Double Standards?

RollieFingers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726219/Yasmin-Thomas-victim-disgusted-walked-free.html

18 convictions and no jail?

wazky

Christ, I would have given her a long stretch.

GerB40

Definite double standards. Yer one's a ride though...

RollieFingers

GerB40 wrote: »

Definite double standards. Yer one's a ride though...

She certainly is!

Egginacup

17 other convictions? At the age of 21?

Surely if that's the case then she must have been on some kind of probation or suspended sentence from one of those priors at the time of this assault and she should have been frog-marched straight into Holloway.
Sick cow.

Nodin

GerB40 wrote: »

Definite double standards. Yer one's a ride though...

Last one ye'd suspect of having that kind of record.

It'd be interesting to see how many of those incidents involved drink.

The Singing Beard

GerB40 wrote: »

Definite double standards. Yer one's a ride though...

Typical fobbing off attitude. You'd probably be the one saying "niiiccccee" if a young boy was taken advantage of.

She deserves the same sentence a man would have gotten with retrospective time too.

I'd imagine with all those 18 convictions there is still some suspended sentences active, so why wasn't she jailed for the misconduct.

The Singing Beard

And I personally don't see her as good looking, but that's just my opinion.

seamus

She is attractive, but if I'd heard she'd 18 assault convictions, I wouldn't even touch her with yours.

Her attractiveness no doubt played a part in the sentencing, on top of her gender. If she was 18 stone in a shell suit and sovereign rings on every finger he probably would have sent her down because she looks dangerous.

Grayson

seamus wrote: »

She is attractive, but if I'd heard she'd 18 assault convictions, I wouldn't even touch her with yours.

Her attractiveness no doubt played a part in the sentencing, on top of her gender. If she was 18 stone in a shell suit and sovereign rings on every finger he probably would have sent her down because she looks dangerous.

Women do get lighter sentences with the exception of murder I think.

RollieFingers

Grayson wrote: »

Women do get lighter sentences with the exception of murder I think.

What's the reason behind them getting lighter sentences?

catallus

She's a bit rough, in fairness.

Faux Socialist

niiiccccee

sun structures

Mr Lee says Thomas was given a lenient sentence because she is female

WTF

Faux Socialist

On a serious note though, there needs to be zero tolerance on female on male assaults and vice versa

tritium

RollieFingers wrote: »

What's the reason behind them getting lighter sentences?

The only obvious reason appears to be because they're women. Would you have any other suggestions?

There are of course some Irish politicians like Ivana BatSh1t who think womens prisio s should be closed down.

Glad to see at end of article that someone wants to get the sentence reviewed

Omackeral

People saying oh she's a ride etc. When you hear these rough animals speaking it's enough to make your balls run for sanctuary into your stomach. Nothing sexy about violent skanks.

Lapin

Boards.ie should approach The Daily Mail for advertising revenue.

Nodin

Omackeral wrote: »

People saying oh she's a ride etc. When you hear these rough animals speaking it's enough to make your balls run for sanctuary into your stomach. Nothing sexy about violent skanks.

Normally the violent skank (and 18 convictions qualifies) has a certain glassy eyed demeanour, highlighted by the odd lump missing from their phisog and a scattering of indian ink. This young woman seems to be some sort of camouflaged skank.

takamichinoku

Her 17 prior convictions were all under the age of 18, doesn't exactly change things hugely but when I first read it I had it in my mind that they were all pretty recent, if they were significantly under the age of 18 there'd be a call for some kind of leniency. No clue what her side of the story was either, that article is only yer mans. If she was provoked or may have been provoked, it'd certainly add to her case more than that article implies.

GerB40

The Singing Beard wrote: »

Typical fobbing off attitude. You'd probably be the one saying "niiiccccee" if a young boy was taken advantage of.

She deserves the same sentence a man would have gotten with retrospective time too.

I'd imagine with all those 18 convictions there is still some suspended sentences active, so why wasn't she jailed for the misconduct.

I'm not excusing her behaviour, she seems like a lunatic and she definitely deserved a heavier sentence. I'm just saying she's a ride...

Where the fúck you got the idea that I'd condone a young boy being taken advantage of I've no idea.

DEFTLEFTHAND

GerB40 wrote: »

Definite double standards. Yer one's a ride though...

Really? I think she looks like a grasshopper.

Vandango

Lapin wrote: »

Boards.ie should approach The Daily Mail for advertising revenue.

There certainly should be some sort of a commission rate sorted out alright.

Tarzana

Nodin wrote: »

Normally the violent skank (and 18 convictions qualifies) has a certain glassy eyed demeanour, highlighted by the odd lump missing from their phisog and a scattering of indian ink. This young woman seems to be some sort of camouflaged skank.

You think? I think that despite being attractive, she has a hard-faced quality. Kinda like Cheryl Cole, another charmer convicted for assault.

Galwayguy35

takamichinoku wrote: »

Her 17 prior convictions were all under the age of 18, doesn't exactly change things hugely but when I first read it I had it in my mind that they were all pretty recent, if they were significantly under the age of 18 there'd be a call for some kind of leniency. No clue what her side of the story was either, that article is only yer mans. If she was provoked or may have been provoked, it'd certainly add to her case more than that article implies.

Bullshít.

There is no excuse for glassing someone, no need to hear "her side of the story" because there isn't one.

tritium

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Bullshít.

There is no excuse for glassing someone, no need to hear "her side of the story" because there isn't one.

