Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

In 21st century UK a judge actually said this


danielost

Recommended Posts

Not an excuse ~ i get all irksome when I hear these emotional pleas for love or good hearts and bleeding hearts ~ all well and good but this one has none of such requirements as it has nothing to do with any of those such ~

This is a breach of trust ~ regardless of what and how the behavior of such minor ~ she was groomed into grooming him, reversed Pygmalion role playing ~ he was toying with her sense of influence ~ this man knew exactly what he was doing and he got caught ~ just because he is remorseful makes for none of any difference ~ he participated voluntarily and afforded the mechanism available due to his status that allowed these incidents to become real ~ which he continued ... for a period of time ~ let's not forget that crucial point ~

~edit :grammar bump

How do you know any of that from the little that was printed in the newspaper? The judge does not agree with you, and I trust a professional opinion from someone who has all the evidence more than I would from someone who has read a short newspaper story.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know any of that from the little that was printed in the newspaper? The judge does not agree with you, and I trust a professional opinion from someone who has all the evidence more than I would from someone who has read a short newspaper story.

The article says it all really , this is a judgement on the minor's moral character or lack of , depending on which way you are looking at it , in the opinion of the Judge ~

The behavior of the adult is deemed inconsequential due solely not on the weight of what constitutes as moral obligation but on his claims of weakness rendering him a victim in the eyes of the Judge ~

Whatever a minor does in matters pertaining to relations of physical sex, if shown to be satisfactorily questionable behavior for a minor is now the burden of the minor ~

That's what the ruling says to me ~

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we wonder why Sharia Law exists in the UK?

I see no relevance for this comment.

Here is the relevance: A judge virtually dismisses Law because she thinks that the situation is ...above the Law. If we as a society tolerate judges dismissing the Law because they deem the situation to be 'above the Law'...then you are going to have judges that dismiss acts of violence as a result of

Sharia Law...in the same manner. This is how lawlessness gains a foot hold in societies.

What I'm saying then is ...with judges making ludicrous loop holes in the law where there aren't any...it is no surprise that Sharia Law is gaining a foothold in Europe....and what you will end up with is judges that only judge according to Sharia Law...Check Mate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not an Islamic country. There is no room here for alternative or splinter legislation that only applies to part of the population. Your reaction is not to change or amend the law or enforce it correctly - which would be the correct attitude - but to bring in foreign law codes which may protect just a fraction of the population whilst leaving the rest still exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANd just to mention that that's not how Sharia Law work ~

~

Definitions and descriptions

Sharia, in its strictest definition, is a divine law, as expressed in the Quran and Muhammad's example (often called the sunnah). As such, it is related to but different from fiqh, which is emphasized as the human interpretation of the law.[44][45] Many scholars have pointed out that the sharia is not formally a code,[46] nor a well-defined set of rules.[47] The sharia is characterized as a discussion on the duties of Muslims[46] based on both the opinion of the Muslim community and extensive literature.[48] Hunt Janin and Andre Kahlmeyer thus conclude that the sharia is "long, diverse, and complicated."[47]

Possible links with Western law

Main article: Sharia: Classic Islamic law

A number of important legal institutions were developed by Muslim jurists during the classical period of Islam, known as the Islamic Golden Age. One such institution was the Hawala, an early informal value transfer system, which is mentioned in texts of Islamic jurisprudence as early as the 8th century. Hawala itself later influenced the development of the agency in common law and in civil laws such as the aval in French law and the avallo in Italian law.[98] The "European commenda" (Islamic Qirad) used in European civil law may have also originated from Islamic law.[99]

The Waqf in Islamic law, which developed during the 7th–9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the trusts in the English trust law.[100] For example, every Waqf was required to have a waqif (settlor), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries.[101] The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries, was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East.[102][103]

The Islamic lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff." The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition." According to Professor John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury." It is thus likely that the concept of the lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans, who conquered both England and the Emirate of Sicily, and then evolved into the modern English jury.[99]

~ the Law views the differences of understanding in society of the day with what is applicable that is available ~ The construct of Society of the days then are not as informed or learned as the common of these days thus Justice too had to be accommodating of such ~

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a comment..I was not trying to derail this thread into another ISIS thread...we already have several of those....but..You both are missing my point...

Judges should judge according to the law. I have read stories where, in large Muslim communities in the UK, that Sharia Law is allowed. Sharia Law allows for the Honor killing of your own child for instance. Sharia Law dictates the 'punishments' for certain crimes.

Sharia Law must not be allowed to dictate anything. The Law...already established in UK and elsewhere is...the law of the land.

My point: If judges begin to ignore the Law of the Land...as this judge appears to have done...at the same time Lawlessness is knocking on UKs doorstep...it is quite worrisome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least here in Oz, sex between 16 years olds is consensual and legal, but anyone over 18 having sex with a 16 year old is statutory rape.

so it is legal for a 17 year old and 16 year old to have sex, but the second the 17 year old turns 18, then he/she goes to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so it is legal for a 17 year old and 16 year old to have sex, but the second the 17 year old turns 18, then he/she goes to jail.

Yes... But mostly people don't pry into that situation because of its obvious ridiculousness. I think it depends on whether the family or ppl around them report it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cmon guys how is 'vunerable child' a victim.She LIED about being mistreated at home and being in a car crash to gain his sympathy and stalked him.She KNEW what she was doing was wrong.Regardless of how smitten she was she knew seducing a teacher would land both of them in trouble.A message must be sent to other students that they too must be held accountable for pursuing sex with their teachers.unpopular view I know but we must stop BOTH teachers & students from having sex with each other yes what he did was wrong but the thing is when we were young in school we all had crushes on teachers but we respected them enough as mentors and authorities not to pursue innapropriate relationships(apparently we didn't pass that onto the current generation)she knew what she did and she must be held accountable. She was 16 old enough to legally consent to sex,marry and work full time.someone please explain to me why the judges statements are so controversial. The fact is yes what he is wrong and he has been fired, has signed the sex offenders registere and can never work with children again. The 'victim' gets away Scott free without learning how wrong she is. Is like the 15 year old boy who initiated sex with his religion teacher Abigail Simons knowing it would land her in prison for 25 years even she wanted to escape the relationship despite him seeking more sex.my point is teens nowadays lack no morals they are more deceptive and in fact in some cases downright evil than previous generations and the messages we are sending is that they can have sex with teachers knowing it will put them in jail and get away scot free. The double standard isn't that female teachers get more lenient sentences its that a 15/16 can be tried as an adult for planning and carrying out a murder but when they plan and carry out the seduction of an adult including a teacher they are automatically the victim. That's garbage to me. Doesn't annyone realise that the main two countries that teacher-student relations occur in the UK and US two countries where kids have little or no responsibility and think they get away with anything. I'd hate think what this girl will be like as an adult. Maybe we should teach kids that having sex with teachers is wrong and will land themselves and others in trouble or else we are going to have more students initiating and pursuing seductions of teachers and then using the excuse "but he was my teacher I'm the victim" card.whats wrong about instilling the virtue of taking responsibility for ones actions into our students as well as teachers

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a comment..I was not trying to derail this thread into another ISIS thread...we already have several of those....but..You both are missing my point...

Judges should judge according to the law. I have read stories where, in large Muslim communities in the UK, that Sharia Law is allowed. Sharia Law allows for the Honor killing of your own child for instance. Sharia Law dictates the 'punishments' for certain crimes.

Sharia Law must not be allowed to dictate anything. The Law...already established in UK and elsewhere is...the law of the land.

My point: If judges begin to ignore the Law of the Land...as this judge appears to have done...at the same time Lawlessness is knocking on UKs doorstep...it is quite worrisome.

I did not miss your point , but in regards to 'Honor' or even "Mercy' killings , it is not Sharia Law but Tribal Law ... where the Sharia allows and leaves it to the 'wisdom' of the elders ~ and Sharia does not lets them off scot free ~ there are only judged and sentenced differently ~ unless the Civil Laws intervene and brings them to face justice in Civil Court or higher depending on the severity of the case ~ the Western Headlines on stops at the incident of the killings but the follow up is mostly entirely ignored ~

here it is the people that failed with dubious interpretation ~ it is not what Sharia Law allows or not ~ and Sharia only applies to Muslims ~ there is a separate set of guidelines that applies to non Muslims ~ kinda like Pilate shoving JC over to Herod because JC is Herod's race ~

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I despise "honour killings" and those who defend them. I have no words harsh enough to express my utter contempt for those who do it and those who support it.

Contempt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not miss your point , but in regards to 'Honor' or even "Mercy' killings , it is not Sharia Law but Tribal Law ... where the Sharia allows and leaves it to the 'wisdom' of the elders ~ and Sharia does not lets them off scot free ~ there are only judged and sentenced differently ~ unless the Civil Laws intervene and brings them to face justice in Civil Court or higher depending on the severity of the case ~ the Western Headlines on stops at the incident of the killings but the follow up is mostly entirely ignored ~

here it is the people that failed with dubious interpretation ~ it is not what Sharia Law allows or not ~ and Sharia only applies to Muslims ~ there is a separate set of guidelines that applies to non Muslims ~ kinda like Pilate shoving JC over to Herod because JC is Herod's race ~

~

I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on Sharia Law. But there simply cannot be Laws for Muslims only. If you want Sharia Law...then go live in a country where that is the law of the land. But in the UK or the US or Canada or any other freedom loving democracy. The law is for all the people...it is a ridiculous concept that we should allow one group of people to set their own laws for their own people. When you are in the USA for example...you are subject to the laws of the USA ...not your cultural laws. That's all I was saying. :)

Edited by joc
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on Sharia Law. But there simply cannot be Laws for Muslims only. If you want Sharia Law...then go live in a country where that is the law of the land. But in the UK or the US or Canada or any other freedom loving democracy. The law is for all the people...it is a ridiculous concept that we should allow one group of people to set their own laws for their own people. When you are in the USA for example...you are subject to the laws of the USA ...not your cultural laws. That's all I was saying. :)

You are canvassing it all under presumed terrorist indoctrination ~ all cultures and religious background have their own set of laws ~ it is the relation between such community and the Laws of the Land that is in question here ~ the specific conditions where common law and communal law intersects ~ like for Hindus there is such said understanding in regards to the regaled status of the bovine ~ because there are no such laws in regards of the Laws of the Land in general and if such said laws does not contravene with any laws currently existing then there is no problem, but if there arises conflict between such set of laws then there are avenues of refuge for the community ~ hardly novel or even new ~ the Jews have such laws , Mormons and the multifarious sects representative of Christianity ~

Its just the way communal integration has motioned all through the ages ~ you can;t expect the Muslims here to just up and turn into some Brooklyn Native or some Oregon true blood just because you find them and their laws 'repulsive' or worse ~

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are canvassing it all under presumed terrorist indoctrination ~ all cultures and religious background have their own set of laws ~ it is the relation between such community and the Laws of the Land that is in question here ~ the specific conditions where common law and communal law intersects ~ like for Hindus there is such said understanding in regards to the regaled status of the bovine ~ because there are no such laws in regards of the Laws of the Land in general and if such said laws does not contravene with any laws currently existing then there is no problem, but if there arises conflict between such set of laws then there are avenues of refuge for the community ~ hardly novel or even new ~ the Jews have such laws , Mormons and the multifarious sects representative of Christianity ~

Its just the way communal integration has motioned all through the ages ~ you can;t expect the Muslims here to just up and turn into some Brooklyn Native or some Oregon true blood just because you find them and their laws 'repulsive' or worse ~

~

So, then...I and others are mistaken and have fallen victim to some right-wing propaganda when we think that Sharia Law punishes the guilty by the chopping off of limbs, beheadings, beatings, etc.?

Saudi Arabia is totally under the rule of Sharia Law. So tell me...what happens in the UK or the US if you are Muslim and you break Sharia Law? Nothing? A good talking to by a rabbi or whatever they have? Or something dire. If there is no dire consequences then it is no different than the Baptists Law..no dancing or going to strip bars. Tell me where I am wrong my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are canvassing it all under presumed terrorist indoctrination ~ all cultures and religious background have their own set of laws ~ it is the relation between such community and the Laws of the Land that is in question here ~ the specific conditions where common law and communal law intersects ~ like for Hindus there is such said understanding in regards to the regaled status of the bovine ~ because there are no such laws in regards of the Laws of the Land in general and if such said laws does not contravene with any laws currently existing then there is no problem, but if there arises conflict between such set of laws then there are avenues of refuge for the community ~ hardly novel or even new ~ the Jews have such laws , Mormons and the multifarious sects representative of Christianity ~

Its just the way communal integration has motioned all through the ages ~ you can;t expect the Muslims here to just up and turn into some Brooklyn Native or some Oregon true blood just because you find them and their laws 'repulsive' or worse ~

~

so it is ok for them to kill any female family member whom the father/husband has determined that they have dishonored the family. murder is murder no matter how you dress it up. the only people who kill, with out being murder are solders killing the enemy during a war. unfortunately this means civilians too. hopefully not to more than is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, then...I and others are mistaken and have fallen victim to some right-wing propaganda when we think that Sharia Law punishes the guilty by the chopping off of limbs, beheadings, beatings, etc.?

Saudi Arabia is totally under the rule of Sharia Law. So tell me...what happens in the UK or the US if you are Muslim and you break Sharia Law? Nothing? A good talking to by a rabbi or whatever they have? Or something dire. If there is no dire consequences then it is no different than the Baptists Law..no dancing or going to strip bars. Tell me where I am wrong my friend.

http://www.albawaba....islamâ€-642312

From a Middle Eastern news site.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so it is ok for them to kill any female family member whom the father/husband has determined that they have dishonored the family. murder is murder no matter how you dress it up. the only people who kill, with out being murder are solders killing the enemy during a war. unfortunately this means civilians too. hopefully not to more than is needed.

You didn't get the whole picture ~ no one said it was okay ~ no country in the world says its okay ~ they kill they face the courts of law ~ sharia or otherwise ~ just like anywhere else in the world ~

~

So, then...I and others are mistaken and have fallen victim to some right-wing propaganda when we think that Sharia Law punishes the guilty by the chopping off of limbs, beheadings, beatings, etc.?

Saudi Arabia is totally under the rule of Sharia Law. So tell me...what happens in the UK or the US if you are Muslim and you break Sharia Law? Nothing? A good talking to by a rabbi or whatever they have? Or something dire. If there is no dire consequences then it is no different than the Baptists Law..no dancing or going to strip bars. Tell me where I am wrong my friend.

If there are laws in the land to deal with the crime then it is left to the laws of the land ~ all things ritual and cultural where there are no laws to available then the Sharia principles applies ~ even then it is up to the Council ~ where deliberation must lead to an agreeable course of action ~

Look all of this stems from the definition of 'Law' practised in the West and the definition of Law in the East ~ Laws are but guidelines to adhere to not obstacles put in place to restrict or bend and tweak ~ if you still believe laws are made to be broken or laws are made so they can never be broken then I have no more recourse in this conversation ~ Laws are not strictly a Western invention nor is it primarily only for the benefit or interests of a singular denomination of the population ~ Even the Law is never above the Law ~

all that said , in the end a well Governed World has no need of Laws ~

~

-edit : double post bypass

Edited by third_eye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay what does a 16 year old grooming a 44 year old have to do with sharia. Can we at least keep this forum on topic and move all debates regarding sharia law elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay what does a 16 year old grooming a 44 year old have to do with sharia. Can we at least keep this forum on topic and move all debates regarding sharia law elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay what does a 16 year old grooming a 44 year old have to do with sharia. Can we at least keep this forum on topic and move all debates regarding sharia law elsewhere?

I believe I specifically stated I was not trying to derail the thread...I just made an off the cuff remark and it required further explaining...then...I guess the subject of Sharia became more interesting than Teacher/Student sex. But hey..I'm done with it. :)

So...this 44 year old teacher had sex with a 16 year old and the judge blames the sixteen year old....pretty twisted on the side of judge's bench don't you think?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the judge admits that he failed as his position as teacher but unfortunatley but the fact that she noted that the student didn't initiate and continue the relationship meant she should bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen has angered a lot of people namely the mother of the victim and child protection groups. I for think at 15/16 she should have known better and as being described by her friends as 'the sort of person who would lure a person and use them like a toy' I have no synpathy I think he's been punished enough. I'm sick and tired about hearing about teachers have sex with students mainly because the victims should know better and not allow themselves to be put in these positions( as my earlier rant showed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from what the judge said, the only reason this girl is the victim is her age. maybe the judge should have put her the sex register.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the judge admits that he failed as his position as teacher but unfortunatley but the fact that she noted that the student didn't initiate and continue the relationship meant she should bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen has angered a lot of people namely the mother of the victim and child protection groups. I for think at 15/16 she should have known better and as being described by her friends as 'the sort of person who would lure a person and use them like a toy' I have no synpathy I think he's been punished enough. I'm sick and tired about hearing about teachers have sex with students mainly because the victims should know better and not allow themselves to be put in these positions( as my earlier rant showed)

If you are 44...you know better. If you are 44...you know it is: A. against the law. B. totally unethical C. just plain wrong.

Somebody has to be the adult...in this case...lured or not...manipulated or not...the 44 year old is the adult!

Regardless of the ploys or manipulations of a 16 yr old girl...this guy made a decision..against his better judgement...knowing that the ramifications would be huge...and he chose what he chose. That makes HIM responsible. She is 16...she may have been all that. Doesn't matter. He is the one who is guilty and he should have faced the full extent of the law.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.