Watching the Untrusted Implode

The beach - Porthmadog to Criccieth, North Wales, July 2014

The beach – Porthmadog to Criccieth, North Wales, July 2014

Welcome to The Real Untrusted – for a brief introduction to this site – read here

“The citadel of established practice seldom falls to the polite knock of a good idea. It may however yield to a long siege, a pre-emptive strike, a wooden horse or a cunning alliance.” 


Ally Fogg’s doubts on the statistical evidence of FGM in the UK must be music to the ears of the cutters

Update 4

From The Telegraph:

The City University London and Equality Now study claims the number of women living in the UK who have experienced female genital mutilation and cutting (FGM/C) has risen dramatically, a new report suggests.

It shows that the practice has been carried out on 137,000 women and girls living in England and Wales.


The Guardian reports:

Social media users warned against falsely calling politicians paedophiles

In which case I suggest it calls BeautifulBurnout/CalamityJane123/ and BacktothePoint, among others, in for an interview.



A where are they now from Ally Fogg:

Surrounded by these braying patsies of the system, I feel more like Winston Smith. Politically I’m probably closer to Cyril Smith, but have a few pounds left to gain. 


 Some new photographs   – here in Photographs 21


 Luoping – Nine Dragons Waterfalls


 Today’s Music

As from today – (sometime in early 2013) “A Change is gonna Come” and hence the track which is from almost 500, vaguely described as pop and rock, on my MP4 player that I use mainly when I’m running at the gym or outdoors, or when I’m doing things I rather not like ironing clothes, cleaning and so on. This one by coincidence comes top of the list when arranged in alphabetical order. Of course I’ll intersperse them with some great jazz and classical music.

Monteverdi – Vespro della beata Vergine

Yesterday’s Music

 Per Jørgensen – The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (live, Til Radka, 2009)

El Condor Pasa (If I Could) – Simon & Garfunkel



In the beginning……….. How the CiF rebels turned hypocrisy into an art form-  is now elsewhere  – making comments posted here easier to access – I hope.

To Comment click here & page to the bottom  

Backtothepoint and Ally Fogg – Brothers in Racist Jokes – Or why do they make an exception if it’s about Irish people

Sima Xiangru a bel-espirit in the Western Han Dynasty (208BC - AD24)

Sima Xiangru a bel-espirit in the Western Han Dynasty (208BC – AD24)

Backtothepoint and Ally Fogg – Brothers in Racist Jokes – Or why make an exception if it’s about Irish people

Not so long back Ally Fogg accused me of racism:

“Portraying all members of a religion, even those running an acclaimed humanitarian charity, as being responsible for the worst crimes of their social group is an extremely and inescapably racist thing to do.”


“I say in my guidelines that if you’re a racist shite I won’t necessarily delete it, but I will call you for racist shite. And I will add that if you pull any crap like that on my blog again, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to ban your spiteful, racist little arse out of here faster than you can say boo hoo censorship.”

What prompted this outburst from Ally Fogg was the following exchange on his Man’s Answer to Radical Feminism blog:

From Ally Fogg:

“Just on the off chance that you really are as stupid as you are pretending to be… Jews are not an ethnic or genetic monolith, and not all people who have semitic ethnicity are Jewish. Are you going to argue that anti-semitism isn’t a form of racism?”

To which I replied:

“No I’m stating the exact opposite, that anti-Semitism is racism. Islam however is a religion and Muslims belong to most if not all races, nationalities and ethnic groups.”

Ally Fogg was silent on this distinction and not surprisingly as he had no answer.

So let me examine Mr Fogg’s record when it comes to racism and racist jokes in particular, for he I suggest is the guilty party.

Backtothepoint posted the following “joke” on You Tell Us on 8 September 2010 11:32am

“My favourite gag at the moment (sorry it’s a bit tasteless)
A small Irish boy is crying by the side of the road and man takes pity on him. “What’s wrong?” he asks.
The boy says “It’s me Ma. I just found me Ma dead in bed.”
“Oh bejaysus” the man says. “Do you want me to get Father O’Riley?”
The boy replies, “No thanks Mister, at a time like this sex is the last thing on me mind.”

