have her children back. She doesn't deserve any more punishment.

Chromatistes said...

She was acquitted on the murder charge, so wasn't punished for that. As for her family situation, the welfare of the children is paramount. It may well be the case that their interest is best served by being apart from their mother. Without specific knowledge, one cannot make a judgement.

Robert the Biker said...

What, she stabbed him twice before but HE was still with HER? Sounds like a slow learner to me! The reason she was let off of course, is that this time she made sure there was no contrary witness.

Lord T said...

Well just to be disruptive. She was acquitted of the charges which means no crime was recorded against her. She is innocent then and therefore why can't she have her children back. Seems to me that the State is, again, overstepping its bounds. Punishing people for something the have been tried and not convicted of.

Goodbye kids. Nobody really cares about you.

JuliaM said...

" And she killed him, so that means she won't be able to pick him up from prison on his release"


"This mother deserves to have her children back."

And the children? Do they 'deserve' to live with a woman who resorts to violence?

"Sounds like a slow learner to me!"

One can only hope the kids inherit intelligence from the grandparents...

"Seems to me that the State is, again, overstepping its bounds. "

Or actually, for once, protecting children..?