• Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sajini W
    • Sid’s blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • 1820
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown






  • Technorati: graph / links

    Judges must hate Asians


    by Sunny on 12th August, 2006 at 7:48 pm    

    That can be the only explanation after you read of another idiotic judge who lets off an Asian crime perpetrator because of his culture. How does one stop this?

    Consider this:

    A judge was accused yesterday of appalling insensitivity towards women after allowing a sex attacker to avoid jail on the condition that he write a letter of apology to his victim.

    Judge Jeremy Roberts said that Prashant Modi, 33, a millionaire’s son who had led a “sheltered life” in India, had been faced with a confusing situation after three attractive young women fell asleep in his hotel bedroom this year.

    The introverted businessman had been “led into temptation” after the women, all Swedish and in their early twenties, had agreed to go back to his hotel for some food after a night out in Central London, the judge said.
    ….
    Describing Modi as unfamiliar with Western culture despite regular trips to Britain and four years spent as a student in the United States, Judge Roberts told the court: “I regard the facts of this case as being exceptional. I am satisfied that to jail you would be inappropriate and unjust.

    “You were previously of exemplary character. By Western standards — and I am not trying to imply Western standards are wrong — Mr Modi is unsophisticated.”

    He added: “Within three days, you will write a letter of apology and the Crown Prosecution Service will find out if she (the victim) wishes to receive it.” Modi was also placed on the sex offenders register and ordered to pay £28,543 prosecution costs.

    No. Prashant Modi is a sex-molester and clearly a fucking slimebag. He should have been banged up straight. It really, really annoys me when judges do this. They can’t be that stupid. I find it hard to believe they can. Maybe they’re doing it just to annoy everyone.

    And I was having a good time relaxing on a weekend too. Aaargh.
    [via Sepia Mutiny, who are similarly pissed off]

    Updated: Clairwil weighs in with her thoughts. An extract:

    It seems clear to me that the law offers inadequate protection against rape and whilst I think reforms that allow for ‘degrees of rape’ and longer sentences would improve matters, I don’t think the law alone is sufficient. Ideally rapists would learn to behave but let’s face it there isn’t much incentive for them to do so when the odds are so heavily in favour of them getting away with it. It then falls to women to establish how best to avoid rape. Before everyone starts leaping up and down and accusing me of blaming victims, I don’t believe anyone deserves to raped and whilst one can always be unlucky, there are certain steps one can take to avoid it.

    For example the case of the naive rapist above, involved him raping one of three drunk women he’d taken back to his hotel room. Now imagine if we all agreed that going back home or to a hotel with a man was consent to sex and therefore didn’t do it unless one was in the mood? That isn’t blaming women, it’s telling men that until they all learn to behave, first night sex is cancelled. It’s not fair but nature is like that. Hence why women can abort a pregnancy, lie about paternity, sell the baby on the internet or deny access whether men like it or not.



      |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Culture, Race politics




    40 Comments below   |  

    1. Don — on 12th August, 2006 at 8:40 pm  

      ‘unfamiliar with Western culture …’

      Which part? The bit about not attempting to rape an unconcious woman? I’d always assumed that was widespread.

    2. Rakhee — on 12th August, 2006 at 8:59 pm  

      More detail here.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/11/ngeek11.xml

      Apparently….

      “Modi had dedicated his life to his father’s oil business and had little time for girls in India, where he had been brought up to consider sex outside marriage as wrong”.

      Right, but he still:

      “Removed the girl’s trousers and underwear, and had a condom ready to use when the other girl awoke”.

      WTF? That doesn’t make him

      “Sexually and socially unsophisticated”

      Rather it makes him A LETCHEROUS FREAK.

    3. Bert Preast — on 12th August, 2006 at 9:37 pm  

      It put’s one in mind of those who think a campaign against Piglet is going to do minorities a whole world of favours. I like to refer to those people as racist manufacturers.

    4. Winrock — on 12th August, 2006 at 11:02 pm  

      What a stupidity. So judge trying to say that if anyone doesn’t know about western culture can rape women and go for free? Tell me which culture says raping women is ok? Get a Man from any tribe he will tell you straight away that raping is wrong and it’s a Sin. I hate these sorts of rules and judgments. Every one knows even dumb person can tell you, if you Rape you will be jailed? Mr.Modi is rapist and he should serve the Jail sentence and Mr. Judge should be removed form his post.

    5. mirax — on 12th August, 2006 at 11:24 pm  

      Men called modi seem to have the teflon touch when it comes to getting away with crime.

      Judge is both sexist and racist.

    6. Katy Newton — on 12th August, 2006 at 11:36 pm  

      I agree. You could just as easily have called this thread “Judge must hate women”. What a twat.

    7. Sarah — on 12th August, 2006 at 11:49 pm  

      I am not surprised. I think it is becoming increasingly evident that ‘women’s rights’ are quite precarious in the UK. I have heard of/been involved in a number of quite extraordinary cases in schools and FE colleges where supposed ‘anti-racist’ policies are used to trump blatant sexist behaviour and sexual harrassment or where minority women’s subjection to domestic abuse ‘because’ of participation in ‘inappropriate’ educational activities has been met with resignation, rather than action.
      Unlike France, Spain or the US feminism has no power in public political discourse in the UK; gender issues are barely ‘mainstreamed’: I often joke that DFID could not support most government funded projects here because of this lack of mainstreaming.
      The ‘hard left’ always treated ‘women’s issues’ as a distraction from the ‘real’ issues of class or anti-imperialism; the traditional right continue to recycle jokes from the 50s and then claim feminists have no sense of humor when we don’t laugh- especially if I then say that it wasn’t that funny when I first heard it 25 years ago.

      Feminists seem to have sought their havens in academic ghettos in the universities or in a few social services departments. We ‘oldies’ seem to have built very few institutions. I sometimes think we betrayed future generations of women by not engaging in critical debates about multi-culturalism and feminism or trying to inject issues about ‘women’ into foreign policy discussions, let alone building networks and constructing a serious ‘grammar’ rather than slogans for talking about gender equality.
      I realise this is a bit of a rant, but I find this example not exceptional at all and very worrying.

    8. Sunny — on 13th August, 2006 at 12:00 am  

      Well, yeah is basically dismissing women’s rights… but he’s using this imbecile’s culture as an excuse. Judges in this country…

    9. Bert Preast — on 13th August, 2006 at 12:18 am  

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2307749,00.html

      From a link at the bottom of the page. A 19 year old halfwit drug mule gets over 6 years, and this 33 year old millionaire rapist walks because he’s naive.

      I think I can spot who’s actually naive here.

    10. Robert Stevens — on 13th August, 2006 at 2:12 am  

      Off topic, Sunny. Add to Hizb al-Tahrir file.

      “On 16 of last month there was a confidential meeting with the
      shaykhs in Poland; the final decision was to completely change the
      Hizb al-Tahrir front and to build a new organization that concerns
      itself with the national territory and with the international
      territory but we need highly trained people at every level.”

      Milan wiretaps, Dec., 2003:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alphacity/message/26

      Overview here:

      http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:mmSYsE5CBLgJ:rantburg.com/poparticle.asp%3FD%3D12/10/2003%26ID%3D22472+fbis+site:rantburg.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&ie=UTF-8

    11. Kulvinder — on 13th August, 2006 at 2:44 am  

      Oh puh-lease enough of the judge bashing all of you, its bullshit like this that leads to Peter ‘brilliant advice on iraq’ Goldsmith getting involved and fucking up the legal system even more, theres been at least one case recently where the court of appeal has let someone go partly because the judge in question was hinting at a noncustodial sentence but was unsure what to do, he didn’t want his judgement to be questioned by the AG and appealed as ‘unduly lenient’

      They’re damned if they follow the fucking rules the ‘people’ (read tabloids) scream for, they’re damned if they do the opposite and let allow some leeway.

      HANG HIM HANG THE FUCKER AND CUT HIS BALLS OFF THE DIRTY SEX OFFENDING SCUM. Why the fuck not, its where we’re heading, infact fuck the hypocrisy, the people in self rightous screaming mode when these cases come up should just shout for a return to lobotomy.