Now is that…?

a) a funny dig at paedophile priests, institutionalised abuse and its covering up by the Catholic church
b) an unacceptable belittling of child abuse”

At 1:37pm Brooklynowes (it was me) posted in response to Backtothepoint:

“or is it

c) yet another racist joke that portrays the Irish as thick, country bumkins with a rudimentary grasp of the English language and grammar, who are sufficiently gullible to allow a celibate priest to have sex with them without a word of complaint?

Got any more jokes about West Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Japanese? How about some jokes about tight Scots or thieving Welsh just to make an evening of it?”

kizbotbettystanton and  peterbracken to their credit, each in their own way considered this to be a racist joke and / or tasteless, or both.

So what was Ally Fogg‘s response to whether this was a racist  “IrishJoke”?

“Whatever else the joke might be, the answer to that question is an unequivocal “No, it isn’t.” the joke is not remotely about Irishness.

It doesn’t actually play on or in any way bolster the racist stereotypes that Brooklynowes alleges.

Well how about these Ally Fogg, are these accounts of “Irish jokes” about racism and not remotely about Irishness?

Irish man takes P&O to court over alleged racist jokes.
The case at Manchester’s Civil Justice Centre

Irish victim of racist jokes awarded £6,000: Landmark tribunal ruling over taunts at machinist’s expense sends warning to employers over workplace culture

Editor quits in Irish jokes row  Denis Lusby stepped down as editor of a community magazine in Cornwall after it was claimed some jokes were racist.


When the late  Bernard Manning told a “joke” about black people you knew it was a bigoted, racist Englishman telling it and he knew it would reinforce the bigotry and race hatred of some of his audience, upset others and generate intense dislike, even violence in others. But if Richard Pryor told a similar “joke”, you’d know he was, at least in part, making a comment about the “tragic-comic aspect of the human condition”.

Richard Pryor was selected as the first recipient of the new Mark Twain Prize because as a stand-up comic, writer, and actor, he struck a chord, and a nerve, with America, forcing it to look at large social questions of race and the more tragicomic aspects of the human condition. Though uncompromising in his wit, Pryor, like Twain, projects a generosity of spirit that unites us. They were both trenchant social critics who spoke the truth, however outrageous.

When people pay to listen and see comedy they expect to laugh and to some extent their experience and how they feel about humour will play a large part in which comedians they pay to be entertained by.

This is not to say you can’t tell jokes on CiF. But no one should assume that their “joke” will be seen as a joke by everyone and that it won’t hurt anyone. Some will find every “Irish” joke objectionable and offensive, I do. Others will where religion, poor people, civil servants, politicians, immigrants and so on are the subject.  And if the objective of your posting on CiF is to win friends and be popular, Ally Fogg and Backtothepoint, you’d probably be well advised to avoid telling jokes.

Fortunately partly as a result of the various race and anti-discrimination measures and work place training, this kind of casual racism has largely disappeared in its most openly expressed form. You rarely hear “jokes” of the kind Backtothepoint and Ally Fogg find funny in the mainstream media today.

As I said on my only other post on that thread,  –  It’s the casual use of a national / racial / ethnic stereotypes that makes the so called joke objectionable.

And Ally Fogg calls me a racist.

Above the line with Kizbot – what she might have written with a little help from her admirers and critics

Facing all ways?

Facing all ways?

Above the line with Kizbot – what she might have written with a little help from her admirers and critics

Update 1

CalamityJane123/BeautifulBurnout posts:

Warning: Do Not Feed! It Bites!

The irony of someone who for years has tried to polish his right-on-man-feminist credentials coming onto a thread specifically about the difficulties some women posters might experience, yet again to insult the female author gratuitously (and entirely off-topic) demonstrates why he has been banned at least 100 times now in different nicks.

sarka posts:

This is also clear in the way BTH is treated very differently on these threads from women of comparable opinions. Even in the comments of “moderates” one can sense the extra annoyance he causes men by being apparently a sort of traitor…”servile”, and so on…Only a strong sense of gender partisanship can explain

Princesschipchops posted

Re Kizbot and Jay. Kizbot you should stick around because otherwise who will make tea or be a voice of reason when some of us get a bit out of hand?
Re the person who said that Jay had to go but bitethehand has stayed. Well I do not agree with Jay being banned but at the same time he did say some pretty aggressive stuff at times and also could use bad language. Now bad language does not bother me and people being aggressive does not bother me (not on forums anyway) but those are the rules and that is why he did get in trouble (rightly or wrongly). Bitethehand has never been abusive to anyone from what I have seen from all my time on posting on here. In fact he gets so much nastiness along with Paul Sagar and even AllyF after writing this piece from some quarters its amazing he has not lost his rag!

And what I ask are CalamityJane123/BeautifulBurnout’s credentials as far as feminism is concerned. Well let her speak for herself:

Just because rad-fems use the patriarchy as an excuse for not having achieved what they want in their lives doesn’t mean that they are not capable of achieving things if they put their minds to it and put some bloody back into it instead of seeking someone/something else to blame. (And, as a successful woman in a “man’s world”, I am living proof of that, but that’s another story)”

Sorry there’s no link to this post but BeautifulBurnout asked the Guardian to delete all her posts from CiF and the paper agreed.  It also explains where her nickname Mrs Bootstraps comes from.

So let me leave the last word to Angie124 who at one time was accused of being both Ultimathule and me:

It seems obvious to me that women are repelled by the hostility shown towards them, by being entirely outnumbered in facing such hostility and by The Guardian supporting this environment through its moderation policy. This policy (a) permits sexist commenting, despite it being prohibited under the standards, (b) fails to censure bloggers such as MAM, Trashheap, Gigoli, Leta, Ghostworld etc etc etc who are unfailingly sexist and aggressive to women and (c) rescinds bans on hostile posters such as Jay Reilly whilst removing vocal opponents of the misogyny on CiF like Ultimathule and BitetheHand.


First what kizbot did post:

I started posting on the Guardian about seven years ago. I’ve had a great deal of pleasure posting on the Guardian– 45,000 posts would attest to that. I particularly enjoy the cut and thrust of the debates on the blogs related to the eurozone crisis and Greek politics, as well as on food and fashion.

And what she posted about her official role on Comment is Free:

I’m known as the “milk monitor” on account of my many complaints to the moderators about fellow posters, who in my opinion are in breach of the Community Standards……it was Peter Jackson who made me Milk Monitor on here.. It was supposed to be an insult, but I was, and am, entirely thrilled with the description (job)…

The late Peter Jackson

Not that Community Standards are something that’s ever bothered kizbot as the following demonstrates:

“Reminds me of when kizbot once claimed to have boycotted waddya ‘for about a month’ in protest at the treatment of jayreilly. In fact, she merely posted for two days under another name, and then it was back to business as usual.”

And the evidence?

Here’s shelagnhnagig on 3 May 2009:

I, personally, don’t find use of the ‘c’ word as a description of a former prime minister particularly inappropriate… Rather apt in fact…However, i cannot say the same about it being described as a woman’s ‘most vital part’... which I find not only inappropriate but extremely insulting… (my emphasis)

JayReilly’s comment that resulted in his banning was to call the Labour Party’s most successful and long standing Prime Minister Tony Blair,  a “cunt”. (no link, it was moderated – but there’s a folk history about it for anyone who doubts the authenticity.)

And here’s kizbot on the Untrusted on 1 May 2009:

‘Am I the only person here that considers that the use of a word for the most vital part of a woman’s body to abuse a former Prime Minister, is not abusive to Tony Blair, but to all women and for that alone he needs to spend time in the naughty corner’
Most vital part….???  (Again my emphasis)
Jesus fucking wept… true colours or what.. There’s only one bit that counts when it comes to us girls, eh?
01 May, 2009 23:00

Vital - Urgently needed; absolutely necessary; Performing an essential function in the living body; Full of spirit; Manifesting or characteristic of life.

OK maybe I should have used the word unique rather than most vital but I thought kizbot was sufficiently intelligent to have understood my meaning. It reminds me of the exchange in the infamous Lady Chatterley trial when one witness for the defence was asked “would you call your daughter a cunt?” to which the response was “no m’Lud because she isn’t.”

And neither is Tony Blair, about whom JayReilly, in his straw that broke the camel’s back was referring.

About this episode:

Matt Seaton had posted:

JayReilly only has himself to blame. Like many of you, he’s been around here long enough to know the rules. The moderator on duty was given absolutely no choice but to enforce our community guidelines after repeated breaches of acceptable language by JayReilly.

