HomeIm very angry right now about this bewigged buffoon thats basically given yobs the green light to rape. This sorry excuse for a judge no doubt fresh from a visit to his local dungeon where he probably got whipped and peed on feels he,s satisfied this kid did it on an impulse.So impulse is a get out of jail card now is it. Let me think there,s a lot of nice women out there i wouldn,t mind acting on impulse with after i watch a porno, a bit of community service should be about right i reckon. Anyone fancy watching a gang bang DVD.
Wacky Judges
+7
yesbutno
Banks of the Croal
gloswhite
Sluffy
largehat
Reebok Trotter
Angry Dad
11 posters
Go to page : 1, 2, 3 
Message [Page 1 of 3]
2 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 11:13
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Some of our judges appear to be out of touch with reality. The villains seem to have more rights than the victims.
There is a story like you have mentioned virtually everyday of the week.
There is a story like you have mentioned virtually everyday of the week.
3 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 11:16
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Reebok Trotter wrote:Some of our judges appear to be out of touch with reality. The villains seem to have more rights than the victims.
There is a story like you have mentioned virtually everyday of the week. It would have been interesting to see if was as lenient if his own daughter was raped.
4 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 11:59
Angry Dad
Youri Djorkaeff
Reality?? Senile more like. These jokers get away with riddiculus decisions and dont seem to be accountable to anyone a bit like football refs.
5 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 13:01
largehat
Frank Worthington
I can't find a link to this story, can someone post one please?
6 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 13:47
Angry Dad
Youri Djorkaeff
front page of the sun LH.largehat wrote:I can't find a link to this story, can someone post one please?
7 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 13:59
Angry Dad
Youri Djorkaeff
This judge has previous for stuff like this, why is this creepy bastard still working.
8 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 14:00
Sluffy
Admin
largehat wrote:I can't find a link to this story, can someone post one please?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4411429/Cage-the-porn-boy-who-raped-my-girl-4.html
9 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 14:12
Angry Dad
Youri Djorkaeff
I reckon that lad will have an unfortunate mishap before too long.
10 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 14:13
largehat
Frank Worthington
Angry Dad wrote:front page of the sun LH.largehat wrote:I can't find a link to this story, can someone post one please?
Cheers, found it. Link below if anyone wants to read the story.
The first point I'd make it that The Sun makes me sick with its moral outrage and populist sympathies, and the way it manipulates readers with its use of emotive and dramatic language.
However, the material facts of the case seem pretty clear from the report and this is a horrendous, awful crime of an incredibly serious nature and should have been severely punished.
I think most lads of my generation had some access to pornography in their early teenage years, though obviously not to the extent of today's youth with free, hardcore pornography available to all, discretely and anonymously at the click of a button.
However, it is adult pornography. How a judge can surmise that internet porn has corrupted a 14-year-old to rape a little 4 year old dot is beyond belief.
Of course, I'm not saying I would have agreed with the judge if the victim had been an adult, either.
This is seriously wrong and I hope there is some avenue to appeal the sentence. We can also hope that the vile individual who did this has ruined his life with guilt, shame, revulsion in the community and prospects of having a decent adult life.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4411429/Cage-the-porn-boy-who-raped-my-girl-4.html
11 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 17:41
Angry Dad
Youri Djorkaeff
The sun does not bother me at all, i have no feelings about it one way or the other. I just happened to read it at the station in smiths. All papers have there own agenda,s ,i honestly dont read them unless as i say im in the station or the cafe when i will browse through a few. The one that is full of shit is the mirror ,cant stand it or its readers.
12 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 17:51
gloswhite
Guðni Bergsson
With such a lenient sentence, the judge is giving a nod and a wink to this little shit becoming a paedophile. If its his first sexual encounter, he'll go down that road quite happily becasue he hasn't been told its wrong. I just hope that the people he'll be doing his community service with are aware of what he's done and give him a bloody good hiding, on a regular basis. Disgusting little wretch that he is.
13 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 19:38
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
largehat wrote:
The first point I'd make it that The Sun makes me sick with its moral outrage and populist sympathies, and the way it manipulates readers with its use of emotive and dramatic language.
Granted the Sun are past masters at sensational tabloid journalism but isn't it the job of the free press to expose outrageous decisions carried out in the name of British justice ?
Whether the article had been printed by the Times or the Daily Star the message is still the same. Some judges are not fit to pass judgement and it's about time that some of the more senile old Dodderers were given the boot.
14 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 21:40
largehat
Frank Worthington
Reebok Trotter wrote:
Granted the Sun are past masters at sensational tabloid journalism but isn't it the job of the free press to expose outrageous decisions carried out in the name of British justice ?
That's what they would argue and that's how they justify hounding innocent people day in, day out. So long as you are discerning enough to filter the wheat from the chaff, then there's no problem. You have to remember that the only things that matter to The Sun are its circulation figures and its political agenda.
