Max Power Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 2 minutes ago, Gladys said: Well, yes, she was in his space which he could control. Sorry, Max, because I do like your contributions, but on this you are just dead wrong in trying to find a justification. He locked the doors, FFS, hardly leads you to assume he thought it was consensual. I don't think I was trying to find a justification, rather an understanding of what made him think it was ok and that he'd get away with it? He must have known that what he was doing was wrong and that there would be consequences, so what drove him to carry on and do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 Its like victim blaming, coming from deep seated misogyny, the defence given by rapists "she was asking for it". I'm sure that's not what you meant though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 1 hour ago, Hairy Poppins said: 6 months seems a bit of a joke. Surely this kind of thing should be 10+ years minimum (no early release for 'good' behaviour). The actual physical component of this seems to have been fairly minor "touched her inappropriately and forced her to kiss him" which I suspect means that he grabbed her head to do so - a more intimate assault would have been mentioned and taken into account. What wasn't and maybe couldn't be were the frightening aspects of the situation where rather than delivering the passenger to her home, he "continued to drive on when she asked him to stop and let her out [...] pulled into a car park [and] locked the doors". Mercifully he then seems to have stopped, but it must have been terrifying and his refusal to admit what happened will have made things worse. But judges can only sentence on the charges and circumstances laid before them and there are strict guidelines that control this. This seems to have happened before the summary court and I think the maximum sentence there is six months (John will know all the details). The AG's Office will have decided it should be dealt with there rather than before a jury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 If it's 6 months then served in general population of the prison with a tip-off would be what he deserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 Was there a no early release attached to the sentence if not in 12 weeks he will be out and about. What on earth got into the man he has ruined his life and done irreparable damage to the lady’s confidence and made a lot of other women who previously felt secure to travel alone in a licensed taxi afraid to risk it now. Showing no remorse is reprehensible and cowardly . He would be wise to leave the Island for his own sake and his family’s sake because he will have no future here, deservedly so. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 53 minutes ago, Max Power said: I don't think I was trying to find a justification, rather an understanding of what made him think it was ok and that he'd get away with it? He must have known that what he was doing was wrong and that there would be consequences, so what drove him to carry on and do it? Being a sex offender and a cunt, presumably. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 13 minutes ago, HeliX said: Being a sex offender and a cunt, presumably. Concise, thank you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: The actual physical component of this seems to have been fairly minor "touched her inappropriately and forced her to kiss him" which I suspect means that he grabbed her head to do so - a more intimate assault would have been mentioned and taken into account. What wasn't and maybe couldn't be were the frightening aspects of the situation where rather than delivering the passenger to her home, he "continued to drive on when she asked him to stop and let her out [...] pulled into a car park [and] locked the doors". Mercifully he then seems to have stopped, but it must have been terrifying and his refusal to admit what happened will have made things worse. But judges can only sentence on the charges and circumstances laid before them and there are strict guidelines that control this. This seems to have happened before the summary court and I think the maximum sentence there is six months (John will know all the details). The AG's Office will have decided it should be dealt with there rather than before a jury. There was a trial, so the evidence will have been put before the court in full and cross examined on. Im a bit confused by “locked the doors” as every taxi I get into the doors lock until the driver unlocks - to avoid “running off”. But that may be vehicle dependent. Not sure exactly what legislation the charges were brought under. For this type of offence there are summary only charges or those triable either way. If summary, then there’s no option of sending to General Gaol and jury trial. If either way then the court, not the AG’s decides at the start which court is suitable, based on a summary and representations by prosecutor and defence advocate. And, on conviction, in the case it’s tried summarily, if the summary court feels the sentencing options aren’t enough the the convicted defendant can be sent to the Deemster for sentence. @Roger Mexico magistrates is 6 months, stipendiary magistrates ( High Bailiff ) isn’t limited to 6 months. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beelzebub3 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 9 hours ago, Max Power said: Explain why asking a question is appalling? I'm just curious as to what would make someone like him do such a thing. Is that wrong? I was hardly defending him or the indefensible and I don't know him, I met him once as I said. As for brethren, what are you talking about? Simple answer is he is a convicted sex offender and should not be classed as sound, sound guys do not try and molest women no matter the reason.He is a wrong'un! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelmutX Posted February 16 Author Share Posted February 16 Perhaps Lt. Aldo Raine had the right idea - a big X on the forehead..! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 17 hours ago, Stu Peters said: Partly, but isn’t it also the case that men from some different cultures have a much lower opinion of and respect for women? This is quite confusing. Are you saying the nationality matters because some foreigners get a bit handsy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 38 minutes ago, cissolt said: 17 hours ago, Stu Peters said: Partly, but isn’t it also the case that men from some different cultures have a much lower opinion of and respect for women? This is quite confusing. Are you saying the nationality matters because some foreigners get a bit handsy? Not confusing: that’s what he’s saying. Apparently. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 51 minutes ago, Jarndyce said: Not confusing: that’s what he’s saying. Apparently. Of course that's what I'm saying. Look at the mugshots of the rape (sorry 'grooming' is more politically correct) gangs across the UK. Honour killings too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiVibes Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Jarndyce said: Not confusing: that’s what he’s saying. Apparently. Yep scousers like him are the worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 11 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: 1 hour ago, Jarndyce said: Not confusing: that’s what he’s saying. Apparently. Of course that's what I'm saying. Look at the mugshots of the rape (sorry 'grooming' is more politically correct) gangs across the UK. Honour killings too Ok, thanks - useful to have that confirmed by you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.