To which kizbot replied:

so he  (JayReilly)  lost his rag? delete the post… pre-mod him…
But the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of his posts were very interesting and well-reasoned… he was a credit to debate on cif…
And seeing as you think banning is the right way to deal with ciffers, I can’t, and won’t, be a part of it… I’m a woman of loose morals and few principles… but the ones I do have are as intransigent as cif modding policy…
It’s been a blast and I’ll miss cif and many of the BTLers… and even a few ATLers… send my kisses to the adorable Bru…
I’m off to join the refugees…

So JayReilly‘s posts were “very interesting and well reasoned”?

And kizbot wonders why women don’t visit CiF more often.

Here’s Cath Elliott on JayReilly’s “interesting and well reasoned posts”:

And I would say that you, JayReilly, BrusselsLout and the rest of your ilk are the reason why feminism is still so vital today. Thankfully although you all tend to congregate on the CiF fem threads and try and dominate the discourse, out in the real world you’re a rapidly diminishing force. To read the frustrated and powerless misogyny posted on CiF is to observe the death throes of a dying breed; but unlike the dodo and the woolly mammoth, no one will mourn its passing.

Or this one of JayReilly’s on the thread below “Why do so many men still think the sex trade is fine?” by Catherine Bennett on 21 Jan 2008:

This article has all the academic rigour and substance of a GCSE media studies project. Dreadful article that adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to the debate. Ranting is not journalism. Guardian editors, please understand the distinction.

And just to show that we both go back a long way as far as CiF is concerned, here’s kizbot being serious, even analytical:

kizbot on 31 Mar 09, 7:05pm

incidentally, i’d like to know why BTH doesn’t identify as feminist. i hope to god it’s not due to the “only women can be feminist” misconception…      (sorry no link but if you want one I’ll find it).

Finally – well for tonight, here’s what I posted on CiF in response to kizbot’s resignation over JayReilly being banned:

As no doubt one of the serially annoying, I’m sorry to hear this as I very much enjoy reading your posts. Hope you’ll reconsider after a good cup of tea, glass of wine, whatever  :)

The Guardian’s Comment is Free – censoring the historical record – airbrushing the online version

Cambodia 2007, family floating shop on the Tonle Sap

Cambodia 2007, family floating shop on the Tonle Sap

Update 1 – 6 February 2014

In response to a long exchange on the UT about this article and my actions on this site, BeautifulBurnout posted the following after it was suggested she was being somewhat hypocritical:

Yeah, but here’s the fundamental difference: if I have posted shite that I regret, here or on CiF, I will come back and apologise or change my position. I don’t ask the mods/the site owner to airbrush history for me (or try and airbrush it myself).

Another myth that has grown to grotesque conspiracy-theory proportions is that I asked the Graun to remove all my BB posting history and they did. Well, I didn’t – I asked them to delete my profile to make it harder for people to trawl through it, pick n mix, mix n match stylee, and included a link to Bitey’s site as a demonstration of what I meant. Back in those days, before the upgrade, if your profile was deleted, although the comments still remained in the various threads, they were not listed under your profile any more.

Clearly the reference to “airbrush history” is about this article but once again BeautifulBurnout is incapable of commenting on anything without putting herself at the very centre of the universe.

Anyone reading the article will understand that it concerns the actions of the Guardian’s editorial staff; actions that in my view amount to censorship and falsification of the historical record. The fact that it was BeautifulBurnout’s entire posting history that was deleted is of little relevance. To remove the thousands of posts of anyone who has been posting for almost five years is editorial vandalism of the first order.

So what about BeautifulBurnout’s claim that she didn’t ask for the deletion of her entire posting history?

The first thing to ask is why hasn’t she asked for its reinstatement? Surely the Guardian has its website backed-up each day?

But more importantly, her claim runs counter to the Guardian’s statement: 

It is very rare that we will delete an entire user’s commenting history when requested by that user. Applications for this should be made to and will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The same goes for individual comments.

And from Tim Gough, head of data protection at Guardian News and Media, on the thread following his articleDo below-the-line commenters have the right to remove their own comments?

We will consider requests for deletion on a case-by-case basis, but there is no absolute right to deletion of comments.

Which itself raises an interesting point. I found Tim Gough’s post via a search of the Guardian’s records using the search term “profile deleted“. The post is recorded at 3:47pm on 4 April 2013. But when I looked at the article – there is no post from Tim Gough at 3.47pm on 4 April 2013.