    12. Kulvinder — on 13th August, 2006 at 2:47 am  

      but I find this example not exceptional at all and very worrying.

      Id be interested to hear which cases exactly bothered you or which ‘anti-racist anti-feminist’ policies in particular concern you.

    13. BevanKieran — on 13th August, 2006 at 1:00 pm  

      Judges have a natural tendency to think prison is not suitable for the aristocracy.

      Judges in this country…hmmm…suck.

    14. Sunny — on 13th August, 2006 at 1:53 pm  

      Kulvinder - So you don’t have any problem with this sentence then? There have been other (rare) examples. A judge in Melbourne let off this family of guys for rape because they were from Pakistan I believe and he said they were “uncultured” or some rubbish. Similarly, the judge here did not pass a racist verdict on these three men.

    15. mirax — on 13th August, 2006 at 2:18 pm  

      >>There have been other (rare) examples. A judge in Melbourne let off this family of guys for rape because they were from Pakistan I believe and he said they were “uncultured” or some rubbish.

      Nope, not the judge. Not at all.
      The eldest of the 4 brothers claimed in his defence that his ‘cultural beliefs’ gave him the right to assault ‘promiscuous’ women.

      http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gang-rapist-claims-right-to-assault/2005/12/09/1134086806845.html

      The money quote:

      >>”I believe at the time when I commit these offences that she had no right to say no.”

      The two victims were 13 and 14 at the time of the gangrape.

      Naturally, Australians howled for his blood. I myself would have happily lynched the lying bastard.

    16. Sunny — on 13th August, 2006 at 2:30 pm  

      Ooooh… all these uncilivised tendencies Miraz. Thought you were against corporal punishment?

    17. Sahil — on 13th August, 2006 at 2:36 pm  

      I can’t fucking believe this! Me and my sis were discussing rape cases in the UK and US and how they rate of conviction was so low (plus take into account that many women don’t even go to the police). I was arguing that you need to pretty damn sure that the guy is guilty if you need a conviction, but usually rape cases are very ambiguous by their nature i.e. two people alone (usually), and it ends up being ones word against the other many times. But this is sooooo obvious, what does the judge want: have this guy run and try to hump the girls in front of the judge, so he can be definately sure? This is the kind nonsense that provides so much ammo to bile-spewers like the Mail.

    18. Neil — on 13th August, 2006 at 2:51 pm  

      If the girl says no and the person carrys on, it is rape, or attempted rape. You should only advance if the girl is giving you all the signals or she tells you too. But as soon as she says no, you gotta stop. So if the girls said no, then he has attempted to rape her. But she must be another drunk slut (and her mates) to go back to his hotel room and sleep there. She either set him up or this freshie is perverted and should be locked up

    19. g — on 13th August, 2006 at 2:55 pm  

      why is it every time an indian commiting a crime is mentioned someone has to bring up a pakistani equivalent? Mirax is so pathetic.

    20. northern_scum — on 13th August, 2006 at 2:56 pm  

      chop the guys willy off pleeeze

    21. mirax — on 13th August, 2006 at 3:01 pm  

      Thought you were against corporal punishment?

      By the state. I have no problems with my own personal violence - though it is only language so far- on the clear understanding that if I break the law by lynching someone, I pay the price for it. Legally, morally. I really don’t want to kill that rapist but you know that.

      You owe me an answer on the Sri Lanka thread Sunny.

    22. mirax — on 13th August, 2006 at 3:05 pm  

      >>why is it every time an indian commiting a crime is mentioned someone has to bring up a pakistani equivalent? Mirax is so pathetic.

      Hey g! get over yourself and learn to read! Sunny brought up the aussie case but got the details completely wrong. I corrected him.

