Protest outside Old Bailey in support of Constance Marten & Mark Gordon

[Shippou-Sensei]

Yes.
Those weren't the options here though. The death was an accident and could have happened in a hotel room or flat or anywhere.

And you know this how?

 

[CharlotteF1]

Your dinner parties must be intense.

Maybe too intense for you. I take it you're not angling for an invite. Stay down in internet one-liner world is probably the best advice for you.

It remains the case that to have a child captured forever is to be the object of an act of violence, and it's likely to be a more affecting experience lifewise than being raped a single time.

The interesting thing is that nobody here has yet said they disagree with me about that, even if they think my asking the question here was terribly wrong.

 

[CharlotteF1]

And you know this how?

The bit you don't bold is the more important bit. No choice was made to "live in a tent and let the child die". Never mind what it says in the Sun.

Do you need proof for the idea that a mother can fall asleep on top of a baby and suffocate the baby, regardless of whether she's sitting on an armchair or a tent groundsheet, and regardless of whether the roof over her head is made of tiles or canvas?

Well let's start with our axioms and then apply the rules of logical inference. Sheesh! Be serious!

 

[planetgeli]

Make it stop editor

I'm really against censorship but closing this would not be censorship, it would be an act of kind-heartedness.

 

[tonysingh]

Make it stop editor

I'm really against censorship but closing this would not be censorship, it would be an act of kind-heartedness.

I agree, this is unpleasent. I shouldn't have bitten and that's on me but furthering this..... there's something uneasy about it.

 

[WouldBe]

• DEFUND THE SS

Great idea. So you're all in favour of letting orphans fend for themselves.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Do you need proof for the idea that a mother can fall asleep on top of a baby and suffocate the baby, regardless of whether she's sitting on an armchair or a tent groundsheet, and regardless of whether the roof over her head is made of tiles or canvas?

You don't prove ideas you prove facts.

You don't have facts you have ideas.

I'm fact if I can bother with this nonsense

 

[ElizabethofYork]

The bit you don't bold is the more important bit. No choice was made to "live in a tent and let the child die". Never mind what it says in the Sun.

Do you need proof for the idea that a mother can fall asleep on top of a baby and suffocate the baby, regardless of whether she's sitting on an armchair or a tent groundsheet, and regardless of whether the roof over her head is made of tiles or canvas?

Well let's start with our axioms and then apply the rules of logical inference. Sheesh! Be serious!

Being in a flimsy tent in the middle of a freezing cold winter makes it much more likely that the baby and mother would be sleeping closely together - especially if the baby didn't have any warm clothes or blankets.

 

[Pickman's model]

The bit you don't bold is the more important bit. No choice was made to "live in a tent and let the child die". Never mind what it says in the Sun.

Do you need proof for the idea that a mother can fall asleep on top of a baby and suffocate the baby, regardless of whether she's sitting on an armchair or a tent groundsheet, and regardless of whether the roof over her head is made of tiles or canvas?

Well let's start with our axioms and then apply the rules of logical inference. Sheesh! Be serious!

if you were serious you'd have posted rather differently on this thread

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe too intense for you. I take it you're not angling for an invite. Stay down in internet one-liner world is probably the best advice for you.

It remains the case that to have a child captured forever is to be the object of an act of violence, and it's likely to be a more affecting experience lifewise than being raped a single time.

The interesting thing is that nobody here has yet said they disagree with me about that, even if they think my asking the question here was terribly wrong.

how many of your children have been rescued / captured from you?

 

[Dystopiary]

"We have a community of mutual aid. Don't worry about us."

Cult innit.

 

[likesfish]

Maybe too intense for you. I take it you're not angling for an invite. Stay down in internet one-liner world is probably the best advice for you.

It remains the case that to have a child captured forever is to be the object of an act of violence, and it's likely to be a more affecting experience lifewise than being raped a single time.

The interesting thing is that nobody here has yet said they disagree with me about that, even if they think my asking the question here was terribly wrong.

she'd had 3 children taken off her already Social services do attempt to reconnect children neither of them turned up to contact sessions and put children through stress by not turning up.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

"We have a community of mutual aid. Don't worry about us."

Cult innit.

Not sure if it's a cult exactly, but they seem to be heavily influenced by Ian Josephs, who was mentioned by Constance Marten in court.

Google him - interesting but weird.

 

[ginger_syn]

The bit you don't bold is the more important bit. No choice was made to "live in a tent and let the child die". Never mind what it says in the Sun.

Do you need proof for the idea that a mother can fall asleep on top of a baby and suffocate the baby, regardless of whether she's sitting on an armchair or a tent groundsheet, and regardless of whether the roof over her head is made of tiles or canvas?

