I want equality with women - jail her for life
Discussion
Kermit power said:
NicD said:
Kermit power said:
Are you really going to tell us you can't see a difference between the woman and the guy who decided to get into a 28 ton truck whilst over the drink drive limit even though he knew his wife was somewhere in front of it?
are you really going to tell us that I said this???Kermit power said:
Given that you created the whole thread to bang your little misogynist drum, I'd say it's a fair assumption to think you viewed it as evidence of women being treated too leniently.
I really hate it when (being charitable) know nothings attempt to put words, or worse, thoughts, into my mouth.You can disagree with what I say, but not what you think I said..
can you grasp that?
and misogynist, dont make me laugh! wtf do you know about that or me?
Give us all the benefit of your equality chasing life, and how long is that?
People are side stepping the mark by throwing rape and misogyny into the mix.
I hardly see how noticing that sometimes, cases like this have unusual outcomes when it's a woman.
I mean all the stories about various frauds and what not seem to have an odd bias.
Hell, it's probably the papers ensuring that all cases where women face a long time in prison are covered up.
I hardly see how noticing that sometimes, cases like this have unusual outcomes when it's a woman.
I mean all the stories about various frauds and what not seem to have an odd bias.
Hell, it's probably the papers ensuring that all cases where women face a long time in prison are covered up.
dandarez said:
Derek Smith said:
A chap two doors down from where I used to live ran over and killed his wife. Pinned her to the garage wall.
He was charged, death by dangerous. CPS, with the support of the police, dropped the charge after the chap gave up his licence.
He was charged, death by dangerous. CPS, with the support of the police, dropped the charge after the chap gave up his licence.
...ran over and killed his wife. (I get that bit, so he's driven over her and she's a goner.)
...pinned her to the garage wall. (htf did it end like that?)
answers on a wall please.
This is an odd one, and not normally something you'd get away with lightly especially with previous like hers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722845/Es...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722845/Es...
NicD said:
I really hate it when (being charitable) know nothings attempt to put words, or worse, thoughts, into my mouth.
You can disagree with what I say, but not what you think I said..
can you grasp that?
and misogynist, dont make me laugh! wtf do you know about that or me?
Just read back what you've written on this thread. If you don't think you're a misogynist, you're deluding yourself.You can disagree with what I say, but not what you think I said..
can you grasp that?
and misogynist, dont make me laugh! wtf do you know about that or me?
NicD said:
Give us all the benefit of your equality chasing life, and how long is that?
What on earth is that supposed to mean? I'm a middle class white bloke in a middle class white bloke country. I've never had to worry about my equality for a day in my life.
Even if women did get preferential treatment in the courts (and once you factor in the impact of children's rights, I very much doubt they do), there are more than enough areas in life where I get the benefit of being white and male that I'm hardly going to begrudge them.
Kermit power said:
What on earth is that supposed to mean? I'm a middle class white bloke in a middle class white bloke country. I've never had to worry about my equality for a day in my life.
Even if women did get preferential treatment in the courts (and once you factor in the impact of children's rights, I very much doubt they do), there are more than enough areas in life where I get the benefit of being white and male that I'm hardly going to begrudge them.
NicD said:
Good for you. I don't take the same attitude, that is my privilege, no, right, without you bandying around pejorative terms with gay abandon and no understanding.
Where are these pejorative terms that I've been bandying around with gay abandon? I've merely said that from what you've written in this thread, you come across as misogynistic.As for whether or not I have any understanding of you, this is an internet forum, and as such, pretty much by definition my understanding of you is limited to what you've written on here. There may well be a perfectly valid reason for the apparent insecurity around women and sense of victimisation that your posts so far on this thread convey, but unless you choose to share it, then you have to accept that people will respond to their understanding of you based on what you have written. It wouldn't be much of an internet forum if we all refrained from commenting until we'd met face to face and gained an in depth understanding of each other's personal back stories.
Kermit power said:
Where are these pejorative terms that I've been bandying around with gay abandon? I've merely said that from what you've written in this thread, you come across as misogynistic.
As for whether or not I have any understanding of you, this is an internet forum, and as such, pretty much by definition my understanding of you is limited to what you've written on here. There may well be a perfectly valid reason for the apparent insecurity around women and sense of victimisation that your posts so far on this thread convey, but unless you choose to share it, then you have to accept that people will respond to their understanding of you based on what you have written. It wouldn't be much of an internet forum if we all refrained from commenting until we'd met face to face and gained an in depth understanding of each other's personal back stories.
in the same terms, you come across as a simplistic person who gets off on insulting posters.As for whether or not I have any understanding of you, this is an internet forum, and as such, pretty much by definition my understanding of you is limited to what you've written on here. There may well be a perfectly valid reason for the apparent insecurity around women and sense of victimisation that your posts so far on this thread convey, but unless you choose to share it, then you have to accept that people will respond to their understanding of you based on what you have written. It wouldn't be much of an internet forum if we all refrained from commenting until we'd met face to face and gained an in depth understanding of each other's personal back stories.
but since you have now managed to put together a coherent post, why not show my quotes in this thread that demonstrate each of these accusations:
a. 'apparent insecurity around women'
b. 'sense of victimisation'
c. 'you come across as misogynistic'
Put up or shut up.
Frankly I would rather the latter since this thread started as just something I had read which seemed rather unfair and I wanted to share.
NicD said:
If she had been sentenced for the initial charge of causing her husband's death by dangerous driving.
Here are the sentencing guidelines
Irrelevant, then. Here are the sentencing guidelines
NicD said:
Starting Point: 15 months custody
Sentencing range: 36 weeks - 3 years custody
Nature of offence: Other cases of careless or inconsiderate driving
Starting Point: 36 weeks custody
Sentencing range: Community order (HIGH) - 2 years custody
What evidence do you have this case doesn't fall within the guidelines? 50% of the severity scenarios encompass non-custodial sentences. What have you presented, other than superficial few paragraphs, to show this case doesn't fit within those? Sentencing range: 36 weeks - 3 years custody
Nature of offence: Other cases of careless or inconsiderate driving
Starting Point: 36 weeks custody
Sentencing range: Community order (HIGH) - 2 years custody
The 'sentencing remarks' imply it falls within the lesser category:
'What evidence do you have this case doesn't fall within the guidelines? 50% of the severity scenarios encompass non-custodial sentences. What have you presented, other than superficial few paragraphs, to show this case doesn't fit within those?
already answered above and are those Scottish guidelines as another poster has already pointed out?
already answered above and are those Scottish guidelines as another poster has already pointed out?
NicD said:
already answered above and are those Scottish guidelines as another poster has already pointed out?
The guidelines that person suggested are lighter than ones I've posted? How does that help your point? NicD said:
Not at all, my point was not that she was sentenced outside the range
Right... NicD said:
but that she received the low end of the range for a substantially reduced charge.
Where is the evidence showing it's not appropriate to be the lower / middle end of the range? What relevance does it have the death by dangerous weren't prosecuted? Are you suggesting that this charge weren't pursued because she were a woman?
NicD said:
I believe that if the 'she' had been a 'he', then the sentence would have been (far) higher.
But no evidence to support that. NicD said:
'But no evidence to support that. '
what form would this 'evidence' take professor?
Are you saying that a lay person cannot voice an opinion of a particular sentence?
what planet are you from?
Nothing wrong with opinions, of course. what form would this 'evidence' take professor?
Are you saying that a lay person cannot voice an opinion of a particular sentence?
what planet are you from?
But you're claiming in this specific instance she were sentenced leniently because she is a woman. You need to actually prove the point and not just present speculation.
The evidence I'd take is that actual things called "facts", like the facts of the case relative to the guidelines and relative to the sentencing.
Male, non-custodial: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1319/HMA-v-...
I want equality for men!
La Liga said:
othing wrong with opinions, of course.
But you're claiming in this specific instance she were sentenced leniently because she is a woman. You need to actually prove the point and not just present speculation.
