http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html

Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????

On 20/09/2015 15:37, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html

Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????



The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some
extent on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided that
Asians can be more affected by rape because their marriage prospects are
severely worsened within their community. Consequently, the effect of
rape on them is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.

"GB" wrote in message ...

On 20/09/2015 15:37, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html

Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????



The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some extent
on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided that Asians
can be more affected by rape because their marriage prospects are severely
worsened within their community. Consequently, the effect of rape on them
is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.

Then you are terminally retarded.

On 20/09/15 16:37, GB wrote:
On 20/09/2015 15:37, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html


Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????



The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some
extent on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided that
Asians can be more affected by rape because their marriage prospects are
severely worsened within their community. Consequently, the effect of
rape on them is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.


You can't have different rules for different sections of society.
Where would it stop? If you don't like the justice system, then
find a culture which suits you better. For the record, allowing
the burka to be worn in court is bloody ridiculous, as it is
elsewhere IMHO.

Andy C

GB wrote:
On 20/09/2015 15:37, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html

Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????



The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some
extent on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided
that Asians can be more affected by rape because their marriage
prospects are severely worsened within their community. Consequently,
the effect of rape on them is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.

Well let us suppose that judges in all such cases make similar enquiries
of the victims and their families as to the likelihood of the crime
impinging in similar or equivalent ways. ISTM then a sentence may well
be greater if the victim is heir to a fortune and title who might
otherwise have been in with a chance to marry foreign royalty in
contradistinction to, say, someone living on a sink estate with an
alcoholic single parent. Mmmmmmm - I begin to see some issues of public
interest: eg do we want a [further] incentive to pick white victims off
a sink estate?


--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:56:16 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some
extent on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided
that Asians can be more affected by rape because their marriage
prospects are severely worsened within their community. Consequently,
the effect of rape on them is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.

You can't have different rules for different sections of society.

That's OK, because the rule he described ISN'T different for different
sections of society. The result of the rule might be, but that's because
all cases are different - and is exactly why there're rules to work out
the sentence, rather than just one single and specific number.

On 20/09/15 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:56:16 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

You can't have different rules for different sections of society.

That's OK, because the rule he described ISN'T different for different
sections of society. The result of the rule might be, but that's because
all cases are different - and is exactly why there're rules to work out
the sentence, rather than just one single and specific number.


How do you gauge the affect a rape has on any individual's life. Some
are affected far worse and for far longer than others but it certainly
doesn't depend on culture. Doing that open the flood gates. Religious
belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the legal system
or education for that matter.

Andy C

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:17:45 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

You can't have different rules for different sections of society.

That's OK, because the rule he described ISN'T different for different
sections of society. The result of the rule might be, but that's
because all cases are different - and is exactly why there're rules to
work out the sentence, rather than just one single and specific number.

How do you gauge the affect a rape has on any individual's life.

In the same way you gauge the effect ANY offence has on any individual's
life.

You take THAT INDIVIDUAL into account... Not the particular group or
culture or ethnicity they might happen to belong to. THE INDIVIDUAL.

Which is exactly what the law is intended to do, and exactly what the
judiciary should be doing. Anything more or less is merely ****-stirring
by the gutter media with some kind of axe to grind.

Religious belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the
legal system or education for that matter.

Yup. If only a few more around here respected that, too.

GB wrote:
On 20/09/2015 15:37, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html


Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????



The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some
extent on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided that
Asians can be more affected by rape because their marriage prospects are
severely worsened within their community. Consequently, the effect of
rape on them is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.


The problem is that it sends out the message that white girls are worth
less than Asian girls. It's also culturally divisive.

Bill

On 20/09/15 20:33, Adrian wrote:


Religious belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the
legal system or education for that matter.

Yup. If only a few more around here respected that, too.


So how can you say that a girl's parents religious belief is a factor in
sentencing? It does not alter the circumstances of the crime - the
offender probably had no idea about it ! It is the parent's choice how
they subsequently treat their daughter and has nothing to do with the
offence.

Andy C

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/09/15 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:56:16 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

You can't have different rules for different sections of society.

That's OK, because the rule he described ISN'T different for different
sections of society. The result of the rule might be, but that's because
all cases are different - and is exactly why there're rules to work out
the sentence, rather than just one single and specific number.


How do you gauge the affect a rape has on any individual's life.

Not possible to do more than work out some general trends.

