Another Man, Another Ridiculous Sentence
I'm horrified by this story of a man who gets a non-sentence for assuaulting
a woman in her own home. Particularly striking is the fact that "she was
terrified and needed to relax" during the assualt and that he'd "got a bit
naughty". Apparently it's all ok though as his offence wasn't as serious as
his previous convictions for two rapes, one of which was on a child under
the age of sixteen. Link below:-
‹ Eric Pickles – Humourless or Insensitive? Open email to BBC News online – “sexual abuse” is not “sex” ›
Comments are currently closed.
Well done male supremacist legal system for condoning yet again male his pseudo sex right to women and girls. This male defendant already has two convictions for raping women and yet he only appeared before a Magistrate’s court. Apparently serial male sexual violence against women and girls is still a trivial offence not a serious crime.
Message being sent to all males is ‘you will not be imprisoned if you are convicted of subjecting any woman/girl to male sexual violence because your crime is a trivial one!
Message male supremacist legal system to all women and girls is ‘males have the innate right of pseudo sexual access to any woman/girl because they are not human but merely males’ dehumanised sexual service stations!’
Note too how convicted rapist Alfred Priest minimalises/denies he subjected a woman to male sexual violence and Priest’s claims are accepted as ‘the truth.’ Naturally there is no right or wrong because issue was merely one of interpretation wherein male rapist Priest’s interpretation of his actions are equally as valid as his female victim’s lived experience of being subjected to male sexual violence.
Perhaps this is why male Bench chairman Graham Commons rewarded Priest with just community service and ordered him to pay £85 prosecution costs, because the offence was a trivial one – not systemic male sexual predation against females.
Question to be raised is why convicted male sexual predator Alfred Priest was not tried within a Crown Court rather than a magistrate’s court. Is it because as I stated above, male supremacist legal system deems Priest’s sexual violence against women and girls to be a ‘trivial one’ not a violation of all women’s and girls’ fundamental right not to be routinely subjected to male sexual violence?