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

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 3:18am #1

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.

ANDREWMUFC · 27-11-2018 3:26am

Racist

Peatys · 27-11-2018 3:28am

ANDREWMUFC wrote: »

Racist

Against peados?

That's ok.

ANDREWMUFC · 27-11-2018 3:28am

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

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 3:29am

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 · 27-11-2018 3:31am

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”

end of the road · 27-11-2018 3:33am

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.

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 3:33am

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.

gozunda · 27-11-2018 3:34am

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 · 27-11-2018 3:52am

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.

Guy:Incognito · 27-11-2018 4:03am

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

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 4:13am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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

Touched? He sexually molested her.

Guy:Incognito · 27-11-2018 4:24am

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

Touched? He sexually molested her.

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

Peregrinus · 27-11-2018 4:28am

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.

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 4:35am

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?

Guy:Incognito · 27-11-2018 4:38am

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.

Peregrinus · 27-11-2018 4:42am

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.

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 4:45am

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 · 27-11-2018 4:53am

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

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 4:55am

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

Guy:Incognito · 27-11-2018 5:00am

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.

Guy:Incognito · 27-11-2018 5:05am

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

Ill stick with rapist, thanks.

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

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 5:08am

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?

Peregrinus · 27-11-2018 5:08am

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.

Guy:Incognito · 27-11-2018 5:19am

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

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

Correcting your mistakes isn't defending anyone.

If anything, it could be seen as me helping you to avoid a libel case.

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 5:22am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If anything, it could be seen as me helping you tonaboid a libel case.

im safe enough in that regard, thanks though.

WillieMason · 27-11-2018 5:50am

Why are you picking on the Muslim rapists and not the Irish ones? this is so racist

dr.fuzzenstein · 27-11-2018 6:56am

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

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

That is the right question to answer. Are sentences for rape overtly lenient? Especially against children?
How is the conviction rate? How does Ireland compare to other countries?
Discussions about the man's race or religion are entirely irrelevant from a legal standpoint, since those are not taken into account.
It's entirely justified to debate the case, but "shure de Muslims!"

Peregrinus · 27-11-2018 7:21am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That is the right question to answer. Are sentences for rape overtly lenient? Especially against children?
How is the conviction rate? How does Ireland compare to other countries?
Discussions about the man's race or religion are entirely irrelevant from a legal standpoint, since those are not taken into account.
It's entirely justified to debate the case, but "shure de Muslims!"

It is entirely justifiable to debate this case. What's not so easily justified is framing the debate on the basis that the defendant is a rapist, and the sentence should be one appropriate to rape. The defendant wasn't accused of, charged with, or convicted of rape; he couldn't possibly be sentenced for rape.

And, when the response from the OP when this is pointed out is, basically, "I don't care", this ceases to be a debate about whether the sentence in this case is appropriate or not. What the OP actually wants to debate is, seemingly, the appropriate sentence for rape, not the appropriate sentence in this case.

kneemos · 27-11-2018 7:23am

Mike9832 wrote: »

Why is he not being deported back to his **** hole?

What do ye expect when we have a Muslim leader

He was born in Hawaii.

John Sacrimoni · 27-11-2018 8:23am

kneemos wrote: »

He was born in Hawaii.

What's your point?

dr.fuzzenstein · 27-11-2018 8:37am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is entirely justifiable to debate this case. What's not so easily justified is framing the debate on the basis that the defendant is a rapist, and the sentence should be one appropriate to rape. The defendant wasn't accused of, charged with, or convicted of rape; he couldn't possibly be sentenced for rape.

And, when the response from the OP when this is pointed out is, basically, "I don't care", this ceases to be a debate about whether the sentence in this case is appropriate or not. What the OP actually wants to debate is, seemingly, the appropriate sentence for rape, not the appropriate sentence in this case.

My point is that to some people the race and religion of the accused is far more important than the actual crime committed and that they are far more outraged about that than the actual crime.

Spleerbun · 27-11-2018 8:51am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

My point is that to some people the race and religion of the accused is far more important than the actual crime committed and that they are far more outraged about that than the actual crime.

Equally there's the other side who are so desperate to defend someone's religion that they will go out of their way to side track and trivialise any debate on the subject. Goes both ways. Luckily this thread doesn't need to be about that subject as this guy is enough of a scumbag that he should bring us all together in our condemnation.

Peregrinus · 27-11-2018 9:03am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

My point is that to some people the race and religion of the accused is far more important than the actual crime committed and that they are far more outraged about that than the actual crime.

I get that. But the OP mentions neither the offender's race, nor his religion, nor his crime. Instead, it mentions an entirely different crime, which looks strikingly like an attempt not so much to engage in justifiable debate about the case as to poison the well at the outsetm by framing the discussion in misleading terms. And while the OP does say several times that he is unconcerned with the offender's race or skin colour, he does say, in post #15, that he thinks the OP should be deported, which I think is something that wouldn't even come up but for the defendant's non-Irish background.

But, yeah, I think the OP's anger is mainly directed not at foreigners but at sex offenders. But the gist of his position seems to be that sexual assaults should be punished as if they were rapes. But he doesn't offer any reason why this should be so, and it's kind of difficult to debate a position for which no arguments are offered.

And the fact that the offender is an immigrant and a Muslim does muddy the waters still further because, while the OP is not really interested in this feature of the case, as you point out several other posters seem to attach considerable significance to it.

So, all in all, not a very promising attempt at a debate.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-11-2018 9:16am

WillieMason wrote: »

Why are you picking on the Muslim rapists and not the Irish ones? this is so racist

That's the third time that joke has been made in anticipation of someone making the point seriously.

I think it's worth pointing out that nobody has actually raised a racist angle to thy story except some clown aaying Leo is a Muslim, hence a lenient sentence for a fellow Muslim (this is so stupid it might be ironic, apologies if this is the case)

The funny thing is that the story is about how he didn't apologise to the girl when ambushed by journalist outside the prison. Why would anyone think that's a good time to make an unprepared statement?

kneemos · 27-11-2018 9:18am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's the third time that joke has been made in anticipation of someone making the point seriously.

I think it's worth pointing out that nobody has actually raised a racist angle to thy story except some clown aaying Leo is a Muslim, hence a lenient sentence for a fellow Muslim (this is so stupid it might be ironic, apologies if this is the case)

The funny thing is that the story is about how he didn't apologise to the girl when ambushed by journalist outside the prison. Why would anyone think that's a good time to make an unprepared statement?

How did the journalist know he was leaving the prison?

Hannibal_Smith · 27-11-2018 9:24am

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.

He didn't rape a child. Not according to the article you linked...unless I missed it?

Edit...sorry just got to page 2 and see this was already straightened out

El_Duderino 09 · 27-11-2018 9:28am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That is the right question to answer. Are sentences for rape overtly lenient? Especially against children?
How is the conviction rate? How does Ireland compare to other countries?
Discussions about the man's race or religion are entirely irrelevant from a legal standpoint, since those are not taken into account.
It's entirely justified to debate the case, but "shure de Muslims!"

Fair questions but it also makes sense to ask what's the difference in outcome between different sentences.

To any normal person the knowledge that you harmed a child would be a big punishment. Plus the stigma of the community knowing what you are. The difference between 10 months and 18 months in prison would be a minor consideration compared to the entire life afterwards.

If time in prison was directly correlated with reduction in recidivism then sentences should be benchmarked accordingly. But I don't think that's the case. If prison is just to warehouse prisoners for a few months or years then it's arbitrary anyway so one sentence is similar to another.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-11-2018 9:31am

kneemos wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's the third time that joke has been made in anticipation of someone making the point seriously.

I think it's worth pointing out that nobody has actually raised a racist angle to thy story except some clown aaying Leo is a Muslim, hence a lenient sentence for a fellow Muslim (this is so stupid it might be ironic, apologies if this is the case)

The funny thing is that the story is about how he didn't apologise to the girl when ambushed by journalist outside the prison. Why would anyone think that's a good time to make an unprepared statement?

How did the journalist know he was leaving the prison?

I don't know how these things work. Call the prison and ask whose being released today? Bribe a prison officer?

What's that got to do with the post you quoted

kneemos · 27-11-2018 9:36am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know how these things work. Call the prison and ask whose being released today? Bribe a prison officer?

What's that got to do with the post you quoted

Just wondering if prison officers are getting back handers for info?

Responding to points of interest brought up in previous posts is how this whole thing works.

FTA69 · 27-11-2018 9:37am

Dirty f*cking nonce case should have been banged up for ten years minimum.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 27-11-2018 9:40am

Mike9832 wrote: »

Why is he not being deported back to his **** hole?

What do ye expect when we have a Muslim leader

He’s an Irish citizen? Who’s the Muslim leader , Obama?

seamus · 27-11-2018 9:43am

kneemos wrote: »

How did the journalist know he was leaving the prison?

Prison officers would tip them off. Probably give their favourite journalist a schedule of releases every morning.

Will I Am Not · 27-11-2018 9:43am

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

In his own words he was teaching the girl an Islamic ritual... in a mosque... It’s hardly a wild jump to a conclusion in this case.

Peregrinus · 27-11-2018 9:54am

Will I Am Not wrote: »

In his own words he was teaching the girl an Islamic ritual... in a mosque... It’s hardly a wild jump to a conclusion in this case.

The claim was not that the offender was a Muslim; this is undisputed. The claim was that the offender isn't being deported because "we have a Muslim leader", i.e. Varadkar.

s7ryf3925pivug · 27-11-2018 9:54am

The Herald selectively report things so they have the most dramatic story. Here is a report on it from the Irish Times

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teacher-gets-suspended-sentence-for-sex-assault-at-dublin-mosque-1.3703130?mode=amp

The judge accepted a report that he was schizophrenic and delusional. There was a further report that said he wasn't. I'm not clear on whether they conflict or refer to dufferent times. It doesn't say if he is being treated for schizophrenia.

Also they said him being Bangladeshi would make prison more difficult, and he had a family.

I didn't see whether he will be able to continue his career teaching children. I would assume no, but if he is then that is the most outrageous thing of all.

I don't see how any of this makes him less dangerous, or how it is reasonable to accept as mitigating factors.

Allinall · 27-11-2018 9:55am

Jaysus lads.

Peregrinus is responding to the knob head who said Leo is a Muslim .

s7ryf3925pivug · 27-11-2018 9:59am

I reckon being a child molestor is more likely to cause someone a difficult time in prison than being from Bangladesh.

seamus · 27-11-2018 9:59am

Aydin Shy Mumps wrote: »

The judge accepted a report that he was schizophrenic and delusional. There was a further report that said he wasn't. I'm not clear on whether they conflict or refer to dufferent times. It doesn't say if he is being treated for schizophrenia.

He's not being treated.
It's mealy-mouthed, but the below paragraph isn't actually contradictory

The court heard that a psychological report stated that Rashid currently meets the diagnostic criteria for schziophrenia and delusional disorder and is psychologically vulnerable. A further psychiatric report indicated that at present he is not suffering from a psychiatric illness.

"Meets the diagnostic criteria" is a bit of a long-winded way of saying that he hasn't been diagnosed.
"at present he is not suffering", is saying that he's OK right now.

So he's of a stable mind at present, but long-term he meets the criteria for a schizophrenia diagnosis.

I didn't see whether he will be able to continue his career teaching children. I would assume no, but if he is then that is the most outrageous thing of all.

He will fail Garda vetting, so there's no way he'll be able to get employment with young or vulnerable people again.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 27-11-2018 10:00am

Allinall wrote: »

Jaysus lads.

Peregrinus is responding to the knob head who said Leo is a Muslim .

Yeh I get that now. That guy was a total loon.

Who the Fcuk thinks Leo is a Muslim. Most of the time I forget he isn’t white.

Peregrinus · 27-11-2018 10:02am

Aydin Shy Mumps wrote: »

The Herald selectively report things so they have the most dramatic story. Here is a report on it from the Irish Times

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teacher-gets-suspended-sentence-for-sex-assault-at-dublin-mosque-1.3703130?mode=amp

The judge accepted a report that he was schizophrenic and delusional. There was a further report that said he wasn't. I'm not clear on whether they conflict or refer to dufferent times. It doesn't say if he is being treated for schizophrenia.

Also they said him being Bangladeshi would make prison more difficult, and he had a family.

I didn't see whether he will be able to continue his career teaching children. I would assume no, but if he is then that is the most outrageous thing of all.

I don't see how any of this makes him less dangerous, or how it is reasonable to accept as mitigating factors.

I don't think he has a "career as a teacher"; from the newspaper report, he works as a chef. He's described as "a teacher in a Dublin mosque", but I think this was a voluntary, part-time thing, in the equivalent of a Sunday school. Like you, I assume that particular gig is permanently up. (None of the reporting of this has suggested that the mosque authorities were obstructive, unhelpful or in any kind of denial. Unlike some denominations that we could think of.)

Coverage of the psychological/psychiatric reports is confusing, I agree. And what's completely missing from the reports is any opinion expressed in the reports as to whether he poses a future risk, or whether any risk can be or is being managed through engagement with treatment services. These would certainly be relevant considerations in sentencing.

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

Comments