I am not sufficiently knowledgable about other posters who have asked for their profiles to be deleted, but if any come to light it will be easy to check if their posting history has disappeared from their profile page and the threads on which they posted.


The Guardian’s Comment is Free – censoring the historical record – airbrushing the online version

I want to emphasise that Cif is, crucially, about the articles and the comments. Together they make up the complete picture of what we publish.  – Natalie Hanman, Sept 2010

 Today anyone reading the original article and the thread it generated will be presented with a record that’s as false as those airbrushed photographs of the Stalinist era.

Some people have poured scorn on the fact that I have objected to the Guardian removing posts from the threads of articles which have been available on its internet site for many years.  This matter arose after one of its commissioned  writers asked for her profile to be removed.  This request is not uncommon and indeed the paper itself uses it to punish posters who it feels have breached its Community Standards. What is I believe unique is for it to agree to a request for the removal of every comment within a thread, such that the original meaning of the discussion within that thread is seriously degraded.

At the end of her popular and much acclaimed article Don’t blame the police for Sabina Akhtar’s murder, the writer, Jane Nichol-Bell / BeautifulBurnout was asked by the poster TaBeMar, “if you were asked to write the same article, now that you have had the debate, would it be the same?”

We don’t know if Jane Nichol-Bell replied and if she did, what that reply was, as in an act of censorship, the Guardian has removed her posts from the thread that followed the article and on every thread she’d ever posted on.  However I did pick up on TeBeMar’s question and provided a detailed response which I reproduce here.  I had wanted to post it on another article by Frances Crook, which BeautifulBurnout had dismissed out of hand, but as the comments thread was closed I posted it instead on the Sabina Akhtar thread. My original is still on this thread.

“I wanted to post this on the Frances Crook article, “Our prisons are failing women”, which of course should have been titled “Our Justice System is Failing Women”, but missed the last post so to speak. But BeautifulBurnout, in the light of your response to TaBeMar’s question, “if you were asked to write the same article, now that you have had the debate, would it be the same?”, it seems worth posting here.

Frances Crook, it looks like this thread is just about finished and you have generated a host of comments from posters, many of whom who have yet to read the Commission’s report, but feel comfortable about dismissing its research and findings.

But you will know, as do the more aware on this thread that already the government has accepted some of your recommendations and no doubt will accept more. So thank you for coming here and sharing your thoughts with us and let’s look forward to the day that we really do have a justice system free of sexism.

Sometimes coincidence plays a cruel hand for each of us to play and when BeautifulBurnout, you dismissed Frances Crook’s article you wrote:

“You give some interesting statistics into the number of women who have been subjected to domestic violence, have mental health issues and have been in care as children, but the same can be said about men – yes, even the domestic violence, if we include being beaten black and blue at home by parents and siblings.”

So did you realise that the late Sabina Akhtar, about whom you were to write your first article for CiF, featured so prominently in the report that Frances Crook was writing about? Or had you like so many of the early posters on her thread, assumed this was just another article from the statistically illiterate “mad fems” and dashed off a rapid response?

And if you did know, did it not seem strange that you should come to such a different conclusion to the Commission of which Frances Crook was a member, about how Ms Akhtar’s death so clearly illustrated the institutional sexism of the criminal justice system?

Or if you didn’t know, do you not feel you might now consider that maybe the reaction of the CPS whose neglect has resulted in an apology to Ms Akhtar’s family and the retraining of its staff, should have been given more prominence in your article?

When I look at the 456 comments on Frances Crook’s thread, I discover that only I and AllyF, seem to have looked at the report about which she was writing. Others might have done but they don’t say that in their posts. And he refers to it as “the Fawcett report”, which it clearly isn’t, so doubts must be cast on his views, or at very least his motive.

In a way your willingness to engage in the debate here has put you in a more difficult position to the one you could have been in had you followed the ‘no comment’ response of so many of CiF’s writers, but you didn’t so there are more questions to ask.

You say in your article “They, (the police), had no alternative but to release him (the assassin) on police bail again. They acted properly within the law.”

But later you say if the Manchester Evening News report is correct, which it seems to be, ‘the investigation had been “no further actioned” and bail conditions had been dropped when Mannan was released, which puts a completely different spin on things.

So maybe with this information, you might not have said “They (the police) acted properly within the law.”

You posed the question, “First, if Kennedy is right, and if this case succeeds, aren’t we opening the doors to a deluge of similar cases?”  To which having studied this case in more detail, you might have concluded the answer is yes, yes and yes again. And which battered partner is going to object? In fact I think on reflection you might now reconsider the inclusion of the entire paragraph about the implications of a successful case by Helena Kennedy QC.

It was Ultimathule* who correctly challenged your inclusion of the Smith – Jeffrey case as in some way exonerating the failure of the police to protect Ms Akhtar. For despite the judge’s ruling, any reasonable person would consider the police to have failed miserably in their duty to protect Stephen Smith, and maybe even more than they failed Ms Akhtar.

You ended your article “But, harsh though it may seem, what other possible approach can there be?”

Well I think you have in your own words shown that there were and are several other approaches which had they been adopted might have saved Sabina Akhtar’s life.”  *

* Sadly, the post from Ultimathule was deleted by the moderators, along with a number of her other posts, so we have no chapter and verse of her challenge, but what we do have from the thread are parts of fifteen of  Jane Nichol-Bell / BeautifulBurnout’s replies to people who’d read her article and posted.  But let me start with one of my own: 

Good posts from sambeckett2, mschin, MissK123 and speedkermit, someone who does seem to know about and be interested in the law relating to this matter, Brusselsexpats, ManchePaul, BeatonTheDonis, Emalina, stevejones123,
george60, MrBullfrog, MistyChick, julianabanana, imasmadashell, TristramShandy, clandella, AlexJones, most of which BeautifulBurnout painfully ignores while bathing in the adulation heaped on her first article.

So whatever she and her acolytes would now like to present as the truth, each one of these posters below recorded their own concerns about her article and if she responded, (here in italics), what that response was.

From MrBullFrog

@ BeautifulBurnout
Your comments below the line have very often been interesting and well-informed; they have had the benefit of drawing on what you have seen and what you know. For your first piece above the line, you have fallen into the journalistic trap of commenting on a case which you know nothing about other than what you have read in the newspapers, and you have produced just another opinion piece. If this had been written by one of the usual Guardian hacks, it would have been treated with far less indulgence. I think that in itself is worth thinking about.

From BeatonTheDonis

As to the CPS apology, it is clear that they realise that they made a mistake because of the obvious and horrible consequences of not charging Mannan sooner. But the key question is, could a reasonable prosecutor, reviewing the
evidence at the time, have decided not to charge?

From Bitethehand

BeautifulBurnout writes in her defence:
“Firstly and most importantly, the only details I have about this case are from what everyone else has read in the link to the BBC article”

From Bitethehand

“I shan’t respond to the below-the-line comment hauled over from another thread on a completely different subject – that of women in the prison system – as it has no relevance here.”

From Bitethehand

“Fortunately there is a government initiative to introduce more and more Specialist Domestic Violence Court Programmes.”

From Bitethehand

“We don’t know if she made a series of complaints or if she just made the one complaint when she was threatened in July 2008 and informed the police on that occasion of the previous attacks. I don’t think this is misleading at all. We simply don’t know.”

But we do know that she went to the police more than once as the court records show and I posted earlier

From Bitethehand

“But this is where I disagree with you. When someone is investigated and prosecuted, the Crown has the whole machinery of the police and CPS behind it. The defendant has a solicitor on legal aid who has nothing like the resources to investigate and fact-find. I believe it is wrong to put someone in prison on the basis that they are likely to have done it. Society has to be pretty damn sure they have done it, imo.”

From Millytante

@BeautifulBurnout 16 May 09, 2:59pm
You write, “millytante. I can’t really admit it because I don’t have any proof of it.”

Well that’s no excuse, there is plenty of evidence out there. The blind eye technique of justice is morally indefensible.

And even more astonishing, “I know that’s not a very satisfactory answer but I have never specifically looked into that aspect of DV.”

So what makes this form of DV not worth looking at? Is it because the victims are not white?
This is just for starters.

From Bitethehand

Those posts about Manchester are worrying. I really am troubled by the idea that the GMP gets an average of 100 referrals a night on domestic violence. I wonder what the figures are nationally.

From Bitethehand

“The police and CPS were faced with a dilemma; breaching police bail conditions on its own is not an offence…”

Arrest for Breach of Bail Condition

“Under a power inserted into PACE by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the police
can arrest you without warrant if you are released on bail from police detention
and a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting you have breached any
of the conditions of bail. You must be taken as soon as possible after the arrest
to the police station to which you are required to report.”

From Ultimathule

They need to be reported to the police – every single time they do it.

And if 25 times is not enough to protect a woman what is?

But the problem is, women who are victims of domestic violence on a continuous basis are those who are least likely to take any action. It is a thoroughly depressing situation.

This is blame the victim. I thought you were of the opinion that the perpetrator was the one responsible. What happened to that?

From Ultimathule

BB writes
I would be grateful if you could point to the comment I made which says that I don’t think the conviction rate for rape should be improved 

I was lead to believe that by how vigorously you attacked any attempts to change things.

I recall saying there shouldn’t be a lower standard of proof for rape vs other criminal offences and explained why.

And my argument actually was that the burden of proof in the rape case should be the same as in other cases , not lower like you chose to present it. I did say the burden of proof in the rape cases is disproportionately high. By which I suggested it was higher than in other cases. See, misunderstandings all around?

I also recall noting the most recent updates to the CPS procedures in relation to rape victims and commenting that it was “good stuff”.

Very well, I’m satisfied if you say you want to improve things your way . Perhaps you have a little different way to do it from mine but that’s how it goes…

BB says
As to when Ms Akhtar informed the police about the other 25 attacks on her, we simply have no idea because that information is not in the public domain. I would be heartily surprised if she did report him 25 times and no action was

Yet you write

During their short marriage, he was violent to her on 25 separate occasions

How do we know this if not from the public records? Again, very misleading. the passage quoted from the judge

“Police work elsewhere may be impeded if the police were required to treat every report from a member of the public that he or she is being threatened with violence as giving rise to a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent the alleged threat from being executed. (…) The judgment as to whether any given case is of that character must be left to the police.”

That was in relation to a man being attacked by his former lover, not a woman. Perhaps you misunderstood that from the article

Yet you used it in the article as if it was referring to this case. That is in itself pretty … misleading. It is your resposibility as a writer to write so that no misunderstandings arise from your text.

From GPO1

@ BB

I think my position is, rather, how do we address it within the confines of the law.

Thanks for correcting my misreading of my understanding of your article & point of view regarding the both the specific case it refers to & the issue in general.

Ms Akhtar had an alarm in her house but should she have been moved to a safe haven pending the investigation? There are so many “ifs” in this that it is difficult to know why the CPS didn’t charge, but they clearly didn’t.

True, the “ifs” are not just a case of, “If A had done this, or B had done that, then the result might have been a very different C”, but, simply on the basis of the revised information from the MEN quote, can encapsulate so much more of the details of which we are to a large extent, & unwillingly, ignorant.

bitethehand links to some information in the Manchester Evening News which is interesting. I was not aware, from the tone of the other articles I’d seen, that the investigation had been “no further actioned” and bail conditions had been dropped when Mannan was released, which puts a completely different spin on things. Everything else I have read indicated that he was released again on the same bail conditions as before pending yet further investigation, so that is something which needs to be clarified.

From room101d30

@ BeutifulBurnout

“Those who know my past comments from elsewhere on CiF know very well I am the least likely person to be looking for excuses for the police. :o)”

From bitethehand

I’d also like to thank Jane Nichol Bell / BeautifulBurnout for both writing the article and participating in the debate its generated. Given the time you’ve put into this I suspect your legal work is considerably more rewarding. :)

Your explanation of the legal difficulties involved in restraining a potentially violent man were particularly eye opening. However having been prompted to look into this case in some depth, I do feel there’s more to be uncovered. Perhaps if the Refuge and Helena Kennedy case comes to court we might get some more answers.

And to clear up any misunderstanding monkeyshark, I don’t write for The Guardian or any other newspaper, although I suppose I should be flattered by the suggestion, nor do I know Matt Seaton other than through the pages of CiF. There’s no one else to blame except me I’m afraid.

 Today anyone reading the original article and the thread it generated will be presented with a record that’s as false as those airbrushed photographs of the Stalinist era


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.