In this particular case, I think most people would be outraged by the sentence of that judge. But in cases which are less obviously outrageous, The Sun will still 'side' with the victim because it is populist to do so.
Which is why I made it clear in my previous post that I am commenting on the objective, material facts of the case, and not The Sun's interpretation of the facts and try not to be influenced by the comments from the child's parents, which are not necessarily reliable or accurate for various reasons.
The material facts are: a 14 year old boy was left in charge of a 4 year old girl and raped her. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a three-year community order. In his closing remarks, the judge made some comments about the influence of pornography on the offender's actions.
That's it - the rest of the article is biased and full of spin. Read it again - the opening sentence says the boy was "let off" - no he wasn't let off - he was found guilty and sentenced. Whatever your personal opinion of the sentence is, he would have to have been acquitted to have been "let off" - that's a fact.
Reebok Trotter wrote:
Whether the article had been printed by the Times or the Daily Star the message is still the same. Some judges are not fit to pass judgement and it's about time that some of the more senile old Dodderers were given the boot.
No, the message is not the same in every newspaper. The article simply would not have been printed in The Times or any of the other broadsheets. You have to consider, when reading any media text, be it a newspaper, a takeaway leaflet, the back cover of a book, a campaign manifesto - anything you care to name - two things: audience and purpose.
I've just done a Google news search. The following UK newspapers have carried this story: The Sun, The Mirror, The Daily Mail. That's it. Now try telling me newspapers don't have their own agenda.
15 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 22:16
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
largehat wrote:Reebok Trotter wrote:
Granted the Sun are past masters at sensational tabloid journalism but isn't it the job of the free press to expose outrageous decisions carried out in the name of British justice ?
That's what they would argue and that's how they justify hounding innocent people day in, day out. So long as you are discerning enough to filter the wheat from the chaff, then there's no problem. You have to remember that the only things that matter to The Sun are its circulation figures and its political agenda.
In this particular case, I think most people would be outraged by the sentence of that judge. But in cases which are less obviously outrageous, The Sun will still 'side' with the victim because it is populist to do so.
Which is why I made it clear in my previous post that I am commenting on the objective, material facts of the case, and not The Sun's interpretation of the facts and try not to be influenced by the comments from the child's parents, which are not necessarily reliable or accurate for various reasons.
The material facts are: a 14 year old boy was left in charge of a 4 year old girl and raped her. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a three-year community order. In his closing remarks, the judge made some comments about the influence of pornography on the offender's actions.
That's it - the rest of the article is biased and full of spin. Read it again - the opening sentence says the boy was "let off" - no he wasn't let off - he was found guilty and sentenced. Whatever your personal opinion of the sentence is, he would have to have been acquitted to have been "let off" - that's a fact.Reebok Trotter wrote:
Whether the article had been printed by the Times or the Daily Star the message is still the same. Some judges are not fit to pass judgement and it's about time that some of the more senile old Dodderers were given the boot.
No, the message is not the same in every newspaper. The article simply would not have been printed in The Times or any of the other broadsheets. You have to consider, when reading any media text, be it a newspaper, a takeaway leaflet, the back cover of a book, a campaign manifesto - anything you care to name - two things: audience and purpose.
I've just done a Google news search. The following UK newspapers have carried this story: The Sun, The Mirror, The Daily Mail. That's it. Now try telling me newspapers don't have their own agenda.
Perhaps the three newspapers you have mentioned are the only ones that are concerned that the judicial system in the UK is a joke. Maybe, the other tabloids do not consider the rape of a four year old child all that serious in the grand scheme of things. They may well find the subject of ' quantitative easing' of more value to their readers.
The age of criminal consent in the UK is ten. The rapist was fourteen. Yes, he was found guilty but he still ' got off ' lightly. Up until a few years ago girls in Holland could legally have sex at fourteen.
The rapist in this case should have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a young offenders institution. He knew what he was doing and he should have been suitably punished. Anything other than a custodial sentence for this abhorrent crime is nothing more than a cop out.
If he had raped my daughter and been given such a 'lenient' sentence I would not have felt that justice had been done. Most parents would agree. When you have children your perspective and outlook on life changes quite dramatically.
16 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 22:41
largehat
Frank Worthington
Reebok Trotter wrote:
Perhaps the three newspapers you have mentioned are the only ones that are concerned that the judicial system in the UK is a joke.
I think you're doing a disservice to those newspapers, didn't you say in your last post that it was the role of the free press to hold the judicial system to account? Now, when it is pointed out that the vast majority of newspapers did not even cover the story of the trial - let alone pass judgement on the propriety of the sentence - you're questioning whether those newspapers have the right priorities in their reporting. That's convenient for you isn't it?
