6 thoughts on “Husband who branded his wife a ‘slapper’ in a text message after discovering she was having an affair with her boss who was ‘old enough to be her granddad’ is convicted of harassment”

1. “Mr Lang had made a deliberate attempt to undermine Lorna Lang in her relationship with family, friends and workmates. He wanted to cause her embarrassment, alarm and distress and indeed had done so. We found that his behaviour was both oppressive and unreasonable.”

   But her behaviour is of no consequence: it rather shows the absolute lack of respect the law and its officers now have for marriage.

   At least we can make up our own minds about whether or not Lorna Lang is a slapper.

   LikeLike

   Reply

2. If this is harassment, then what about when a man is branded a rapist/paedophile in all the papers? Often at the request of the police/CPS. Why don’t the police/CPS convict themselves of harassment?

   More sickening hypocrisy.

   LikeLike

   Reply

3. He was actually convicted for making his ex ‘scared’ and ‘frightened’ which exposes the gendered nature of the harassment law. The allegation that he caused her to be ‘scared’ and ‘frightened’ is objectively unverifiable and carries credibility only because it is an allegation made by a woman against a man. If a man was subject to a far worse verbal barrage and claimed that it made him ‘scared’ and ‘frightened’ one can anticipate incredulity from both public and judiciary. It’s not what you do, it’s what you are that makes you a criminal. That’s where we are now.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • “It’s not what you do, it’s what you are that makes you a criminal.”

     Which is one reason why middle class and law abiding men (well, law abiding when every tiny aspect of private behaviour wasn’t used against one) are losing respect for the law. I always flip the genders in cases like this, and I have no doubt that if this had been a woman branding her ex-husband a pig, no one would have batted an eyelid. But of course she gets to sleep with her boss, break up her marriage, and then turn her husband into a criminal, which will doubtless be handy when it comes to the divorce settlement ahead. And people wonder why men aren’t getting married like they used to (also, sleeping with her older boss, what a cliche…).

     LikeLike

     Reply

     • Wait until next year when the boss decides he no longer wants her and then he becomes a sexual harasser using his power to sleep with a vulnerable woman

       LikeLike

4. The Judiciary appears to be greatly motivated to silence the private communication of an honest husband, while simultaneously looking the other way regarding the disgraceful behaviour of a thoroughly depraved wife who has, in a most undisguised and flagrant manner, deliberately acted to bring the honouorable institution of marriage into disrepute.
   Even the most half-witted fool may recognise that the husband had suffered a great tort on the whim of his malevolent and vicious wife. In the eyes of anyone who discerns the true sentiment of the human heart, the husband was subject to a very great provocation. To which, the abused husband replied – not with violence – but with a most restrained and apt criticism.

   And yet, the judgement of the Law is to punish the husband for his expression of a legitimate opinion, in effect to punish the guiltless husband for the wicked behaviour of the execrable wife.
   Applying the ancient principle ‘ye shall know them by their fruits’, it is clear that the Judiciary has acted to punish a good husband in order to reward a wicked wife.
   This is but one example of the blatant misandry acted out on a daily basis by our Judiciary. Our Judiciary is clearly unrestrained and unfettered by any concept of Common Law. Given that our Judiciary has abandoned the Common Law, our Judiciary has also abandoned nine-tenths of the legitimate basis for its lawful jurisdiction.
   Perhaps another Civil War is not as far away as most people imagine it to be?

   LikeLike

   Reply