Some
are affected far worse and for far longer than others

Yes.

but it certainly
doesn't depend on culture.

It obviously does when hardly anyone chooses
to marry someone who has been raped.

Doing that open the flood gates.

They have always been open on stuff like that.

Religious
belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the legal system or
education for that matter.

And yet you still swear on a bible in court etc.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:59:37 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

You can't have different rules for different sections of society.

That's OK, because the rule he described ISN'T different for
different sections of society. The result of the rule might be, but
that's because all cases are different - and is exactly why there're
rules to work out the sentence, rather than just one single and
specific number.

How do you gauge the affect a rape has on any individual's life.

In the same way you gauge the effect ANY offence has on any
individual's life.

You take THAT INDIVIDUAL into account... Not the particular group or
culture or ethnicity they might happen to belong to. THE INDIVIDUAL.

Which is exactly what the law is intended to do, and exactly what the
judiciary should be doing. Anything more or less is merely ****-
stirring by the gutter media with some kind of axe to grind.

Religious belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the
legal system or education for that matter.

Yup. If only a few more around here respected that, too.

So how can you say that a girl's parents religious belief is a factor in
sentencing?

Apart from the fact that I haven't said that, I haven't actually read the
judge's full summing-up and sentencing report. Have you got a link?

On Sunday, 20 September 2015 20:17:48 UTC+1, Andy Cap wrote:
On 20/09/15 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:56:16 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

You can't have different rules for different sections of society.

That's OK, because the rule he described ISN'T different for different
sections of society. The result of the rule might be, but that's because
all cases are different - and is exactly why there're rules to work out
the sentence, rather than just one single and specific number.


How do you gauge the affect a rape has on any individual's life. Some
are affected far worse and for far longer than others but it certainly
doesn't depend on culture. Doing that open the flood gates. Religious
belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the legal system
or education for that matter.

Andy C

So now we know why the Rochdale Pa kiss abducted and raped white girls?
If caught' the punishment is less!
That judge is brain dead.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:59:37 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

You can't have different rules for different sections of society.

That's OK, because the rule he described ISN'T different for
different sections of society. The result of the rule might be, but
that's because all cases are different - and is exactly why there're
rules to work out the sentence, rather than just one single and
specific number.

How do you gauge the affect a rape has on any individual's life.

In the same way you gauge the effect ANY offence has on any
individual's life.

You take THAT INDIVIDUAL into account... Not the particular group or
culture or ethnicity they might happen to belong to. THE INDIVIDUAL.

Which is exactly what the law is intended to do, and exactly what the
judiciary should be doing. Anything more or less is merely ****-
stirring by the gutter media with some kind of axe to grind.

Religious belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the
legal system or education for that matter.

Yup. If only a few more around here respected that, too.

So how can you say that a girl's parents religious belief is a factor in
sentencing?

Apart from the fact that I haven't said that, I haven't actually read the
judge's full summing-up and sentencing report. Have you got a link?

If you really cared, you'd have found it already.

"harry" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, 20 September 2015 20:17:48 UTC+1, Andy Cap wrote:
On 20/09/15 19:50, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:56:16 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

You can't have different rules for different sections of society.

That's OK, because the rule he described ISN'T different for different
sections of society. The result of the rule might be, but that's
because
all cases are different - and is exactly why there're rules to work out
the sentence, rather than just one single and specific number.


How do you gauge the affect a rape has on any individual's life. Some
are affected far worse and for far longer than others but it certainly
doesn't depend on culture. Doing that open the flood gates. Religious
belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the legal system
or education for that matter.

Andy C

So now we know why the Rochdale Pa kiss abducted and raped white girls?
If caught' the punishment is less!

No. It's because they are racist *******s - forgot, only whites can be
racist.

That judge is brain dead.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message ...

GB wrote:
On 20/09/2015 15:37, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html

Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????



The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some
extent on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided that
Asians can be more affected by rape because their marriage prospects are
severely worsened within their community. Consequently, the effect of
rape on them is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.


The problem is that it sends out the message that white girls are worth
less than Asian girls. It's also culturally divisive.

Bill

+1

On 20/09/15 23:07, Adrian wrote:

So how can you say that a girl's parents religious belief is a factor in
sentencing?

Apart from the fact that I haven't said that, I haven't actually read the
judge's full summing-up and sentencing report. Have you got a link?


I haven't found a link but this Guardian article sums it up pretty well
I think and points to the guidelines.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/...en-court-rules

I still don't think a community's attitude should affect a sentence.
If their outlook is considered undesirable, then that is what should be
addressed, not the individual offender, who should be treated even-handedly.

Andy C

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 06:52:16 +0100, Richard wrote:

So how can you say that a girl's parents religious belief is a factor
in sentencing?

Apart from the fact that I haven't said that, I haven't actually read
the judge's full summing-up and sentencing report. Have you got a link?

If you really cared, you'd have found it already.

Thanks for the link. So helpful.

I take it you've not bothered looking, either, or you've read it and
found it doesn't actually support the Torygraph's interpretation?

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 07:25:04 +0100, Andy Cap wrote:

So how can you say that a girl's parents religious belief is a factor
in sentencing?

Apart from the fact that I haven't said that, I haven't actually read
the judge's full summing-up and sentencing report. Have you got a link?

I haven't found a link but this Guardian article sums it up pretty well
I think and points to the guidelines.

Guidelines.

I'm after what the judge ACTUALLY said in this ACTUAL case, dealing with
these ACTUAL individuals. Because that will answer your question in a way
that I can't.

Adrian wrote:
I'm after what the judge ACTUALLY said in this ACTUAL case, dealing
with these ACTUAL individuals. Because that will answer your question
in a way that I can't.

This is a DIY group. So let me help you with that http://bfy.tw/1tWX



--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:30:26 +0100, Robin wrote:

I'm after what the judge ACTUALLY said in this ACTUAL case, dealing
with these ACTUAL individuals. Because that will answer your question
in a way that I can't.

This is a DIY group. So let me help you with that http://bfy.tw/1tWX

Well, thanks for not a heck of a lot, and for not actually bothering to
read what I wrote. Your LMGTFY link doesn't actually deliver what I asked
for - the nearest that comes up is the refusal of appeal. Not the
judgement.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont.../r-v-ul-nasir-
judgment.pdf

Yes, that summarises the judge's arguments, in a grand total of one
paragraph - even so, it disproves many of the angles taken in this thread
- but it's not the same thing at all.

Care to have another crack?

Huh, Obviously more to it than that I'd guess, as that would imply prejudice
of some kind
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html

Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????

Adrian wrote:

Care to have another crack?

No because I don't fancy trying to prove a negative when you have
dismissed the evidence I gave you (which is what I'd expect for a Crown
Court judgment).

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:55:10 +0100, Robin wrote:

Care to have another crack?

No because I don't fancy trying to prove a negative when you have
dismissed the evidence I gave you (which is what I'd expect for a Crown
Court judgment).

Except you didn't link to the judgement. You gave a LMGTFY link which
returned the refusal to appeal, which gave the very briefest one-para
interpretation of the judgement. Even that, though, debunked the expected
bigotry here, though.

Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:55:10 +0100, Robin wrote:

Care to have another crack?

No because I don't fancy trying to prove a negative when you have
dismissed the evidence I gave you (which is what I'd expect for a
Crown Court judgment).

Except you didn't link to the judgement. You gave a LMGTFY link which
returned the refusal to appeal, which gave the very briefest one-para
interpretation of the judgement. Even that, though, debunked the
expected bigotry here, though.

I gave you a link which showed that Google was unable to provide a link
to the Crown Court judgment.

I also gave you as the first hit the CA judgment which you desrcibe as
an interpretation but I read as a summary (as one would expect from the
CA).

As regards whether or not that "debunks the expected bigotry" or
confirms the incentive to target "poor white trash" I leave to others
(and I suspect to further arguments from the NSPCC et al i.d.c.):


"8. The remaining point taken by Mr Shafi is that the judge had, he
submitted, regarded the offending as aggravated because of the victims'
ethnic and religious origin. This point is, with great respect to Mr
Shafi, a misconception. In her sentencing remarks the judge observed
that J was finding it difficult at school because her friends knew what
had happened, leading to problems and shame for her. In relation to G,
the judge observed that she had had difficulty as a result of what the
applicant had done to her. This had caused G to behave completely out
of character: she had previously been a young girl doing well at
school, and now was not doing as well as expected. For the family as a
whole there had been enormous implications. The father had said that he
and their mother were struggling and felt socially isolated because,
within their particular community, it brought great shame on the whole
family when things like this happened. He was also concerned about the
future marriage prospects for his daughters. The applicant, coming
from this community, knew only too well the effect upon the children
and their family and this was an aggravating feature.