    23. Neil — on 13th August, 2006 at 3:09 pm  

      Thing is he didnt penetrate her. That is rubbish by the Judge saying he didnt understand western culture, he is the exec of a Oil Company, studies in the states for 4 years as a student, no doubt indulged in a lot of things over there, and being Indian and loaded he has just got away with sexual abuse

    24. Sahil — on 13th August, 2006 at 3:33 pm  

      “Indian and loaded he has just got away with sexual abuse”

      What does being Indian have to do with anything. This is the one of the reasons I’m so pissed about the decision. It stereotypes us, and shows that if you’re ‘ethnic’ you get away with it. The rapist should be locked up.

    25. Kulvinder — on 13th August, 2006 at 6:30 pm  

      Similarly, the judge here did not pass a racist verdict on these three men.

      Im against any ’stiffer’ sentences for hate crimes. Those actions are really horrendus but i don’t see how increasing sentences dissuades anyone else from acting. Infact the only reason they act is because they believe the ‘community’ they come from is somehow supporting them. Theres a certain moral culpability and hypocrisy in society when ‘outsiders’ are feared and hated (be they white/brown/black/asylum seekers/gays) with great venom but those that feed of that hate are demonised for acting in ways that aren’t ‘justifiable’. I believe the case you highlighted was a hate crime but keeping them in prison for 20-25 years won’t get rid of the feelings they had in the lead up to that murder. Similarly the killing of Anthony Walker was horrible (and his mother has shown great courage) but turning on his killers and rejoicing as they’re put away for decades or if they’re beaten up in prison is a nice easy way to bypass any real contemplation about what happened. There was racist abuse in that community before that crime (as there was in the asian community before the one you pointed out) dealing with that is more important than locking someone up and throwing away the key.

    26. Kulvinder — on 13th August, 2006 at 6:35 pm  

      Naturally, Australians howled for his blood. I myself would have happily lynched the lying bastard

      Nothing like a good lynching is there. Im assuming they also called for the gang rape of Lindy Chamberlain?

    27. Kulvinder — on 13th August, 2006 at 6:55 pm  

      If the girl says no and the person carrys on, it is rape, or attempted rape. You should only advance if the girl is giving you all the signals or she tells you too. But as soon as she says no, you gotta stop.

      What if they’ve both had something to drink, they were flirting in a club/pub. They go somewhere, have sex but later on the next day or in the following week the girl decides that in actual fact she didn’t consent. Situations where everyone is sober are easy, most rapes aren’t along those lines but instead amount to little more than ‘he said’ ’she said’. Because not enough vile sex monsters are being convicted the law might be changed so a woman can’t give consent when pissed, though how that will actually work is beyond me:

      ‘no i didn’t consent i was pissed’
      ‘but you said you can’t remember what happened’
      ‘yeah but im stone cold sober now and i can say that id never have sex with him’

    28. Don — on 13th August, 2006 at 7:40 pm  

      Kulvinder,

      ‘I’m against any ’stiffer’ sentences for hate crimes.’

      Fair enough, I see your point. If we say ‘Thou shalt not kick people to death’ then adding ‘especially if your motive is hatred of a group’ does seem redundant.
      There is an argument to made, however, that singling out hate crimes for stiffer sentences helps send a message that roaming around in a gang looking for members of a particular group to attack is an aggravating factor. I’m not 100% certain which argument I find most convincing, but being human I tend to get a bit retributive in cases such as the ones we have been discussing. Not lynching, obviously. When it comes to lynching I like to think of myself as the Randolph Scott figure at the door of the jail house, Winchester cradled in the crook of my arm and stern morality in every line of my face.

      But is there a difference, which the law should consider, between a violent yob who goes looking for a fight with anyone who looks at him funny or spills his pint, and a violent yob who goes looking for a paki or a queer? I’d say yes, on the whole, but I take your point.

      ‘There’s a certain moral culpability and hypocrisy in society when ‘outsiders’ are feared and hated (be they white/brown/black/asylum seekers/gays) with great venom but those that feed off that hate are demonised for acting in ways that aren’t ‘justifiable’.’

