AIBU to think the judge’s comments in this case are completely inappropriate?

[Lizzie67384]

A male judge stated he thought the rapist was not a ‘dangerous man’ and that the 13 year old victim had ‘not suffered much degree of psychological harm’

The judge is a cunt.

I’d be interested to know what’s actually happened, rather than the daily mail version.

Unbelievable. There are “race riots” on the way and this sort of stuff just feeds into it. I’m honestly lost for words.

It’s a direct quote from the judge - also reported in the guardian.

I’m not sure what your media snobbery adds to the conversation?

Is it? Or did he follow the sentencing guidelines and the daily mail has twisted it?

DM et al have a vested interest in causing unrest.

Seriously- you are part of the problem. BBC any better for you;

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79q3xdxlz7o.amp

“Part of the problem” and I just don’t buy into bigotry.

Cunts are miraculous, warm, wonderful things. I don’t see how this applies to the judge?

Yes, why not have a look?

Funnily enough, the BBC article doesn’t state that the judge said that at all! It just states he was sentenced.

Sounds as though the judge has used the sentencing guidelines (as he has to) and the daily mail have latched onto it to cause tensions.

How is it bigotry? Where did I mention the race of the man? I’d be saying exactly the same thing if it was a white man?

He was found guilty of raping a child. What bit of this are you not understanding?

I never once apologised for rape.

I am criticising the daily mail choosing to report on it in a totally inaccurate manner, in order to cause tension. I never passed judgement on the sentence or the crime.

Oh they understand, they just care more about showing how superior they are in their reading material than they do about rape victims.

But it’s not inaccurate? Those were his remarks during sentencing - can you enlighten us all as to how that’s inaccurate?

Well maybe you should.

7 years? Absolutely pathetic. That poor girl. Let me guess, no deportation on account of his human rights or some such nonsense?

Absolutely untrue.

The judge followed the sentencing guidelines as he is bound to do. If you are disappointed by that, perhaps there should be campaigns for meaningful reform, as opposed to the hatred the daily mail spreads? It’s such a shame you fall for it.

God forbid there might be tension or unrest as a result of accurate reporting of a judge’s comments on this man’s heinous crime…

What’s wrong with you?

My post was about his comments not the sentence (although I find that far too low) - are you saying that you agree that a man who rapes a 13 year old girl is not a dangerous man and that the victim didn’t suffer any psychological harm?

Are we not allowed to hate rapists? That’s news to me.

The devil is in the detail - “sentencing guidelines”. The judge chose to go soft on this guy - which is what the OP’s post was about. You’re so hung up on the nasty DM that you’re throwing girls who’ve been raped under the bus. Shame on you.

Dangerous is a legal term. It is a finding usually reserved for those with serious prior convictions as this is a good way of judging whether they will ck time to be a significant risk to the public on release. It does not impact the sentencing, just the licencing period after prison release.

And the severe psychological harm? Again, this will be based on evidence provided by the victim. A child is unlikely to be able to provide this as it’s usually proven by years of trauma.

No idea what the full summing up is, but these two comments in no way diminish the victim.

It’s difficult to say what the minimum and maximum sentence would have been when we have such little detail about the case. We don’t know what category of the rape offence it fell into. If it was Cat 3B, he was given the maximum. If it was Cat 2B, he got the minimum.

Not sure if the judge’s comments would be available somewhere.