Watching The Untrusted Implode

Pangum, Sagarmāthā National Park, Nepal, November 2000

Pangum, Sagarmāthā National Park, Nepal, November 2000

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.” 


So here’s a challenge to Ally Fogg from no other than Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the most courageous women today, who says – Islam “is not a peaceful one” and calls for “a Muslim Reformation.”

Those who she states are her harshest critics — Muslims and Western liberals - like Ally Fogg, deny what she’s been professing all along: that Islamic faith and modernity are incompatible, and that the recent surge in extremist attacks in the name of Islam is an even greater indication that something more monumental must be done.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes, and she writes it about you Ally Fogg:

My uncompromising statements on this topic have incited such vehement denunciations that one would think I had committed an act of violence myself. For today, it seems, speaking the truth about Islam is a crime. “Hate speech” is the modern term for heresy. And in the present atmosphere, anything that makes Muslims feel uncomfortable is branded as “hate.”

So will we hear Ally Fogg calling Ayaan Hirsi Ali a vile racists?


Ally Fogg:

Free speech not only means the right to say unpalatable and unpopular things, it also involves
the right to call oppression and bigotry for what they are when we see them.

And if you call someone a vile racist for criticising Islam as being institutionally sexist and prevent him from making that criticism, then who is the bigot?


A new set of photographs here, (Photographs 25) all of which have been posted before but they’re now together in one place.


There I was thinking the Untrusted had become as mundane as the Underground when up pops MontanaWidlhack objecting to being called “Monty” by one of the newcomers:

“…you can’t possibly be so obtuse that you don’t understand the concept of compassion, so I’m going to have to believe at this point that you’re really just an arrogant bitch who can’t be bothered being nice to people you see as inferior.”


BeautifulBurnout on the Tower Hamlets school girls:

We still don’t have any proof that they have actually gone to fight with or support ISIL either, Frog. As I mentioned the other day, the elder sister of one of the girls seemed to think they had gone off to try and find their friend and bring her back.


I came across this rather disturbing aspect of Green Party policy in Spiked:

 4) Green taxes would hit the poor hardest

Many of the Greens’ killjoy policies, like shutting down zoos and banning alcohol on planes, would make everyone miserable, regardless of social standing. But despite the Green Party’s talk of redistributing wealth and creating a fairer society, most of the Greens’ proposed taxes would hit the poor the hardest.

Under the party’s proposals, goods and services would be taxed according to how much damage the party deems these products do to the environment. So, if you’re less well-off, you can say goodbye to your carbon-belching car and jetting off for foreign holidays; the Greens’ plan is to make these sorts of luxuries unaffordable for common folk. Instead, you’ll be told to walk or cycle. And if you’re elderly, disabled or just lazy, their 2015 manifesto tells us that ‘animal-powered transport, in particular horse-powered transport, is also sustainable’.

As for exotic luxuries like coffee, bananas and chocolate, these will be taxed beyond the reach of the average pleb. Maybe if you save up you can have them at Christmas. Oh, and booze: the Greens want to raise the price of all alcohol by 50 per cent.


Backtothepoint, whose resentment of being born British sticks in his craw so much that whenever the opportunity arises he takes the opportunity to denigrate the country of his birth. Here he is decrying the retreat from Dunkirk that had it not happened, given the number of French people that supported Vichy France, it’s just probable that the planned German invasion of England would have gone ahead.

He writes:

I thought it was the British who deserted their allies in wartime.

Or were they hurrying back from Dunkirk to get to grips with the Nazis in the Home Counties?

Notwithstanding that several French divisions were evacuated from Dunkirk in Operation Dynamo, he’s quite right about the UK’s Nazi sympathisers like Oswald Mosley, but they were rightly incarcerated for much of the the war, while many of BTTP’s elected countrymen were establishing the Nazi sympathising Vichy regime.


From Today’s Guardian:

Two charities (Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust joined the Roddick Foundation)  have agreed to no longer fund the controversial advocacy group Cage, which has faced questions over its links to Mohammed Emwazi, the Briton identified as Islamic State executioner ‘Jihadi John’.

The move made on Friday comes after pressure from the Charity Commission and follows the news that Amnesty International was also considering severing its ties with the group.

What on earth was the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, a Quaker organisation, doing funding an organisation that supports international jihad?


