nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abdur Rashid refuses to apologise to 6 year old that he abused.

John Sacrimoni

Ireland gets more insane as days go by, this child rapist is set free after serving just 10 months in prison.

https://m.herald.ie/news/courts/i-wont-apologise-says-mosque-molester-who-sexually-abused-girl-6-37564609.html

Anyone have any other information about this case?

How can any judge in their right mind allow such a short sentence for such a horrible, disgusting crime? And not a shred of remorse from the abuser either.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

Well, put it this way: it's fairly strange that you seem to believe that the sentence was unjustified because it wasn't the sentence a rape conviction would have attracted. That's completely irrelevant, but it's the only fact you have offered in support of your view.

The maximum sentence for the offence of which he was convicted is five years. But this was a first offence; he wouldn't get the maximum sentence in any case on a first offence. And, on the range of such offences, there are factors that point to this being at the less serious end - e.g. this was a single incident, there doesn't appear to have been any use of force. There are other relevant factors about which we have no information - significantly, while there are newspaper reports of the sentencing hearing, there don't seem to be any of the trial itself, or of the evidence given, so much of the detail of the offence is unknown to us. Finally, there are mitigating factors - the psychiatric reports, etc.

So, is this sentence out of line for the range of sentencing for this offence? It's impossible to say, since most of the information we would need to make a judgement about that is not available to us. All we do know is that the prosecution could have appealed if they thought the sentence was too lenient, but didn't. So nobody who actually heard the evidence seems to think that this sentence is inappropriately light. Do I think the sentence was justified? I don't know.

John Sacrimoni

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Sure I could call you a rapist so, seeing as were just throwing it around.

Any comment on the incident or are you too busy jumping to the defence of a paedophile?

Guy:Incognito

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

Ill stick with rapist, thanks.

Sure I could call you a rapist so, seeing as were just throwing it around.

Guy:Incognito

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

We dont know what exactly happened to that child.. If someone molests a child im gonna call them a rapist whether you think its right or wrong. I suppose hes not a peadophile either?

I dont really like your comparison, comparing a minor assault and murder to the molestation of a child and rape of a child.

It says in the article what happened.
You don't get to decide what is and isn't rape. It's defined by law.theres a reason he was charge and convicted of sexual assault and not rape.

Whether you like or dislike analogies is irrelevant to me.

John Sacrimoni

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. I haven't read the submissions on sentencing. Have you?

Ok ill ask the question in a different way, going by whats mentioned in the article , was this sentence justified?

Fairly strange that im having to ask you this again given a child was molested and you are unsure about whether the joke of a sentence was justified

Peregrinus

I dunno. I haven't read the submissions on sentencing. Have you?

John Sacrimoni

Peregrinus wrote: »

So basically your question is "why was a man not charged with or convicted of rape not given the sentence that a rape conviction would attract?"

I think the answer's in the question, really.

You think the sentence was justified here?

Peregrinus

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

tbh it makes no difference to me. Is that what you took from the article yes? anything else to add?

So basically your question is "why was a man not charged with or convicted of rape not given the sentence that a rape conviction would attract?"

I think the answer's in the question, really.

Guy:Incognito

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

tbh it makes no difference to me. Is that what you took from the article yes? anything else to add?

Yeah, sure who needs facts.

It's be like if I punched you in the face then a big thread started, full of people calling it a disgrace that I'm not locked up for life for murder, despite you not being dead.

John Sacrimoni

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yes, clearly. That's what it says in the article. You said raped though .

tbh it makes no difference to me. Is that what you took from the article yes? anything else to add?

Peregrinus

end of the road wrote: »

nothing, because leo ultimately doesn't make the decisian in that area. if he is muslim (and i'm not sure he is) it has nothing to do with this and is irrelevant.

He is not. Nor is he from a Muslim background.

He himself is not religious. His mother is a Catholic. His father is a Hindu from a Parsee background. But these are the kind of subtle distinctions that escape Islamophobes, to whom everybody with any degree of non-white background is a Muslim.

Guy:Incognito

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

Touched? He sexually molested her.

Yes, clearly. That's what it says in the article. You said raped though .

John Sacrimoni

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Where are people getting rape? He touched her according to the article.

Touched? He sexually molested her.

Guy:Incognito

Where are people getting rape? He touched her according to the article.

John Sacrimoni

sugarman wrote: »

Am I reading that right? He served just 4 days??? As it was backdated? :mad:

18 months with the last 4 months suspended for a year, with remission he served just 10 months.

How does a sex beast that raped a child be entitled to any remission.

How the hell are people standing by and letting this happen? The judges deserve to be hung.

gozunda

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

Its nothing to do with race, this fella will abuse again 100%. 10 months for raping a child, how are people standing for this?

The may aswell have invited him to target more kids.

Part of his 'culture'?

https://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/mohammed-marry-6-year-age-50/

John Sacrimoni

ANDREWMUFC wrote: »

I know it’s nothing to do with race but you’ll have the same mongrels coming into this thread asking “why won’t you post a link of an Irish rapist”

I dont care if they do, this guy is back on the streets the more people that know about it the better. My problem is not with his skin colour, but with the paedo sympathising court system our country seems to have.

end of the road

ANDREWMUFC wrote: »

I know it’s nothing to do with race but you’ll have the same mongrels coming into this thread asking “why won’t you post a link of an Irish rapist”

no you won't.

ANDREWMUFC

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

Its nothing to do with race, this fella will abuse again 100%. 10 months for raping a child, how are people standing for this?

The may aswell have invited him to target more kids.

I know it’s nothing to do with race but you’ll have the same mongrels coming into this thread asking “why won’t you post a link of an Irish rapist”

John Sacrimoni

Its nothing to do with race, this fella will abuse again 100%. 10 months for raping a child, how are people standing for this?

The may aswell have invited him to target more kids.

ANDREWMUFC

“Why are you picking on the Muslim rapists and not the Irish ones!!!”

Peatys

ANDREWMUFC wrote: »

Racist

Against peados?

That's ok.

ANDREWMUFC

Racist