      No shortage of moral culpability and hypocrisy in society, but are those who hate and fear the outsider the same as those who ‘demonise’ (not sure about that word) those who feed off that hate? And if they are, perhaps that’s a recognition that those feelings are shameful. Didn’t Oscar say something about hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue? The human psyche is messy and far from satisfactory, but we’re stuck with it. If an unreflective bigot, faced with the logical and bloody consequences of bigotry, reacts with horror, is that necessarily a bad thing?

      ‘dealing with that is more important than locking someone up and throwing away the key.’

      Absolutely agree. Someone (I’m afraid I can’t remember who) recently posted a comment in another context that you can slap as many mosquitoes as you want, but draining the swamp is the real issue. I don’t know if it was an original metaphor, but brilliant if it was. But the two are not mutually exclusive. While draining the swamp, keep slapping.

      However, the key point here is that a judge has used ‘cultural’ differences to give a lesser sentence, the implication being that because Modi was Indian he could not be expected to know that what he was doing was wrong. In #11 you expressed exasperation at the tabloids second guessing judges often on a knee-jerk reaction and the government (desperate for tabloid approval ) interfering in the judiciary. I’d agree with that, but I don’t think this case fits into that category.

      ‘I’m assuming they also called for the gang rape of Lindy Chamberlain?’

      Not that I’m aware. That was a cheap shot and not worthy of you.

    29. Katy — on 13th August, 2006 at 8:18 pm  

      They go somewhere, have sex but later on the next day or in the following week the girl decides that in actual fact she didn’t consent.

      Er, if she consented at the time then it wouldn’t be rape no matter what she decided later. I don’t approve of the changes in the law either, Kulvinder, but the way to deal with that is not to push for lower sentences for people who admit sexual assault.

    30. Kulvinder — on 13th August, 2006 at 9:19 pm  

      helps send a message that roaming around in a gang looking for members of a particular group to attack is an aggravating factor

      If it happened in those circumstances id agree, it rarely does though. An individual or group of individuals may attack someone because of ‘hate’ (as opposed to say love…) but outside of riots there aren’t many gangs actively roaming the streets looking for particular victims. Even if they do im skeptical any setence in that situation would put them off - the consequences are already quite clear. Its more effective to deal with it at a social level.

      However, the key point here is that a judge has used ‘cultural’ differences to give a lesser sentence, the implication being that because Modi was Indian he could not be expected to know that what he was doing was wrong

      I think thats unfair, he considered a number of factors in the case. I accept the point you’re trying to make, im a bit iffy on this my position isn’t set in stone.

      Not that I’m aware. That was a cheap shot and not worthy of you.

      :(

      Er, if she consented at the time then it wouldn’t be rape no matter what she decided later.

      That might not be the case in the future…

      I don’t approve of the changes in the law either, Kulvinder, but the way to deal with that is not to push for lower sentences for people who admit sexual assault.

      You’re kinda going against the entire judicial system on this, theres lower sentences for pleading guilty because it saves money and saves the victim a fair amount of further trauma. If you get rid of the reduction in tarrif for guilty pleas lawyers would take everything to trial.

    31. Sunny — on 14th August, 2006 at 12:37 am  

      Robert - thanks for that. Will see what I can do with that and add it to my list of info.

    32. Galloise Blonde — on 14th August, 2006 at 7:25 am  

      Neil, watch your mouth. You cannot call these three girls drunken sluts because they agreed to go back with a man’s room to order room service when the restaurants were closed. This is rape-enabling language, however you disguise it in a ‘no-means-no’ piece.

      I don’t think ‘no means no’ is enough; I think we need to work on the principle that, for the first time at least, nothing less than enthusiastic, joyous consent is consent.

      Sarah, I agree with you. Feel free to get in touch and rant some more.

    33. Galloise Blonde — on 14th August, 2006 at 8:13 am  

      Sarah, you can get me thru the website feedback link :-)

    34. Katy Newton — on 14th August, 2006 at 9:14 am  

      You’re kinda going against the entire judicial system on this, theres lower sentences for pleading guilty because it saves money and saves the victim a fair amount of further trauma. If you get rid of the reduction in tarrif for guilty pleas lawyers would take everything to trial.

