acooling08 Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173679/Judge-let-Taliban-soldier-remain-Britain-allows-refugee-raped-girl-12-stay-UK.html?ITO=google_news_rss_feed&google_editors_picks=true
Captain... Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 If you don't like the human rights act resign from the human race.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 If you don't like the human rights act resign from the human race. You do know he's not going to quote that in his sig, don't you?
Captain... Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 You do know he's not going to quote that in his sig, don't you? Dunno I have sigs switched off is it a hall of shame of people who disagree with him? If so it must be a pretty big sig
Trav Le Bleu Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 Dunno I have sigs switched off is it a hall of shame of people who disagree with him? If so it must be a pretty big sig Quite the opposite.
The Doctor Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 Dunno I have sigs switched off is it a hall of shame of people who disagree with him? If so it must be a pretty big sig it's a list of people who've agreed with him, and so is rather short.
Captain... Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 it's a list of people who've agreed with him, and so is rather short. I didn't think I was agreeing with him, or is that the point? I'm confused. Is my Sig still the matt mills hate mob? I should probably change that.
purpleronnie Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 You reckon he scans all the newspapers looking for stories like this?
The Doctor Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 I didn't think I was agreeing with him, or is that the point? I'm confused. Is my Sig still the matt mills hate mob? I should probably change that. I think that's the point of Trav's joke. Nah, it's Mario Beckford - why always me?
Captain... Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 I think that's the point of Trav's joke. Nah, it's Mario Beckford - why always me? Ah, ok that is still topical enough, as he is still getting it from some on the main forum, need to install gimp again and make some more pictures. You reckon he scans all the newspapers looking for stories like this? Nah, just one newspaper.
purpleronnie Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 Ah, ok that is still topical enough, as he is still getting it from some on the main forum, need to install gimp again and make some more pictures. Nah, just one newspaper. Yeah I guess that paper is all you need.
21st Century Fox Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 Quite the opposite. it's a list of people who've agreed with him, and so is rather short. He made one good point about horse racing in amongst his other usual subject matter of immigrants bludgeoning old people and being given free houses and playstations, now I'm tarred with the agreeing with him brush. I'm a sucker for a catchphrase
The Doctor Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 He made one good point about horse racing in amongst his other usual subject matter of immigrants bludgeoning old people and being given free houses and playstations, now I'm tarred with the agreeing with him brush. I'm a sucker for a catchphrase Where's your self re-cocking-spect man?
acooling08 Posted 15 July 2012 Author Posted 15 July 2012 I went on Google News and this headline was in 'Editor's picks' right near the top of the page on the right hand side. Surely you people can't agree with the judges' decision? Or is it too much to ask to actually discuss what the thread was made for? As it's Foxestalk, it probably is.
Rincewind Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 If the judge made his decision based on his personal views that was outside the law then it would be OK?
NewburyFox Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 I went on Google News and this headline was in 'Editor's picks' right near the top of the page on the right hand side. Surely you people can't agree with the judges' decision? Or is it too much to ask to actually discuss what the thread was made for? As it's Foxestalk, it probably is. Don't agree with it but the judge had no choice but to follow the law. Until the HRA is changed then we'll continue to get decisions like this.
purpleronnie Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 I went on Google News and this headline was in 'Editor's picks' right near the top of the page on the right hand side. Surely you people can't agree with the judges' decision? Or is it too much to ask to actually discuss what the thread was made for? As it's Foxestalk, it probably is. Yeah its just a coincidence you pick another immigrant story.
Captain... Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 I went on Google News and this headline was in 'Editor's picks' right near the top of the page on the right hand side. Surely you people can't agree with the judges' decision? Or is it too much to ask to actually discuss what the thread was made for? As it's Foxestalk, it probably is. What's to discuss? A judge with a much greater understanding of the law on human rights, English law, the original rape case, the dangers he would face in being sent back, and the threat he is to society, made a decision that you disagree with having zero knowledge of the above.
Rincewind Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 It's not just another immigrant story really. There was a lot of factors the judge had to consider before arriving at his decision. Obviously the Mail did not have their best legal expert on the story at the time. Think they must have been helping a banker with their story.
davieG Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 What's wrong is that he only got imprisoned for 3 years for raping a 12 year old girl.
Captain... Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 What's wrong is that he only got imprisoned for 3 years for raping a 12 year old girl. Possibly it depends on the details of the case, it may have been consensual, but that is still rape, because she was 12, again the decision was made based on all the facts.
davieG Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 Possibly it depends on the details of the case, it may have been consensual, but that is still rape, because she was 12, again the decision was made based on all the facts. Surely having sex with a 12 year old cannot under any circumstances be classed as consensual it may not have involved obvious violence or rough coercion but it's still rape whatever the facts are and that surely warrants more than 3 years even more so when you take into the account the sentencing Judges comments. When he was sentenced, another judge described him as ‘a potential danger to young girls’ and put him on the Sex Offenders’ Register for the rest of his life. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173679/Judge-let-Taliban-soldier-remain-Britain-allows-refugee-raped-girl-12-stay-UK.html#ixzz20hrsi5lq
Captain... Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 Surely having sex with a 12 year old cannot under any circumstances be classed as consensual it may not have involved obvious violence or rough coercion but it's still rape whatever the facts are and that surely warrants more than 3 years even more so when you take into the account the sentencing Judges comments. I think that was my point, she may have agreed to it, and there was no force or violence involved, and yes it is still rape because in this country 12 year olds can't give legal consent. There may be a cultural side to it as well, not all countries view sex with 12 year olds as a criminal offence, I am just speculating here, due to the leniency of the sentence. He was considered to have learnt from his mistakes: The judge also said Ali could not be deported because he was not a danger to the public, and therefore could not have his refugee status taken away from him.He said that even though his probation officers found he ‘presented some risk to young people’, Ali had ‘faced up to his responsibilities and indicated an intention to behave himself in the future’. Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz20iBMfTGi It could be interpreted as him not knowing what he did was wrong in this country and having learnt is now no danger. but I am just speculating as there is no details on the rape case so it is hard to say why the sentence was lenient.
davieG Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 I think that was my point, she may have agreed to it, and there was no force or violence involved, and yes it is still rape because in this country 12 year olds can't give legal consent. There may be a cultural side to it as well, not all countries view sex with 12 year olds as a criminal offence, I am just speculating here, due to the leniency of the sentence. He was considered to have learnt from his mistakes: It could be interpreted as him not knowing what he did was wrong in this country and having learnt is now no danger. but I am just speculating as there is no details on the rape case so it is hard to say why the sentence was lenient. You can put all the buts in you like there is no way raping a 12 year old warrants a 3 year prison sentence in my opinion my mind cannot comprehend such leniency.
Rincewind Posted 15 July 2012 Posted 15 July 2012 Wel there was probably no room left in the article after the reporter had done his 'Disgusted at not being deported' introduction piece and the editor could not fit it in so had to reduce the coverage of what would be viewed by the paper's readers the least important story
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.