Society and Social Structures

White trash? Court rules that white girls are worth less than Asians


Paedophilia, molestation, rape, grooming, ‘white trash’.. Stories abound of the gangs of Asian (usually Pakistani) men preying on young white girls, believing them to be somehow worth less than the girls of their own race, religion, community or culture. Indigenous white/Christian British girls aren’t worthy of respect: they are easy meat; good for nothing but being plied with booze, fingered, slapped around and screwed. It isn’t easy to talk or write about, for fear of the ‘racist’ smear. Either that, or ‘Islamophobia’: white men groom and rape, too, you know.

Labour’s Jack Straw pressed all the wrong PC stereotypical buttons back in 2011, when Abid Mohammed Saddique and Mohammed Romaan Liaqat were given indefinite prison terms for grooming girls as young as 12. The former Justice Secretary told the BBC:

“Pakistanis, let’s be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders’ wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders. But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men… who target vulnerable young white girls.

“We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way. These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they’re fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically. So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care… who they think are easy meat.”

Cue outrage from academia, religious leaders, journalist-sociologists and the godmother of multiculuralism Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Of course rapists and paedophiles come in a range of skin colours, and of course children of all ethnicities are vulnerable. But Jack Straw was simply making the point that ‘white trash’ chauvinism is a particular problem in a particular community, which tends toward the view that Asian girls are “off-limits” because they are of greater virtue and value – quite literally in terms of bride-price or dowry. It is a warped mindset; a distinctly racist view of indigenous British girls, and it’s wrong.

So one doesn’t quite expect an English court of law to issue a judgment effectively affirming it.

The Yorkshire Evening Post has the story: ‘Asian sex crime victims suffer more than white girls, judge rules‘. For Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir, Asian girls were manifestly not “off-limits”: he molested and assaulted two Asian girls, and was given seven years for his perverted brutality. But this was longer than he would have been incarcerated had his victims been white “because Asian sex-crime victims suffer more”.

This wasn’t only the reasoning of a rogue judge sitting in Leeds Crown Court: it has been upheld by the Criminal Appeal Court in London:

Mr Justice Walker said it was proper for paedophile, Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir, to have been given a tougher than normal sentence, because his victims were Asian.

..The judge who jailed him, Sally Cahill QC, specifically said that the fact the victims were Asian had been factored in as an “aggravating feature” when passing sentence.

..She stated that the victims and their families had suffered particular “shame” in their communities because of what had happened to them.

Additionally there were cultural concerns that the girls’ future prospects of being regarded as a good catch for arranged marriages might be damaged.

Lawyers for Ul Nasir, 32, of Firthcliffe Grove, Liversedge, argued at London’s Criminal Appeal Court that his sentence had been unfairly inflated.

But their complaints were rejected by Mr Justice Walker, who said: “The victims’ fathers were concerned about the future marriage prospects for their daughters.

“Judge Cahill was having particular regard to the harm caused to the victims by this offending.

“That harm was aggravated by the impact on the victims and their families within this particular community”.

So, the “shame” felt by Asian-Muslim/Sikh/Hindu girls is greater than that felt by white/Christian girls. The worries and concerns of Asian fathers are a greater burden than those of white fathers. Ergo the daughters of “this particular community” are worthy of greater protection by the courts.

What misery and despair is felt by raped Asian girls but not by raped white girls? What hurt and outrage about their daughter’s abuse is felt by an Asian father but not by a white father? How is the anger, grief or violation of an Asian family different from the anger, grief or violation of a white family?

What happened to equality under the law?

Our normative ethical judgments must always be responsive to different kinds and weights of evidence, but the law must be also seen to be fair and understood to be coherent. ‘Now concerning virgins‘, wrote St Paul, ‘I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful‘ (1Cor 7:25). That is to say, one judge may set forth a position with conviction, while recognising that another will hold a different if not conflicting opinion. Having overcome ethnic division and abolished an eye for an eye, why are white British judges determining that brown eyes are worth more than blue?

What would we think of this judgment if it had been issued by an Asian judge who had ruled that sexually-abused Asian girls were “shamed” more than white girls; and Asian babas were more “concerned” about their daughters’ welfare and future than white dads?

  • Orwell Ian

    The judgment gives tacit approval to the practice of arranged marriages, which frequently turn out to be forced marriages. Are such expressions of cultural identity to be regarded as acceptable? Are they not causes of failure to integrate and adopt British values? Positive discrimination has now led us up the path of outright racism. If one race of victims is judicially of lower value than another, whatever happened to equality before the law?

    • Marriage and sex are viewed differently by different cultures. Yes, the Muslim approach denies freedom of choice to women and, rigidly applied, is brutish and primitive – like much of fundamental Islam. However, it seems to Jack this sentence was focusing on the impact on the victim. Was it really an endorsement of Pakistani culture or more a comment of our own views on sex and marriage?

      If you knock a kippah off the head of a Jew and call him a pig, this would be of greater offence than knocking Jack’s hat off his head. Should the punishment for such an assault be the same or should it factor in the hurt and harm to the particular individual too? How does the punishment fit the crime in a society composed of individuals with different values and beliefs?

      • Orwell Ian

        It is both an endorsement of alien culture and a pronouncement on indigenous sexual attitude. In focusing on the impact on these Asian victims in a way that does not equally protect Caucasians, they are indicating to sexual predators that they’ll get a softer sentence if caught targeting white girls. There should be one law for all citizens regardless of the values of community or race. Start taking into account different values and beliefs and the next trendy ruling might be that some beheadings are less serious than others because of religious mitigation.

        • Don’t disagree you, and it seems to Jack then that the issue isn’t a more serious sentence in this particular case, but why the rape of any woman is no longer regarded as a serious violation close to murder, as it once was.

      • Don’t worry, Jack, with that yellow balloon as a head, you too would be protected by hate crime legislation.

  • sarky

    Just confirms my suspicions that most judges are out of touch morons.

    • Orwell Ian

      Or politically motivated judicial activists.

  • David

    This confirms my suspicions that the most racist, anti-British, callously anti-white elements of our society are within the heart of the political/judicial and media establishment. There are also those in the Churches, especially the C of E, that seem keen to do down the indigenous, whilst simultaneously pushing their “progressive” revisions of the Christian faith.
    Much of the establishment has callously turned against all that is British, white and Christian. We are governed by cultural traitors. Yet a majority of the population still naively, vote for that very establishment that continues betraying them. How slow people are to recognise reality through the spin and lies. By the time the public wakes up, it may be far too late.

  • Anton

    Traitors in the judiciary too.

    • They are holding up a mirror to our society, Anton. What we see is not pleasant.

      • Anton

        I agree. But few members of our society are in such positions of responsibility.

  • Mike Stallard

    One of the things which disgusts a lot of non Muslims is the hypocrisy which we see every time we go abroad.
    In Singapore, for example, I have seen a Muslim man, followed by three carefully draped women, walking around the Mall. He then disappeared into the Casino, while the three women went shopping.
    A Muslim friend of mine pointed out that the numerous “Pubs” in the Muslim area of town were, in fact brothels. And his eyes glazed over as he remembered…
    Anyone who has been to Bangkok must have noticed that in among the Sexpats are a number of Arabs in mufti.
    Yet – Oh the weddings! Oh the stress on Dishonour! Oh the “Look at me aren’t I just so holy” of the hijab!

    If you are shocked – just go and look for yourself. I am sure that Jesus had several things to say about this.
    I hated writing this.

  • What the judges are saying is that Western, white society has a casual view about sex and that virginity is no longer expected of women when one marries. This then was factored into a sentence that sought to balance punishment with the harm caused. Were they really saying raping a white girl was less offensive or harmful to her psychologically than raping an Asian girl?

    • carl jacobs

      What the judges are saying is that Western, white society has a casual view about sex and that virginity is no longer expected of women when one marries.

      Exactly so. And as the view of sex becomes more and more casual, then the crime of rape must converge with assault. If sex is so inconsequential that it may be handed out to an unnamed acquaintance encountered 30 minutes ago in a bar, then what is the basis for punishing it more severely than a simple harsh beating? Severe punishment for the crime of rape is predicated upon certain assumptions about the nature of sex – assumptions which our culture seems hellbent on overturning.

      But when an idiot judge points this out, and dares to act on exactly this logic, people get angry. The culture is getting what it is asking for. The diminution of sex means the diminution of the forcible taking of sex. The punishment for a crime follows the significance of the crime. If sex is considered cheap, then the man who steals it won’t be considered to have stolen much of value.

      • Merchantman

        The point is the law says Rape is a serious crime. If the law is upheld at different levels for different offenders on basis of ethnicity we are in deep trouble. Any backlash will of course be stifled at birth by MSM.
        Its more of the same. The leftist establishment are out of control because they have no check. In the same way they allowed Rotherham, they never prosecuted FGM did they? Now this. Enough is enough. The Judiciary in particular need to get a grip of their own and stop capriciously usurping power.

  • Dreadnaught

    Bravo Cranmer Bravo!
    It needed saying and even more it needs to be heard.

  • Owl

    Excellent YG. Once again highlighting the totally illogical “equality” of our leftish colleagues. The judiciary requires one set of values (British) not “Multi” sets depending on who is being accused and who the victim is. We our now in judicial meltdown.

    • Merchantman

      Correct. Absolute meltdown.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    This cases affirms my belief that our judicial system is institutionally racist: against the white indigenous population. Sally Cahill QC’s judgement is indeed crass, biased, and tainted with prejudice against white people. She is an utter disgrace to the judiciary, and to this country. She has caught the British disease of self (white) denigration in the face of so-called multiculturalism. I hope she eventually sees the stupidity and injustice of her comment.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Four Somali women who kicked a white woman in the head ‘walked free from court after a judge heard they were “not used to being drunk” because they were Muslim.’ Although the women had shouted ‘white bitch’ and ‘Kill the white slag’, the police ruled that the attack was not racist.

    ● ‘A Muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless.’ The judge thought the Muslim ‘may not have known that having sex with a 13-year-old girl was illegal.’

    And now this latest sickening example of ‘justice’. Perhaps judges and the police discriminate against whites, and in favour of ethnic minorities, to trumpet their anti-racist bona fides, mindful of the Macpherson report and its finding of institutional racism. It seems at times as though there is a mirror image Equal Treatment Bench Book.

    • Hugh Jeego

      Ignorance of the law is no defence. Neither should it be a mitigation.

  • Thank you YG for raising this and for stating the anomaly so clearly. This political correctness of course is not unconnected to the reason why the Rotherham abuse went on unhindered for so long.

  • carl jacobs

    Remove race from the picture. Simply consider two girls of the same race. Girl A values and guards her virginity. Girl B does not. If both girls are raped, has Girl A objectively suffered more harm than Girl B? If you say “Yes” then you have affirmed the punishment of the judge. If you say “No” then you have declared the forcible loss of virginity to be legally inconsequential. Girl A may feel she has suffered significant loss. But her feelings have no standing before the law.

    If a man rapes a prostitute, has he committed a less severe crime than if he had raped Girl A above? Legally, the answer must be “No.” But the reason should not be that the crime of rape is primarily a crime against consent. The reason should be to guard the place of sex in life. The law that criminalizes prostitution has the same foundation as the law that severely punishes rape. The problem we have is that the law is still trying to punish sex crimes as if sex occupied a guarded place, when sex has been commodified and trivialized and cheapened. The law is trying to do this on the basis of nothing more than consent. But it’s hard to severely punish a man for taking by force from a woman that which he could have purchased from that same woman for a price of $20. It’s hard to severely punish a man for depriving a girl of her virginity when the value of virginity has been zeroed out.

    This is what happens when you validate fornication, and prostitution, and anonymous sex in the park, and adultery, and cheap alcohol-induced one night stands between “two consenting single people.” This is what happens when you privatize sex. You can’t have it both ways.

    • sarky

      Its nice to see misogyny is alive and well. Had to read this twice because I couldn’t quite believe what I was reading.
      Carl, it does not matter a jot whether a woman is a prostitute, has one night stands etc etc rape is WRONG no matter what the circumstance and the punishment should be SEVERE in every case. You almost sound like you are making allowences for the scum that carry out these attacks. Get a grip.

      • carl jacobs

        You are incapable of reading the English language, sarky. You accuse me of saying the exact opposite of what I said. But why should that surprise me? You have done it so many times before.

        • sarky

          Don’t think so.

          • carl jacobs

            No, you just don’t think.

      • dannybhoy

        On what are you basing your judgements Sarky? Why do you think what Carl has said is wrong? If life on earth is an accident and man and animals are just a by product of that cosmic accident, then why do they have value?
        Western secular society now believes that personal freedom is the goal, and people should be free to experiment with sex from an early age, to change gender, to abort babies and treat sex as a recreational activity.
        Carl is right.

        • sarky

          Ah right, so you need a god for man and animals to have value. Again, b####cks.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      There is a risk of course in a judgement or sentence being based on the extent of the victim’s suffering. Supposing a hacker steals £1 from everybosy’s account. Individual victims are not going to suffer much as result of the financial loss. Does that make a lesser crime?

      • carl jacobs

        Depends of the total stolen, doesn’t it? If a man steals £1 each from five men, how severely will he be punished? If he steals £1 each from 100,000 men, then how severely will he be punished? The law recognizes the difference. Virtually all crimes are punished according to the amount of loss inflicted.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          A sum of money is an objective and easily quantifiable thing. The psychological damage to a rape victim is not. it seems the judge made a presumption based on racial stereotypes. That is inequality under the law. It is also not the role of judges to tell us how much we are suffering as victims.

          • carl jacobs

            Of course the judge takes account of the victim’s suffering. That is why judges listen to victim impact statements prior to sentencing.

            Set aside race for a moment. This isn’t about race. There is a disconnect between cultural attitudes towards sex and cultural attitudes towards sex crimes. Sex is being trivialized and cheapened but punishments do not reflect this shift in attitude. The punishment for the crime must inevitably follow the cultural perception of the degree of offense. As sex becomes cheap, the punishment for taking sex by force will follow in course. It must. The punishment must fit the crime. As the perceived violation becomes less and less, the punishment must become less and less.

            The judge reflected that reality in this decision. People are angry about it (and rightly so) but they are focusing on the wrong thing. They are treating this as a racial matter. This is really about cultural shifts in the significance of sex, and the changes that accrue as a result.

          • The punishment for the crime must inevitably follow the cultural perception of the degree of offence. As sex becomes cheap, the punishment for taking sex by force will follow in course. It must. The punishment must fit the crime. As the perceived violation becomes less and less, the punishment must become less and less.

            A proposal for an astounding innovation in jurisprudence, Carl. Have you thought of the implications if the principle is expanded and what happens when it is applied unequally to perps and victims?

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, I have. That’s why it scares me. I have said many tines that paganism would return. You see the first hnts in things like this.

          • With that assessment I have no argument.

          • IanCad

            “That is why judges listen to victim impact statements prior to sentencing.”
            And, another nail in the coffin of the rule of law.

          • Totally agreed! The unsightly circus where victims are urged to berate the perp and plead suffering is humiliating and unjust. Sentencing should not be governed by how well a victim performs or by the judge’s idea about which victim suffered more over another victim.

    • You’re not making much sense this morning, Carl.

      Remove sex from the picture. Treat the rapes as what they are, assaults, and stick to the law. Judge the severity of the attack, levels of injury and whether the victim was a minor; not the effects on “honour,” reputation, family feelings, musings or cultural and religious bullshit…things that no judge should subjectively arbitrate on. Those things belong in a civil litigation suit where the victim can ask for restitution for any damages acceptable to a court with fewer restrictions.

      • carl jacobs

        But that is my point, Avi. Rape is becoming nothing more than a form of assault. And why? Because sex is being trivialized. Rape is a much more severe crime than assault. And we as a culture are losing the ability to make that distinction. How much time does a man do for punching another man in the face? A few days? That is were we are headed.

        • That is my point too; rape must be treated as a form of assault (as is the case in Canadian law). It can have its own separate status under designations such as sexual assault and sexual assault of a minor and be treated with extra severity, which is the case in jurisdictions which but the value of of the victim based on cultural, religious or moral estimations should not be entertained in a criminal proceeding.

