Muslim paedophile who groomed victim on FB walks...

[CDNBear]

He picked her up at a party.

So?

Random encounter lends to a defense that he did not know her age.

There was no prior relationship and it says nothing about him being sexually naive.

The pre-installed condom sort of makes me wonder about Rashid's naiveté.

In fact he was the opposite and tried to obfuscate the facts regarding his knowledge of her age...all of which would have gone against him.

Did he? All we have is the testimony of her sister.

Rashid had full out, admitted knowledge of her age.

His defense, his schooling (Religion based) and ignorance of the law. None of which is a valid defense.

The Judges reasoning for not incarcerating Rashid...

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

5 years age difference versus 8 years age difference.

Huh? Cullen 20 v 13. Rashid 20 v 13.

One well aware of the underagedness, one claiming ignorance.

So says the sister. I'm sure there's no biases there, lol.

One found by the courts to be sexually naïve, the other presumably not.

Sexual naiveté is not a valid defense.

And yet their sentences are not a far cry from one another. Both found guilty. One on parole for 2 years, while the other one does time and probably will be paroled in that time.

One got a 9 month suspended sentence, the other was sentenced to two years.

There's a discrepancy there, that goes beyond sexual naiveté.

A judge has a certain amount of leeway in assessing individual cases, and this case isn't the preferential treatment of this individual that the 'news'paper tries to make it out to be.

Maybe, maybe not. But it does fall in line with a perceived appearance of leniency experienced by the Muslim community in UK courts.

It does however raise a very important question, and I suspect that is why the school's name was left out of it, of whether a school can teach its pupils things that fly in the face of the law of the land.

If the MailOnLine was fostering islamophobia as some of the less intelligent have posited, why would that be left out?

​

 

[karrie]

Huh? Cullen 20 v 13. Rashid 20 v 13.

Rashid was 18. And you're right, I misread and took the 21 to be the age Cullen had committed the crime at.

Regardless, the sentencing is not far off. Larger disparities exist in sentencing all over every country out there because of disparities in circumstance, witness credibility, etc.

So says the sister. I'm sure there's no biases there, lol.

You misread. I said one was aware (Rashid), one claims ignorance.

Sexual naiveté is not a valid defense.

Uhm, yes, it is. THe purpose of a legal system is to protect society. If the judge doesn't feel this is something this man will repeat, because he feels it is chalked up to naivety, then it's pertinent whether we like it or not.

One got a 9 month suspended sentence, the other was sentenced to two years.

There's a discrepancy there, that goes beyond sexual naiveté.

No, it doesn't go beyond the issue of whether it is behaviour that will be repeated or not. Not even remotely.

Maybe, maybe not. But it does fall in line with a perceived appearance of leniency experienced by the Muslim community in UK courts.

If the MailOnLine was fostering islamophobia as some of the less intelligent have posited, why would that be left out?

If MailOnline wasn't fostering fear, it wouldn't have worded its headline the way it had.

As for that being left out, if there are investigations or legal proceedings underway, it's easy for papers to be forced to leave it out.

 

[L Gilbert]

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

Judge is whacko. The kid broke the law. He wasn't even following Islam. He was in the wrong 6 ways from Sunday and I don't give a crap if he may have become screwed up in prison. That would be something to deal with later. Besides, letting him off for rape isn't exactly my idea of instilling the kid with a sense of right from wrong anyway.
BTW, he's not a pedophile; a closer term would be "hebophile". F'n media people are illiterate.

 

[karrie]

Judge is whacko. The kid broke the law. He wasn't even following Islam. He was in the wrong 6 ways from Sunday and I don't give a crap if he may have become screwed up in prison. That would be something to deal with later. Besides, letting him off for rape isn't exactly my idea of instilling the kid with a sense of right from wrong anyway.
BTW, he's not a pedophile; a closer term would be "hebophile". F'n media people are illiterate.

He wasn't let off. He was found guilty. Finding someone guilty and putting them on parole is not the cake walk many seem to think, and it carries its own form of lifelong sentence with it. Not everyone needs to be locked away to learn their lesson from a guilty conviction.

And no.... for an 18 year old to be attracted to someone 13, does not even count as ephebophilia or hebophilia

 

[Sal]

So?

Random encounter lends to a defense that he did not know her age.

Jamie Cullen, now 21, was jailed for two years after a judge said he believed there may be some doubt about his knowledge of the girl’s age, but he would have been aware she was under 16.

The pre-installed condom sort of makes me wonder about Rashid's naiveté.

Even a 13 year old knows to use a condom. He was naive in general and of gentle demeanor.

Did he? All we have is the testimony of her sister.

No, he admits it "But Cullen claimed he was unsure exactly how old the sister was at the time of the incident, although it was accepted she was underage."

