Drink driver spared jail and given another chance by judge because she is a woman

tcawley29

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/12/drink-driver-spared-jail-given-another-chance-judge-woman/

Judge Buckingham told the court: "If Miss Parry was a man, there is no question it would have been straight down the stairs, because this is a shocking case of dangerous driving against a background of two previous convictions for excess alcohol.

And this is what we're up against :mad:

facehugger99

tcawley29 wrote: »

And this is what we're up against :mad:

Yeah, it's tough being a western white man.

Very tough.

JMNolan

Don't waste your time, the usual SJWs will be along to defend this. Something something patriarchy...

The battle lines are drawn...

rgodard80a

Meh.... from the country that gave us Brexit.

Wabbit Ears

do these judges even listen to themselves or read newpapers and go "that fella is an awful gobsh1te..wait, that's me!!"

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

do these judges even listen to themselves or read newpapers and go "that fella is an awful gobsh1te..wait, that's me!!"

In this case, it was a female judge (Sarah Buckingham) who gave a suspended sentence to another woman, while saying that she would have sent a man "straight down the stairs" to prison for an equivalent offence.

suicide_circus

at least this judge was open about it

Your Face

Engerlund

Necro

And in 'things that don't actually affect me or the country I live in - but I'm outraged anyways'

Today we have....this thread!!

Charles Ingles

Equality in action.
Only proper

granturismo

tcawley29 wrote: »

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/12/drink-driver-spared-jail-given-another-chance-judge-woman/

And this is what we're up against :mad:

We live in a different country.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

suicide_circus wrote: »

at least this judge was open about it

True. There's nothing really new here: Women routinely receive lighter sentences than men for committing the same offence.

It's just not common for the judge to make her sexist prejudices so evident.

tcawley29

granturismo wrote: »

We live in a different country.

Thanks captain obvious

Grayson

It's pretty well established that women generally get lower sentences with the exception being murder.

I remember debating it online and someone was saying it's right because women tend to be the carers of children and can't be replaced. It's more damaging for the child so the women shouldn't be separated from their mothers.

It's weird to see a sexist policy being defended by more sexism.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

granturismo wrote: »

We live in a different country.

There are around 400,000 Irish-born people living in the UK.

Many of "us" are living "there."

suicide_circus

Grayson wrote: »

It's pretty well established that women generally get lower sentences with the exception being murder.

I remember debating it online and someone was saying it's right because women tend to be the carers of children and can't be replaced. It's more damaging for the child so the women shouldn't be separated from their mothers.

It's weird to see a sexist policy being defended by more sexism.

ultimately it means that in the civic space, women are not being held to the same standard . utterly disastrous if your goal is equality.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

suicide_circus wrote: »

ultimately it means that in the civic space, women are not being held to the same standard . utterly disastrous if your goal is equality.

The goal is not genuine equality, but a variant of Orwell's "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

Equality when it suits, and preferential treatment when it doesn't.

theteal

I live here (there). Where do I go to to be enraged?

suicide_circus

theteal wrote: »

I live here (there). Where do I go to to be enraged?

if it doesnt give you pause to think that women can never achieve parity in the civic space so long as reduced criminal sentences and gender quotas are a feature of our society then you have no need to be enraged. its not my fight either.

seamus

I'd like to see a source that isn't the Torygraph, the Daily Fail or the Mirror tbh. They've already run with the "enemy of the people" guff, so they can't be trusted to give honest court reports.

Generally if something reported seems too outlandish to be true, it usually is. Usually the writer has deliberately changed some things in the reporting to make it more sensationalist, or has completely misrepresented it.

I'm having difficulty finding any evidence whatsoever that a Victoria Parry was in Warwick Crown Court yesterday, but I don't have access to any of the big legal databases. And I'm not so far gone as to believe that they would invent a case out of nothing.

The similarities between all the reports though does suggest that they're paraphrasing from the same source and none of these journalists were actually there at the time.

So what are the facts?

The fact is that she hasn't "escaped jail". Sentencing has been deferred for 3 months to give her time to prove she's mended her ways.

That in itself I think it's fair enough. But if the judge did in fact say that she wouldn't have done the same for a man, then it seems like the CPS should probably appeal the decision and demand that she be sentenced immediately.

the beer revolu

This is blatant gender discrimination and, yes, pretty shocking in its unashamedness. This should not happen.

But, I find it hilarious how these snowflake macho men go apeshlt at every case of discrimination against men they find, totally ignoring the generations of discrimination against women which, thankfully, are systematically being eroded.

So funny, really.

yesto24

Necro wrote: »

And in 'things that don't actually affect me or the country I live in - but I'm outraged anyways'

Today we have....this thread!!

Posts like this really annoy me.
I know you are trying to be funny and show how enlightened you are to the rest of us.
But I don't think you realise how much Ireland is a follower.
And if there is any country we follow the most that would be our closest and bigger neighbor.
So yes we should be concerned

And regardless of where this happened,
Is this a fair and equal sentence?
For a repeat drunk driver?

seamus

the beer revolu wrote: »

This is blatant gender discrimination and, yes, pretty shocking in its unashamedness. This should not happen.

But, I find it hilarious how these snowflake macho men go ape**** at every case of discrimination against men they find, totally ignoring the generations of discrimination against women which, thankfully, are systematically being eroded.

So funny, really.

In this particular case, the funny thing is to see the number of people online (not necessarily here), going crazy at the drink-driver. As if this discrimination is her fault.

Rather than point out that a man in the same position as her should be treated the way that she has been, the focus is exclusively on demanding that she be treated like a man.

It's a subtle difference but it's there - "You want equality? Then you should get it!"

They completely miss the fact that this is an instance of sexism against men, not an instance of sexism in favour of women.

meeeeh

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-several-drivers-avoided-jail-after-being-convicted-of-causing-death-36460558.html

This article proves that it is a lot more equal in Ireland - both genders avoid jail.

Gimme A Pound

tcawley29 wrote: »

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/12/drink-driver-spared-jail-given-another-chance-judge-woman/




And this is what we're up against :mad:

JMNolan wrote: »

Don't waste your time, the usual SJWs will be along to defend this. Something something patriarchy...

I know it was already mentioned but this isn't a British message board so it's not what "we" are up against. Different jurisdiction.

Such sexism does occur here too but it makes no sense to give an example of it happening in Britain.

And I know a lot of ludicrous stuff gets defended by "SJWs" but I'm not sure I've ever seen this particular issue being defended. It also has nothing to do with feminism or misandry - it's nothing new. It's part of an antiquated if well meaning system created by men that deemed women more vulnerable and having to be available to care for their children rather than in prison.

irishgrover

it's nice to see that Ireland does not have a monopoly on sh!te judges... I read the secret barrister a while back... real eye opener on the mediocrity and decreasing standards on the courts system in the UK, and the very negative impact it has on society...

I will not however be using this isolated example as proof that as a white Irish middle class male, I am an endangered species entitled to special victimhood status.... to protect me from socialists, liberals, snowflakes, society, social media, feminazis, feminists, women generally, muslims, foreigners, asylum seekers, fake media or anyone else who is not me...

The Highwayman

granturismo wrote: »

We live in a different country.

That didn't stop feminists in Ireland having a **** fit over the Belfast rape trial. Marching in different citys around Ireland to protest because men were found not guilty of a crime in a different country.

So there's that.

irishgrover

The Highwayman wrote: »

That didn't stop feminists in Ireland having a **** fit over the Belfast rape trial. Marching in different citys around Ireland to protest because men were found not guilty of a crime in a different country.

So there's that.

I don't believe that the "**** Fitting" was limited to feminists!

El_Duderino 09

The Highwayman wrote: »

That didn't stop feminists in Ireland having a **** fit over the Belfast rape trial. Marching in different citys around Ireland to protest because men were found not guilty of a crime in a different country.

So there's that.

Yeah, if you're willing to use feminists' behaviour as a benchmark for a good idea, then fair enough.

I think sentencing is all over the place. I think it makes sense to not tear a family apart if there's not a reasonable likelihood of recidivism.

The Highwayman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, if you're willing to use feminists' behaviour as a benchmark for a good idea, then fair enough.

I think sentencing is all over the place. I think it makes sense to not tear a family apart if there's not a reasonable likelihood of recidivism.

Except if you're a man, then f@@k your family you go to jail.

YFlyer

Kellan Mealy Mouth wrote: »

True. There's nothing really new here: Women routinely receive lighter sentences than men for committing the same offence.

It's just not common for the judge to make her sexist prejudices so evident.

The Chinese believe in equal rights.

El_Duderino 09

The Highwayman wrote: »

Except if you're a man, then f@@k your family you go to jail.

If the man is the primary caregiver then I'd support them being given the same consideration.