The evidence I'd take is that actual things called "facts", like the facts of the case relative to the guidelines and relative to the sentencing.
Male, non-custodial: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1319/HMA-v-...
I want equality for men!
Interesting, you quote a case of a young male driver that crashed into a wall and killed the passengers.But you're claiming in this specific instance she were sentenced leniently because she is a woman. You need to actually prove the point and not just present speculation.
The evidence I'd take is that actual things called "facts", like the facts of the case relative to the guidelines and relative to the sentencing.
Male, non-custodial: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1319/HMA-v-...
I want equality for men!
The case in point was a woman that after an argument followed behind her husband to his home (along a narrow lane) and ran him over.
But back to your point of evidence. I have none other than what has been reported above. If you think it is a fair sentence, you may well be right.
I have a vision of a doddery old male judge, seeing a woman crying in the dock and taking pity on her.
NicD said:
I have a vision of a doddery old male judge, seeing a woman crying in the dock and taking pity on her.
It's perfectly normal you do. An image generated through a form of priming from quotes like, "But she turned the water-works on", along with the Mail facilitating their narrative from the decreased's sister, 'Even she thought she was going to jail - she had a rucksack and hold-all with her. But she turned the water-works on and was given unpaid work and a driving ban, all for taking somebody's life.The mental sub-conscious logic and link could be:
1) She was spared jail because she cried.
2) Women cry.
3) She was spared jail because she's a woman.
The subtle ambiguity helps reinforce this, too, prior to the quote:
Mail said:
Pope, who is appealing her conviction, was initially arrested for causing her husband's death by dangerous driving.
However, the charge was dropped and replaced with the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving.
She was arrested for a more serious, related offence. Standard policing. She ended up being convicted of a lesser offence. It happens all the time. They don't provide this context or say at which point the death by dangerous went to the lesser offence (at the point of charge, at the trial etc). We're just invited to draw our own conclusions here, which we're happy to do, and make the blunt casual connections even though hen we read it out loud it seems silly, "she got away with the more serious offence because she's a woman". However, the charge was dropped and replaced with the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving.
The Mail are masterful at generating traffic in this manner. It's always amusing to see the people in the comments sections fall for it. It's probably a reliable guide, that if your views are inline with the people providing the "top comments", then there's something off with your thinking.
NicD said:
The case in point was a woman that after an argument followed behind her husband to his home (along a narrow lane) and ran him over.
Have you even read the article?? The case in point absolutely was not what you claim. Yes, there was an argument, but that's the only part of it you've got factually correct. The woman gave her pissed ex-husband a lift back to his flat. He then decided to walk down the road in front of her car rather than going inside, leaving her with no choice but to drive down the lane behind him if she wanted to get home.
All of this is in the article, but I suppose it doesn't support your "woman = evil" agenda, so it's far more convenient to write your own version instead, isn't it?
ADM06 said:
This is an odd one, and not normally something you'd get away with lightly especially with previous like hers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722845/Es...
Alright to knock out a "lady" who glasses you in the face? That bypasses chivalry, right?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722845/Es...
Hard to believe she didn't go down for at least 12 months.
HRL said:
ADM06 said:
This is an odd one, and not normally something you'd get away with lightly especially with previous like hers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722845/Es...
Alright to knock out a "lady" who glasses you in the face? That bypasses chivalry, right?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722845/Es...
Hard to believe she didn't go down for at least 12 months.
Yes it is a level playing field. No womAn arent getting let off. Oh and all men are bds. Pass the bean please.
Grumfutock said:
This was local to me, she had 17 previous convictions for violent assault. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes it is a level playing field. No womAn arent getting let off. Oh and all men are bds. Pass the bean please.
Anyone can find individual cases to support any argument they wish to make.Yes it is a level playing field. No womAn arent getting let off. Oh and all men are bds. Pass the bean please.
Can you come up with any statistical evidence to support your belief that women receive more lenient sentencing than men once the rights of dependent children have been taken into account?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff