Britain soft on rape: How 200 sex attackers were let off with just a caution

Shocking new figures released today revealed that over the past five years almost 200 rapists have escaped with just a caution.

The startling statistics, disclosed by 14 police forces in response to Freedom of Information requests, show one in 100 rape arrests resulted in a slap on the wrist. Figures showed that 198 people arrested on suspicion or rape between 2006 and 2010 admitted the offence but only received a caution. The revelations come just days after Ken Clarke's gaffe that some rapes are less serious than others.

One of the most shocking cases involved a caution given to a rapist who admitted abusing a girl under the age of 13 in Gwent, Wales, in 2008. A further 12,842 rape claims - or 65 per cent of arrests - were not taken any further by police in the same period because of a lack of evidence.

Davina James-Hanman, 44, director of Against Violence and Abuse, today described the findings as ‘shocking’. She said: ‘The problem is not getting a conviction in court - it is getting the case out of the police station. ‘Using cautions can be appropriate at times for example if a woman is completely crushed and you have only been able to get a short statement from her to use in court. ‘It is shocking to think of how many rapists are just given cautions. But at least it will remain on their record if they reoffend.

‘The worst thing is that many rapists who accept a caution would plead not guilty if they were taken to court because they know they will be able to get off. ‘There is always a suggestion of bad character about the woman. There is no other crime where people ask about what the victim had done to cause it. ‘If you forgot to lock your car people are still sympathetic if it gets broken into. That is not how people treat rape victims.’

Catherine Briddick, Senior Legal Officer at Rights of Women, said a caution for rape would ‘rarely be appropriate.’ She said: ‘If someone has accepted a caution then they have accepted criminal responsibility for an incredibly serious offence. ‘Giving a caution for a serious sexual offence would rarely be appropriate and when making this decision it is vital that the informed views of the survivor are taken into consideration. ‘Works needs to be done to reduce the number of cases that are dropped at the investigative stage of rape case.’

Fourteen of Britain's 52 police forces released rape figures following a Freedom of Information request. In a five year period between 2006 and 2010 a total of 198 people who admitted rape walked free with just a caution.

In total there were 19,806 arrests on suspicion of rape in the 14 forces from January 2006 to December 2010. But police released 12,842 suspects without charge - a staggering 65 per cent of all rape arrests.

While many would have been innocent or mistakenly accused some cases are not taken to prosecution due to lack or insufficient evidence.

SOURCE





'It is the court's duty to protect vulnerable women': Judge takes on British government as he jails rapist for 16 years

A senior crown court judge yesterday launched a veiled attack on Kenneth Clarke’s controversial plans to halve jail terms for rapists who plead guilty early. Judge Jonathan Durham Hall QC appeared to accuse the Justice Secretary of ignoring the ordeal suffered by the victims as he jailed a rapist for 16 years.

The judge told Bradford Crown Court: ‘When others comment on these cases the need to protect vulnerable women who have been grievously affected by these crimes is sadly forgotten.’ The courts must treat these ‘grave and destructive offences’ with the utmost seriousness, he added.

In a further swipe at Mr Clarke, he said he had to be careful not to use language which could deter complainants or undermine the efforts made to try such horrendous crimes.

The judge’s comments came at the end of a terrible week for Mr Clarke. He was forced to apologise unequivocally after suggesting during a radio phone-in that not all rapes were ‘serious’. The minister said he had ‘phrased it very, very badly’.

Sources now claim that his plans to increase sentence cuts from 33 per cent to 50 per cent for offenders who spare their victims the ordeal of testifying by pleading guilty early will be shelved.

But Mr Clarke’s apology did not appear to have appeased Judge Durham Hall, who spoke out whilst sentencing 29-year-old rapist Paul Lupton. Passing the 16-year sentence for Lupton’s attack on a 19-year-old stranger, the judge said: ‘The public will understand, I hope, that a life sentence is reserved for the most clear cases of extreme danger.

‘There is an alternative...that permits me properly to address the danger you present as well as to punish and send the clearest message to the public that the courts treat with the utmost seriousness this grave and destructive offence.’

The court was told how Lupton, of Bradford, violently raped a vulnerable girl in a dark alleyway while high on butane gas. Branding him ‘a dangerous offender’, Judge Durham Hall ordered him to spend at least eight years behind bars before he is eligible for release. He will then be released under close supervision on a ‘rigorous’ extended eight-year licence period.

Lupton’s victim was detained in hospital for psychiatric treatment for weeks after her harrowing ordeal, the court heard. Asked what she thought of Mr Clarke’s comments, she said: ‘All rape is serious rape regardless of the circumstances.’

The judge ordered Lupton, who pleaded guilty, to remain on the sex offenders’ register for life. He will also be subject to an indefinite sexual offences prevention order.

SOURCE






Hailing the Lies, Punishing the Truth

In his May 14, 2011 article, published in the Ottawa Citizen, Michael Taube, a former speech writer for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, blasted Geert Wilders and accused him of not understanding the difference between radical Islam and moderate Islam.

Wilders is the founder of the Party for Freedom (PVV), the Netherlands' third-largest political party. He is concerned about the rapid Islamization of his country. He believes that Islam poses an existential threat to the western civilization that is based on Judeo-Christian and humanistic values. He has compared the Quran to Mein Kampf and has advocated banning the construction of new mosques and a moratorium on Muslim immigration. He has said that Islamic immigrants are the Trojan horse in Europe and that it is only a matter of time for this continent to become Eurabia. “In short,” Taube points out, “Wilders wants to remove elements that he believes are tearing apart the fabric of his society -and assimilate those who genuinely want to live in peace.”

Taube says although we can discuss and debate the merits of Wilders' ideas until eternity, Wilders does not understand the difference between radical Islam and moderate Islam. Why do we need to debate for eternity on something that is so obvious?

Taube names a few Muslims like Salim Mansur, Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah and even Ayaan Hirsi Ali whom he acknowledges to be an atheist as examples of moderate Muslims. How an atheist can be called a Muslim, is something only Taube can explain. He must think anyone with an Arabic name must be a Muslim. For the record, Ali’s views on Islam are not different from Wilders’ or mine.

This is not Taube’s only misunderstanding. His charge on Wilders is also a straw man fallacy. Wilders has repeatedly stated that the majority of Muslims are moderate, whom he urges to assimilate. Yet, he believes that Islam is not moderate.

Taube says he was “completely floored,” when he heard Wilders say, “Please forget about the concept of radical Islam. There is only one Islam, and that cannot be taught to young children that we want to have a full and a respected life in our societies," and that made him write his venomous article against Wilders.

Why pick on Wilders? Why not attack Turkey’s Prime Minister who also says the same thing? Erdogan is offended when westerners categorize Islam as “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam.” The Turkish newspaper Milliyet quoted him say, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” See also here.

Is it possible that Erdogan and all the Muslim scholars don’t understand Islam, and Mr. Taube does? It is this arrogance, this patronizing of the westerners who try to define Islam for Muslims that offends them. Muslims are not familiar with such terms. They have no words for Islamism, and radical or moderate Islam. These terms were invented by westerners. There is only one Islam. It is the Islam of Muhammad – the Islam of the Quran, you either follow it or you don’t.

Like followers of any faith, Muslims are not all alike. In Christianity, there are people like Jimmy Swaggart and James Baker and there are also people like Mother Theresa. We can argue that Mother Theresa was a true follower of Jesus whereas the other two were not.

Likewise, not all Muslims follow their religion to the tee. However, when they do they become terrorists. “Moderate Muslims,” are moderate, to the extent that they don’t follow Islam. They are lukewarm or wishy-washy Muslims.

Jesus never advocated violence. He said those who live by the sword will perish by the sword. He urged his follower to forgive peoples’ sins so theirs can be forgiven. Nothing comparable to that exists in the Quran. The Qiran says, “Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you?” (Q. 2:216)

The Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), slay them (9:5), fight with them (8:65 ), strive against them with great endeavor (25:52), be stern with them because they belong to hell (66:9). Is there anything like these in any other religious book?

Taube believes “Wilders' position on Islam is complete nonsense.” Taube is ignorant of Islam. It is his position that is complete nonsense. Wilders is merely reading from the Islamic texts. Many of Wilders argument, such as “the Quran is like Mein Kamph,” “Islamic immigration is Islam’s Trojan horse,” and “Islam is the only religion that does not recognize the Golden Rule,” were previously said by yours truly. I am glad that a politician of Wilder’s stature has the fortitude to bring them to the world attention and I am honored that he has quoted me in several of his speeches.

Those named by Taube (with the exception of the apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali) don’t tell the truth about Islam. After the 9/11 tragedy the world asked where the moderate Muslims are. There was a demand for this “commodity.” These opportunists rose to fill that demand. They sell books, and are invited to television shows as experts. The westerners are their only audience. They have no following among Muslims. Irshad Manji is a Lesbian for heaven’s sake. If anyone thinks Muslims will take a Lesbian as their spiritual guide, that person must be living la-la land. To a Muslim the idea is laughable. These people tell what westerners love to hear. If you want to be fooled, be my guest but don’t expect Muslims to be fooled. Muslims follow their Quran.

Let me give you one example of the deception of these “moderates.” In an ABC 20/20 special interview Manji claimed that the houris promised in the Quran are actually not virgins but raisins.

Let us see what the Quran says about the houris. They will have dark eyes and will be wedded to Muslims (Q.44: 51-54), (52:20). They are bashful whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before (55: 54-56). They are dark eyed, sheltered in their tents (55:70-74). They will be the companions of the martyrs. They will have beautiful lustrous eyes – like pearls well guarded (Q. 56:22-24).They are created (maiden) of special creation and as virgins, loving their husbands only (Q. 56:35-38). And they will have swelling breasts (Q.78: 31-34). Are these the descriptions of raisins?

This is how these “moderate Muslims,” hailed by Taube, try to fool their non Muslim viewers. The media loves to hear these ludicrous lies, but hates Wilders’ truth. Why? What does this say about our society that punishes the truth as hate speech and hails lies? How can a society founded on such a self deception survive?

Truth matters. Even if it hurts, it is our only salvation. Manji and her ilk are deceptive liars. How can we benefit from lies and gain by prosecuting the truth? I have strived for 13 years to understand this mentality and still I don’t. Maybe Taube can help.

The story of raisins is just one example of Islamic deception. It is utterly shameless. Everything Manji and other so called “moderate Muslims” say are lies. If you love lies, listen to them and buy their books, but don’t spit and say it is raining.

I sent this article to Ottawa Citizen in response to what they published. They refused to publish it. Doesn’t fairness require that opposing views should also be heard? Apparently not for Ottawa Citizen.

SOURCE




Australia: One in the eye for a nasty bitch: "The Director of Military Prosecutions, Lyn McDade"

She's not even a good lawyer, let alone knowing anything about army combat. Prosecuting the troops for defending themselves was always utter slime. Get rid of the stupid bitch!

THE case against two army reservists charged with manslaughter in Afghanistan will not go to a court martial after a judge advocate yesterday dismissed the charges. However, Sergeant J and Lance Corporal D could still face alternative charges pending a decision by the Director of Military Prosecutions, Lyn McDade.

At a pre-trial hearing in Sydney, judge advocate Ian Westwood dismissed the case against Sergeant J and Lance Corporal D. That means a court martial set down for July 11 will not go ahead and Brigadier McDade must now decide whether to bring different charges against the soldiers.

It is not clear what yesterday's decision means for a third soldier - the unit's commander - who is yet to face a court martial and whether the lieutenant colonel is likely still to be prosecuted.

The charges related to a February 12, 2009, incident involving members of the Special Operations Task Group undertaking a compound clearance operation in Oruzgan province. Six civilians, including five children, were killed. [When a Talib fired on our men at close range from the middle of a room housing the women and children. The deaths were entirely on the head of the Taliban!]

Sergeant J and Lance Corporal D had been charged with manslaughter and, in the alternative, two counts of dangerous conduct, with negligence as to consequence.

Brigadier Westwood agreed with their defence team that the charges should be thrown out because they "did not disclose service offences". He said the issue of whether there was a duty of care was of "fundamental importance".

It had to be established that the soldiers had a duty of care before it could be decided whether or not they'd been negligent. But in reading through the Defence Force Discipline Act, he found an "absence of plain words" on any duty of care to non-combatants.

Brigadier Westwood said his ruling did not detract from the personal tragedy inherent in the prosecution's allegations or diminish the importance of the lives lost.

He said soldiers were in a unique position when they were engaged in armed combat. Australian law authorised the application of force, including lethal force, when troops were sent into combat. In fact, soldiers were compelled on "pain of penalty" to carry out attacks on the enemy and they could not simply decide not to take any further part in hostilities.

There was rarely time for calm reflection in what were frequently life or death situations. He noted that the prosecution had been unable to find previous cases where manslaughter charges were brought in an active combat situation and that illustrated the difficulty in proving a duty of care.

Former defence force chief Peter Cosgrove said he felt relief for the soldiers, who had got their lives back. "They had to stand up straight and let the legal system work itself out," he told Macquarie Radio. "It must have been terrible for them and their loved ones and their mates while they went through this process."

Lawyer Patrick George, who represented Sergeant J, said last night the charges were misconceived because soldiers clearly did not owe a legally enforceable duty of care for their actions in combat.

SOURCE

Comment from a reader:

There appears to be allegations amongst the legal profession that Brigadier (sic) McDade brought the charges against the soldiers to enchance her application for a position as a War Crimes Judge at the Hague. As no case to answer was found in relation to these two soldiers now is the time for formal charges to be brought against McDade - such as conduct unbecoming an officer or if she has indeed applied for a position at the Hague more serious charges should be brought. She is a disgrace to the uniform and could not in anyway lay claim to the honourable distinction of being a soldier.

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

***************************