This 37 year old man got a 16 month prison sentence for torturing his 18 year old girlfriend

[EleanorRathbone]

Story here

I don't think a 16 month prison sentence is anywhere like enough for what he did. What is the body we need to write to, to object to this sentence and urge them to increase his custodial term?

'The Judge added: "'You have an appalling record of abuse of women.'
Fleming was jailed for 16 months'

And I guess he won't even serve the full 16 months.

Yes, apparently "an appalling record of abuse of women" deserves 16 months.

You couldn't actually make it up, could you?

It's a complete joke. It shows how much women matter the legal system of this bloody country. Sick.

'You used elements of in effect torture' was rather mealy-mouthed. Why not 'You used torture'?

Just did a quick google and apart from dailymail and mirror sites, no other UK news sites seem to carry this story. Do you think this is because violence against women is not deemed newsworthy? Or that the pathetically short sentence is not newsworthy? Or both?

Also if 'The Judge added: "'You have an appalling record of abuse of women.'
implies to me that the judge knows he's done this sort of thing before.

Shocking.

shocking, just shocking.

OP - can I just say, cool posting name.
Eleanor Rathbone was a fine fine women, and not well known enough.

I just hope that the young woman manages to recover physically and mentally from her hideous ordeal. :(

I know it's not always useful to compare sentences given for different crimes as there may be contextual reasons for the differences. However, I remember that Charlie Gilmore (son of Pink Floyd's David Gilmore) also received a 16 month sentence for "violent disorder," during the student demonstrations in London earlier this year. The actions that led to his conviction were, being "photographed swinging from a union flag on the Cenotaph, leaping on the bonnet of a Jaguar in a royal convoy taking the Prince of Wales to the royal variety performance, and was also found have also hurled a rubbish bin at the vehicle." Whatever one thinks about what Gilmore did, there is no evidence that any person was harmed by his actions when someone was gravely harmed by Jason Fleming's actions.

And this guy got 18 months.

The courts are there to protect men.

Women need to understand this.

Without the patriarchal judicial system, groups of women (her friends, her mother, her sisters) would go to this man's house and stab HIM in the head with pencils.

But we're not allowed to do that.

Because we live in a patriarchy, where men's divine right to abuse women must be protected at all costs, with measly token penalties for the worst types of torture imaginable

Do you think he would have got 16 months if he'd done this to a man aka a real human being?

I can guarantee that the answer is no.

For perspective:

During those London riots, they were jailing women for 6 months for looting crisps and lipstick.

Max for assault with ABH is 5 years. He also pleaded guilty which we see some reduction in a max sentence.

I was horrified by this. I think the victim has been assaulted twice, quite frankly - first by her 'boyfriend' and secondly by the criminal justice system. This sort of punishment for a known abuser is basically shouting from the rooftops that abuse is acceptable. If the abuser had done this to a stranger, especially a male one, I expect that the sentence would have been at the upper end of the custodial spectrum for that crime.

BTW, welcome back Sakura. Haven't seen you here for a while. Good to 'see' you.

He pleaded guilty to the charges so he was never going to get the maximum sentence for the crime.

Do people really want vigilantes going round getting exacting retribution

He is a danger to women (as recognised by the judge) and so he must not be in a position to cause another woman harm. If that means locking him up for the rest of his life, then .

Who said anything about vigilantism?

Vigilantism is people (who are not authorised) taking the law into their own hands. All we're asking for is those who have the authority to enforce the law to its full extent where it is warranted.

And I'd say this is warranted.

What an awful case.

Can any lawyers tell us if a judge must reduce a person's sentence because the accused person pleaded guilty? Or is any reduction at the judge's discretion?
(If a reduction is compulsory, then surely nobody would ever plead guilty, would they?)

In other words, who is responsible for giving this 16 month sentence - the judge or the politicians?

There is a Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman.

A quote from their website:

"The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman investigates complaints about the judicial appointments process and the handling of matters involving judicial discipline or conduct." (my bold emphasis)

"The Ombudsman assumed his responsibilities on 3 April 2006 under the Provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. He is completely independent of Government and the judiciary."

Please ignore my question in my previous post about nobody ever pleading guilty. It is from a previous draft of my message and I failed to remove it before pressing the "post message" button.

Sentence was far too low.

And for balance, so was this one www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-15689943 No jail time whatsoever...