That's true everywhere of course but the media in the UK invented the term "tabloid journalism".
I assumed the same thing. The charge was wrong in the first place, imo.
We can always retreat to the arctic.
I'll need a warmer coat.
Muslim paedophile who groomed victim on FB walks...
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
That's true everywhere of course but the media in the UK invented the term "tabloid journalism".
I'll need a warmer coat.
I suspect that this 18 year old did not avoid jail time because he was ignorant of the law or because he was Muslim.. He must have avoided jail time because of the circumstances of this case. The Daily Mail must have selectively omitted a few facts, because the judge's decision doesn't make sense if the Daily Mail's report was complete and accurate.
BTW, sex with a 13 year old is legal, with another 13 year old or with an older person who is a 13 year old's intellectual peer.
If an 18 year old had the mental capacity of a 13 year old, then they might not be charged with statutory rape of a 13 year old at the judge's discretion. But the onus would be on the defense to prove mental incompetence to the point where he could be considered the 13 year old girl's intellectual peer. But the Daily Mail report doesn't satisfactorily explain how the judge may have come to that conclusion.
If a 13 year old had the intellectual capacity of an 18 year old, played a leadership role in initiating sex with a simple minded, sexually naive 18 year old, then the 18 year old might not be charged with statutory rape at the judge's discretion. But the onus would be on the defense to prove the 13 year old has the competence of an 18 year old, that the 13 year old played a leadership role in the relationship and that the 18 year old was the 13 year old girl's intellectual peer. But the Daily Mail report doesn't satisfactorily explain how the judge may have come to that conclusion either.
While religion may have been a factor which contributed to this 18 year old's sexual immaturity and his attitude towards females, its not an excuse or even relevant to why this 18 year old had sex with a 13 year old. The main point of focusing on religion in the article seems to be to reinforce negative stereotypes of Muslims, promote fear and hatred against Muslims. I find it highly unlikely that any judge would accept ignorance of the law or religion as an excuse for an 18 year old's actions.
I suspect the referenced news article is incomplete and that the Daily Mail has selectively omitted facts that led to the judge's decision. I suspect the Daily Mail's reporting on this story is slanted towards promoting negative stereotypes of Muslims, rather than understand the reasons for the judge's apparently illogical decision.
Then again the judge could be incompetent or crazy...
Which is more likely? The Daily Mail is not reporting all the details of this case or the Judge is pro-Muslim and pro-statutory rape?
BTW, sex with a 13 year old is legal, with another 13 year old or with an older person who is a 13 year old's intellectual peer.
If an 18 year old had the mental capacity of a 13 year old, then they might not be charged with statutory rape of a 13 year old at the judge's discretion. But the onus would be on the defense to prove mental incompetence to the point where he could be considered the 13 year old girl's intellectual peer. But the Daily Mail report doesn't satisfactorily explain how the judge may have come to that conclusion.
If a 13 year old had the intellectual capacity of an 18 year old, played a leadership role in initiating sex with a simple minded, sexually naive 18 year old, then the 18 year old might not be charged with statutory rape at the judge's discretion. But the onus would be on the defense to prove the 13 year old has the competence of an 18 year old, that the 13 year old played a leadership role in the relationship and that the 18 year old was the 13 year old girl's intellectual peer. But the Daily Mail report doesn't satisfactorily explain how the judge may have come to that conclusion either.
While religion may have been a factor which contributed to this 18 year old's sexual immaturity and his attitude towards females, its not an excuse or even relevant to why this 18 year old had sex with a 13 year old. The main point of focusing on religion in the article seems to be to reinforce negative stereotypes of Muslims, promote fear and hatred against Muslims. I find it highly unlikely that any judge would accept ignorance of the law or religion as an excuse for an 18 year old's actions.
I suspect the referenced news article is incomplete and that the Daily Mail has selectively omitted facts that led to the judge's decision. I suspect the Daily Mail's reporting on this story is slanted towards promoting negative stereotypes of Muslims, rather than understand the reasons for the judge's apparently illogical decision.
Then again the judge could be incompetent or crazy...
Which is more likely? The Daily Mail is not reporting all the details of this case or the Judge is pro-Muslim and pro-statutory rape?
Bring on the Muslim apologists... :roll:
He is sexually naive because of abhorrent Muslim teachings.
It's getting old and tired.
Only apologist would miss it.
It was pretty detailed.
He isn't her peer by mental defect.
He is sexually naive because of abhorrent Muslim teachings.
Actually, he does.
If it's a factor, it's relevant, lol.
You say that any time a Muslims does something stupid.
It's getting old and tired.
Actually the Judges reasons are cited in multiple articles, including the one in the OP.
Only apologist would miss it.
Of course, lol.
I'm leaning to incompetent, but can understand his ruling.
It's more likely your blinders are working well.
I question that logic... According to the article, he emerged from the bathroom sporting a rubber and a smile... Clearly he was not entirely naive about the process to take this step in advance
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
The Qur'an teaches against sex outside of marriage. What? They don't have time to read the Qur'an at the madrassa?
I actually do not give a damn what his culture or religious affiliation is. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Period.
I doubt it.
The UK is full of people like EAO.
Oh oh.
So much for EAO's apology.
As a "western" woman I sure as hell hope so!
Mind you I've met enough people who were Muslim to understand that there is a more moderate, civilized attitude out there. I've encountered many Muslim men, either through work or just out in the world, that behave no differently towards me than 'western' men do. This is an antiquated extremist attitude no different than those who would strap a bomb to themselves. It's wrong and has no place in modern civilized society.
Yeah - I know that the above suggestion is unrealistic.... In the end, I find that kids excuse of using his religion a chicken-sh*t cop-out... The best anyone could really hope for would be for the Muslim community to stand up and defend themselves (and Islam) against the ridiculous assertion that has tarred their beliefs
Welcome to the products of the Madras.
It has no shortage of morally reprehensible, moral relativist apologists.
There are to many fundamentalists and people like EAO.
Why would they feel the need to change?
It has no shortage of morally reprehensible, moral relativist apologists.
Won't happen any time soon.
There are to many fundamentalists and people like EAO.
Why would they feel the need to change?
Give him a taste of his own. Under Sharia, what happens when a happens when a man defiles himself with an infidel?
...not that I'm suggesting vigilantism or anything