      What I should have said was that the way to deal with it was not to push for “unduly lenient sentences”.

    35. Natasha — on 14th August, 2006 at 9:36 am  

      He is indeed a sleazy scumbag. His defense was absolute bulls*it - he’s totally familar with western culture with the number of trips he’s made to both the US and Europe. It’s quite simple what he did - ply girls with drink…and then try to take advantage of them. Then get daddy to hire a great lawyer to get you off the hook.

    36. sonia — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:01 am  

      Ridiculous of course. Sarah’s got a great point in no. 7 - the system seems to find an awful lot of excuses for men in this sort of situation - and I think Katy has a point in that the thread could be called Judges hate women. I mean there have been so many other cases where things like ‘oh the girls were wearing short skirts’ or ‘ she’s a bit of a slag’ so the men get let off - any old excuse seems to do. the message here seems to be if you fall asleep in a man’s bedroom you oughta expect what you get..

    37. mirax — on 14th August, 2006 at 11:36 am  

      I know that you take some kind of pride in being a contrarian ‘thinker’ Kulvinder but this piece of guff by you :

      >> What if they’ve both had something to drink, they were flirting in a club/pub. They go somewhere, have sex but later on the next day or in the following week the girl decides that in actual fact she didn’t consent. Situations where everyone is sober are easy, most rapes aren’t along those lines but instead amount to little more than ‘he said’ ’she said’. Because not enough vile sex monsters are being convicted the law might be changed so a woman can’t give consent when pissed, though how that will actually work is beyond me

      is really something else!

      -When it is estimated that 80-90% of rapes in the UK are unreported

      -when it is a given that only a small percentage of charged rapists are actually convicted, 6%.

      -When police investigation of rape cases, by their own admission, is “patchy” and may be a factor in the low conviction rate

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4452962.stm

      Yet, when the police themselves admit to a ‘ “substantial intelligence gap” as they could not assess the true pattern of offending’ , Mr Kulwinder feels complacent enough to assert it is mostly a case of ‘he says, she says’. Yeah right, Mr Kulvinder! You’re a lawyer,I think? And some women wonder why the Criminal Justice system fails them so!

    38. Kulvinder — on 14th August, 2006 at 2:38 pm  

      the system seems to find an awful lot of excuses for men in this sort of situation - and I think Katy has a point in that the thread could be called Judges hate women. I mean there have been so many other cases where things like ‘oh the girls were wearing short skirts’ or ‘ she’s a bit of a slag’

      That really isn’t the case

      When it is estimated that 80-90% of rapes in the UK are unreported

      Im not sure how exactly they compile stats for something that isn’t reported but iirc it includes non-consensual sex within relationships/marriage, which although terrible is different in context to ’stranger danger’

      -when it is a given that only a small percentage of charged rapists are actually convicted, 6%.

      Damn the juries! You may as well, all those people who ultimately have to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, damn them for having those doubts.

      What exactly is your point? It is mostly a case of he says she says, that doesn’t detract from the crime, rather it puts it into context. If both parties know each other before hand or met in a social situation and both parties agree intercourse took place it all comes down to what one person says against another.

    39. Barney Large — on 25th August, 2006 at 11:15 am  

      The reason most rapes are unreported actually stems from treatment of women in police stations rather than courts. Women fear ill treatment by both male and female police officers, whose treatment and examination many women (and men, who make up 10% of the victims) liken to being raped again. This explains your statistic of 80-90% unreported.

      As far as sentencing is concerned you should really be blaming the legislature who have consistently failed to address the issue of rape in the United Kingdom. They need to start inforcing mandatory life sentences or at least a minimum of ten years, but as the law stands, its only 25 years maximum, which will only be achieved in a worst case senario. Essentually, judges can only work with what they are given.

      Furthermore, the conception that rape is predominently sexual rather than an issue of dominence and power is something that is fed to us repeatedly by the media, who have denied clear sociological evidence to the contrary since the 1960’s.

    40. Barney Large — on 25th August, 2006 at 11:17 am  

      Furthermore, how does a ruling which favours a asian mean that the judge is racist!?!

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.