9. In this regard Her Honour Judge Cahill was, entirely properly, having
regard to the particular harm caused to the victims by this offending.
As it happened, that harm was aggravated by the impact on the victims
and their family within this particular community."



--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:26:49 +0100, Robin wrote:

I gave you a link which showed that Google was unable to provide a link
to the Crown Court judgment.

Exactly.

"8. The remaining point taken by Mr Shafi is that the judge had, he
submitted, regarded the offending as aggravated because of the victims'
ethnic and religious origin. This point is, with great respect to Mr
Shafi, a misconception.

9. In this regard Her Honour Judge Cahill was, entirely properly, having
regard to the particular harm caused to the victims by this offending.

Exactly.

On 20/09/2015 20:55, Bill Wright wrote:
GB wrote:
On 20/09/2015 15:37, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html


Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????



The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some
extent on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided
that Asians can be more affected by rape because their marriage
prospects are severely worsened within their community. Consequently,
the effect of rape on them is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.


The problem is that it sends out the message that white girls are worth
less than Asian girls. It's also culturally divisive.

Bill

+2

On 20/09/2015 21:25, Sam Thatch wrote:

"Andy Cap" wrote
belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the legal system
or education for that matter.

And yet you still swear on a bible in court etc.

Point of order, you are supposed to only swear if you believe in
invisible sky fairies normal people can "affirm", been that way since
16 hundred and something so not a new law.

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

soup wrote:
On 20/09/2015 21:25, Sam Thatch wrote:

"Andy Cap" wrote
belief is a personal choice and should not be part of the legal
system or education for that matter.

And yet you still swear on a bible in court etc.

Point of order, you are supposed to only swear if you believe in
invisible sky fairies normal people can "affirm", been that way since
16 hundred and something so not a new law.

Further to that point of order, *anyone* is entitled to swear on the
Bible - or any other holy book - even an avowed atheist. Just as some
devout believers choose to affirm and are entitled to do so.

But even a judge got it wrong recently

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10075745.html


--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 21/09/2015 10:25, Robin wrote:
soup wrote:

Point of order, you are supposed to only swear if you believe in
invisible sky fairies normal people can "affirm", been that way since
16 hundred and something so not a new law.

Further to that point of order, *anyone* is entitled to swear on the
Bible - or any other holy book - even an avowed atheist. Just as some
devout believers choose to affirm and are entitled to do so.

Didn't know that. I thought it would be tantamount to lying, swearing
by an entity you don't believe in.

On 20/09/2015 20:59, Andy Cap wrote:


So how can you say that a girl's parents religious belief is a factor in
sentencing? It does not alter the circumstances of the crime - the
offender probably had no idea about it ! It is the parent's choice how
they subsequently treat their daughter and has nothing to do with the
offence.

There is a long history in this country of looking at the effect on the
victim. The classic example is that of the "eggshell skull". The
perpetrator hits the victim, not intending to cause enormous damage, but
perhaps ends up murdering the victim. The law is quite clear in that
context that the perpetrator takes the victim as he finds him.

So the law is absolutely against the principle that you propounded,
namely that it should be taken into account that the offender "probably
had no idea about it". As it happens, in this case, both the offender
and the victims were Asian, so of course the offender knew about the
effect it would have.

On 20/09/2015 20:55, Bill Wright wrote:
GB wrote:
On 20/09/2015 15:37, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html


Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????



The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some
extent on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided
that Asians can be more affected by rape because their marriage
prospects are severely worsened within their community. Consequently,
the effect of rape on them is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.


The problem is that it sends out the message that white girls are worth
less than Asian girls.

I can see that some people would see it like that, and as so often in
life things are not straightforward. You have 2 conflicting principles
here, namely taking into account the effect on the victim and not taking
into account racial background.

On 21/09/2015 11:38, soup wrote:
On 21/09/2015 10:25, Robin wrote:
soup wrote:

Point of order, you are supposed to only swear if you believe in
invisible sky fairies normal people can "affirm", been that way since
16 hundred and something so not a new law.

Further to that point of order, *anyone* is entitled to swear on the
Bible - or any other holy book - even an avowed atheist. Just as some
devout believers choose to affirm and are entitled to do so.

Didn't know that. I thought it would be tantamount to lying, swearing
by an entity you don't believe in.

Its a book, it means nothing.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 06:52:16 +0100, Richard wrote:

So how can you say that a girl's parents religious belief is a factor
in sentencing?