Wouldn't you?

mvl

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If the man is the primary caregiver then I'd support them being given the same consideration.

Wouldn't you?

actually I thought there are plans to allow convicted drink drivers to ... drive to work - anyone else knows more about this ?

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/new-government-plan-could-allow-15915185

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If the man is the primary caregiver then I'd support them being given the same consideration.

Wouldn't you?

Duderino I don't think the debate of the thread centres around the handing down of custodial sentences for care givers. The issue clearly lies with the fact the judge stated they were issuing a lighter form of justice based on their gender. The judge clarified that if the defendant was the opposite gender then it would be an easy decision to give a much harsher sentence.

If Miss Parry was a man, there is no question it would have been straight down the stairs, because this is a shocking case of dangerous driving against a background of two previous convictions for excess alcohol

biko

theteal wrote: »

I live here (there). Where do I go to to be enraged?

Don't you have internet websites in England?

py2006

You'd swear England was a different planet judging by some posts here.

lbc2019

You would swear they used a different judiciary...

steddyeddy

I don't think the posters actually care about it being a different country. I think it's more an attempt to deflect from the sexism on display here. It shows as a society we have a long way to go until sexism is taken seriously.

py2006

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think the posters actually care about it being a different country. I think it's more an attempt to deflect from the sexism on display here. It shows as a society we have a long way to go until sexism is taken seriously.

Its taken seriously alright, but only when it affects a certain demographic

steddyeddy

py2006 wrote: »

Its taken seriously alright, but only when it affects a certain demographic

I agree but I think those deflecting against this type of sexism are no different than those sexist against women.

Austria!

py2006 wrote: »

You'd swear England was a different planet judging by some posts here.

They'll be shocked if they ever head over to the soccer forum

Gimme A Pound

py2006 wrote: »

You'd swear England was a different planet judging by some posts here.

Well it's pretty dishonest to say it's what "we" are dealing with in relation to another jurisdiction. It does happen here though - although it's nothing to do with feminism or misandry and isn't anything new.

LessOutragePlz

py2006 wrote: »

You'd swear England was a different planet judging by some posts here.

But this particular case is of no significance in Ireland hence the correct complete disregard of the judgement in this case.

Are you suggesting we should start caring about every judgement from a drink driving case in England?

steddyeddy

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But this particular case is of no significance in Ireland hence the correct complete disregard of the judgement in this case.

Are you suggesting we should start caring about every judgement from a drink driving case in England?

Actually I think we should care about discrimination wherever it occurs in the world.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote: »

Duderino I don't think the debate of the thread centres around the handing down of custodial sentences for care givers. The issue clearly lies with the fact the judge stated they were issuing a lighter form of justice based on their gender. The judge clarified that if the defendant was the opposite gender then it would be an easy decision to give a much harsher sentence.

True enough. It seems like a fairly straightforward case of sexism. Surely the judge is in bother now. Publicly saying they treat people based on sex is bound to be trouble. Judges are pretty much above the law in reality so they will probably get a private dressing down and a slap on the wrist

LessOutragePlz

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually I think we should care about discrimination wherever it occurs in the world.

If that was the case we'd be spending our whole day caring about the worlds problems and discrimination's. Personally I think that is a waste of time and I'd rather focus on myself and the problems I have to deal with it.

steddyeddy

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

If that was the case we'd be spending our whole day caring about the worlds problems and discrimination's. Personally I think that is a waste of time and I'd rather focus on myself and the problems I have to deal with it.

You're first thread here was about a lesbian couple in the UK who plan to transition their son......

LessOutragePlz

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're first thread here was about a lesbian couple in the UK who plan to transition their son......

Completely different context I had a total of 3 posts in that thread including my OP so I didn't exactly spend any significant part of my day worrying about it. I'm sure if I trawled through your 20,000+ posts I could find posts that would contradict your point of view in this thread but I have better things to do with my time.

orourkeda1977

Kellan Mealy Mouth wrote: »

In this case, it was a female judge (Sarah Buckingham) who gave a suspended sentence to another woman, while saying that she would have sent a man "straight down the stairs" to prison for an equivalent offence.

And they say the law is an ass.

steddyeddy

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Completely different context I had a total of 3 posts in that thread including my OP so I didn't exactly spend any significant part of my day worrying about it. I'm sure if I trawled through your 20,000+ posts I could find posts that would contradict your point of view in this thread but I have better things to do with my time.

Ah I get you. That day was different than the others and the event happened in a different part of the UK.