James, I know you’re young, and no disrespect to DPF, but ELVIS IS THE KING!

The fellow can get his own blog, which would be a much more appropriate place for his self-absorbed rantings.

You have banned D4J – none of my business really, it’s your blog and I have no issue with that.

But I just want to get one thing clear. James Sleep called you a molester on his blog and there was a kiss and make up apology. He’s now made similar accusations about D4J. He claimed to feel threatened…. Oh but he made an apology again, so it’s all OK now is it ?

Posted by James:
I don’t think “I am being a bit stupid because we know MR PETER BURNS is going to start emailing me ewwww creepy”

Followed by: “..Good luck with keeping PETER BURNS out of your pants! Ewwww!” from Mrs Disgusted.

There seemed to be a banter between James and Mrs Disgusted that hardly sounded like somebody feeling threatened. Add to this that there were false posts under the ‘D4J’ name between them. It looks to me like James and Mrs Disgusted had some form of collusion in their posting during this time.

I do agree that D4J brings the tone down sometimes, however there has only been two incidents, that I’m aware of recently, where somebody has been making outrageous claims against other people (very serious claims). In both of these situations the comments were made by James Sleep.

In the interest of letting other posters know what we are dealing with, can you please tell us if the posts circa: 9:40-11:30 on the 24th posted from James Sleep, Mrs Disgusted and outrageous posts from D4J appear to be posted in a sequence to deceive other bloggers?

Oh, one more thing. How many times will James Sleep be allowed to call people molesters, wife beaters, pedophiles etc before he is banned ?

Without registration to this blog, none of the comments on any post – that is NO COMMENTS can be necessarily relied upon to really be that person.

Until David confirms the IP that is.

But until then guys, don’t believe every comment you read.

Spitting Llama, I accept the ‘rule of thumb’ may just be urban legend. I was responding to sg5′s question: “Please tell us when it was legal to beat ones wife, under New Zealand law or the English law that preceeded it?” And I responded with “my understanding is … as thick as your thumb”.

I was not really trying to show anything in particular about a ‘rule of thumb’, as opposed to showing the past law on domestic chastisement. The reason I qualified it is that I could not remember exactly where I had heard it, thus I realised the possibility of it being unreliable. I’m quite happy to defer to sg5′s well reasoned response in this regard.

One thing that is for certain though, is that Old England had some revolting conceptions of gender inequality.

O.K., well I’m off to other things now, but I will chuck in some names etc., later.

Posted by sg5 | April 27, 2007 11:45 AM
Posted onApril 27, 2007 11:45
-
I wrote all that from memory this morning. Have since hauled out the Britannica, etc. (yes I still use books!), so lets see how far off I was.

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (my edition is 1962)
“Rule of thumb [date of first known use] 1692 – A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical method. [It cites two examples: ‘The English...have in all their changes proceeded, to use a familiar expression, by the rule of thumb’ - Matthew Arnold; attrib. ‘Beyond this rule of thumb calculation, no experience could bring him to penetrate his mystery 1837”

Note that the meaning of the phrase doesn’t square with the feminists claimed derivation.
Dictionary doesn’t explain derivation but it was apparently a tradesmans’ term.

The collator of English legal custom referred to was Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), the most famous English jurist. [Note I was 50 years off with my “300 years” comment.] He first started disseminating his material in 1758, and published the 1st volume of the “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in 1765.

In America, where particular States did not have a specific law against wife-battery, offenders could be – and were – charged with assault.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony law 1655 (nearly 400 years ago) says “No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine.”
Inflation adjusted, £10 is a hell of a lot of money compared to our present day value.

In Maryland, 1882, one could receive 40 lashes tied to a post for wifebeating. In New Mexico fines could up to U.S.$1000 (not less than $200) or up to 5 years in gaol. (I don’t think they let you out after 1/3rd of your sentence either!) Again that’s a hell of a lot of cash when compared to our current values.
You would likely be excommunicated from your church for wife-beating.

Obscure southern judges:

from places like Mississippi in one example.

American feminist:

Del Martin of the National Organisation for Women, 1976, wrote
“Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However…the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband ‘the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb’”

This was further elaborated on by feminist Terry Davidson in “Wife Beating,”
quote: “one of the reasons nineteenth century British wives were dealt with so harshly by their husbands and by their legal system was the ‘rule of thumb’ …Blackstone saw nothing unreasonable about the wife-beating law. In fact, he believed it to be quite moderate.”

In 1982 some “scholars” working for the United States Commission on Civil Rights published “Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice” where they say “American law is built upon the British common law that condoned wife beating and even prescribed the weapon to be used. This ‘rule of thumb’ stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with a ‘rod not thicker than his thumb.’” and claim Blackstone “commented on the ‘rule of thumb.’”

Nobody bother to check, despite Blackstone’s work being one of the most widely read legal texts in history.

Blackstone never mentions the “rule of thumb” in his book, let alone approve of it. All he said was “The husband by the old law might give his wife moderate chastisement…” Whatever that refers to wasn’t legal in the century when he wrote.

Blackstone’s work is considered a classic of English literature so you should be able to track down a copy. Its text is probably online somewhere in which case you could probably search it for “rule of thumb.”

Peter S “I’m not sure whether the reference was to English or Irish law”
Well if anybody might have such a law, the IRISH might
But seriously, people always say, I remember or I heard that — but when you go to look there’s nothing there.

One of the Biblical comments alluded to:
“The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” Proverbs 29.15

The fluff in Sue’s Bill:

59 Parental control 5

“(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to 15 good care and parenting.”

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) OR IN ANY RULE OF COMMON LAW justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).”
CAPS are my emphasis.

Part 1 is being widely quoted by Bradford supporters and Labour apologists, without mentioning that Parts 2 and 3 rule out anything remotely like smacking.

As an example if you pulled your 2 year old off the main road or away from an open fire and smacked them lightly on the hand and say don’t do that again you have committed an assault according to Bradford’s Bill.
If it wasn’t for the inclusion of Part 1, pulling them away (or picking them up against their will) would also be assault.

I think opposition would be a lot higher than 80+% if people realised that.

Peter Burns is not a child abuser, like I said when I felt threatened by the inpersonators threats. I has apoligised to Mr Burns and he continues to abuse me I thank you for your move David and hope when he does come back he can stick to the issues.

He might not be bad like me and a few people made him out to be last night but he just posts bullshit everywhere around the blogs and hijacks them.

I think personally Ive learnt my lesson from my previous actions, but sadly this man was the main person telling me to grow up etc etc and sadly its himself that needs to grow up and stop thinking he’s like the KING when really DPF is the KING

“But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the fecond, this power of correction began to be doubted m : and a wife may now have fecurity of the peace againft her hufband n ; or, in return, a hufband againft his wife o.”

So in the “politer” reign of Charles the Second they were already putting it behind them. Some of it is difficult to read, but it certainly makes for interesting reading though! (Yale has it all online)

I’m giving you a time out for five days. You can start posting again next Wednesday. But when you resume I do not want you posting about yourself and your issues. Sorry but this blog is not about you and your posting style leads to almost every thread being disrupted. You will be welcome to post on issues raised in threads.

I will take a similar dim view of those people who do little else than provoke D4J and insult him . If you do it again, I’ll ask you to take a break also.

Burt – I have no ability to extract as a group all comments. I would have to copy and paste each oen individually.

However, you really need to consider: Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, 1809, page 444:

“The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaving, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children; … But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds, …”.

I think I will let the children have their say about you – it is really sad that you don’t know what you are doing. Quick frankly I find you a very sick, silly and sad person . Say hello to George Beyer for me !!

I think you need to stop while you are ahead oh and another thing, take me to court hahaha what a laughable thing.

Well lets see who wins, oh another thing I have myself a good lawyer already.

Lets see what the judge says about what you (Impersonater) has said to me……

BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!