If there is one trait in women that brings out the most visceral disgust in me, its their propensity for crying to manipulate the world around them.
Especially as, when a grown man cries in court its treated as a bastard finally realizing he can't escape longer or an innocent man finally cracking under the pressure. Yet when a woman does it during trial, its always trying to be a victim and it always manages to work to some extent.
Even this article gives her so many victim adjectives and descriptions, which softens the inbetween sentences revealing how horrific her crimes were. In any just society, she would have been told to fix her face by the judge or be held in contempt.
As I said, the most visceral disgust. I still have plenty lesser levels for the others, simply because I've grown so used to it. The same way you stop getting as sick to your stomach seeing puke/shit after having a toddler for a while.
It's the BBC. It's written by people who probably support her because she killed more boys than girls.
You only posted a screenshot my dude, so I had no idea who was writing it. Because this type of "muh wimmenz are sad!!!" wringing is equally likely from any news article on the "right" or really anyone short of explicit manosphere rags (and even then).
I don't even know why a trial is necessary.
A trial is always necessary to make certain evidence is actual evidence, and not just "it seems so" evidence. Its there to protect everyone from assumptions, malpractice by the law who collected it, and general secret railroading the legal system was famous for throughout history.
Allowing her to turn it into a pity party however, is completely unnecessary and outright pathetic. It only serves to prepare us for when she gets a stupidly light sentence, because the court is already going easy on her.
If there is one trait in women that brings out the most visceral disgust in me, its their propensity for crying to manipulate the world around them.
Especially as, when a grown man cries in court its treated as a bastard finally realizing he can't escape longer or an innocent man finally cracking under the pressure. Yet when a woman does it during trial, its always trying to be a victim and it always manages to work to some extent.
Even this article gives her so many victim adjectives and descriptions, which softens the inbetween sentences revealing how horrific her crimes were. In any just society, she would have been told to fix her face by the judge or be held in contempt.
As I said, the most visceral disgust. I still have plenty lesser levels for the others, simply because I've grown so used to it. The same way you stop getting as sick to your stomach seeing puke/shit after having a toddler for a while.
You only posted a screenshot my dude, so I had no idea who was writing it. Because this type of "muh wimmenz are sad!!!" wringing is equally likely from any news article on the "right" or really anyone short of explicit manosphere rags (and even then).
A trial is always necessary to make certain evidence is actual evidence, and not just "it seems so" evidence. Its there to protect everyone from assumptions, malpractice by the law who collected it, and general secret railroading the legal system was famous for throughout history.
Allowing her to turn it into a pity party however, is completely unnecessary and outright pathetic. It only serves to prepare us for when she gets a stupidly light sentence, because the court is already going easy on her.