Rashid had full out, admitted knowledge of her age

Exactly once again proving his lack of trying to deceive. He fully admits to it. He did not try to hide it.

His defense, his schooling (Religion based) and ignorance of the law. None of which is a valid defense.

Apparently it was.

The Judges reasoning for not incarcerating Rashid...

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

Yes, sometimes wisdom prevails.

 

[earth_as_one]

My point exactly. This is the one that made the news, because he actually got two years.

5 years age difference versus 8 years age difference.

One well aware of the underagedness, one claiming ignorance.

One found by the courts to be sexually naïve, the other presumably not.

And yet their sentences are not a far cry from one another. Both found guilty. One on parole for 2 years, while the other one does time and probably will be paroled in that time.

A judge has a certain amount of leeway in assessing individual cases, and this case isn't the preferential treatment of this individual that the 'news'paper tries to make it out to be.

It does however raise a very important question, and I suspect that is why the school's name was left out of it, of whether a school can teach its pupils things that fly in the face of the law of the land.

If some parts of the story are deliberately misleading ie:

- creating a perception that this is a sexual assault case when it is a statutory rape case
- portrayal of the judge as accepting ignorance of the law and religion as a defense for rape.

then the rest of the story including what they claim this 18 year old learned through school are suspect as well.

 

[L Gilbert]

He wasn't let off. He was found guilty. Finding someone guilty and putting them on parole is not the cake walk many seem to think, and it carries its own form of lifelong sentence with it. Not everyone needs to be locked away to learn their lesson from a guilty conviction.

True enough, but parole is nowhere near like prison because it depends upon the conditions stated.

And no.... for an 18 year old to be attracted to someone 13, does not even count as ephebophilia or hebophilia

As I said, it's closer to hebophilia than pedophilia.

 

[CDNBear]

He wasn't let off.

Yes he was.

He was found guilty.

And given a 9 month suspended sentence. I will admit though, a sex offender registry isn't going to help him out much, but even then it's only 10 years long.

Finding someone guilty and putting them on parole is not the cake walk many seem to think, and it carries its own form of lifelong sentence with it.

Oh please!

Not everyone needs to be locked away to learn their lesson from a guilty conviction.

I actually agree.

Rashid plead innocent. While Cullen plead guilty.

Jamie Cullen, now 21, was jailed for two years after a judge said he believed there may be some doubt about his knowledge of the girl’s age, but he would have been aware she was under 16.

Believed there may be some doubt is only accepted in civil court.

The High Court is legislated to deal with beyond reasonable doubt.

Even a 13 year old knows to use a condom. He was naive in general and of gentle demeanor.

The Judge believed he was sexually naive. that's all that matters.

No, he admits it "But Cullen claimed he was unsure exactly how old the sister was at the time of the incident, although it was accepted she was underage."

Hence why he plead guilty. While Rashid plead innocent.

Exactly once again proving his lack of trying to deceive. He fully admits to it. He did not try to hide it.

That must be why he thinks he's innocent.

Apparently it was.

Apparently not, he was convicted.

Yes, sometimes wisdom prevails.

That's not wise.

I can see lawyers using it as a defense.

If some parts of the story are deliberately misleading ie:

- creating a perception that this is a sexual assault case when it is a statutory rape case

UK law recognizes statutory rape as rape. Sex with anyone under the age of 16 is considered rape.

The article is in line with UK legal doctrine and definition.

Again, acquainting yourself with the laws and/or the facts, would likely save you from writing silly posts. Unless of course you're purposely being dishonest, which if we go by past precedent, is highly likely.

- portrayal of the judge as accepting ignorance of the law and religion as a defense for rape.

The article clearly states the Judges reasoning.

I've already posted it.

Maybe you should actually read the article before you start trying to formulate your usual Muslim defenses.

then the rest of the story including what they claim this 18 year old learned through school are suspect as well.

Well, that's been made moot by the facts.

 

[earth_as_one]

I still haven't seen a link to the judge's decision, just references to a highly spun news report which pushes anti-immigrant and anti-Islam hot buttons provoking the usual reactions from Islamaphobes. So no one here can possible have an informed opinion based on a clear understanding judges decision.

 

[CDNBear]

I still haven't seen a link to the judge's decision, just references to a highly spun news report. So no one here can possible have an informed opinion based on a clear understanding judges decision.

Geez, it would be nice to see that level of fained objectivity when it comes to the crap you post about Israel, lol.

From the article...

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

But please, do on. Besides enjoying the fabrications you've come up with, I'll make sure to bookmark all your protestations to irritate you with your own words in the futre, lol.

 

[karrie]

I still haven't seen a link to the judge's decision, just references to a highly spun news report which pushes anti-immigrant and anti-Islam hot buttons provoking the usual reactions from Islamaphobes. So no one here can possible have an informed opinion based on a clear understanding judges decision.

MailOnline HATES immigration. It hates everyone outside of the UK frankly but it really hates Muslim immigrants.

 

[CDNBear]

MailOnline HATES immigration. It hates everyone outside of the UK frankly but it really hates Muslim immigrants.

That doesn't mean you can't glean some truth from the article.

In which it is clearly stated that the Judge felt it would damage Rashid to incarcerate him.

But hey, who cares.

Attack the source when you don't like what it says, lol.

 

[karrie]

That doesn't mean you can glean some truth from the article.

In which it is clearly stated that the Judge felt it would damage Rashid to incarcerate him.

But hey, who cares.

Attack the source when you don't like what it says, lol.

I have no problem discussing the article based on what MO says. The judge said it would do more harm than good, and I don't blame him. If you are standing there with someone you don't feel is a risk for re-offense, do you put him in prison? You know as well as anyone that it's not the wisest choice if the person isn't a public risk. These are the sentencing calls that judges make.

 

[CDNBear]

If you are standing there with someone you don't feel is a risk for re-offense, do you put him in prison?

The Judge didn't say that.

You know as well as anyone that it's not the wisest choice if the person isn't a public risk.

That hasn't been made clear.

In fact, it would be safe to say that given the fact the Madras' in the UK have come under fire, for things that this case is an excellent example of, he and many other pupils thereof, are a risk to the public.

These are the sentencing calls that judges make.

And as I have mentioned, it has become a troubling trend.

 

[karrie]

Ah, so you want him sentenced based on a trend that you've applied to him based on his religion.


I see.


Sorry, but sitting a world away with only a singular news paper article to go off, I just don't agree that the judge is proven a total moron.

 

[CDNBear]

Ah, so you want him sentenced based on a trend that you've applied to him based on his religion.

I said that?

I see.

Apparently not, lol.

I just quickly skimmed my posts in this thread, at no time have I said anything like that. In fact I actually found a post where I stated I can understand his ruling.

Sorry, but sitting a world away with only a singular news paper article to go off, I just don't agree that the judge is proven a total moron.

It isn't the only article I've read. In fact I read it in translated pages from a Greek paper as well as a Turkish paper.

They all state the same thing, he tried to use his religion as a defense. The court rejected it, but noted it was a troubling thing to teach children.

The Judge found him guilty, but suspended the sentence because he felt incarceration would damage him.

I find that a really neat ruling and wonder when that kind of feeling, became relevant in such trials.

Again, he didn't state that Rashid wasn't a public risk, he stated he was passive and lacking assertiveness. neither of which I have ever seen cited as reasons to suspend a sentence.

I have an email alert set to let me know when the transcript is posted in the archives at the lawpages.com. I'll let you know when it's posted there.

 

[DaSleeper]

I said that?

Apparently not, lol.

I just quickly skimmed my posts in this thread, at no time have I said anything like that. In fact I actually found a post where I stated I can understand his ruling.

It isn't the only article I've read. In fact I read it in translated pages from a Greek paper as well as a Turkish paper.

They all state the same thing, he tried to use his religion as a defense. The court rejected it, but noted it was a troubling thing to teach children.

The Judge found him guilty, but suspended the sentence because he felt incarceration would damage him.

I find that a really neat ruling and wonder when that kind of feeling, became relevant in such trials.

Again, he didn't state that Rashid wasn't a public risk, he stated he was passive and lacking assertiveness. neither of which I have ever seen cited as reasons to suspend a sentence.

I have an email alert set to let me know when the transcript is posted in the archives at the lawpages.com. I'll let you know when it's posted there.

That may take a while for a transcrpt of the decision to be posted there.........

 

[CDNBear]

That may take a while for a transcrpt of the decision to be posted there.........

Sometimes up to a year.

 

[DaSleeper]

Sometimes up to a year.

I had already registered on that site, to see what I could find out and when I came back to the forum I found out you had already been there:smile:
You must have found out too, that that particular judge is a pretty busy fellow...I went back after and couldn't figure out how to get an email alert,....didn't look too hard because I figured that by the time it comes out this whole thing will be old news and forgotten :lol:

 

[earth_as_one]

Geez, it would be nice to see that level of fained objectivity when it comes to the crap you post about Israel, lol.

From the article...

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

But please, do on. Besides enjoying the fabrications you've come up with, I'll make sure to bookmark all your protestations to irritate you with your own words in the futre, lol.

I do not support this 18 year old being treated differently than any other 18 year old boy regarding a sexual relationship with 13 year old... taking into consideration the dynamics of their relationship. That's why judge's should be allowed to use judgement.

Words in the title of this thread (pedophile, Muslim "groomed on facebook") are probably deliberately misleading and likely do not accurately describe the judge's decision. \Either that or the judge is insane and/or incompetent, which is why an appeal process exists..

I also do not support treating nations that commit ethnic cleansing differently either.