There’s only two important words in this alien baby story

A group of women in the US claim to have children fathered by aliens – and describe their sexual encounters with extra-terrestrials as the ‘best they’ve ever had’.
Bridget Nielson, from Sedona, Arizona, and Aluna Verse, from Los Angeles, California, are among members of the ‘Hybrid Baby Community’ who believe their children live on giant alien spaceships.
The pair claim that between them, they have 13 children with aliens – and that the conceptions happen either through artificial insemination or real sexual encounters.

Members of the group believe aliens have been harvesting their DNA to create children that combine the best of both human and alien characteristics over a period several years.
Nielson, 27, said the sex was the ‘best ever’ and that thousands of women around the world are missing out on such experiences because they don’t realise they have had hybrid children.
The former marketing executive refutes claims pointing to a lack of evidence of such encounters with aliens, saying the extra-terrestrials only take women who, on some level, ‘want to be taken’.

Those two important words being “marketing executive”. Disregard the “former”.

The thing to work out being, well, what in buggery are they trying to sell?

Presumably not buggery, given the conception issue at least.

My best guess is that this is a stunt to get a decent marketing job. Almost a class exercise: what can you get the Daily Mail to believe this week?

58 thoughts on “There’s only two important words in this alien baby story”

  1. She’d be a shoo-in for leader of the Labour Party.
    ….
    ….
    ….
    Or Conservative Party for that matter.

  2. “My best guess is that this is a stunt to get a decent marketing job”

    Assuming a cynical view and they’re not just bonkers (and I don’t rule this out), flogging “retreats”. Opening up your soul, getting in touch with your chakra, chi, inner earth mother etc: http://harmoniousearth.org/bridget-nielsen/. Probably some money in books and guides too.

    You do find that a lot of people into one sort of crazy woo tend to believe in lots of them. And they’re often fit as fuck, probably because men aren’t going to tell them that horoscopes are bullshit and jeopardise a shag.

  3. Tim
    I am appalled at your misogynistic prejudice and the contempt with which you dismiss the trauma of these poor women who have been raped by aliens. We must always give the victims the benefit of the doubt, because they are victims, and women never – ever! – lie about rape. Your sneering remarks simply make it harder for other victims to come forward. I trust that Jessica Valenti and her Guardian colleagues will soon re-dress the balance in support of the victims.

  4. And another thing…Was Jimmy Savile an alien, too? I suspect a massive conspiracy of silence. We need a public inquiry into alien abuse now! The victims’ voices must be hard.

  5. Theophratus

    I take serious issue with your post.

    The victims here are the aliens – the “other”, whose “otherness” demands our respect and modification of our behaviour to accommodate their social customs and mores. Besides, the women were undoubtedly asking for it by not wearing whole body tents to cover up, by smelling provocative and alluring and through not keeping at a safe distance from the worm hole. Most are probably also substance or alcohol abusers.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    David Moore – “Earth Girls are Easy.”

    One of Geena Davis’ less appreciated films. Although if you hook up with your co-star on the set of The Fly what was the thought process that would lead you to that script?

    One of life’s little mysteries.

  7. The clue also resides in the home location of one of them, being Sedona AZ. This is looney central for the reincarnated and ‘aura’ seekers.

  8. Bravefart:

    You victim blamer! You’ll be accusing me of being alienophobic next!

    In other news…Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson aka Andrew McMaster aka Paul Harris) is said to launching the Earth Defence League because he’s had enough of aliens raping “our” women…

  9. The Daily Mail don’t believe it any more than you or I. The only criteria for getting something printed in the Daily Mail, other than it not being libelous, is that it will get their readers’ blood pressure up. Truth is almost antithetical to this goal.

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    Bridget Nielson and Aluna Verse? Well, Brigitte Nielsen is a rather tall Danish actress famous for such classic films as Red Sonya. And Aluna Verse? Surely not a real name.

  11. It’s the children I feel sorry for. Think of the children. The separation anxiety, the stigma of being “other”…

  12. The Stigler

    They’re hardly keeping up with their “inner earth mother” now are they! Do try to keep up with times my friend.

  13. I’m guessing here but I’m surmising the scenarios go like this:

    He: fancy a shag?
    She: Not really
    He: Here, try one of these peyote pills.

  14. Have none of you been to California?

    This story is not just obviously true, it’s also the only possible explanation for much of the population.

  15. imho, the important words in this story are actually “in the US”.

    Because it’s always Americans, where aliens are concerned, isn’t it? There’s a credible assertion somewhere that 10% of all Americans (or some such utterly incredible number) believe they’ve been abducted by aliens at least once.

    I mean, nice people and all that, but they do seem to be completely off their trolleys in this particular matter, for some reason.

  16. America is the most religious “modern” society by far. Take away God, they’ll believe in something else in the sky. Being hyper-Protestant, they always want the thing they believe in to be personal and 24/7 rather than just something boring you do on a Sunday because everyone else does.

  17. The accusations against Jimmy Saville are not supported by one whit more evidence than these tall tales of aliens. In fact there are numerous occasions where there is absolute evidence of Saville’s innocence of particular charges made.Which is more than can be said for the aliens.

  18. Theophrastus,

    They cloned Jimmy Savile and his alien clone sexually abused me last night.

    Do you need more, or is that enough to engage the compo lawyers?

  19. Mr Ecks,

    The thing I find troubling about Savile is people saying “there were rumours” but actually, there weren’t.

    Popbitch, arguably the best celebrity gossip source out there, never had anything on Savile. Not even after he was dead did they say anything. The most common urban myth when he was alive wasn’t child abuse, but that he was shagging the corpses at Stoke Mandeville.

    I suspect the truth is rather grim, that people felt embarassed that they ever liked him. Millions of kids loved Jim’ll Fix It, but today, you’d rather say you liked Tiswas. And stoning the corpse of Savile puts you with the cool kids.

    Contrast his treatment with that of David Bowie and John Peel, both of whom had longstanding allegations of statutory rape against them. Now, I don’t really care that much – the past is a different country and all that, but when people pointed out about what John Peel did, the reaction was to ignore it.

  20. @The Stigler: didn’t Lori Maddox allege that she lost her virginity aged 13 (or some such tender age) to David Bowie?

    I don’t remember the BBC putting that little nugget into the hagiographies the other week.

  21. Well, in our new post-innocence legal system, I see now that a judge can just declare you guilty of murdering your child by rape, and that’s that.

  22. Dearieme-

    When did people start referring to The Holy Ghost as “aliens”?

    The early 1950s and the rise of the Flying Saucer Cults is a good starting point for that, I’d say.

  23. “The former marketing executive refutes claims…”

    “refute” == “provide evidence proving falsity”.

    Ok, Mrs Marketing Executive, where’s this evidence you’ve got proving falsity?

    “…pointing to a lack of evidence of such encounters with aliens”

    What part of “*provide* evidence” do you not understand? Not “provide *absence* of evidence”, provide ***EVIDENCE***.

    Make some space in that queue of lawyers.

  24. Do you need more, or is that enough to engage the compo lawyers?

    That’ll do nicely, sir. No win, no fee, of course.

  25. By the way, what’s the official politically correct position if somebody “identifies” as an alien hybrid?

  26. The Stigler

    The thing I find troubling about Savile is people saying “there were rumours” but actually, there weren’t.

    Not true. There were. For example…in a 1990 interview for The Independent on Sunday, Lynn Barber raised the issue with Savile. And, in April 2000, Louis Theroux raised the matter in in-depth documentary. As far back as 1973, a BBC manager asked for report into Savile’s alleged behaviour.

    Ecksy:

    The accusations against Jimmy Saville are not supported by one whit more evidence than these tall tales of aliens.

    I disagree. I find there are strong and reasonable grounds for believing that Savile committed at least some of the assaults of which he is accused. That said, the subsequent witch hunt and hysteria – resulting, perhaps, from some collective guilt about Savile – have meant that many innocent people have been unnecessarily investigated and others probably imprisoned.

  27. Theo,

    Yes, there were some rumours. They also featured in the Savile edition of “TV Heaven” (a before death “obituary” show) in which he participated. But that raises the whole issue of why everyone is saying he had this power to hush everyone up. Clearly, there was a rumour mill.

    There are often rumour mills around people. Marc Almond and the stomach pump, Richard Gere and the gerbil. This isn’t evidence. What it does demonstrate is that nobody “knew” anything; they just heard some gossip. The people on the TV Heaven (you can find it on Youtube) say they think it’s jealousy, or the idea that somebody who does much public good (as with Savile) must have a dark secret/ulterior motive.

    There is no actual evidence at all. It seems entirely likely to me that, like numerous others at at the time, he may have had sex with some girls who were underage. This in a different social context, when persons of a “liberal” disposition were socially constructing sexuality not as an oppression, but a liberation and “lock up your daughters” views were declared old fashioned and fuddy-duddy.