At some point I hope why you will honestly ask yourself why this story is on the front cover of one newspaper and yet not even covered by other newspapers. The truth is that the newspaper has its own agenda, and from your posts in this thread, and in our recent discussions on the media, I would politely suggest you are its target market. And there's nothing wrong with that, a happy marriage between newspaper and reader. Just don't be seduced into thinking that The Sun or any other newspaper genuinely cares, all it cares about is your 45p (or whatever it costs), advertising revenue, and forwarding its own agenda.
Reebok Trotter wrote:
Maybe, the other tabloids do not consider the rape of a four year old child all that serious in the grand scheme of things. They may well find the subject of ' quantitative easing' of more value to their readers.
I think that's a slightly silly point if I am honest. But like much silliness, it does contain a nugget of truth. The news story we're discussing isn't front page in The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Express - or even oovered - by all the others newspapers because there's a newspaper out there already which does a perfectly good job of making everything into a scandal and an outrage and acting as judge, jury and executioner, and it's The Sun. You will find a variety of newspapers in every market.
Reebok Trotter wrote:
The age of criminal consent in the UK is ten. The rapist was fourteen. Yes, he was found guilty but he still ' got off ' lightly. Up until a few years ago girls in Holland could legally have sex at fourteen.
The rapist in this case should have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a young offenders institution. He knew what he was doing and he should have been suitably punished. Anything other than a custodial sentence for this abhorrent crime is nothing more than a cop out.
If he had raped my daughter and been given such a 'lenient' sentence I would not have felt that justice had been done. Most parents would agree. When you have children your perspective and outlook on life changes quite dramatically.
Look, I'm not debating whether the sentence was too lenient with you. We're not in disagreement about this. In my first post I said that the 14 year old should be punished severely and that the judge's reasoning is flawed.
But I'm sorry I won't accept your defence of The Sun's opening line, I don't know why you wish to debate this point because it is absolutely clear cut.
The opening line, in full, is "THIS is the innocent little girl of four whose porn-crazed teen rapist was LET OFF by a judge."
It doesn't say "let off lightly", it says, "LET OFF". So The Sun are deciding that because the sentence is too lenient that this is akin to being acquitted. And it's no wonder, they use the verb "cage" in the headline, which is what people associate with animals. But the rapist isn't an animal, he is a human. I'm just stating facts. The purpose of this article is to whip people up into a sense of outrage, and reporting the facts is a secondary consideration, and this is why I read anything from The Sun with a careful eye, because they distort and manipulate their readers.
17 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 23:01
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Let's cut to the chase. I am really not interested in your preferred choice of newspaper. It's a free world and you are free to choose which tabloid you wish to buy.
Do you agree that the sentence for the fourteen year old rapist was woefully inadequate ?
If so, it really doesn't matter which newspaper chose to publish the story.
Do you agree that the sentence for the fourteen year old rapist was woefully inadequate ?
If so, it really doesn't matter which newspaper chose to publish the story.
18 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 23:06
largehat
Frank Worthington
You're the one who wanted to discuss the role of the press with me. You asked me a question about it and then replied to my answer. If you don't like my answers, don't ask me questions.
I've already stated my view on the sentence, twice in fact.
You can say it doesn't matter, and that's fine, as long as you're aware The Sun doesn't just publish stories, it also tells you what to think about them. Enjoy.
I've already stated my view on the sentence, twice in fact.
You can say it doesn't matter, and that's fine, as long as you're aware The Sun doesn't just publish stories, it also tells you what to think about them. Enjoy.
19 Re: Wacky Judges Thu Jul 05 2012, 23:14
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Unbelievable! As I have said before, I value your opinion but I don't always agree with it. I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't expect you to accept my viewpoint carte blanche nor I yours.
The bottom line is this. The rape of a four year old child by a fourteen year old boy should be of serious concern to all law abiding citizens whether parents or not. The judge ( in my opinion ) sent out the wrong message by sparing the miscreant a custodial sentence on the basis that he become swayed by Pornography.
There really is no excuse for this kind of lax sentencing and it is irrelevant which tabloid published the story.
The bottom line is this. The rape of a four year old child by a fourteen year old boy should be of serious concern to all law abiding citizens whether parents or not. The judge ( in my opinion ) sent out the wrong message by sparing the miscreant a custodial sentence on the basis that he become swayed by Pornography.
There really is no excuse for this kind of lax sentencing and it is irrelevant which tabloid published the story.
20 Re: Wacky Judges Fri Jul 06 2012, 00:01
Angry Dad
Youri Djorkaeff
Fuck the sun and all the rest, it just happened to be the sun that i looked at my concern is the outrageous decisions and reasons for them that these jokers in wigs come up with.
Message [Page 1 of 3]
Go to page : 1, 2, 3
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum