Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

So in your eyes Hannah is not a victim? Doused in petrol and set...

First 302 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Lav

3,895 Posts.

21

23/02/20

00:26

Post #: 43093615
Share

Originally posted by Devilmaycare ↑

Parsifal
you said
"then to the last matter - that it’s too easy to be a victim. That women shouldn’t stay. And so on"
Who said that? That statement is inflammatory!
Rule No. 1, if he hits you, leave. Don't give him another chance. I don't know one women who doesn't live by that standard.
It's common sense!

The word "Victim blaming".
In my eyes, the victims were the 3 children, so I would like to know who is blaming them?
Hannah Clarke was in a custodial dispute with her ex-husband and using the children as pawns. She had a duty of care to explain to the authorities that the man she left was capable of committing a heinous crime, and the children should have been put into safety.
Hannah and the monster without the children could have settled their debates through court or family services. Not for one moment is my intention to hurt Hannah, but to save the children's lives! That what I consider important.

Expand

So in your eyes Hannah is not a victim? Doused in petrol and set on fire and she’s not a victim?

Can you back up your claim that she was using the children as “pawns” in a custody battle?
7 Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 91 more messages in this thread...

First 302 Last