          This means also, that equal levels of suffering must be assumed…i.e., all perps and victims are equal before the law (remember that one?) Anything other than that invites unequal, preferential, prejudicial, corrupt or stupid decisions such as the one by Judge Sally Cahill,

          • carl jacobs

            the value of of the victim based on cultural, religious or moral estimations should not be entertained in a criminal proceeding.

            I agree completely. Did you think I didn’t? But that doesn’t change my point. If the underlying action of the crime is considered trivial, then the punishment for the crime will eventually become trivial. The danger in this decision is not that one victim was judged more worthy than another. The danger is that it reveals a changing legal attitude towards the gravity of sexual assault. The default position is the position the judge didn’t adopt. That is what should offend people. Not all this stuff about race.

          • Actually, I thought you were making a bad argument in pursuit of other issues and points. I agree that the discussion here has derailed into irrelevancies, but I don’t see how the judge’s decision reflects a change in the gravity of sexual assault; these are established in statutes and sentencing guidelines. I think that there only two possibilities; that Judge Cahill, a QC no less, is either monumentally stupid or criminally corrupt and needs to be investigated for corrective remedies.

          • carl jacobs


            What would have made everyone happy? If the judge had sentenced the rapists of Muslim girls as leniently as the rapists of white girls were sentenced, then there would have been no problem. What this episode did was expose the head room in the punishment for rape. And people were only offended by the differentiation. They should have been offended by the leniency of the alternate sentences.

            I can justify why the rapist of a prostitute should be punished to the full extent of the law. My argumnet will begin not with autonomy but with the purpose and sanctity of sex. The modern world has been systematically pulverizing those concepts for three generations. So what the is the basis for inflicting a harsh penalty on rape? Lack of consent is wholly inadequate. It depends on the nature of the underlying act. And the underlying act is being systematically trivialized. If the violation of consent involves taking by force that which is trivial, then the act of taking it becomes trivial. And eventually a new punishment considered fit for the crime will follow.

            A man punches another man. He is not severely punished because the damage inflicted is sleight. Well, how can the law keep asserting that the damage of rape is severe when the culture under the law treats sex as something contemptible and trivial?

          • It’s not a question of what would make everyone happy or even the decline of sexual standards, but the basis on which both Cahill and Walker decided and upheld the sentence. By their impenetrable logic, had the victim received the staus of a hero and made money from film rights, the perp would have received a suspended senyence and perhaps a cut from royalties.

            It is one thing to factor in levels of violence, damage and suffering relating directly to the crime, another to up the penalty because the victim’s baba is upset and some primitives consider the girl “damaged goods” and not fit for marriage. As I said before, such collateral consequences can be handled through tort law. The case judge and the apellate were ruling on criminal, not tort law.

      • dannybhoy

        Secular society is not interested in the values religion places on marriage, parenthood, family/community notions of respect and loyalty. It is only interested in individuals as units of society and their rights to express themselves as they wish and to (non judgementally) bind up their wounds when it all goes wrong…

        • Perhaps, but how does this address the principle of equality before the law…or, if you want to address the theological question, the equal value of each human being before the Almighty?

          • dannybhoy

            The Almighty has nothing to do with the values of Western secular society.
            Equality before the law… in the light of of the individual’s human rights to express themselves in whatever gender they see fit, to live what ever lifestyle they see fit, means that we are are truly equal before the (secular) law. Therefore each individual’s lifestyle and value system must be regarded as of equal worth, providing you do not condemn any other lifestyle.
            Apart from restrictive religions, because they are judgemental and restrictive..

          • That means you have altered your position? You seem to be affirming equality before the law irrespective of cultural perceptions.

          • dannybhoy

            I am saying that our society is currently based on equality, diversity and inclusion. Therefore we must respect and recognise the equal value of all cultures and include them in our society. If therefore Muslim communities place a high value on the purity/virginity of their daughters we must accept and honour that.
            If western society regards virginity of no real consequence then obviously it must have less value, and its loss treated accordingly.

          • I see; I misunderstood then. You are saying here that treating different cultures equally means that we must accept any and all claims regarding cultural values as factors in legal decisions and sentencing. Thus, an Iranian or Qatari rapist of a ten-year old boy or girl should walk. Or a villager from Papua and New Guinea should get forty hours of community service for killing his neighbour who appears to be giving him the evil eye and killing his garden roses with spells?

          • dannybhoy

            Exaggerated, but kind of… :0)
            We know for example that in multicultural United Kingdom minority communities have various beliefs and practices that are upheld by that community. So every now and then we read about honour killings or girls being spirited off out of school to the Indian sub continent to be married..
            In a sense we have to accept it because we (officially) believe that all cultures are of equal value. To condemn a particular practice (legally) goes against that principle. So we either turn a blind eye as the authorities in Rotherham and elsewhere have done, or else we suddenly (and in legal terms, illogically), overturn that commitment to cultural equality and decide that a particular cultural practice is in contradiction to this particular aspect of human rights..

            Complicated ain’t it?

            But in this particular case, in the light of cultural/religious equivalence, the judge was right to rule that Muslims place a higher value on the virginity of their daughters than white secular society does.
            …..Except “Outraged of Cranmer’s Blog”
            aka Sarky

          • True, but exaggerations make better points! There are two parts to your position, though, and the first one, that we should make accommodations to cultures, is not at all complicated. The state and its citizens can change laws and accommodate early and fixed marriages…or circumcision for baby boys and sh’hita, for that matter (I’m surprised no one’s brought that up yet).

            The complicated bit is in the selective application which forces the judiciary to step out of their mandate and expertise and determine which cultures should get differential treatment and in what circumstances. As far as I know, anyone can circumcise his son and you don’t have to be Jewish or Muslim to open up an abattoir and perform traditional slaughter…subject to health, animal welfare and other regulations, of course. This is an example of equal justice; the judges decision in question is a particularly ugly example of corruption of justice.

          • dannybhoy

            “or circumcision for baby boys and sh’hita, for that matter (I’m surprised no one’s brought that up yet).”

            Because by and large most Christians acknowledge the validity of those practices as being a part of Judaism supported by the Scriptures which we acknowledge as being from God.

            “This is an example of equal justice; the judges decision in question is a particularly ugly example of corruption of justice.”

            Corrupt on what grounds? Human Rights legislation, British law or even Christian morality?

          • I’m certainly glad for the attitudes which allowed me to just now finish off the cold kosher chicken wings in the back of the fridge, which I remembered thanks to the shehita issue. I’m equally glad, though, that the two practices stand on their own merit and that they are available to all, regardless of culture or religion.

            It would be a corruption of the meta-principles of equal justice if the courts allowed only Jews…presumably upon some standard of proof of Jewishness…to circumcise their boys and conduct traditional slaughter, but not anyone else. I’m not a lawyer and I’m not up on all the specific of Commonwealth jurisprudence, but I’ll venture to say that the decision under discussion violates the core principles of British law.

            I can’t comment on Christian morality, but where Jewish law and ethics are concerned, I can think of two points. The first is “eye is an eye; tooth is a tooth,” which leads to “rape is rape,” i.e., equal value of all victims and equal sanctions of all perpetrators. The seond is dina d’malkhuta dina, “the law of the land is the law,” which means that unless special provisions have been made, the law of the place where an individual resides has priorities.

          • dannybhoy

            As I said we are in rather a muddle here in the UK. We have our own British system of law which has been eclipsed by Human Rights legislation and our support for cultural equality.
            I have drawn attention to social services and police forces who out of fear of being branded racist, would (for a period of literally years) rather allow young girls to be abused and scarred for life
            My role in this thread has been to play devil’s advocate, that’s all.
            Why have you replaced your selfie with that of an old geezer?

          • Haha! I am an old geezer…56 now. And my beard went all white in the last two years, although hair’s still brown for some reason.

            We have a similar muddle going on here too, but behind all this craziness is the unfortunate fact that there is a clear degradation of our institutions and decline of calibre in the people within them. The joke is that the Honourable Nitwit, Judge Sally Calhill, may well be a sad by-product of equity favouratism from her admission to law school all the way to the bench. The system devours itself!

          • dannybhoy

            “The joke is that the Honourable Nitwit, Judge Sally Calhill, may well
            be a sad by-product of equity favouritism from her admission to law
            school all the way to the bench. The system devours itself!”
            Absolutely Avi, so western culture ends up being defeated not by its enemies but by its laws..

            Re your new pic.
            All is not lost old fella. I find that if I squint a bit whilst rapidly fluttering my eyelashes, (and with a fair bit of kindly imagination) you now bear a striking resemblance to Ron Moody….
            Or is it Woody Allan…?
            Shabbat Shalom btw.

      • There’s the relevant criteria you are down playing that Carl is drawing attention to – “levels of injury “.

        In Britain, rape carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and can be indeterminate. Guideline exist for sentencing and they are based on levels of harm suffered to victims, what aggravating factors there are and how the dangerous the offender might be in the future.

        • True, but sentencing guidelines typically list levels of harm by direct, objective criteria, such as injury, which…to my knowledge…have yet to include what the judge is told or thinks about someone’s honour or cultural values.

    • Inspector General

      “Remove race from the picture”. Why do that? If you’re a bit uncomfortable around the collar, desist and sit this one out. Live in your small world if you must, but don’t ask the rest of us to join you…

    • Albert

      This is all very well, but you can’t assume that because a girl is white that therefore she does not prize her virginity.

      • Busy Mum

        Unfortunately, a white girl who prizes her virginity is looked upon as a bit of an oddity by her peers, who are supported in this by the government…

  • dannybhoy

    What is the problem here?
    Our society is now based on the holy trinity of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.
    Thus in Asian societies girls are taught to be submissive, to remain chaste and to marry as directed by the father.
    The shame brought on Muslim families by pre marital sex or rape will often be directed at the girl and may result in her death.
    By contrast, white secular society believes that family life is unimportant, that individuals must be free to ‘discover themselves’ and not be bound by old fashioned morality.
    White secular society believes that boys and girls may indulge in sex from a very young age, and should not be stigmatised in any way. That if a (school) girl gets pregnant because she forgot to take the pill, she should be free to abort. If she chooses to have the baby she then becomes a heroine, and social services will rally around to support her as a single mother.
    The important thing in white secular society is that we shall not judge, we shall not worry about the number of children ending up in the care system, and we won’t worry too much about what happens to these kids; because somehow or other it’s their choice, and the state they get into has nothing to do with the parents who failed them.
    That’s the value we place on our kids in the care system, that’s the value we place on children from broken homes…
    So it seems to me that however oppressive we may see Muslim culture, the parents take their responsibilities seriously, they do look after their kids and protect them. Some sections of white society don’t.

    So in that sense the judgement is sound.

    • sarky

      I find your view just as disgusting as Carls. EVERY female should be protected and respected no matter what their background. Or are you saying all those girls in Rotherham deserved it because they came from poor backgrounds? And that the perpetrators should be punished less? Like I said to Carl, get a grip.