Apart from the fact that I haven't said that, I haven't actually read
the judge's full summing-up and sentencing report. Have you got a link?

If you really cared, you'd have found it already.

Thanks for the link. So helpful.

I take it you've not bothered looking, either, or you've read it and
found it doesn't actually support the Torygraph's interpretation?

Absolutely correct. I did not bother. Nor did I read what I assume you mean
to be the Telegraph. If I wanted to find out about it, I'd have searched for
a link. No doubt the Guardian, Independent and Mirror will also be running
the story, or would that be contrary to their agendas?

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:30:26 +0100, Robin wrote:

I'm after what the judge ACTUALLY said in this ACTUAL case, dealing
with these ACTUAL individuals. Because that will answer your question
in a way that I can't.

This is a DIY group. So let me help you with that http://bfy.tw/1tWX

Well, thanks for not a heck of a lot, and for not actually bothering to
read what I wrote. Your LMGTFY link doesn't actually deliver what I asked
for - the nearest that comes up is the refusal of appeal. Not the
judgement.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont.../r-v-ul-nasir-
judgment.pdf

Yes, that summarises the judge's arguments, in a grand total of one
paragraph - even so, it disproves many of the angles taken in this thread
- but it's not the same thing at all.

Care to have another crack?

He'd like to, but you've smoked it all.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 21/09/2015 11:38, soup wrote:
On 21/09/2015 10:25, Robin wrote:
soup wrote:

Point of order, you are supposed to only swear if you believe in
invisible sky fairies normal people can "affirm", been that way since
16 hundred and something so not a new law.

Further to that point of order, *anyone* is entitled to swear on the
Bible - or any other holy book - even an avowed atheist. Just as some
devout believers choose to affirm and are entitled to do so.

Didn't know that. I thought it would be tantamount to lying, swearing
by an entity you don't believe in.

Its a book, it means nothing.

Exactly. Just like the koran. Now go and burn a koran outside a mosque to
show them that it is just a book.

On 21/09/15 15:59, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/09/2015 11:38, soup wrote:
On 21/09/2015 10:25, Robin wrote:
soup wrote:

Point of order, you are supposed to only swear if you believe in
invisible sky fairies normal people can "affirm", been that way since
16 hundred and something so not a new law.

Further to that point of order, *anyone* is entitled to swear on the
Bible - or any other holy book - even an avowed atheist. Just as some
devout believers choose to affirm and are entitled to do so.

Didn't know that. I thought it would be tantamount to lying, swearing
by an entity you don't believe in.

Its a book, it means nothing.

To some people it's THE book, and means everything.

You have the habit of projecting your won bigotry on to the rest of humanity


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 21/09/2015 19:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/09/15 15:59, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/09/2015 11:38, soup wrote:
On 21/09/2015 10:25, Robin wrote:
soup wrote:

Point of order, you are supposed to only swear if you believe in
invisible sky fairies normal people can "affirm", been that way since
16 hundred and something so not a new law.

Further to that point of order, *anyone* is entitled to swear on the
Bible - or any other holy book - even an avowed atheist. Just as some
devout believers choose to affirm and are entitled to do so.

Didn't know that. I thought it would be tantamount to lying, swearing
by an entity you don't believe in.

Its a book, it means nothing.

To some people it's THE book, and means everything.

Rubbish.
Its a book it means nothing, its the content and what you believe in
that matters.
If you swear on the bible or the koran it doesn't matter whether the
book is there or not.



You have the habit of projecting your won bigotry on to the rest of

humanity






Even more rubbish, while you may be a bigot I most certainly aren't.

On 21/09/15 19:45, dennis@home wrote:

Even more rubbish, while you may be a bigot I most certainly aren't.

Possibly not, but you seem to be schizophrenic.

Personally I'd say both.


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On Sunday, 20 September 2015 16:37:14 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 20/09/2015 15:37, harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-Asian.html

Longer sentence because victims are Asian?????



The sentencing guidelines require that the sentence depends to some
extent on the impact on the victim of the crime. The judge decided that
Asians can be more affected by rape because their marriage prospects are
severely worsened within their community. Consequently, the effect of
rape on them is worse.

I see nothing illogical in that.

Really, so a an ordinary christian (or other religion) person can be raped and because in our culture we don't see that in the same way as another culture then that rape is less severe or less traumatic ?

Whatever happend to equality.