The appearance of Cageprisoners in the news over the past few days reminded me of this article by Rahila Gupta – Double standards on human rights in which Ally Fogg went to war with just about everyone over Amnesty International hosting Cage member Moazzam Begg.


Oradour has silenced the pro-Putin groupies on the Untrusted:

When Putin took Crimea, I couldn’t remain silent, I felt too bad. People think this annexation is normal. They’ve been brain-washed. Most haven’t understood, they are too young. But those who, like me, lived as adults in the USSR, should be immune to such cynical, brutal propaganda.

To which Vincent Vassiliev replied:

Hi Oradour,

may I recommend the Russian émigré website ‘’,

from which can be found:

On February 27, 2015 Boris Nemtsov was assassinated in the street outside the Kremlin to intimidate Russian society. Sviatoslav Vakarchuk gave a concert in New York that day and has dedicated a song to this extraordinary Russian politician. A memorial march is now provided in the center of Moscow and at the center of Saint Petersburg.

And everyone else ignored.


A new set of photographs here, (Photographs 25) all of which have been posted before but they’re now together in one place.


End of You Tell Us – 28 January 2015

“Today is the last ideas thread. From tomorrow, we won’t be running these threads anymore. We still really want your ideas for articles, but we think the best way to do that will be to have a dedicated email address for people to send in suggestions. That is being set up asap. The editor of Cif, Kira Cochrane, will be running a talking shop tomorrow to explain more, but when this thread closes tomorrow there won’t be a new one. I know this will be upsetting for some, but please bear with us while we make some new changes to the site.”


 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.


Gimme all your lovin’  –  ZZ Top

Yesterday’s music

Rachmaninoff Prelude Op 23 No 5

Gaucho – Steely Dan


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  

Ally Fogg – do you consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be a vile racist? After all she is also highly critical of Islam

Contrasting styles,  Maerkang, Sichuan, China, September 2014

Contrasting styles, Maerkang, Sichuan, China, September 2014

Ally Fogg – do you consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be a vile racist? After all she is also highly critical of Islam

So here’s a challenge to Ally Fogg from no other than Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the most courageous women today, who says – Islam “is not a peaceful one” and calls for a Muslim Reformation.”

Those who she states are her harshest critics — Muslims and Western liberals - like Ally Fogg, deny what she’s been professing all along: that Islamic faith and modernity are incompatible, and that the recent surge in extremist attacks in the name of Islam is an even greater indication that something more monumental must be done.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes, and she writes it about you Ally Fogg:

My uncompromising statements on this topic have incited such vehement denunciations that one would think I had committed an act of violence myself. For today, it seems, speaking the truth about Islam is a crime. “Hate speech” is the modern term for heresy. And in the present atmosphere, anything that makes Muslims feel uncomfortable is branded as “hate.”

So will we hear Ally Fogg calling Ayaan Hirsi Ali a vile racist?


Ally Fogg writes about anonymity for rape defendants being scrapped in 1988

Sculpture outside a tea room Mount Emie, Sichuan Province, China, June 2013

Sculpture outside a tea room Mount Emie, Sichuan Province, China, June 2013

Ally Fogg writes about anonymity for rape defendants being scrapped in 1988

Half way through the article he writes:

In other words, the argument being made in favour of retaining anonymity at the time were what we could broadly call pro-feminist – concerned with protecting rape victims and with concerns about the media sensationalizing sexual offence trials. At the division, those voting to retain anonymity for defendants included most left-leaning MPs, including any identifiably feminist women in the House, such as Gwyneth Dunwoody, Clare Short, Margaret Ewing and Maria Fyfe, who was shadow minister for women at the time.

Gwyneth Dunwoody a feminist?  Well here’s Andrew Rawnsley writing in The Observer on Sunday 21 October 2001

“Betty joins the League of Labour Youth and, in those unreconstructed days: ‘I entered a beauty contest and won a prize.’ This is just one of many relentless references to her physical attractiveness. Her ‘shapely’ legs get many a mention. She quotes – without complaint – a man’s description of her as a ‘solid, comely wench’. She is delighted when Cosmopolitan names ‘me one of its favourite babes’. Goodness knows why the lady needs to protest so much. No wonder she is despised by the more feminist generation of younger Labour women, a sentiment returned with interest.

She delivers a familiar complaint about New Labour’s treatment of the Commons without demonstrating much understanding of why the Government’s contempt for her palace is so widely shared by the voters.

You can’t help coming away with the feeling that Mr Blair’s real offence, in the eyes of Queen Betty, is not that he has marginalised Parliament, but that he has committed lèse-majesté.”

And here’s Bitethehand writing below an article by Cath Elliot – The 2009 Summer of Hate - “The recent vitriolic attacks on Harriet Harman and Hillary Clinton have a clear message: women cannot be trusted to run the show.”

Of Gwyneth Dunwoody:

“She belonged to an experienced political dynasty: her father, Morgan Phillips, was General Secretary of the Labour Party between 1944 and 1962; her mother, Norah Phillips was a life peer in the House of Lords and Lord Lieutenant of Greater London (1978-86); both her grandmothers were suffragettes…”

Now isn’t this amazing – grandmothers being suffragettes, father in the Labour Party leadership and mother bequeathing her both the silver spoon and a touch of aristocracy. How like the life of the hated Ms Harman.

And in reply to stevejones123 (remember him?) who’d posted:

The truth is that neither Dunwoody or Boothroyd suffered a long-campaign of hate attacks based on their being female. The attacks against Harman, Blears, Smith, Flint and the other Blair babes are based on intense dislike of their personal records, not their sex.

I posted:

“I’ve searched for anything in Dunwoody or Boothroyd’s records for what contribution they’d made in progressing the rights of woman,and promoting sexual equality in our male dominated society, and found nothing. Not one single quote.

But I hope you have some evidence to post or I’ll have to conclude that your liking for them is more to do with them not being a threat to the men on Harriet’s roof.”

So in response to Fogg’s article I posted the following, on his site, about which he’s completely silent:

“I realise you won’t publish this but I thought one of the strongest arguments for not allowing defendants anonymity was that other victims might see the name and come forward.

Imagine what might have happened had one of the tabloids come out with accusations about Savile while he was still alive and the police had arrested him and asked for victims to come forward.”

Of course the post won’t appear there.

The Untrusted’s Heyhabib goes unchallenged in his use of racist Nazi ideology

Winston Churchill's studio, Chartwell, Westerham, Kent, England

Winston Churchill’s studio, Chartwell, Westerham, Kent, England

The Untrusted’s Heyhabib goes unchallenged in his use of racist Nazi ideology

Heyhabib posts 17/03/2015 at 2:28 pm:

“creating a Palestinian state was never a valid option for Israel. They have always kept looking for lebensraum.”

The Holocaust Teacher Resource Center (among others) states:

The main reason for the Nazi expansion into its neighboring western countries was built upon the principle of lebensraum. Even though it translates literally to mean only “living space,” lebensraum carried with it the desire for the Nazis to expand into other countries to provide living space for the growing German race.

During this time, the “inferior” races, such as the Jews and Gypsies, who occupied the new Nazi territories, were stripped of their possessions, jobs, and “resettled” in ghettos or concentration camps. This helped break the people’s will, asserted the strong power of the Nazis, and gave direct benefits to the Nazi regime.

As yet his post has gone unchallenged.

Ally Fogg and the truth about his abuse of the great and the good of the literati

The Jinsha river forms the boundary between Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces, China

The Jinsha river forms the boundary between Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces, China

Ally Fogg and the truth about his abuse of the great and the good of the literati

Ally Fogg writes:

Meanwhile if you are an aspiring writer, blogger or creator who has the temerity to criticise the great and the good, the overwhelmingly Oxbridge and public-school educated coterie who make up the commissioning editors, the staff writers and the columnists, then good luck with that career. You will quickly find that the doors you thought slightly ajar have slammed hard on your foot.

Yes that’s the same Ally Fogg who wrote this heap of abuse about one of those staff writers an columnists, in this case the Guardian writer Bidisha:

If on the other hand she reveals that the politics and ideology underpinning her articles are more akin to the ravings of a paranoid fruitloop, then we’ll continue to engage with her articles on that basis.”


“I suggested that she spouts the ravings of a paranoid fruitloop not because she’s a woman, but because she writes paranoid ravings. I’m sorry, but someone who thinks that her interviewees don’t look her in the eye because they are all misogynists does come across as a paranoid and pretty loopy.”


MontanaWildhack posted – 15 February 2009: “I promise not to censor comments. Help me let people know that it’s here, okay?”


Off Aberystyth, Wales, Spring 1988.

Off Aberystyth, Wales, Spring 1988.

MontanaWildhack posted – 15 February 2009: “I promise not to censor comments. Help me let people know that it’s here, okay?”

Sometime later, reflecting on this promise:

Scherfig a founder member of The Untrusted posted 27/5/2010:

If I can set my usual personal abuse of bitey aside for once, (even though his creepy stalking behaviour is totally unacceptable), it might be worth considering the occasional valid point that he makes here. Deano seems to think that everyone should comment on here, but not biteydeano will apparently accept every type of racist, classist, predujiced nonsense (and excuse it, as many others here do simply because they don’t want a confrontation) as long as he can ramble on about reaming his cock, and mungo, and can adore every young miss ad nauseam. Thauma just tells bitey to fuck off (fair enough). BB engages with him repeatedly – why? Many others have also told him to fuck off, myself included. But here’s a radical thought – we have endured all sorts of crap on here, but we draw the line at bitey. Why is that? I imagine that it’s because his contributions have been purely aggressive and negative, no surprise there (cf parallax, billp). But perhaps it’s also because many posters here feel that this is a safe space where inconvenient and uncomfortable opinions should not be heard. (Or eg. in the case of the bigoted and obnoxious Nap, should be defended on very dubious grounds – he’s young, unemployed, mentally fragile -WTF people!) That’s a very dangerous road to go down, and us old-timers have been there before. Well, if it’s the case that we don’t want to hear anything nasty here, then what’s the fucking point? At the risk of sounding like a dinosaur, I’ll say straight out that it wasn’t like that when we started this place, and I don’t think that it is the future of this place either.

On a more specific note, I’ll say to paulbj that your offensive assault on practically everybody here was at least honest and heartfelt and passionate (at the time). I’m not singling you out – it’s just a recent example, not the first, but not to be swept under the carpet either. And I would still call you a paddy nigger (but not in a bad way). Although I wouldn’t think of calling habib a Paki, or Turminder a half-caste Jock. Why is that, I wonder? What is the difference? Although if I wanted to say these things here, why shouldn’t I? These views exist in the real world so why should they not be expressed here? It’s surely a subject for discussion with all the animosity and insults and personal offence that that might entail with such a conversation on this forum (a bit like the real world but perhaps with more honesty!). UT – freedom of speech, no moderation, not Cif.

I suppose my point here is that if is this to be a forum for the exchange of ideas and political discussion (amongst other things), then treading on eggshells with each other, and everyone spouting the same tired old bullshit won’t actually do it. I think that you regular contributors here should think hard about what way you want UT to go. You’ll end up with the forum you deserve.

And on a final, very personal note, I support montana 100% in her response to BB‘s coments. As usual here, everybody wants to be pals and nobody wants to ‘take sides’. l’ll say straight out that montana‘s reaction to BB‘s comments was right on the money and BB was totally wrong in her personal (disgused as professional) interpretation of the case, her patronising manner and her dishonest response to montana. I’m disappointed that more intelligent posters here didn’t recognise that. Sorry, BB – sue me.

And lastly, at risk of sounding precious, I really think that you should all think seriously about how you use this forum which montana started and which she still works hard to maintain. Apart from thauma and myself, nobody has ever done anything practical here. I’m more or less out of the loop now, but I still care about this place. And who knows? It might disappear tomorrow.  (My bold)

To which I responded:

An interesting post scherfig and having looked at my own records, it might surprise you that as far as I can see, we never fell out about anything that either of us posted on CiF. I stand to be corrected on this because of certain IT problems that have been alluded to earlier on this thread, but I don’t think so.

You call me a stalker and ask “BB engages with him repeatedly – why?”.

And you answered your own question earlier this month when you wrote about her, far more perceptively and cuttingly than I could ever have brought myself to, if only because I like to engage with posters, like you, who present a challenge, rather than an easy target:

“You have a huge ego and an apparent need to prove your liberal credentials to us ordinary people on this blog. Your posts are mostly about you. You take pride in ‘bashing the fash’ but it just sounds like a schoolkid being stroppy. It’s bullshit. Sorry, but I find you incredibly naive politically (Lib Dem Ya?) so we’re never going to be best friends You get a lot more from this blog than you give. Fair enough.”

Sounds like a very fair comment about MrsBootstraps  :)

This was prompted by Chekhov’s recent comment about censorship on the UT site.



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

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


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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.