Have a cigarette, or save baby? Hmmm. Decisions decisions…


10 November 2006

Mother broke off CPR to have a smoke, court told

A woman whose baby boy died of a methadone overdose took a break from trying to save the six-month-old with mouth to mouth resuscitation because she wanted a cigarette, a court has been told.


Ms Sava called for an ambulance and the triple-0 operator talked her and the baby’s mother through mouth to mouth and CPR.

But during the procedure, the baby’s mother said she wanted a cigarette, Ms Sava said.

“She took the cigarette out of the packet, went to light it and then she put it back in the packet,” she said.

“I said ‘not now, the ambulance is on its way’.”

A reader kindly sent me this link a few weeks ago but I rather discourteously forgot to post it up. I’ve hunted around for any update on the trial but been able to do so.

It’s good to see the mother – clearly a junkie single-mum – is charged with murder, although I doubt if she’ll be convicted. She’ll probably get a few years for child neglect. Note she’s not even identified publicly. A guy accused of rape will have his name plastered all over the place, but a woman charged with the murder of her baby will be protected. I suppose that’s so she can have a nice normal life when she’s swiftly released in the near future, assuming she serves any time at all. What a bitch.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:10 PM


At 9:17 PM, nevo said…

I would like to apologize for this off the topic post. I think it is important.
Mums can lie about paternity.
Oz High Court rules.
Mothers are not always legally obliged to tell their husbands the truth about their children’s paternity, the High Court has ruled.

The full bench of the court dismissed an appeal by Melbourne man, Liam Neil Magill, who sought damages from his ex-wife for the pain he suffered when DNA tests revealed two of her three children were not his.

Mr Magill paid child support for all three children for eight years after the marriage broke down.

The High Court unanimously dismissed his appeal.

Three justices found that a spouse could not take legal action against his wife for lying to him about paternity.

Three other justices said that such legal action might succeed in exceptional circumstances, but not in Mr Magill’s case.

Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said the law could not oblige a person to tell their spouse the truth if it risked damaging the marriage.

“The Family Law Act declares the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage,” Chief Justice Gleeson said.

“That is a legislative expression of public policy

Some Justices!!!!
Whatever happens to the word “”PERJURY”” in Oz.
Women lies are also enshrined in Court Laws?
The needs to protect the institution of marriage they said.
Everyone knows a marriage based on lies is not a marriage. It is a deception and as such should be allowed in court.

It seems to me we live in a new century, where, lies and deceit are the order of the day. We men will have to learn to live with it.


At 10:30 PM, Anonymous said…

NEVO, you miss understand what the judge was saying..
he didn’t say she needed to protect the marriage, no no he said she must protect the institution of marriage. meaning she must keep the money flowing from wallet to purse no matter the cost or else the system couldn’t bleed men dry! men must not know the truth, if they did the might stop marrying and the judges would have to fear for their lucrative corrupt jobs.

ow wait… 🙂


At 11:33 PM, nicole said…

Our babies, our choice. We will murder as many baby boys as we want so that they don’t grow up into patriarchal bastards like you.


At 2:02 AM, mfsob said…

Way to go there, Nicole! A pity your mom didn’t choose to get rid of you … or is being to patriarchal of me?


At 2:34 AM, Anonymous said…

Hey, does anyone know a way to figure out Nicole’s real name and address? I am just curious.


At 3:06 AM, Anonymous said…

Man, I dont know what to say about this, really.



At 4:39 AM, Anonymous said…

She should be force fed her own uterus…through her ass.


At 6:44 AM, Patriachal Oppressor said…

Her body, her choice, but we still get stuck with the bill. How yndypyndynt is that?


At 8:44 AM, Anonymous said…

Hey nicole… not for long 🙂


At 6:35 PM, khankrumthebulgar said…

Only in the tolerant pluralistic West are Women running roughshod over Men. In the Third World, and Islamic World they are brutally repressed. You will find the Feminists absent there. When Women tried to stage a protest in Iran. They were clubbed unconscious and arrested by Iranian Women police. So much for Equal Rights.

What is the net effect of this? Men are in the West distancing themselves from Western Feminized Women. Birth rates are in a free fall. Family life is imploding, and Public Policy makers refuse to acknowledge the connection.

Practice this phrase Nicole. Allahu Akhbar. It and a Bhurka are your future.


At 11:08 PM, Anonymous said…

“In the Third World, and Islamic World they are brutally repressed.”

Exactly. Hey Nicole, you think your oppressed? Take a look at the Middle East. Womens rights over there are truly in the fucking dark ages. Over here (Im speaking from the U.S., but this also applies to the rest of the Western World.), you can wear expensive shoes, low slung jeans that show your “tramp stamp”, small shirts that expose jellyrolls, and display a vile attitude.

Oppressed? Hell, you got it pretty good. The real oppression IS over there, and what are you and your hairy femmi sisters doing about it? Oh yea, if you did try to do something the army over there would bust your head open, cant risk that.

Amazing, you screech and bitch about something that doesn’t exist, and when it does you do nothing?




%d bloggers like this: