Joshua Rozenberg

 

 

To RWH. I still fail to get my stuff onto the eurodads circuit, both when I follow Julian's instructions and when I follow your instructions. Please would you do it for me?

Ivor  1nov03

 

"Wives who kill may be spared life sentences" - Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor, The Daily Telegraph, 31oct03, p13

".... Harriet Harman, one of the Government's law officers, said earlier this month that such a defence [reducing the charge from (cold blooded) murder (of a sleeping husband) to manslaughter] 'would reflect the long-held view of the women's movement that women who kill their husbands after suffering long years of violence should have a new partial defence to murder'. .... ...."

 

We get close here to being able to assert that Joshua Rozenberg has not read his wife's seminal book; Melanie Phillips, "The Sex-Change Society ....", pub. SMF nov99. His praise of Sloss as a force for good in an article of some 6 or 9 months ago was most unfortunate. (See http://www.ivorcatt.com/2202.htm , Sloss exaggerates the statistics on DV, which is particularly dangerous when it comes to downgrading murder.)

 

See Melanie’s book, pp 139, 142, 192, 195 on fabrication of charges of DV. However, it is almost certain that Melanie does not mention either Harman or Sloss in her 1999 book (although I only have the early 1999 edition, which lacks an index), so the evidence is not conclusive. However, we are close to being able to say that this couple do not communicate with each other, and Rozenberg manages to stay in ignorance of his wife's research.

 

How is Rozenberg able to mention Harman without linking with her destructive past in this field? See http://www.ivorcatt.com/2201.htm "Recently, a woman commentator said Harman was a gender supremacist. Hock calls them gender racists".Also see http://www.ivorcatt.com/2029.htm where Harman falsely says; "One quarter to one third of murders are DV murders.". Catt goes on to say; "All these women are implacable. Like the Marxists (they are latter-day Marxists, having replaced the word “Capitalism” with “Patriarchy”, but left the dogma as it was before) they have heavily infiltrated all our institutions, and will wreak massive damage during the next 15 years." Also see Melanie Phillips in the Sunday Times a couple of years ago writing that the Home Office was desperate to jail more men, and didn't care how. Is Rozenberg blind to the danger posed by a government which incites citizens to murder? (Last done in the Middle Ages by the Pope by Excommunication, and today limited to other cultures, like Iran’s Islam.) Is he ignorant of Clare Curtis-Thomas MP's work on false allegations? See http://www.ivorcatt.com/96.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.com/22.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.com/2313.htm .The key point is that a murdered man cannot defend himself against false allegations of DV.

 

On the positive side, Rozenberg did write an article a couple of months ago accurately outlining the disintegration of CAFCASS.

 

I discussed with Eugen whether Rozenberg is entitled to put on the "reporter" hat on 31oct03 and suppress implications of a report that Harman wants to encourage women victims to wait until their husbands are asleep, and then murder them, and omit any commentary. Eugen thinks he is not entitled to do so.

 

One bizarre suggestion which comes to mind is that Melanie supports men while her husband supports radfems. Is Melanie married to a Poodle-Man, or just a dim man? Will the time come when excluded fathers demonstrate outside Rozenberg's home in protest against his biased reporting, even though Melanie, who in nov99 published the bible of excluded fathers, lives there too?

 

Ivor Catt  1nov03

 

 

cc Joshuah Rozenberg,

11 Palgrave Rd.,

London  W12 9NB

 

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F10%2F31%2Fnwife31.xml

Wives who kill may be spared life sentences
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
(Filed: 31/10/2003)

Women who kill violent husbands or boyfriends could escape life imprisonment for murder under proposals floated today by the Government's law reform advisers.

In English law, a person who kills after a sudden and temporary loss of self-control may be able to rely on the defence of provocation.

If that defence is made out, the accused person will be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder and the judge will not have to pass a life sentence.

However, the law of provocation is in a "muddle", according to a leading academic. A senior judge said recently that it has "serious logical and moral flaws".

As a result, the Law Commission says the defence needs to be reformed by Parliament. If it was abolished, then the commission thinks the Government would have to abolish the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder.

Since that would be politically unacceptable, the commission seeks views on a revised definition of provocation but concludes that all options present difficulties.

The commission says: "On the one hand, there is the need to protect and respect human life - and therefore not to condone, even partially, the actions of those who kill through failure to control their emotions.

"On the other hand, people are sometimes provoked to kill in circumstances which call for a degree of compassion."

The Law Commission then considers whether a killing should be reduced to manslaughter when the killer believes he or she is acting in self-defence but uses excessive force. If this defence had been available to the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, he might not have been convicted initially of murder.

Finally, the commission considers a defence of pre-emptive force in self-defence, or self-preservation. This might be used by an abused woman who kills her assailant while he is asleep, or by a bullied school-child.

"If a woman in an abusive relationship kills her partner in order to protect herself from further violence, she may have no defence to murder," the Law Commission explains.

"But if her partner in a sudden rage kills her because she has been unfaithful, he may succeed in a defence of provocation and be convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter, even though his culpability might well be greater."

However, the commission says there are problems in defining a defence of self-preservation to exclude members of rival criminal gangs or paramilitaries.

Harriet Harman, one of the Government's law officers, said earlier this month that such a defence "would reflect the long-held view of the women's movement that women who kill their husbands after suffering long years of violence should have a new partial defence to murder".

Mr Justice Toulson, chairman of the Law Commission, wants comments from the "widest possible audience" by the end of January.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

"Mr Justice Toulson, chairman of the Law Commission, wants comments from the "widest possible audience" by the end of January." Will Rozenberg condescend to explain himself, or will we ask Spiderman to camp outside, or on top of, their house?  - Ivor Catt  1nov03

 

Dear Mr. Justice Toulson,

The above is a comment by Ivor Catt 1nov03

as requested by Mr Justice Toulson, see above; ".... wants comments from the ‘widest possible audience’ by the end of January." Yours, Ivor Catt 1nov03

 

cc Mr Justice Toulson,

Law Commission, Conquest House,

37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road,

London WC1N 2BQ

 

x