Tuesday, 8 March 2011

Not inherently evil - Theresa Riggi murders

And so says her defence council in the case where a mother called Theresa Riggi killed her kids so the ex-husband couldn’t get access. I’m sorry but somebody so deeply fucking unpleasant that she’d kill her children isn’t evil? Rather than share them with the bloke who contributed 50% of their DNA makeup and wanted to be a father to his own children she selfishly took them from him. The fact that she is so selfish that she didn’t want the kids to have lives of their own and forbid them to make friends and put location trackers on them like some ex-con working in Pizza Hut. What the fucking fuckety fuck do you have to do to be considered evil these days?

Granted she’s other things too – Batshit Crazy, stupid, selfish, suicidal (not very good at that), a drooling goggle eyed loonie, a bitch. But I reckon evil can be added to this list too. Yup, killing your kids because they’re your toys and nobody else gets to play, evil – tick.
Donald Findlay QC, defending, said: “Theresa Riggi is not evil, she is not wicked, she is not a monster. If it is possible to love one’s children too much, she loved them too much”. Yeah Donald, they’re still dead aren’t they; they don’t smell too good now? Why not just shut the fuck up about what an A1 winning person Ms Riggi is, because I’m betting the husband who will never recover from his loss wasn’t exactly keen on your platitudes. You got her off, why not let it rest at that? The only advantage of this sorry affair is that she’ll be deported and licking American Rubber wallpaper, thereby saving John Q taxpayer in the UK a bit of cash.

The sooner we get elected Judges in this country the better. The Judiciary are already legislating on stuff way outside their remit, and don’t seem to have heard about the separation of powers. It’s about time we got to chose whether soft headed simpletons who spend their spare time skipping through fields of daises singing the diet Coke song get to pass sentence. Want somebody who sends muggers on graffiti clean up – vote for him. Want somebody who goes for that black cloth like flies go for a moist ripe cow pat– vote for him too. Then we’d get the Justice system we want, not the Justice System a lecturer from the University of East Anglia in bell bottoms and a penchant for Marijuana wanted back in the Age of Aquarius 1967.



7 comments:

PJH said...

"And so says a Judge..."

I can't find in that second link where the judge said anything of the kind. The defending QC, yes, but not the judge.

Am I missing something?

Travelgall said...

No you're not, good spot PJH. I meant Defence council in the 1st Paragraph, not Judge. In the second paragraph it correctly said Defence council. The point about elected Judges still stands though, if they can legislate then they should be elected.

BXB said...

I dont understand how words said by Defence Counsel in mitigation reflect a need for an elected judiciary?

I also think there is something bizarre about equating an elected judiciary with greater respect for the "separation of powers". It seems to me that elected judges are much, much more likely to be activist because they can claim a democratic mandate. They are also much more likely to be populist in their decisions, which I think a bad thing. Our politicians are already too willing to legislate on the basis of what reads well in the papers over what works well in practice. I rather think our unelected judges are a necessary check on that.

It is a necessary consequence of a common law system of precedent that judges will "legislate" if only because they will be forced to interpret often badly drafted statute. I am not sure the answer is to ground that in their status as having been elected. Surely the answer is to respond to authorities that do not reflect the legislative intention by redrafting the legislation?

Also, what is their elective remit? Who are they representing? What is their term? Are they to stand on explicitly political stumps when seeking election? Do they receive public subsidy for their campaigns? Is anyone, even those without legal qualification, permitted to stand? Would the answer differ depending on the level of judiciary (Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, etc?)

I also think we ought to pause before the concept of "Evil". That imports a whole metaphysics with it that one would hope we were moving away from as we move towards greater rationality.

(To be honest, this seems like a rather poorly thought through piece. Which is why, to be honest, I usually skip Travelgall and read Jackart instead...)

JuliaM said...

"What the fucking fuckety fuck do you have to do to be considered evil these days?"

It would appear that being a banker or a smoker would be all that is necessary to find yourself on your knees about to receive Satan's red-hot phallus, is the MSM is any judge...

Anonymous said...

This is such an appalling case.
Those poor little children. God Almighty. I hope they are in heaven now and with the angels. God help the father and family.
I shall remember them in my prayers.

Cosmic landmine said...

It's amazing how we can't cope with the aberant behaviour of US citizen & WOMAN Theresa Riggi who destroyed her children to stop her husband gaining custody at her expence. At least 20 times more men destroy their children in similar circumstances. Do we hear a peep of similar outrage from anybody? Er no we fucking don't.
Is travelgall an ugly misogynist bloke or an appallingly misguided and oppressed woman? I really think we should be told. But first check the fucking facts re infanticide.

PJH said...

Cosmic landmine - given that it's been two months since the post, I can only conclude that you have some connection with the woman in question and found this post via Google or some-such, since you appear to resort to numbers plucked out of your rear end, and ad-hominem attacks in order to defend this monster.

Would you care to back up your made up numbers to prove they're not made up? I'm at a loss to remember 20 men who have murdered their children to stop their (ex-) wives being able to have them.

Or are you, to ape your comments, a deformed misandric bitch or hen-pecked bloke?

Maybe the brother of the woman in question, or a sister?

There was an error in this gadget