      • dannybhoy

        Be as disgusted as you like, old chap. But perhaps you are failing to think through the implications of our laws and stated values and the consequences.
        I am simply stating what our secular society says it believes and how it acts.

        • sarky

          No dannybhoy, what a small section says it believes and how it acts.

          • dannybhoy

            You miss the point. The State has usurped the authority and responsibility of parents, and has gradually upheld the freedom of the individual to do and be whatever they want without judging them. Consequently children in care for example are no longer the responsibility of the parents: the State and the (reluctant) Taxpayer have become surrogate parents..

          • sarky

            B#####ks, the state has not in any way, shape or form usurped my authority or responsibility as a parent, nor has it for anyone I know. Also what is wrong with being able to do what you want (within the law) without judgement? Isn’t that the freedom that many thousands died for?
            ‘Children in care are no longer the responsibility of the parents’…????
            They are in care…… of course they are not the responsibility of the parents. This is not a modern phenomenon, kids have always been made wards of the state.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            Many people in Scotland would say the state is usurping the authority of parents over their children through the imposition of state guardians. These so-called guardians have the right to go behind parents backs on all kinds of matters. They are also effectively spying on parents and their attitudes. Let’s hope we never get them here

          • Don’t kid yourself.
            All Scotland has done with its “named person” i.e. a professional who is formally responsible for monitoring a child’s development from the cradle to adulthood, is to make explicit what already goes on in England and Wales. Health, education and social services already monitor children and share family information under child protection guidelines and are quit free to interview children “in confidence” if they deem their welfare warrants it.
            It’s a consequence of the public outrage expressed when agencies fail to identify and intervene to protect children from horrendous abuse and has been gaining increasing traction since the 1970’s.

          • Busy Mum

            Yes – from experience, parents are pretty much the spare parts in their children’s lives nowadays.

          • dannybhoy

            So let’s get this straight. Adults have the right to make children and also the right not to be parents and responsible for nurturing, protecting and preparing them for life and relationships.
            Of course right.
            You are mixing up your personal values with what the State decrees..

          • sarky


          • IanCad

            I with you on this Sarky.

          • dannybhoy

            It has actually.
            If as an example you refused to allow your kids to attend gender flexibility classes or any number of groups and programmes, advocating/ allowing them to discover their true sexuality, you kids could legitimately make a complaint to school staff, the police or social services. You may then find yourself being compelled to accede to your children’s wishes or face a fine or imprisonment and your children being taken into care..
            That’s the reality.

          • sarky

            Why would I stop them going to such classes in the first place? (Not that I am aware that such classes actually exist).
            My kids have the freedom to make their own choices, hence my youngest attended a church holiday club last year. The biggest gift I can give them is to think for themselves.

          • dannybhoy

            Regardless, your children have rights that your authority as a parent cannot overrule.

          • sarky

            Like the right not to be hit or harshly punished – good.

          • Anton

            Sarky, you and Danny are having a great debate here. Thank you both. Might I add that there’s a bit more to it than saying your children make their own choices? They wouldn’t even know that choices exist if you didn’t tell them, and I’m sure you give guidance which choices are better; on top of which, most of most of the time they just imitate you.

          • sarky

            They didn’t imitate me going to the church :-). We tend to let them make choices then talk about it afterwards, otherwise like you say they are just copying us and don’t learn. Obviously we step in if the choice is dangerous or could lead to harm.

          • And not very good ones!

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Your analysis of the different cultural values with regard to marriage is quite correct. I suppose that people like ourselves are aggrieved to see our judicial system starting to discriminate between cultures when it comes to judgement and sentencing. Unfortunately that is what the nation has come to. Goes to show that the judiciary have succumbed to the same disease of political correctness as many other “pillars” of society.

      • dannybhoy

        Why thank you Sir!
        You cottoned on to my unspoken differentiation between secular society and our Christian values and practices.. I didn’t mention them because as we all know, Christians are old fashioned, oppressive and totally out of touch with “freedom.”

    • Johnny Rottenborough

      @ dannybhoy—By contrast, white secular society believes that family life is unimportant

      A good example of the third great commandment, ‘Thou shalt make sweeping statements.’ This article about the key prosecution witness in the Rochdale grooming trial makes no mention of her attending church or of her family being Christian but she nevertheless ‘had a loving, very middle-class upbringing.’ The article says, ‘And now, a new myth is being peddled: that the girls themselves are somehow to blame.’ It’s surprising how many want to believe that myth.

      • dannybhoy

        True, it was (deliberately) a sweeping statement.
        What I was trying to illustrate is the moral mess we have gotten ourselves into by on one hand, upholding the right of the individual to express themselves and seek ‘personal fulfilment’, and on the other hand acknowledging that for example, children who are loved and nurtured by committed parents do better than kids born into dysfunctional families or where parents have divorced.
        The fact is that many immigrant communities take their parenting responsibilities seriously, whereas a significant number of native Brits don’t, and the law upholds the rights of the child over the authority of the parents..

      • Busy Mum

        Unfortunately, a loving middle-class upbringing can make a girl feel rather isolated… order to ‘fit in’ nowadays, a girl needs to be the lowest of the low…and the parents get NO support from the authorities, who just reprimand the parents for failing to recognise that ‘all teenagers push the boundaries’. It is almost impossible to be a responsible indigenous parent nowadays – both government and children are in league against us.

    • DB you make a good point but the judges should not be affirming with the sentence our valueless secular society. They’re doing us down and pandering to the Asian egos who already think they are better than white British.
      Anyway the family live in Britain and the crime took place in Britain, girls and women are not bartered off for a dowry. The judges should be upholding British values to whom ever lives here and comes up before them.

      • dannybhoy

        ” The judges should be upholding British values to whom ever lives here and come up before them.”
        But they can’t, can they.
        They are committed to Human Rights legislation and those three cardinal policies introduced by Tony Blair.
        We should uphold the supremacy of our own cultural values, but we can’t without as it were rubbishing the values of other faiths. That would be judgmental.

        • Tony Blair ripped this country apart quietly with all the sweeping and damaging changes New Labour made to create their multi-culti EUtopia by pulling out the foundations bit by bit from underneath us until we collapse, and the conservatives are not doing anything much to stop the crumbling.
          They can start by getting rid of the Labour’s HR legislation 1998 and re-instating higher British standards.The values of other faiths I’m afraid come second to our own.

          • dannybhoy

            Good points Marie. I remember when these policies were first unveiled. Some pundits said their impact on our society would be enormous.
            Of course our laws and values should be pre-eminent, but we have been effectively robbed of control of our own nation.

          • Those pundits were right.

          • David

            Excellent point !

          • sarky

            And what exactly is our own??

            Surely not minority christianity?

          • Christian-secular Sarky.
            We don’t attack and rape women, we don’t barter with women or hit them. Rape is a terrible crime no matter what colour and culture the persons involved in it are.
            Only by treating others as we do our own will there be any semblance of integration. How on earth can we expect others to feel they belong if we treat them differently?

          • sarky

            Hmmm sadly I think alot of what you mentioned is universal and not restricted to any particular group.

          • dannybhoy

            And Christianity upholds the worth of women as St Peter says
            in 1 Peter 3:7 (ESVUK)

            ” Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honour to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”

          • sarky

            Weaker vessel?? You haven’t met my mrs   🙂

          • dannybhoy

            Maybe she’s one of the exceptions…..
            Certainly men and women often fall outside of our stereotypes, but treating each other with respect and consideration is important.
            If your missus frightens your mates and carries you home from the pub, you’ve got a goodun’.

          • sarky

            I most certainly have.

          • Yes Sarky, so that we can all practice it in this country. Those values come out of our Christian heritage.

      • “The judges should be upholding British values to whom ever lives here and comes up before them.”

        But don’t you see, Marie, given the low value placed on virginity and chastity, and the high value placed on sexual liberation and gratuitous expression of desire, this would tend towards lower sentences all round.

        • Yes it would so we had better review our values otherwise we’ll become a cesspit of depravity. Also I can’t see the feminists being to enamored with low sentences for sexual assault on women especially.

        • magnolia

          No, it wouldn’t. Rape is largely an act of violence. It violates the inner person, and makes them feel worthless, stripped of their will, and that their consent to what is done to their body and their right to function sexually with at least some love has been mocked and denied, and that someone could penetrate into their most inner physical being without them being able to prevent it.

          How someone operates with consensual sexual intercourse is not the main point,(much as I myself recommend traditional Christian values here). It makes the majority feel shaky and worthless for years afterwards.

          The Judges have, shockingly, thought a little bit like rapists themselves, that some victims count less than others.

          • Jack doesn’t disagree, Magnolia. However, the time when sex was valued as an intimate act of self-giving of one’s core inner being has long gone for many of our generation. This is the more general point Jack is making.

      • David

        You’ve hit the nail on the head.
        If judges are meant to defend the structures and norms (arguable through they are) of British society, why are they declaring them as lower than those of insular, unintegrated immigrant cultures ?
        The judges have undermined their own country’s values !

    • magnolia

      That suggests that those cultural values are also what people feel in their inner beings. It isn’t. White girls do feel made unclean and dirty, and indeed they may endure more social isolation from staying inside afraid to join in normal peer innocent activities like going out in the evening. Would that be an aggravating factor? More like an ignored one, I should think.

      This is very dangerous territory indeed.

      For instance, does a numb abandoned teenager with little self worth who is raped and remains numb and who has no functioning relations and a scant resource network count less than a cosseted sensitive one with a large family and support network? It certainly looks like that.

  • Albert

    What happened to equality under the law?

    Quite. Both judges should be struck off.

    • Why? Judges are obliged by sentencing guidelines to consider “aggravating” and “mitigating” factors in determining sentences. The impact on the victim and harm caused is one such factor.

      • Albert

        That surely cannot be on the basis of race. What of other mitigating factors? A white girl has a particular psychological vulnerability and therefore suffers more than an Asian girl. I don’t think we can measure these things in such black and white ways.

  • Inspector General

    Straw has it right. He also has it wrong.

    “These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they’re fizzing and popping with testosterone,”

    It’s not just young Pakistani men who are fizzing and popping. Middle aged Inspectors remember a similar time when younger. However, what stops the indigenous young men from raping anything they can pull to the ground is that they were brought up in a society that values women. A society that values the welfare of others. A Nordic society that has learnt the best way to prosper in this clime is to co-operate together. Literally, placing a value on your neighbour. Not so for the races involved. These peoples seem to see others outside of the family as fair game in the search for satisfaction, whatever their skin colour. In the way, at best, surplus to requirements, at worst.

    As one never tires from saying, the races are different in their approaches. We are not born with clean sheets. Not only are we nurtured differently, but we all possess inherent traits that enable us to survive. If we are born in a land where others see you as ripe to be taken advantage of or even killed to get you out the way, that is going to have an impact on how you think and behave. And that is the stuff that is passed down to the next generation, just as children who are gifted musicians are more likely to have parent(s) who themselves are gifted musicians.

    Oddly enough, the judge concerned has shown that she appreciates these differences, even if her critics don’t. Yes, she’s started off badly, but she’s left behind the unnatural concept of all being the same. Centuries ago, we were calling this enlightenment after the darkness of the middle ages. What dare we call it now?

    • dannybhoy

      “As one never tires from saying, the races are different in their
      approaches. We are not born with clean sheets. Not only are we nurtured
      differently, but we all possess inherent traits that enable us to
      “The Oxford English Dictionary
      offers a broad definition of multiculturalism as the “characteristics
      of a multicultural society” and “the policy or process whereby the
      distinctive identities of the cultural groups within such a society are
      maintained or supported”.

      “Multiculturalism is commonly seen as the dominant
      strand in official approaches to diversity and difference in the UK. It may be understood as ‘the recognition of group differences within the public sphere of laws, policies, democratic discourses and the terms of a shared citizenship and national identity’ (Modood 2007, 2; see Phillips 2009, 10, Parekh 2000a, 6, Parekh 2000b).

      The emphasis on recognition draws on Charles Taylor’s seminal analysis of the ‘politics of recognition’ and of the fundamental shift in the ‘presumptions’ surrounding political discourse towards the view that equal recognition should be afforded to all established cultures
      (Taylor 1994, 67-8).

      Parekh points out that, in multi-culturalism, demands for recognition go beyond the plea for tolerance and include ‘acceptance, respect and even public affirmation of their differences’ (2000a, 1).

      Probably the single most influential document, the report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, which he chaired, opens with a clear statement of the ‘equal worth’ of all individuals, ‘irrespective of their colour, gender, ethnicity, religion, age or sexual orientation’, a recognition that ‘citizens are both individuals and members of particular religious, ethnic, cultural and regional communities’, and the point that ‘Britain is both a community of citizens and a community of communities, both a liberal and a multicultural society, and needs to reconcile their sometimes conflicting requirements’
      (Parekh 2000b, 10). The politics of recognition requires the negotiation and accommodation of difference.”

      This is why we are in such a muddle.

      • Inspector General

        Social engineering stinks, what!

  • len

    White girls are seen as easy prey especially those who are in ‘the care’ of local authorities because they have no one to speak for them no one to defend them …not even those who are paid to defend them…

    • They are very poorly served. There is no one to really care whether or not they learn to value their virginity. They don’t have any real love.

    • Ivan M

      It would be a better use of your time to look after these girls than taunting Catholics.

      • dannybhoy

        How’s he taunting Catholics?

        • Inspector General

          It’s what he does Danny. Gets some perverse relief from it.

        • Ivan M

          He does it whenever the Catholic brigade here gets uppity

  • Ivan M

    Cahill has interpreted the spirit of UK law correctly. Some categories of victims are more equal than others. If you can prove that your injuries are magnified manifold on account of belonging to a favoured victim class; homosexuals, blacks, Jews, Muslims etc, there is nothing for it but for the judge to look into aggravating circumstances. The standard of proof being very little more than who can cry more. Equal treatment under UK law ended with the “hate crimes” laws. Cahill has just driven it home.

  • Darter Noster

    Personally, I find it more shocking that the Judges, and consequently British law, have chosen to endorse the barbaric cultural belief that a raped woman or abused child is dishonoured, dirty or damaged goods, rather than refusing to entertain such backward mediaevalism and impose ferociously harsh sentences for all rapists and abusers. Where is the feminist outrage about all this?

    • dannybhoy

      British law does not endorse it. It’s just that British law no longer counts.

      • Royinsouthwest

        British judges endorse it. It does not matter what the law says, What counts is how the judges choose to interpret it. That is why the “Human Rights” Act is used to stop us from deporting terrorist sympathisers and foreign criminals.

        • dannybhoy

          Exactly. (traditional) British law has been sidelined whilst British judges uphold HR legislation and (often) benefit from taxpayers’ money in prosecuting these cases..
          That Cherie Blair championed HR legislation and her husband happened to be Prime Minister is coincidental..

    • James60498 .

      Of course there is no feminist outrage about this. In the same way they are happy for women and doctors to murder unborn baby girls, just because they are girls.

      But when a man who is clearly somewhat deficient in sight, compliments a woman over her looks they get upset.

      How stupid do you have to be to be a feminist? Of course you can just have no morals whatsoever.
      Remembering of course those “this is what a feminist looks like” t-shirts as worn by Milliband and Clegg.

  • Martin

    It seems to me that the judges are supporting multiculturalism and saying society must remain divided on ethnic grounds. Indeed they are creating an apartheid, where white may only marry white and Asian may only marry Asian. Doubtless they would also demand that only black may marry black.

    There go liberal values.

    • dannybhoy

      It even extends to fostering..

  • Plasterer

    Well the message here is clear. If you’re going to rape someone, make sure she’s white. That way you’ll be out of clink quicker to be able to start again.

  • Medusa Jordan

    Whilst the ruling disgusts me I would have more sympathy with your POV if WHITE men had ANY respect for WHITE girls. I was once a white girl – a middle class white girl who dressed modestly for the time and place, and I was treated with equal contempt by men of ALL ethnicities.
    Solo ethnic men were more prevalent it is true, but baying drunken sexist threatening men in groups were usually white.