Paedophile Jailed Longer Because Victims Were Asian

rubadub · 18-09-2015 12:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not discriminating, it's distinguishing.

Same thing in my mind, maybe you are one of these people who automatically attach negative connotations to the word discrimation, I don't. I don't think calling some one sexist or prejudiced is necessarily negative either.

discriminate
dɪˈskrɪmɪneɪt/Submit
verb
1.
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions"
synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw/recognize a distinction, tell the difference, discern a difference; More

Custardpi · 18-09-2015 12:29PM

Just to clarify from any legal eagles on here, while I acknowledge that the judge's role is not to "try the Asian community" hypothetically speaking here, if he was simply to say something like "oh & by the way, anyone (whether of the Asian community or otherwise) who gives the victims grief or stops associating with them because of what they suffered should be utterly condemned" as part of his ruling would that give grounds for an appeal by the defendant or would it still be acceptable legally, even if strictly speaking it's not part of his remit?

18-09-2015 12:36PM

Custardpi wrote: »

if he was simply to say something like "oh & by the way, anyone (whether of the Asian community or otherwise) who gives the victims grief or stops associating with them because of what they suffered should be utterly condemned" as part of his ruling would that give grounds for an appeal by the defendant or would it still be acceptable legally, even if strictly speaking it's not part of his remit?

Unlikely...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum

But it would see the Judge no doubt subjected to criticism by that community for stepping outside her remit.

Satan is Real · 18-09-2015 12:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

We are upset because some paedophile was jailed for longer because of some aggravating factor?

My heart bleeds for him.

I think it perfectly legitimate. If for example virginity is particularly respected in a culture and so by being abused the victim also is stigmatised and shunned by their own community after the incident, I say fire another few years on for that, don't limit the considerations to the physical offence itself.

So you think 'Asian' i.e. Pakistani Muslim victims are worth more than white victims? Do white girls not care about virginity, are they not shamed? Disgusting.

Satan is Real · 18-09-2015 12:56PM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

This is so fcuked up.

So the judge is recognising a "loss" of something that most people in the country find abhorrent.

Shows how sick British society is.

Buona Fortuna · 18-09-2015 12:58PM

Satan is Real wrote: »

Shows how sick British society is.

I'm struggling to see your point.

Custardpi · 18-09-2015 01:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlikely...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum

But it would see the Judge no doubt subjected to criticism by that community for stepping outside her remit.

Personally if I was a member of that community I would have no problem whatsoever with a judge or anyone else criticising ill treatment of rape victims. If members of the Asian community saw such criticism as an attack on all of them then that would surely indicate that there is a major problem with shaming culture within that part of society, one which the hypothetical objectors to such a statement would be helping to perpetuate.

18-09-2015 01:44PM

Satan is Real wrote: »

So you think 'Asian' i.e. Pakistani Muslim victims are worth more than white victims? Do white girls not care about virginity, are they not shamed? Disgusting.

Sure that's it exactly.

Me, the law, the Courts, the Trial Judge, the Appeal Judges, we're all saying that white victims are worthless.

arayess · 18-09-2015 01:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure that's it exactly.

Me, the law, the Courts, the Trial Judge, the Appeal Judges, we're all saying that white victims are worthless.

at least you admit it.

18-09-2015 01:51PM

arayess wrote: »

at least you admit it.

Privileged Asians, and the Judges, in their ivory towers, hounding the white people...

Fratton Fred · 18-09-2015 02:45PM

Very Bored wrote: »

I don't agree Conor. There's too many idiot judges and coppers like this in the UK. Put it this way, you go to the UK a black guy calls you a paddy b so you respond by calling him a f*****g n. Both of you are absolutely in the wrong, though you could argue that the first guy was more so because he aggravated the situation but you'd be the one who got into trouble. Its PCness gone mad.

Have you anything to base this in?

Very Bored · 18-09-2015 06:19PM

The point is, conor, how do you measure the effects of something as horrific as child abuse? And in a sense, the message this judge sent out was that its not as bad to abuse a white child as it is to abuse an Asian one. That you won't get as harshly punished. As a father of a young, white child I find that disgusting.

Perversely, there is a breed of criminal who thinks its sport to do the more serious crime. It becomes like a computer game to them. White child 5 years. White, Christian child 6 years. White, Catholic Christian child 7 years... (in their sick, perverted minds, and we are dealing with sick perverts here, the jackpot) Asian child 10 years.

Its dangerous. Potentially to both white and Asian children, depending on the mentality of the offender, and I don't like it. I'd also suggest that I'm not alone.

Satan is Real · 18-09-2015 06:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure that's it exactly.

Me, the law, the Courts, the Trial Judge, the Appeal Judges, we're all saying that white victims are worthless.

You are saying white victims suffer less. I find that a pretty sick attitude to have. Why should one race be judged to suffer more from child abuse? The penalty should be the same across the board (and should be much tougher).

Cold War Kid · 18-09-2015 06:26PM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

This is so fcuked up.

So the judge is recognising a "loss" of something that most people in the country find abhorrent.

Yeah was thinking that too. But on the other hand, it's a sentence based on the impact to the victim, which is a move in the right direction.

Can see both sides.

Buona Fortuna · 19-09-2015 08:46AM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Yeah was thinking that too. But on the other hand, it's a sentence based on the impact to the victim, which is a move in the right direction.

Can see both sides.

I respectfully disagree

.

If I were to break a couple of your fingers, I'd be convicted of some actual bodily harm offence, maybe do time for it.

Now maybe if you were a fiddle player, you would suffer more of a loss than a block layer. So that would increase the amount of compo you could apply for. Maybe you could even sue me, if I had any assets.

But the crime is the same, whatever your talents.

Martial9 · 19-09-2015 08:54PM

Does this not send out the message to would be abusers that you are better off going for a non Asian girl as the sentence will likely to be more lenient? Fecked up.

19-09-2015 09:04PM

Very Bored wrote: »

The point is, conor, how do you measure the effects of something as horrific as child abuse?

In terms of crime an punishment?

Every time a Court hands down a sentence less than life they have measured the effects, in terms of the penalty to be applied. Here the Judge has said the penalty should be increased because of particular circumstances. The Appeal Court have upheld this logic, dismissing not just an appeal but even leave to appeal - the opposition didn't even get off the ground, it was wholly without merit. Remarkably this has annoyed some, who have read the exact opposite into it.

Very Bored · 19-09-2015 10:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of crime an punishment?

Every time a Court hands down a sentence less than life they have measured the effects, in terms of the penalty to be applied. Here the Judge has said the penalty should be increased because of particular circumstances. The Appeal Court have upheld this logic, dismissing not just an appeal but even leave to appeal - the opposition didn't even get off the ground, it was wholly without merit. Remarkably this has annoyed some, who have read the exact opposite into it.

It is none of my business what your family circumstances are so please do not take this as some sort of request for knowledge of same. However, this is something I think can only be intrinsically understood by a parent. If you are a parent of a white child, as am I, then the idea that someone considers the possibility of someone abusing your child, the child that your number one role bar none in this world is to protect, to be less serious than the possibility of someone abusing another is absolutely abhorrent.

19-09-2015 10:08PM

Very Bored wrote: »

It is none of my business what your family circumstances are so please do not take this as some sort of request for knowledge of same. However, this is something I think can only be intrinsically understood by a parent. If you are a parent of a white child, as am I, then the idea that someone considers the possibility of someone abusing your child, the child that your number one role bar none in this world is to protect, to be less serious than the possibility of someone abusing another is absolutely abhorrent.

But even still, if someone abused my child, like any child, I would have to accept that the Courts measure that in a certain way. They don't claim to measure the effects, the trauma, they don't try to address the psychological fallout...they just consider the crime and apply a tariff. And it is usually set at X years for this crime. In this case the Judge said X...plus an additional penalty because of the particular circumstances because of the victim. Some have decided to interpret this as X minus a penalty because of the absence of those circumstances, which is completely wrong.

Very Bored · 19-09-2015 11:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But even still, if someone abused my child, like any child, I would have to accept that the Courts measure that in a certain way. They don't claim to measure the effects, the trauma, they don't try to address the psychological fallout...they just consider the crime and apply a tariff. And it is usually set at X years for this crime. In this case the Judge said X...plus an additional penalty because of the particular circumstances because of the victim. Some have decided to interpret this as X minus a penalty because of the absence of those circumstances, which is completely wrong.

I do understand where you are coming from even if I don't agree with you. I do understand that there is a standard penalty, with an added penalty because of the circumstances. I suggest though that the vast majority of parents will not see why one child is worth the extra penalty when theirs isn't.

I also think its f*****g ridiculous that, even with an additional penalty, the sentence is only seven years. This should be a crime which carries a life sentence and whereby life means life. I would also add that if someone did to my child what he's done to these children prison would be the least of his worries. And I wouldn't give a s***e what happened to me afterwards. However, that is a different discussion, which people will have vastly varying views on, and one I don't think is suitable to develop here out of respect to the victims in this case.

19-09-2015 11:45PM

Very Bored wrote: »

I do understand where you are coming from even if I don't agree with you. I do understand that there is a standard penalty, with an added penalty because of the circumstances. I suggest though that the vast majority of parents will not see why one child is worth the extra penalty when theirs isn't.

I also think its f*****g ridiculous that, even with an additional penalty, the sentence is only seven years. This should be a crime which carries a life sentence and whereby life means life. I would also add that if someone did to my child what he's done to these children prison would be the least of his worries. And I wouldn't give a s***e what happened to me afterwards. However, that is a different discussion, which people will have vastly varying views on, and one I don't think is suitable to develop here out of respect to the victims in this case.

I have to concede I don't know the full details of the assault so I can't say it deserved life. Aggravated rape certainly does.

ceadaoin. · 19-09-2015 11:53PM

I don't think that the idea that a girls value is tied to her virginity and future 'marriageability' is something that should be reinforced by the law tbh. These ideas have no place in modern british society.

Very Bored · 20-09-2015 01:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to concede I don't know the full details of the assault so I can't say it deserved life. Aggravated rape certainly does.

Touching a child deserves life. A child can't defend themselves and has no idea what's going on until it happens. If someone wanted to touch me inappropriately, which, yes, is far less than raping me, then I have the ability to react accordingly. I also have the clear understanding of what is going on. A child doesn't. If you are that evil that you would take a child's innocence and smash it in a second, sorry, no, you deserve life, and life meaning life. What do we expect of such a person when they get out? That they reform and become a decent member of society? We're joking, right? They have urges the vast majority of us don't, which could be put down to a mental illness and therefore support should be available. I would argue section them until they have recovered so they aren't a danger to any child. But those that actually act on those urges? F**k them. Frankly, I'd hang them, and I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. But that's not included in the law here so I'd put them away permanently.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think that the idea that a girls value is tied to her virginity and future 'marriageability' is something that should be reinforced by the law tbh. These ideas have no place in modern british society.

Nor in any modern society. Violation of a child's innocence, however, is violation of a child's innocence whether they are white, Asian, African or purple.

20-09-2015 05:38AM

Very Bored wrote: »

Touching a child deserves life.

So you don't think that, say, raping a child with violence should be punished in any worse way than, say, pinching a child? Because once the touch is made, that merits a life sentence?

I very strongly disagree. I think like every single crime there is a spectrum. As the law says. In pretty much every single country.

Either way, life was not an option in this case. And if the Judge gave a life sentence, that would simply be asking for an appeal, it would be successful and more money spent on the abuser.

Very Bored · 20-09-2015 11:24AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So you don't think that, say, raping a child with violence should be punished in any worse way than, say, pinching a child? Because once the touch is made, that merits a life sentence?

I very strongly disagree. I think like every single crime there is a spectrum. As the law says. In pretty much every single country.

