Is It More Serious For A Paedophile To Abuse An Asian Girl?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3238409/Judge-backs-harsher-sentence-given-paedophile-abused-Asian-girls-shame-suffer.html

/// A senior judge has ruled a child molester was rightly given a tougher than normal sentence because his victims were Asian and so suffered more from his crimes. ///

[-Talbot-]

Paedophiles could see this as

'If you are going to sexually assault a child, make it a white one...less time in jail'

I can not for the life of me agree with anyone who can see what this judge was thinking.

[RATTER15]

Talbot I totally agree with you! However, the judge saw it as the "effect on the child" not so much the race or religion of the child. I am just saying I know why the sentenced that way, not that I agree with it!

I can explain it for you, but I cant understand it for you!

[murraymints]

but..it was ONLY the child's cultural background that he was commenting on..wrong wrong wrong...

[-Talbot-]

I can explain it for you, but I cant understand it for you!


Ah, the old andy-hughes way of saying I'm smarer than you...you failed on that one with your irrelant punch scenario, Ratter.

[-Talbot-]

irrelevant

[RATTER15]

Talbot, but you just clearly are not understanding when people are agreeing with you!

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - "So in reality everyone who can see the judges thinking is also passing judgement on Asians in general....whatever happened to don't tar them all with the same brush?"

No Talbot, that is not what everyone who can see the judge's thinking is saying.

If you read every post on here that refers to the way the judge has thought this through - starting with mine - you will see that every single one of them thinks the judge is wrong for thinking that way.

There is no 'tarring with the same brush' going on here - anywhere.

[-Talbot-]

I understand everything on this thread...except how people can understand the judges thinking.


So it's ok for Ratter to imply I am thick but not for me to challenge him on it?

[murraymints]

ratter.. I think Talbot is saying the same as me...sentencing should be based on point of law irrespective of creed...if the judge has any personal opinions or leanings on which he based his decision that should not have been the case and he certainly shold NOT have alluded to it in summing up

[RATTER15]

Yes Minty I know, I agree! In fact the judge was sentencing on the future effect it would have on this child, rather than creed, though he did mention creed.

He clearly should not have mentioned, colour, creed, religion or race!! His sentence should just have been based purely on that child.

[-Talbot-]

The judge is obviously of the opinion that the Asian girl will be treated with resentment from her own kind.

If AOG had suggested that the paedophile should get a longer sentence because her own people would treat her like a leper...would you have agreed with him or would you have cried 'Racist' ?

Of course we will never know because everyone will now say that their reply would be...


"I can see your thinking AOG"

[murraymints]

indeed !

[jackthehat]

I find it easier to disagree with, and reject, things which I understand than things which I don't.....

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - "The judge is obviously of the opinion that the Asian girl will be treated with resentment from her own kind.

If AOG had suggested that the paedophile should get a longer sentence because her own people would treat her like a leper...would you have agreed with him or would you have cried 'Racist' ?"

I would not have agreed with him, and I would not have cried 'Racist'.

Just because I disagree with an AB'er's view on an issue involving someone from an ethnic minority does not automatically lead me to brand him as a racist - I would simply disagree, and argue my point of view.

//Of course we will never know because everyone will now say that their reply would be...


"I can see your thinking AOG" "

I might start my post by saying that - but seeing someone's thinking is not the same as agreeing with what they think!

And this is where I came in ...

[anotheoldgit]

RATTER15

/// Talbot I totally agree with you! However, the judge saw it as the "effect on the child" not so much the race or religion of the child. I am just saying I know why the sentenced that way, not that I agree with it! ///

I think in this case it was more an 'effect on the families' rather than the 'effect on the child'

*** Senior judge Mr Justice Walker has now thrown out those arguments after hearing that the victims' families feared they would struggle to find future husbands because of the abuse. ***

[andy-hughes]

Bouncer - it is AB policy that removed threads and / or posts are not discussed - it simply adds to the reasons why they were removed in the first place.