    There does not seem to be any evidence of anything that constitutes an assault. Let alone of the fever dreams of virgins led by Savile’s team of (as yet unidentified) servants into the bowels of gothic hospitals to be defiled.

  28. IanB
    Some 450 people have alleged that Savile abused them. Of those allegations, 126 indecent acts and 34 rape allegations have been classed as reports of crime. By its very nature, evidence for sex crimes is often uncorroborated; but the sheer number and spread of allegations against Savile constitutes evidence. We have far less evidence – in quantity and quality – for many historical events or personages. At the other end of the spectrum, we have some allegations made by some nutjob against FM Lord Bramall.

  29. A large amount of bad data does not constitute good data, and neither does enthusiastic police officers and others simply deciding for themselves whether a particular incident took place.

    People make claims for a variety of reasons, especially when there is a media storm. We had a case a few days ago of a young man touted across the media as a rapist, whose accuser lied apparently to save face with her then boyfriend.

    You have to remember that there is a belief system around abuse that acts in many ways like a cult, in which therapists (and books and other media by therapists) encourage people to “remember” incidents of abuse which in many cases simply never happened. This means that all such evidence is by nature suspicious and must be thoroughly tested.

    If you can’t prove it. You can’t prove it. You cannot replace proof with belief because you haven’t got the proof.

    There are numerous accounts of sightings of the Virgin Mary, ghosts and even detailed descriptions of alien abductions. This is not evidence of anything, other than the unreliability of the human mind.

  30. So Much For Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “I find there are strong and reasonable grounds for believing that Savile committed at least some of the assaults of which he is accused.”

    Such as? What grounds?

    Theophrastus – “Some 450 people have alleged that Savile abused them. Of those allegations, 126 indecent acts and 34 rape allegations have been classed as reports of crime.”

    So over half of all the people to come out of the woodwork since Savile died, half are so obviously deranged that nothing can make the police believe them?

    “By its very nature, evidence for sex crimes is often uncorroborated; but the sheer number and spread of allegations against Savile constitutes evidence.”

    Does it? If the Western legal system has proven anything, it is that witches exist and are in league with the Devil. The sheer scale of legal evidence to that end dwarfs anything alleged against Savile. To quote America’s future President, if you drag 20 dollar bills through trailer parks, you find all sorts of trash. You can’t think of millions of reasons why 200 people might allege something?

    “At the other end of the spectrum, we have some allegations made by some nutjob against FM Lord Bramall.”

    The working class weirdo is guilty but the upper class pillar of the Establishment is not? I think Bramall has been treated shamefully but this seems an obvious double standard.

  31. And on the same subject, as I mentioned above, we now have a situation where a judge can simply declare Poppi Worthington’s father guilty, at the behest apparently of the Daily Mail. Even though everyone seems to accept that there is now no evidence to prove the matter.

    Apparently people who hold “enquiries” have special psychic powers which mean they don’t need evidence like normal folks.

  32. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “And on the same subject, as I mentioned above, we now have a situation where a judge can simply declare Poppi Worthington’s father guilty, at the behest apparently of the Daily Mail. Even though everyone seems to accept that there is now no evidence to prove the matter.”

    And have all his children taken into care and given to some other people. Without a trial or even, it seems, a hearing.

    “Apparently people who hold “enquiries” have special psychic powers which mean they don’t need evidence like normal folks.”

    It is such a cluster-f**k of what is wrong with Britain – a doctor who could not speak English and did not know what he was doing, a former Beauty Queen pretending to be a police officer, the bureaucracy covering up its own mistakes and a man accused of a vile crime forced into exile by a lynch mob whipped up by the press.

  33. Jeez, I just looked up Poppi Worthington:

    High Court family judge Mr Justice Peter Jackson, sitting at Liverpool Crown Court, ruled that – on the balance of probabilities – Mr Worthington “perpetrated a penetrative … assault on Poppi”.

    How the fuck does this sort of thing get decided on a “balance of probabilities”?! And of course:

    The death of the toddler had been shrouded in secrecy, with a 2014 fact-finding civil court judgement being kept private so as not to prejudice any criminal proceedings.

    Justice seen is justice served. Or at least, it was.

  34. IanB + SMFS

    You are demanding higher standards of evidence for the Savile allegations than you accept for other things.

    You are also trying rather feebly to diminish the available evidence. From the the fact that half of the 450 allegations against Savile did not achieve the status of a crime report, it does not follow that the they are worthless or the testimony of the deranged.

    Similarly, to compare (say) 450 separate accounts from different people of alien abduction with 450 separate allegations from different people of sexual assault/abuse by one man is disingenuous. For a start, we know that sexual abuse and assault occur, whereas alien abduction simply does not. For another, the effects of one of Savile’s assaults can be seen on the face of young girl in a 1976 recording of TOTP’s. His now adult accuser had alleged that Savile had groped her in a crowd scene on the show and she provided the date. On the recording, Savile is beside her and she is clearly distressed.

    I have no axe to grind here about Savile. Originally, I was very sceptical of the allegations against him, but I was challenged by my wife to look at the evidence and in doing so I changed my mind.

  35. Theo–cut thro’ the crap and get down to cases.

    Which particular allegations against Saville are you referring to?

    The allegation referred to above is the female who claimed that Savile touching her bum once ruined her life.

    The deserved lack of sympathy (and that is hypothetically accepting that the charge were true –which I do not) caused her to try and extend her claim by saying Savile put his hand up her skirt. Others have noted on the clip that she was in fact wearing trousers–which would have made this particular assault a little difficult.

    I have not seen this clip personally and–in the spirit of the Buddha–see for yourself etc –I would be grateful Theo if you could post the link.

    Don’t bother if it is the Colleen Nolan link –6.28 of tripe about the Nolan sisters and a few seconds of Saville with his arm around Colleen’s waste. His hand is clearly under rather than touching her breast and the claim that he was “all over her” is exaggerated on the basis of the actual film and remained unmentioned for 30 years before the engineered firestorm broke.

    Nor if it is this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puyKtlPcmzU

    The clip shows the young female moving about a lot and smiling. Distress is not how I would characterise her expressions. From his posture and the distance between them and the fact he is looking straight at the camera the most Saville could be doing is touching the girls backside. He could also be trying to tickle her for all we know.

    The fat 50-ish whale making the allegations and the commentary are standard Saville= Satan boilerplate. Are there many other ways that ordinary 50-ish women can gain national attention these days –outside of victim claims.

    Please be aware that the wreck of our legal system–where a beak can declare a man a rapist and murderer of his own child on the basis of zero-evidence– has reached that state with the help of the Marxist feminist inspired bullshit that lies (how apt) at the heart of Yewtree and Saville-mania.

  36. Ecksy

    I wouldn’t deny the hysteria, the compensation-fever or the defects of our legal system in such matters as this. However, the evidence against Savile is much stronger than against some of the others accused and even convicted. The allegations against him are very numerous and remarkably coherent; and they cohere with the widespread rumours about him dating back to the 70s.

    Yes, that is the clip I had in mind. Perhaps he is ‘only’ touching her buttocks, but that young girl looks to me as though somebody is groping her and that she does not like it – and I’d call that distress – even though she’s trying to put on a happy face because she knows she’s on camera.

    I am off now for a long and good lunch. Rant away, dear boy.

  37. Since all you do is assert how much “stronger” the “evidence” against Saville is there is no point in writing a mega-post demonstrating how false that viewpoint is. It would have zero effect beyond consuming time.

    Enjoy your lunch.

  38. Theo-

    You are demanding higher standards of evidence for the Savile allegations than you accept for other things.

    No I’m not. I’m applying the same standards as one uses in general.

    Similarly, to compare (say) 450 separate accounts from different people of alien abduction with 450 separate allegations from different people of sexual assault/abuse by one man is disingenuous. For a start, we know that sexual abuse and assault occur, whereas alien abduction simply does not.

    No. The plausibility of a claim has no effect on its validity. It is a mistake to say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. What matters is how important the claim is, that is when we should apply high standards.

    If I say that you stole my bicycle, that is a very mundane claim, not remarkable at all. But we apply high standards of evidence because its truth or falseness is a serious matter. It is a matter of crime.

    If I say I was in Kettering last tuesday, you might casually believe me. It’s not worth testing this claim. But if it is my alibi for a murder in Northampton, now you must be seriously sceptical. The claim itself is mundane. But the consequences of its truth or otherwise are very important.

    That Savile pinched somebody’s bottom in the 1970s is proof of nothing. It would have been considered horseplay. The woman has subsequently tried to claim that it ruined her entire life due to trauma, in the pursuit of compensation. At best, it is evidence that “paedo” Savile was attracted to pretty, adult women. It certainly does not stand as any evidence for the bizarre picture of this permanently-molesting predator who cared not about the sex of his victims, the age of his victims, or even whether they were dead or alive(!).

    There is constant repetition of “everyone knew but nobody did anything”. But they didn’t know. There were just some rumours of the gossipy kind. And the bottom line there is that if the tabloids really didn’t know anything either, it is highly unlikely that there was anything to know.

    Thus, the only option to explain this away is conspiracy theory, in which this minor celeb has such great power that everyone is too frightened to report him, his bosses cover for him, the police are in awe of him. How does that rank on your plausibility scale? This is a society in which government ministers are brought down by scandals to the intense embarrassment of the highest political figures in the land. But Savile was “untouchable”? Really?

  39. How the fuck does this sort of thing get decided on a “balance of probabilities”?!

    The police messed up the initial investigation – they didn’t bother to conduct one, despite the pathologist’s concerns.

    What do you think should be done now? Say there’s a 51% probability that the guy is a child-murdering monster, and a 49% probability that he’s an innocent man suffering monstrous false accusations. And that a decision has to be made about the future care of his surviving children.

  40. SJW: 51/49–and how exactly would such figures be established ?One doctor says assault–3 others say no. There are other children –and no sign that they have been fiddled. Sodomising a one year old is near as sick as humans can get. Is someone with urges strong enough to drive them to such a vile act likely to be a one time offender?

    If they have a criminal case let them go ahead. If not that is the end of it for all our sakes. Under no circumstances should any Judge be taking it on himself to issue civil case standard pronouncements about an (untried) criminal matter. Unless a civil case has been brought. That should only be after a criminal case. And frankly not then as criminal cases should not be retried under civil rules at all.

  41. “The plausibility of a claim has no effect on its validity”.

    Validity is a (purely formal) property of arguments, not statements. You can derive a false conclusion validly from fbalse premises. What you mean is that ‘plausibility has no effect on a statement’s truth or falsity’, which is false because plausibility is a preliminary assessment of truth.

    There is more evidence against Savile than there is for some of your ‘theories’.

  42. Theo-

    Plausibility is only useful in determining falsehood, in the sense that it can rule out claims. It cannot be used to verify claims. In that sense it can only rule out the impossible. If I have your lawnmower, and we are trying to decide whether I stole it, two plausible scenarios are that (a) you loaned it to me and (b) I took it without permission. Both are plausible, but whichever seems more plausible cannot distinguish which of these actually occurred.

    SJW-

    As Ecks said, the civil standard is inappropriate to criminal matters. It is intended for dispute resolution, which is why it is a “balance”. You cannot do an arithmetical “balance of probabilities” in a matter like this. It is simply the judge’s opinion, dressed up in fancy language. If you want to retain a just society, you must reject the use of non-criminal proceedings for the determination of criminal matters.

  43. As Ecks said, the civil standard is inappropriate to criminal matters.

    This was a family court hearing, not a criminal trial. In fact it was a rehearing of an earlier decision, requested by the father in the light of medical opinions differing from those of the original pathologists.

    A decision has to be made whether the surviving children should or should not be in their father’s care. That depends on whether he was or was not responsible for his daughter’s death. The law says that the court should decide on the balance of probabilities.

    It’s a terrible thing to take children away from an innocent parent. It’s also a terrible thing to leave a child at the mercy of a killer. Inevitably, in some cases a parent will be suspected, but the evidence will not be beyond reasonable doubt. The court has to rule one way or the other, knowing that it may be making a terrible error.

    Here‘s the judge’s ruling. It’s not pleasant reading.

    Under no circumstances should any Judge be taking it on himself to issue civil case standard pronouncements about an (untried) criminal matter.

    The judge was acting as required by the law. The circumstances were that a decision had to be made about the surviving children.

  44. Theo:”What you mean is that ‘plausibility has no effect on a statement’s truth or falsity’, which is false because plausibility is a preliminary assessment of truth.”

    No it isn’t. You may try to decide if what is avered is within the realms of the possible. But that serves only rule out what you have decided can’t be possible–based on what? Your credentials as a “bluff Professor of Common-Sense” ? Not evidence because “plausibility” is your pre-screening system for evidence.

    “There is more evidence against Savile than there is for some of your ‘theories’”

    What evidence exactly for which crimes Theo? All you have so far is a very dodgy video and the same old circus of accusations.

    Perhaps you should get your wife to write your comments.

  45. SJW: If a man his to have his family taken off him for alleged horrific crimes those crimes should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Not three but five other doctors do not consider the evidence strong enough to declare the guilt of the father. It is noticeable that the two doctors at the original post-mortem were told by plod of unproven allegations against the father. Unless the coppers were of the opinion that the doctors were too stupid to observe any signs of child abuse for themselves, the only reason for such statements would be to try and prime said doctors minds towards abuse as the most likely explanation of the circumstances of the child’s death.

    The “family courts” should not exist and should be shutdown as rapidly as possible. We have criminal law and civil law. Blurring those boundaries is bad news all round.

  46. So Much For Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “You are demanding higher standards of evidence for the Savile allegations than you accept for other things.”

    No I am not. I am asking for any evidence at all.

    “You are also trying rather feebly to diminish the available evidence. From the the fact that half of the 450 allegations against Savile did not achieve the status of a crime report, it does not follow that the they are worthless or the testimony of the deranged.”

    But it also follows that they are not credible. Smoke does not mean fire. Savile, I think (being an old fashioned sort of person), is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Unless there is a very good reason to think otherwise. There isn’t.

    “Similarly, to compare (say) 450 separate accounts from different people of alien abduction with 450 separate allegations from different people of sexual assault/abuse by one man is disingenuous.”

    I didn’t. I compared it to witchcraft. Which does exist. And has been comprehensively demonstrated to exist by the legal systems of every country in the West.

    “For a start, we know that sexual abuse and assault occur, whereas alien abduction simply does not.”

    Actually we do not know that alien abduction does not exist. Some serious looking people have concluded that it does. I personally do not believe it does, but there is a lot of evidence floating around.

    “For another, the effects of one of Savile’s assaults can be seen on the face of young girl in a 1976 recording of TOTP’s.”

    This is the sort of evidence that convinced you? Seriously?

  47. What do you think should be done now? Say there’s a 51% probability that the guy is a child-murdering monster, and a 49% probability that he’s an innocent man suffering monstrous false accusations. And that a decision has to be made about the future care of his surviving children.

    You leave them with the father and check up on them. I’m pretty sure if he’s raping his infant child on a regular basis there will be some conclusive physical signs.

    But you miss the point. It is not about the “balance of probabilities” being used to decide whether to remove the child or not, or even that abuse took place. It’s that a judge should not be using this as a basis for asserting specifically that the man penetrated the kid with his penis. He simply cannot know this, and there is no reason for trying to reach a conclusion on a point as specific as this.

  48. …a judge should not be using this as a basis for asserting specifically that the man penetrated the kid with his penis…

    He didn’t. He wrote “…the father perpetrated a penetrative anal assault on Poppi, either using his penis or some other unidentified object…”

    The judge was required by law to rule, on the balance of probabilities, whether or not the surviving children were at risk from the father. That depended on whether or not the father was responsible for his daughter’s death. It was impossible to make a ruling without deciding that question.

    “Justice seen is justice served”, you wrote. Are you now suggesting that the judge should have refused to explain his ruling?

  49. He didn’t. He wrote “…the father perpetrated a penetrative anal assault on Poppi, either using his penis or some other unidentified object…”

    Yes, and this is precisely the sort of thing that shouldn’t be subject to “balance of probabilities”.

    That depended on whether or not the father was responsible for his daughter’s death. It was impossible to make a ruling without deciding that question.

    Bullshit. You can judge that, on balance of probabilities, X killed Y without having to go into speculation into precisely how. And that’s all it is: speculation. You’ve got a dead kid, that’s enough facts you need.

    “Justice seen is justice served”, you wrote. Are you now suggesting that the judge should have refused to explain his ruling?

    He didn’t explain anything. He just came up with a throwaway line which raises more questions than it answers.

  50. I did read the judgement. The problem is SJW, you’re like Murphy. You adamantly refuse to ever concede your wrong, even when – as has happened on here numerous times – somebody takes the time and effort to demonstrate that you are wrong. You either move the goalposts, deny you wrote something that you clearly wrote, or – when you get desperate – resort to glibness, condescension, and generally cuntish behavior.

  51. Hmm. The problem is, TN, that you’re like, well, yourself. You’re describing yourself, not me.

    In this case you made a careless assumption about the judgment which turns out to be wrong. There’s nothing at all “throwaway” about the ruling. And it would have been wrong for the judge to write “I rule that the surviving children would be at risk from the father, but I’m not going to say why”.

    I’m very reluctant to discuss the details of the case on here, but since you’ve read the judgment you’ll know what they are. I can’t imagine how you think the judge could have come to a decision without ruling on the probable cause of the dead child’s symptoms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *