Muslim paedophile who groomed victim on FB walks...

[Locutus]

Hey, he didn't know, ok.

Muslim abuser who 'didn't know' that sex with a girl of 13 was illegal is spared jail

• Adil Rashid admitted travelling to Nottingham and having sex with the girl
  
• He met the 13-year-old on Facebook and they communicated by texts and phone for two months before they met
  
• He was educated in a madrassa and 'had little experience of women'
• Said he had been taught 'women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground'
• Added he was reluctant to have sex but that he was 'tempted by [the girl]'

more



Paedophile who groomed victim on Facebook claimed his Muslim upbringing meant 'he didn't know it was illegal to have sex with 13-year-old girl' | Mail Online

 

[SLM]

What the hell happened to 'ignorance of the law is no excuse"???? 13 years old, FFS!

 

[Serryah]

Absolute BS, all of it.

And no matter that the girl "wanted it" or "Seduced him", she was thir-freakin-teen! It says in the article right off he was accused of Rape.

Rape is rape and this is a clear-cut case, to me, of a young man taking advantage of a child and pleading ignorance and it getting accepted, despite the fact they met on the internet. If you know the internet, you're not THAT naive.

No, this... thing... deserves jail, end of story.

 

[petros]

What the hell happened to 'ignorance of the law is no excuse"???? 13 years old, FFS!

13 is adulthood to some Religious types.

 

[SLM]

13 is adulthood to some Religious types.

Against the law is against the law for all types.

 

[petros]

Against the law is against the law for all types.

Oddly enough have you ever looked into Canadian marriage laws? You can marry them young, but you just can't date first.

How the f*ck does that work?

 

[SLM]

Oddly enough have you ever looked into Canadian marriage laws? You can marry them young, but you just can't date first.

How the f*ck does that work?

Don't know. Bass ackwards antiquated laws on the books? But I think you need parental signed permission to marry under a certain age (not sure what the age is though) and marriage is a legal contract. Dating is just, well, dating.

 

[petros]

Don't know. Bass ackwards antiquated laws on the books? But I think you need parental signed permission to marry under a certain age (not sure what the age is though) and marriage is a legal contract. Dating is just, well, dating.

There is no age limit on marriage.

 

[CDNBear]

But you do need the signature of a parent or guardian, for a legal marriage if you're under 18.

 

[SLM]

But you do need the signature of a parent or guardian, for a legal marriage if you're under 18.

It's provincial as well, so some differences province to province. Most of what I've seen after a small google search seems to indicate most provinces allow marriage between the ages of 16 and 18 with parental consent with some allowances for under the age of sixteen. (In BC for example, it seems you'd need the consent of the court). So it's not like parents can sign to marry off their 13 year old legally.

 

[CDNBear]

It's provincial as well, so some differences province to province. Most of what I've seen after a small google search seems to indicate most provinces allow marriage between the ages of 16 and 18 with parental consent with some allowances for under the age of sixteen. (In BC for example, it seems you'd need the consent of the court). So it's not like parents can sign to marry off their 13 year old legally.

That's all made moot by the fact that if I were a lawyer in the UK, I'd be looking up a litany of recent statutory rape convictions and visiting the convicted.

 

[SLM]

That's all made moot by the fact that if I were a lawyer in the UK, I'd be looking up a litany of recent statutory rape convictions and visiting the convicted.

Actually I'd recommend you explain that to the judge first.

 

[CDNBear]

Actually I'd recommend you explain that to the judge first.

Oh I'm sure he'll get the gist when the media climbs up his ***...

I'm genuinely curious what the difference is between a man incarcerated for statutory rape because he believed the girls was over the age of 18, and a man found guilty of statutory rape but given a suspended sentence because he was ignorant of the law.

 

[captain morgan]

I'm just a little curious why the UK media hasn't gotten their sh*t in a twist as a result of the school 'teaching' the students that females are worth less than a candy that has fallen into the dirt.

 

[CDNBear]

I'm just a little curious why the UK media hasn't gotten their sh*t in a twist as a result of the school 'teaching' the students that females are worth less than a candy that has fallen into the dirt.

Because contrary to the opinion of a few of the Usual Suspects, British media is worthless.

When I mentioned media,I was thinking of foreign media embarrassing the UK.

 

[SLM]

Oh I'm sure he'll get the gist when the media climbs up his ***...

Is it just my perception or do many of the most ridiculous pronouncement from the bench on any sexual crime seem to come from the U.K.? Maybe it's just the sensationalism of their media and how things get reported, maybe it's just as bad over here, but that seems to jump out at me for some reason.

I'm genuinely curious what the difference is between a man incarcerated for statutory rape because he believed the girls was over the age of 18, and a man found guilty of statutory rape but given a suspended sentence because he was ignorant of the law.

There shouldn't be any difference except, perhaps, when it comes to both ages involved. Definitely 13 years of age (barely pubescent) falls well below what I would categorize as statutory rape. I think he should have been charged with sexual assault of a minor. That might have delivered the right message to all those isolated males who are taught that females are worth less than a lollipop dropped on the ground.

 

[captain morgan]

Because contrary to the opinion of a few of the Usual Suspects, British media is worthless.

When I mentioned media,I was thinking of foreign media embarrassing the UK.

Not to overshadow the underlying issue, but I find absolutely remarkable that the media has even written a snippet regarding this group actively teaching such despicable ideals about women.... How many pedi-freaks are going to use this precedent to rush out and defile young women in that community and claim that they someone in their community basically said it was OK?

As much as I hate this expression: If these folks are not supportive of the expectations of British culture, then relocate to a jurisdiction that reflects your values.

 

[SLM]

Not to overshadow the underlying issue, but I find absolutely remarkable that the media has even written a snippet regarding this group actively teaching such despicable ideals about women.... How many pedi-freaks are going to use this precedent to rush out and defile young women in that community and claim that they someone in their community basically said it was OK?

As much as I hate this expression: If these folks are not supportive of the expectations of British culture, then relocate to a jurisdiction that reflects your values.

Forget about British culture, how about British law?

 

[CDNBear]

Is it just my perception or do many of the most ridiculous pronouncement from the bench on any sexual crime seem to come from the U.K.? Maybe it's just the sensationalism of their media and how things get reported, maybe it's just as bad over here, but that seems to jump out at me for some reason.

Sex sells in the UK.

Substance is boring.

There shouldn't be any difference except, perhaps, when it comes to both ages involved. Definitely 13 years of age (barely pubescent) falls well below what I would categorize as statutory rape. I think he should have been charged with sexual assault of a minor.

The article says "rape", but I highly suspect it was statutory rape.

That might have delivered the right message to all those isolated males who are taught that females are worth less than a lollipop dropped on the ground.

I've known for years that the UK was circling the bowl.

The consierge at the hotel in Jacksons Point is an ex London traffic officer. She left the force and moved to Canada after being charged with misconduct, based on racism, for ticketing the Muslim operator of a motor vehicle for having unbelted children in the vehicle, because there weren't enough seat belts.

She didn't wait for the verdict at her hearing. She felt that the charge should have been laughed out of the office when it was made.

Pay close attention to the UK.

It's our future.

 

[captain morgan]

Forget about British culture, how about British law?

How about this: