If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Man: "You honor, that 7 year-old girl pinned me down and forced her tongue in my mouth, it's not my fault" Judge: "Hmm, seems legit"   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 89
    More: Fail, custodial sentence, County Durham, Teesside Crown Court  
•       •       •

12412 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-20 09:50:16 PM  
Business as usual in the UK.
 
2012-07-20 10:21:28 PM  
Actually, it looks like "Judge Gillian Matthews gave him a suspended sentence because it was the only way he could receive treatment"

So the Judge found him guilty and gave him to a suspended sentence so he could go to the looney bin to be with doctors.

The old UK laws were better. Was a time when 7 would get you 6 (feet under)
 
2012-07-20 11:11:50 PM  
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-20 11:11:55 PM  
This could have been Michael Jackson's defence.
 
2012-07-20 11:12:20 PM  
i.dailymail.co.uk
Meanwhile, Jerry Sandusky frantically tries to get the phone number of this dude's barrister.
 
2012-07-20 11:12:31 PM  
Mail Online article
[please don't be the US please don't be the US please don't be the US]

"Teesside Crown Court"
Whew!

"But Judge Gillian Matthews gave him a suspended sentence because it was the only way he could receive treatment"

WTF, Britain?
 
2012-07-20 11:13:43 PM  

danielscissorhands: This could have been Michael Jackson's defence.

I don't know, man. I truly believe MJ was an innocent.
 
2012-07-20 11:15:53 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: [i1.kym-cdn.com image 427x490]


That is so not her real hair color.
 
2012-07-20 11:16:09 PM  
Well, obviously she initiated it. Didn't you see what she was wearing, your Honor?
 
2012-07-20 11:17:00 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: I don't know, man. I truly believe MJ was an innocent.


I have tens of millions of US dolars in Nigeria that I need to get out of the country. If you help me retrieve it I'll cut you in for 40%.
 
2012-07-20 11:17:30 PM  
So who else read the Daily Mail headline as "Furry as paedophile,"?
 
2012-07-20 11:19:20 PM  

born_yesterday: Britney Spear's Speculum: [i1.kym-cdn.com image 427x490]

That is so not her real hair color.


Here's the unphotoshopped version

www.celebrityvalues.com
 
2012-07-20 11:20:06 PM  
doglover: Actually, it looks like "Judge Gillian Matthews gave him a suspended sentence because it was the only way he could receive treatment"

So the Judge found him guilty and gave him to a suspended sentence so he could go to the looney bin to be with doctors.

The old UK laws were better. Was a time when 7 would get you 6 (feet under)


So much this. Some people just need a good killing.
 
2012-07-20 11:22:16 PM  
Small wonder they lost a farking empire.
 
2012-07-20 11:24:36 PM  
Dafuq did i just read?
 
2012-07-20 11:26:51 PM  

doglover: Actually, it looks like "Judge Gillian Matthews gave him a suspended sentence because it was the only way he could receive treatment"

So the Judge found him guilty and gave him to a suspended sentence so he could go to the looney bin to be with doctors.

The old UK laws were better. Was a time when 7 would get you 6 (feet under)


I disagree with the judge's ruling. This criminal would have gotten the correct and just treatment in prison. By the other inmates.
 
2012-07-20 11:27:15 PM  
Could the judge be a Pedophile? They hate to convict one of their buddies they see socially under ground.
 
2012-07-20 11:29:03 PM  
grimlock1972: Dafuq did i just read?

Pedophiles will justify their victimization of children by saying that it was something the child did. The child actually wants to be molested or raped in their mind. Their body language or actions are read as sultry or alluring to someone like the guy in the article.

They don't view it as harming a child. They view it as giving a child what they want, and showing their love towards a child.

Normal people, on the other hand, view it as justifiable homicide.
 
2012-07-20 11:38:04 PM  
If it is true, this person should be , but its the Daily Mail, which means it may have as much relation to the truth as martians visiting the President and giving him the 2030 version of the Wii. They actually damage the cause when the report a true story, and that's a damned shame.
 
2012-07-20 11:38:35 PM  
I didn't rape her your honor, honest. I tripped and fell into the pussy.
 
2012-07-20 11:39:36 PM  
Should be -Insert painful punishment here-
is what I meant
 
2012-07-20 11:42:43 PM  
Playing doctor before puberty as we did in the white slums of Baltimore, I can agree that some little girls know about tongue-kissing somehow. However I was 9 at the time and no 7 year old girl could hold me down then; 40 years later I could throw one across a one-way street.

The flirtiness and tongue-kissing I buy, especially given what they show in TV, but not the held down part. And why was he in such close quarters with a 7 year old he's not related to at age 61? Is he some kind of pervert or something? You're not supposed to take a 7 year old up on it, you're supposed to say "if you're going to do that you should pick on somebody your own age" -- and gently shove her off your lap. (If I could do it age 13 anybody can.)
 
2012-07-20 11:44:01 PM  
JesseL:

So who else read the Daily Mail headline as "Furry as paedophile,"?

"Furry ASS paedophile"
 
2012-07-20 11:45:59 PM  
'Bearing in mind the guidelines for sentencing in such cases, I could not pass a sentence of imprisonment which would ensure you receive treatment.'

Aren't mandatory sentencing guidelines great? I'm SO glad judges are prevented from using their judgement.
 
2012-07-20 11:47:47 PM  

BronyMedic: grimlock1972: Dafuq did i just read?

Pedophiles will justify their victimization of children by saying that it was something the child did. The child actually wants to be molested or raped in their mind. Their body language or actions are read as sultry or alluring to someone like the guy in the article.

They don't view it as harming a child. They view it as giving a child what they want, and showing their love towards a child.


What I really wonder about is whether they are rationalizing after the fact, or actually perceiving innocent behavior as sexual. And if it's the latter, why they don't think "let's not encourage this."
 
2012-07-20 11:54:52 PM  
I wonder if that judge knows Judge Richard Moses of Massachusetts. Prolly online poker buddies or something.
 
2012-07-21 12:04:27 AM  
Guys, it's the Daily Fail.
 
2012-07-21 12:07:24 AM  
The ONLY way I could POSSIBLY see this being a legitimate reaction by the judge is if the pervert had the mind of a 4-year old. Also, Britain, why aren't your pervert-treatment programs in the prisons? See, that way you can get a guy the treatment he needs, and also keep him away from the kids he doesn't need.
 
2012-07-21 12:13:29 AM  
Okay internet tough on crime guys, hypothetically, what are you SUPPOSED to do if a seven year old forces her tongue in your mouth? What are YOU gonna say in court?
 
2012-07-21 12:15:09 AM  
I sound fat: Okay internet tough on crime guys, hypothetically, what are you SUPPOSED to do if a seven year old forces her tongue in your mouth? What are YOU gonna say in court?

You train regularly to defend yourself against attacks from Bananas, don't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bCyIAsSid8
 
2012-07-21 12:20:10 AM  
media-cache-ec0.pinterest.com
 
2012-07-21 12:25:55 AM  

I sound fat: Okay internet tough on crime guys, hypothetically, what are you SUPPOSED to do if a seven year old forces her tongue in your mouth? What are YOU gonna say in court?


Can you tell me where this has ever even hypothetically happened...until now?
 
2012-07-21 12:36:44 AM  
BronyMedic:

Pedophiles will justify their victimization of children by saying that it was something the child did. The child actually wants to be molested or raped in their mind. Their body language or actions are read as sultry or alluring to someone like the guy in the article.

Some kids do watch soap operas or non-G-rated stuff on TV and imitate that. When I was little I did, and I knew girls my age who also did. (Except I was afraid to tongue-kiss because I thought that might make her pregnant and her child would have no name, like on As The World Turns.) To assume that a 7 year old has no idea at all of what she's doing is naive: she's trying to make a boy like her just like they do on TV. What else are females in the USA supposed to be good for? "We make her paint her face and dance."

However, an adult -- or anybody older than say 12 -- is supposed to know that she doesn't really fully understand, and refuse to take advantage of her "sexiness." That the fact that the kid has been watching TV or movies and is consciously trying to copy the mannerisms and behavior they see portrayed is no excuse to do it with her.

Still, hiding in a platonic cave and swallowing exaggerated propaganda whole is silly: haven't you ever watched an afternoon soap opera or a prime-time dramatic series that depicts women in "alluring" roles?

If so, do you hear anything like, oh, a voiceover say "Don't try this at home KIDS, these people are adult professionals?" Is there some kind of built-in electronic device that will make it impossible for a 3rd grader to watch the show? No?

Given the givens, some kids will try to grow up too fast. What the adults around them should do is realize where such behavior comes from and explain to the kid why, if she must try such things, she should do them with other kids her own age.


They don't view it as harming a child. They view it as giving a child what they want, and showing their love towards a child.


Here's the rub: from their perspective they may be perfectly correct. If it's true that most people are born heterosexual except the few who are born homo- or bisexual, it must be possible for people to be born pedophiles. This doesn't make it right to act on those urges, certainly not in a culture like ours that cultivates such pernicious neuroses around mixing sex with power, but it does make it understandable with a wee bit of effort. And you should not lose sight of the fact that your disapproval of his/her drives does not cancel out the pedo's humanity.

That said, I myself can't make the leap from "cute kid" to WOW! must get nekkid!" I remember having crushes on 3rd grade girls in 3rd grade, but by the time I'd turned 11 what interested me was 16 year olds. (And I never understood how any farmboy could boink a sheep or something.) It takes no great feat of imagination to have some empathy for another human being, but to imitate some aspects of their desires and behaviors is quite beyond me.

Which is well and good: I don't deserve any credit for not molesting a kid when I don't want to anyway. The person who deserves credit is the person who does have such desires and chokes them down, analogous to the fact that though I've been surrounded by annoying idiots my whole life I ain't yet stabbed any of them. (For that y'all should give me credit, sho' nuff, or better yet stacks of 20s.)

For extra credit, try this: imagine what it must be like to be born a pedophile. I expect it would suck: one false move and the local peasants will gore you with a thousand pitchforks. Yet there is temptation all around, because being a self-abnegating monk in an understanding little community far away from where kids might be has gone out of style.

Maybe in this case we should bring back "monasteries" where people can go to hide from what they want. Which should be protected from people who want to kill them just because of the way they were born.
 
2012-07-21 12:52:23 AM  
In contemporary America there are two kinds of people it's perfectly acceptable to hate, loathe and despise: poor white people (especially rural and/or southern ones) and people cursed by an unacceptable attraction to children. Indeed, it's become P.I. to even consider that "those people" might be human. (Unlike, say, RuPaul, whose every lip twitch must be applauded.)

Everybody else gets a pass: even guys who gun down a dozen perfect strangers for no good reason get their behavior and supposed psychology analyzed all over the New York Times and People Magazine, but let a white guy listen to Conway Twitty in a trailer or let anybody feel up one kid (or -- gasp -- both) and the attitude becomes "there's no understanding such people, you just have to beat them down."

Anyone who can swallow that some people are born "women trapped in male bodies" -- especially those who furiously defend them and their ways -- should be able to at least decry bigotry against rednecks and pedos as well. If it's bigotry itself that's wrong, that is.
 
2012-07-21 12:54:33 AM  

The One True TheDavid: Pedo apologist crap


Dude, no. All of it. No.
 
2012-07-21 01:00:06 AM  

Meethos: The One True TheDavid: Pedo apologist crap

Dude, no. All of it. No.


Read it again. Slowly. Move your lips if you have to.

Or are you unable to think outside your blinkered little box?
 
2012-07-21 01:00:37 AM  

Gyrfalcon: I sound fat: Okay internet tough on crime guys, hypothetically, what are you SUPPOSED to do if a seven year old forces her tongue in your mouth? What are YOU gonna say in court?

Can you tell me where this has ever even hypothetically happened...until now?



I notice you have dodged the question. By asking another question. Are you afraid of what your answer might be?
 
2012-07-21 01:02:16 AM  

Lithanus: as much relation to the truth as martians visiting the President and giving him the 2030 version of the Wii.


B. Hussein Osama does have a time machine, doncha know.
 
2012-07-21 01:05:48 AM  

The One True TheDavid: Meethos: The One True TheDavid: Pedo apologist crap

Dude, no. All of it. No.

Read it again. Slowly. Move your lips if you have to.

Or are you unable to think outside your blinkered little box?


I'm good man. Thanks though.

Playing devil's advocate is fun, just not with pedos.
 
2012-07-21 01:09:36 AM  

I sound fat: Gyrfalcon: I sound fat: Okay internet tough on crime guys, hypothetically, what are you SUPPOSED to do if a seven year old forces her tongue in your mouth? What are YOU gonna say in court?

Can you tell me where this has ever even hypothetically happened...until now?


I notice you have dodged the question. By asking another question. Are you afraid of what your answer might be?


"Your Honor, I'm a god damn quadriplegic. I'm innocent"

Only excuse that makes sense.
 
2012-07-21 01:13:30 AM  
crazy england. it was just a little kissing, consensual, with no sexual contact involved. here in the Land of Freedom it's only illegal once people's naughties start getting revealed and touched. geez, do guys over there go to jail for getting a kiss from their granddaughters?

things do start to get more complicated when you're trying to pay the 13 year old to be consensual and she runs and tells the cops, tho. you have to choose wisely, and don't try to underpay.
 
2012-07-21 01:16:56 AM  
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/10/charliebrooker

Charlie Brooker:

The Dead Parrot Defence used to be just farcical. Now that killers are using it things are getting serious

excerpt:

A classic Dead Parrot Defence consists of an overtly preposterous central premise cooked up in the heat of the moment (bonus points if it ignores a few well-known laws of nature), coupled with an obstinate, huffy denial of the facts. A few years ago, while trying to hide a smoking habit from a (different) girlfriend, I accidentally dropped a lighter on the bedroom floor. It rolled past her. She stared at it. And I indignantly claimed it had fallen through the ceiling, from the flat upstairs.

Until recently, Dead Parrot Defences have been the farcical preserve of adulterers hiding in cupboards and schoolkids whose dog ate their homework. But now things are getting serious. Recently, a spate of ridiculous alibis put forward by desperate murderers in high-profile cases has raised the art of the Dead Parrot Defence to awful, heartbreaking heights.

First, 37-year-old Mark Dixie confessed to having sex with teenage model Sally Anne Bowman's corpse, but denied being her killer. "All I saw was a pair of legs," he explained, "and I took advantage of her ... I thought she'd passed out drunk or fallen." In fact, she'd been stabbed seven times - although he claimed not to have noticed that. He only realised she was dead, he said, when she failed to react to him biting her repeatedly on the face and neck.


/Read the rest of the article...there's another case of similar crazy
//can't link properly; dunno why
 
2012-07-21 01:42:34 AM  

I sound fat: Gyrfalcon: I sound fat: Okay internet tough on crime guys, hypothetically, what are you SUPPOSED to do if a seven year old forces her tongue in your mouth? What are YOU gonna say in court?

Can you tell me where this has ever even hypothetically happened...until now?


I notice you have dodged the question. By asking another question. Are you afraid of what your answer might be?


Not being a guy, and not being a pedophile, I'm unlikely to encounter the hypo you have posed.

What a NORMAL person should say if a 7-year old child innocently slips you the tongue is to first tell it that that is inappropriate for a child to be doing. Second is to tell the parent what their child is up to. Third is to find out where a 7-year old child discovered about sticking its tongue in someone's mouth when kissing them and crush that at the source.

If you let it get all the way to court, you've missed those three very important steps, and probably deserve what you get.
 
2012-07-21 01:52:38 AM  

Meethos: The One True TheDavid: Meethos: The One True TheDavid: Pedo apologist crap

Dude, no. All of it. No.

Read it again. Slowly. Move your lips if you have to.

Or are you unable to think outside your blinkered little box?

I'm good man. Thanks though.

Playing devil's advocate is fun, just not with pedos.


Feel free to quote any part of any of The One True TheDavid's posts where he says it's okay to have sex with the little kiddies, or where he says anyone who does so shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.
 
2012-07-21 01:57:31 AM  
Ya know, there are days when I wish I was an assassin with some down time. But I'm just so busy these days...
 
2012-07-21 02:06:35 AM  
Is "You honor" like "The two yoots"?
 
2012-07-21 02:24:20 AM  
Mithiwithi:
Feel free to quote any part of any of The One True TheDavid's posts where he says it's okay to have sex with the little kiddies, or where he says anyone who does so shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.


Uh, maybe you missed this. It's understandable.

The One True TheDavid: Here's the rub: from their perspective they may be perfectly correct. If it's true that most people are born heterosexual except the few who are born homo- or bisexual, it must be possible for people to be born pedophiles. This doesn't make it right to act on those urges, certainly not in a culture like ours that cultivates such pernicious neuroses around mixing sex with power, but it does make it understandable with a wee bit of effort. And you should not lose sight of the fact that your disapproval of his/her drives does not cancel out the pedo's humanity.

We should feel sorry the poor, poor pedophiles. Oh, woe are them. They were "born that way".
 
2012-07-21 02:33:33 AM  

The One True TheDavid: BronyMedic:

Here's the rub: from their perspective they may be perfectly correct. If it's true that most people are born heterosexual except the few who are born homo- or bisexual, it must be possible for people to be born pedophiles. i ...


You do realize that you're comparing people who are attracted to appropriate aged, consenting partners to those who groom and coerce those of underdeveloped reasoning skills and physical maturity. To make those two groups equals is a disservice to "homo- or bisexuals".

/of course you do, you're trolling
//hopefully
///"Here's the rub"...nice one
 
2012-07-21 02:37:44 AM  

The One True TheDavid: In contemporary America there are two kinds of people it's perfectly acceptable to hate, loathe and despise: poor white people (especially rural and/or southern ones) and people cursed by an unacceptable attraction to children. Indeed, it's become P.I. to even consider that "those people" might be human. (Unlike, say, RuPaul, whose every lip twitch must be applauded.)

Everybody else gets a pass: even guys who gun down a dozen perfect strangers for no good reason get their behavior and supposed psychology analyzed all over the New York Times and People Magazine, but let a white guy listen to Conway Twitty in a trailer or let anybody feel up one kid (or -- gasp -- both) and the attitude becomes "there's no understanding such people, you just have to beat them down."

Anyone who can swallow that some people are born "women trapped in male bodies" -- especially those who furiously defend them and their ways -- should be able to at least decry bigotry against rednecks and pedos as well. If it's bigotry itself that's wrong, that is.


The difference is that I'd fark RuPaul.

/well, 90s RuPaul
//yeah yeah, took the troll bait
 
2012-07-21 02:59:17 AM  
you honor what?

WHAT DO YOU HONOR?
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report