This! Any judge who thinks an assault of that magnitude only deserves a suspended sentence has no place on the bench.

Even in a self defence scenario the use of a weapon is frowned upon legally, the glass some randomer goes way beyond that. I remember a good few years ago a (female) lounge staff in a local pub was glasses by a local pr1ck and scarred badly for life, horrible sh1tty thing to do to anyone

Lou.m

RollieFingers wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726219/Yasmin-Thomas-victim-disgusted-walked-free.html

She is a sociopath. Plain and simple. Now the rest of society has to deal with her.

Thanks Judge.

There was a girl at the drama course I went to that was very like her. And she had a kid. what he needs to do is sue her. It's already established that she did it because she's been convicted and assault is a civil tort as well as a criminal offense. Hit her in the pocket.



The estate agents still have not sacked her apparently! If I was working with someone like that and they got THAT many convictions I would expect them to be fired.

Normally the violent skank (and 18 convictions qualifies) has a certain glassy eyed demeanour, highlighted by the odd lump missing from their phisog and a scattering of indian ink. This young woman seems to be some sort of camouflaged skank.

Some of the nicest women I know have Tattoos. It is the inside that counts.

Definite double standards. Yer one's a ride though...

How on earth can she be she is a HORRENDOUS human being?? How on earth can you fancy her? She is going to use this for the rest of her years until she can making mince meat of men! After 18 separate convictions of assault, there's a strong case for her to be permanently placed behind bars. She will instead go through life with men fawning after her and she will use them like toilet paper and/or hurl glasses at them. And still there are some who will go 'she is a ride'.



There are even comments saying

Look at her, she's drop dead gorgeous how could you be mad at her for long?

Or people saying 'who knows how she was provoked?' Unless it is self defense you must never use violence or the threat of violence.

Shakespeare's Sister

seamus wrote: »

She is attractive, but if I'd heard she'd 18 assault convictions, I wouldn't even touch her with yours.

Her attractiveness no doubt played a part in the sentencing, on top of her gender. If she was 18 stone in a shell suit and sovereign rings on every finger he probably would have sent her down because she looks dangerous.

Big time. The "wearing a low-cut top in court in order to assuage the judge" kinda phenomenon.
Just knew there'd be "She's a ride" comments. She has 17 previous convictions - how can "She's a ride" eclipse that?! It's a symptom of the problem.

Nodin

takamichinoku wrote: »

Her 17 prior convictions were all under the age of 18, doesn't exactly change things hugely but when I first read it I had it in my mind that they were all pretty recent, if they were significantly under the age of 18 there'd be a call for some kind of leniency. No clue what her side of the story was either, that article is only yer mans. If she was provoked or may have been provoked, it'd certainly add to her case more than that article implies.

True, but as shes only 21 now, its not exactly the far distant past either. Personally I suspect shes one of those people who should never drink but theres nothing there to indicate that conclusively.

takamichinoku

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Bullshít.

There is no excuse for glassing someone, no need to hear "her side of the story" because there isn't one.

Man, no doubt she got off way too easy, wasn't saying anything to the contrary at all of that. was throwing in some extra info which surely played a part in the punishment and wasn't covered in that article.

Nodin

Lou.m wrote: »

Some of the nicest women I know have Tattoos. It is the inside that counts.

.

It really helps if people take offence after they process the post, rather than arrive with outrage perched on the keyboard, already to fire it about the place.

Are they indian ink tattoos done while sitting inside a cell and are they accompanied by a glassy eyed demeanour and various scars from encounters all around town (in this case O'Connell street and its environs)?

berrygood

RollieFingers wrote: »

What's the reason behind them getting lighter sentences?

I think it stems from the fact that we'd still be viewed as the weaker sex no matter how serious the crime committed. Almost as if the crime is less due to the fact the perpetrator is female when in actual fact, gender shouldn't even come into it. If I kill someone with the requisite intent, it's murder. The deceased is no less dead just because I happen to be a woman, yet that seems to be the way the law treats some crimes committed by women.

seamus

berrygood wrote: »

I think it stems from the fact that we'd still be viewed as the weaker sex no matter how serious the crime committed. Almost as if the crime is less due to the fact the perpetrator is female when in actual fact, gender shouldn't even come into it. If I kill someone with the requisite intent, it's murder. The deceased is no less dead just because I happen to be a woman, yet that seems to be the way the law treats some crimes committed by women.

I believe there's also an old element to it of women being emotional creatures, incapable of controlling themselves and acting rationally.

Thus when a woman commits a crime, it's because she lost the run of herself ("hell hath no fury...."), or because she has been misled by a lover she's infatuated with or whatever. Whereas when a man commits the same crime, it's assumed he has done it deliberately and calculatingly, because men are considered to be well in control of themselves.

Crimes of passion are likewise treated less harshly in courts than deliberate ones.

berrygood

seamus wrote: »

I believe there's also an old element to it of women being emotional creatures, incapable of controlling themselves and acting rationally.

Thus when a woman commits a crime, it's because she lost the run of herself ("hell hath no fury...."), or because she has been misled by a lover she's infatuated with or whatever. Whereas when a man commits the same crime, it's assumed he has done it deliberately and calculatingly, because men are considered to be well in control of themselves.

Crimes of passion are likewise treated less harshly in courts than deliberate ones.

Aye. I'd agree with that.

I think women are, to an extent, still on the pedestal. The more attractive and feminine the woman, the higher the pedestal.