Either way, life was not an option in this case. And if the Judge gave a life sentence, that would simply be asking for an appeal, it would be successful and more money spent on the abuser.

Grow up, you know what I meant by touching.

Roger Hassenforder · 20-09-2015 12:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of crime an punishment?

Every time a Court hands down a sentence less than life they have measured the effects, in terms of the penalty to be applied. Here the Judge has said the penalty should be increased because of particular circumstances. The Appeal Court have upheld this logic, dismissing not just an appeal but even leave to appeal - the opposition didn't even get off the ground, it was wholly without merit. Remarkably this has annoyed some, who have read the exact opposite into it.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree.
Can your reasoning not be extended to increased penalties for robbing a less well off man than a better off man? Punishing the murder of an old man as opposed to a young man?

Punishments should be applied out regardless of race, or any cultural norms. That there was an increased penalty applied in this poor victim's case, to me as a parent, places an increased "value" on a cultural norm over those without this norm. The court has placed a value on a child's virginity, and should have absolutely no right to do so.

What would the judge apply in the case where he encountered a victim from a group where child abuse is not quite as abhorrent; or virginity not as valued? Oh yea, less....

All children should be treated the same, rather than pandering to backward concepts of "community shame" and the victims fathers concerns about future marriage proposals. If some sick f**k touches one of my girls, my only concern would be what to do with the body if I caught him.

In Ireland, the extent of their removal from that which society considers acceptable is clear. Gougers out on parole, with >100 previous convictions etc., presuming their innocence until proven guilty.
Bullshit.

20-09-2015 12:18PM

Very Bored wrote: »

Grow up, you know what I meant by touching.

I know what the law actually is and that the Judge and the Appeal Court were absolutely correct

And no, I really don't know the definitions you apply in your "every touching of a child deserves a life sentence" world. Could you define it? Thanks.

20-09-2015 12:23PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree.
Can your reasoning not be extended to increased penalties for robbing a less well off man than a better off man? Punishing the murder of an old man as opposed to a young man?

Punishments should be applied out regardless of race, or any cultural norms. That there was an increased penalty applied in this poor victim's case, to me as a parent, places an increased "value" on a cultural norm over those without this norm. The court has placed a value on a child's virginity, and should have absolutely no right to do so.

Every court "places a value" when they make a decision and hand out a penalty. They have every right to do so, that is their very function. The Court that gives 6 years for rape of a woman has determined that that is the price that should be extracted from the offender. But it's not some philosophical or moral judgement, it's simply a question of deciding the penalty, often based on precedent.

The matter doesn't arise in murder where a life sentence is mandatory. But certainly in all crimes where the victim is entitled to give an impact statement, the Judge is entitled to consider it. That's why they are given. It's not just to let the victim blow off a little steam.

Very Bored · 20-09-2015 12:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I know what the law actually is and that the Judge and the Appeal Court were absolutely correct

And no, I really don't know the definitions you apply in your "every touching of a child deserves a life sentence" world. Could you define it? Thanks.

Touching a child in a sexual way if I really have to spell it out, though I think you're simply being obtuse.

Anyone who touches a child in a sexual way deserves life in my opinion. If you want to argue the case that they are good people really who just made a mistake work away, but for me, and for most other people, this kind of thing is not like stealing a bag of sweets.

20-09-2015 12:32PM

Very Bored wrote: »

Anyone who touches a child in a sexual way deserves life in my opinion. If you want to argue the case that they are good people really who just made a mistake work away, but for me, and for most other people, this kind of thing is not like stealing a bag of sweets.

Um, not sure what you mean by "they are good people really". Who said that?

I think you are both making up law that doesn't exist and points that were never made. And resorting to silly "grow up" lines to get your made up stuff across.

Incidentally, pinching a child can absolutely amount to touching in a sexual way. Knew of one or two - one a local priest in the early 80s - who were famous in the area for pinching little girls, hands all over them, tickling and so on for their own sexual gratification. You don't see that as touching? I very much do.

Paedophile Jailed Longer Because Victims Were Asian

Comments