Well let's start with our axioms and then apply the rules of logical inference. Sheesh! Be serious!

Its hard to be serious when you are spraying pearl cluching strawmen everywhere, as for those awful people ,leaving aside the questionable circumstances of the death i hope they do time for the appallingly immoral way they treated that poor child after she died

 

[krtek a houby]

Yes.
Those weren't the options here though. The death was an accident and could have happened in a hotel room or flat or anywhere.
I hope you're not seeing things from the POV of state thugs who threaten a woman "Stop seeing your man or we'll capture your children".

You should probably be captured, for your own health and wellbeing.

 

[xenon]

I wonder where else they are posting this dog shit.

 

[existentialist]

Maybe too intense for you. I take it you're not angling for an invite. Stay down in internet one-liner world is probably the best advice for you.

It remains the case that to have a child captured forever is to be the object of an act of violence, and it's likely to be a more affecting experience lifewise than being raped a single time.

The interesting thing is that nobody here has yet said they disagree with me about that, even if they think my asking the question here was terribly wrong.

I think I made it pretty damn clear that I disagreed with you about that, and I am by far not the only one.

You are living in a fantasy world.

 

[CharlotteF1]

I think I made it pretty damn clear that I disagreed with you about that, and I am by far not the only one.

You are living in a fantasy world.

What you disagree with has two parts. Here it is again:

"that to have a child captured forever is to be the object of an act of violence, and it's likely to be a more affecting experience lifewise than being raped a single time."

Do you disagree with both parts, or just one?
If you disagree with the second part, do you think it's likely to be a less affecting experience, or equally affecting?

If you disagree with the first part, just to recap, that means you think that if a gang captures a child from his or her parents and takes them away forever, that's not violence.

Or perhaps it's only non-violent if it's done in the name of the state?

If so, does that apply to hitting someone with a truncheon as well?

C'mon, you're in a hole.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

I don't go to the doctors because they plunge needles into my skin and that is violence

I was ill once and they cut open my stomach and pulled part of me out

How can anyone defend these mad butchers.


There is no possible justification for slicing someone open. Don't be trapped in a hole.

All of you people who say it's for my own good are deluded. What would you rather have? A bowl of chicken noodle soup or a brutal disembowlment?

 

[krtek a houby]

What you disagree with has two parts. Here it is again:

"that to have a child captured forever is to be the object of an act of violence, and it's likely to be a more affecting experience lifewise than being raped a single time."

Do you disagree with both parts, or just one?
If you disagree with the second part, do you think it's likely to be a less affecting experience, or equally affecting?

If you disagree with the first part, just to recap, that means you think that if a gang captures a child from his or her parents and takes them away forever, that's not violence.

Or perhaps it's only non-violent if it's done in the name of the state?

If so, does that apply to hitting someone with a truncheon as well?

C'mon, you're in a hole.

Please stop

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

There is a lot wrong with social services and the family courts system.

But this case is not an example of blameless parents caught up in a terrible system. It's a case of terrible parents caught up in a flawed system.

In what world is putting a dead infant in a carrier bag with rubbish even remotely defensible? I mean, what the actual fuck is wrong with them. And with you for thinking it's actually the State that's in the wrong in this scenario?

 

[kebabking]

This creep is looking for interaction, it's what pushes this thread further up the chart on the Google algorithm so it reaches more lunatics/monsters.

Don't feed the creep.

Don't feed the creep.

Don't feed the creep.

And once, with a resigned for fucks sake, don't feed the creep.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Last in?

 

[Silas Loom]

This creep is looking for interaction, it's what pushes this thread further up the chart on the Google algorithm so it reaches more lunatics/monsters.

Don't feed the creep.

Don't feed the creep.

Don't feed the creep.

And once, with a resigned for fucks sake, don't feed the creep.

Separate discussion needed about whether the Google algorithm works like that.

PageRank is deliberately mysterious and changes its algorithm weightings stochastically to defeat SEO, so a page’s velocity of change may sometimes be important, but surely external links still trump everything else.

Anyway, this will be in the bin before too long, so it’s moot as far as the OP goes.

 

[existentialist]

What you disagree with has two parts. Here it is again:

"that to have a child captured forever is to be the object of an act of violence, and it's likely to be a more affecting experience lifewise than being raped a single time."

Do you disagree with both parts, or just one?
If you disagree with the second part, do you think it's likely to be a less affecting experience, or equally affecting?

If you disagree with the first part, just to recap, that means you think that if a gang captures a child from his or her parents and takes them away forever, that's not violence.

Or perhaps it's only non-violent if it's done in the name of the state?

If so, does that apply to hitting someone with a truncheon as well?

C'mon, you're in a hole.

I disagree with all of it, with you in general, and with the fact that you are able to continue spouting this poisonous tripe without, it seems, the slightest glimmer of conscience.

Is that clear enough for you?

Anyway, who do you think you are? Perry fucking Mason?

 

[existentialist]

This creep is looking for interaction, it's what pushes this thread further up the chart on the Google algorithm so it reaches more lunatics/monsters.

Don't feed the creep.

Don't feed the creep.

Don't feed the creep.

And once, with a resigned for fucks sake, don't feed the creep.

Yeah, fair enough. It's starting to look as it's enjoying itself.

I'm done.

 

[editor]

The judge can stop the trial at any time and instruct the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

The CPS most certainly can say "oh f*** it" even once the defence have started presenting their case.

In this particular trial, there has been argument over whether the prosecution should be allowed to call a certain witness in attempted rebuttal of what they supposedly heard for the first time when the second defendant was in the witness box. Perhaps if they can't call him they will say "oh f*** it". Who knows?

They may also say "oh f*** it" if the defence is allowed to call certain witnesses, given what they have heard since the defence opened their case that wasn't disclosed to them beforehand.

As you surely well know, not stopping a trial at half-time doesn't mean a judge can't stop it later.

FYI, allegations that the CPS have abused process have been made at various times since the first charges were laid, including after the defence opened their case at trial. The evidence for the CPS having abused process is accumulating.

The evidence for SS officers having conspired to pervert the course of justice is also accumulating.

You seem interested in my motives. Let me answer you. I would prefer

*******************************

1) for these two fine people and excellent loving parents who are currently on trial to be vindicated and freed at the earliest possible time;

2) for the ball to be started rolling towards the complete end of

/ the atrocious regime of secret hearings at "family courts"
/ forced adoptions
/ women being told by the SS who they shouldn't be in a relationship with if they want their children to avoid capture
/ women being declared unfit to breed ("unsuited to parenting" in SS speak)
/ babies been captured shortly after birth

3) for there to be an official inquiry, an apology, and the payment of compensation to the many tens of thousands of people who have been affected by the said regime (noting that an apology has already been issued for many of the forced adoptions that took place between 1949 and 1976) - with the apology to be given at prime ministerial level, and making clear that such adoptions (which have been imposed under both Conservative, Labour, and Coalition governments) have been a terrible national disgrace, just as forced adoptions are now so considered in, for example, Australia;

4) for social workers who are found to have lied in order to facilitate forced adoptions to be given long jail sentences - hopefully for a minimum of 20 years - and if this is to be taken seriously, thousands of SS officers will be jailed;

5) for lawyers who have lied and who have cheated their clients in order to facilitate forced adoptions also to be given long jail sentences - also a minimum of 20 years;

6) for medics, health visitors, schoolteachers, experts, and any others who have lied in order to facilitate forced adoptions also to be given long jail sentences - also a minimum of 20 years;

7) for social services to be defunded;

8) for those who have fled abroad in order to avoid the persecution of themselves and the capture of their children by the SS to be paid compensation;

9) for those who have assisted the flight of such victims of persecution for no personal gain to be considered for prestigious humanitarian awards;

10) for the official consideration of women as unfit to breed to be deemed a very serious crime in every single case in which it has occurred, and, given the large number of cases of its occurrence in Britain, for it to be considered overall, on the scale that it has operated in the said country, to have been a crime against humanity, in accordance with the meaning of that term in international humanitarian law.

*******************************

Regarding the possibility of contempt of court in relation to this particular trial at the Old Bailey, the jurors have been told that they shouldn't search the internet or read the newspapers about the case, and that in the event that any articles or posts do hit their consciousness they should stop reading them right away. All jurors are told the same nowadays. Did you not know that?

So don't worry about anything being typed here that undermines the working of his glorious majesty's most excellent justice system.

The trial has been adjourned until Monday 25 March. Protests outside the Old Bailey will continue on that date. All who support these two innocent defendants are welcome to attend.

For further information, please browse to https://supportnotseparation.blog

The address of the court is Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, London, EC4M 7EH. ("Old Bailey" is the streetname.)

• FREE CONSTANCE MARTEN AND MARK GORDON
• END FORCED ADOPTIONS
• STOP DESIGNATING WOMEN AS UNFIT TO BREED
• DEFUND THE SS

Ever stopped to wonder why not a single person here agrees with you, despite you being given ample time and space to state your supposed case?

 

[editor]

The interesting thing is that nobody here has yet said they disagree with me about that, even if they think my asking the question here was terribly wrong.

No, literally no one is agreeing with anything you've said.

 

[editor]

I'm moving thread to general for what I hope are obvious reasons, with another move expected soon after.

 

[klang]

I for one don't trust posters who * out their swear words.