Female Judge spares serial drunk driver jail time... twice... because she’s also female

How is this allowed? The Judge even says in her sentencing that she’d send the convicted to prison if she was a man.

1 Like

This sort of thing should be illegal for everybody except the Freemasons.


Justice is blind, but still sees sexes (or genders?)…

I don’t understand what this has to do with being a woman. The judge gave no insight on why she would sentence a man to jail and not a woman.

This person got in a car drunk. And it’s the 3rd time???!! The best you can do for an alcoholic is to hold them accountable for their actions. And some time sober behind bars where she isn’t a danger to others and herself seems like a good thing for her and the general public. She is clearly not in control when she is drinking and driving, and they only caught her 3 times. The next time she is likely to kill someone and herself. This is serious. The judge should lose her job.


Watch carefully America, lest you become the same shithole as the UK :roll_eyes:

1 Like

Seems this is fresh out from Great Shitstain; mystery solved

1 Like

How did this all start?

Well first there was the Big Bang , then,:wink: It’s a long story , but we have let it happen over a long period.
This is the UK …
A UK recruiter was stunned when her job advert for ‘reliable’ and ‘hard-working’ applicants was rejected by the job centre as it could be offensive to unreliable and lazy people.

A UK council has banned the term ‘brainstorming’ – and replaced it with ‘thought showers’, as local lawmakers thought the term may offend epileptic

The BBC has dropped the use of the terms Before Christ (BC) and Anno Domini (AD) on one of their programmes and decided that the terms ‘Before Common Era’ / ‘Common Era’ are more appropriate

Liberalism and a fear of offending minorities are stifling legitimate debate and laid the ground for Brexit
My big problem with political correctness is that it has always relied on the assumption that the majority of us are likely to behave in the most appalling manner; that if we are not kept ferociously in line, then we are very likely to attack those with a different-coloured skin, tar and feather homosexuals and kick people in wheelchairs. The vast majority , I trust , are sensible people…but I think the world needs to learn to live with offence to progress.

The balance has swung into La la Land …it does that if there are no checks and opposite balances.


Do we really need a “Slippery Slope in the UK” thread?

Seriously Shia, AD/BC is about as out of fashion as @Rocket’s favorite metal band. CE/BCE is where it’s at. Get used to it.

That said,

  1. I don’t trust the DM to report this type of matter (or anything) accurately or fairly, and I won’t be surprised at all if the key statement was taken out of context. Notice how the headline puts “because she’s a WOMAN” in quotation marks, yet there is no such quotation in the body of the article. They tell you there’s a smoking gun, yet they fail to produce the gun.

  2. If the report is accurate (I’m highly skeptical), it’s still not necessarily a feminist issue. The concept of go easy on the defendant because X – call it soft on crime if you like – is complex. For example, if you’re a primary breadwinner, that can win you a reduced or suspended sentence, and men are more likely to fall into that category.

I can’t find an article that says it, but the “primary breadwinner” argument was cited in this case.

Then there’s this.

(Tl/dr: the decision was overturned on appeal.)

And then there’s this classic. The video of the arrest is really something.

This controversy also revolved around the phrase “good family”.

In particular, the presiding judge caused outrage when he said in his judgment that Bokhary had an “unblemished background and was born into a good family with caring parents [and] an outstanding academic record”.

(And just now I noticed that she’s been in the news again lately. Families can be complicated, even “good” ones.)

So, go ahead and blame “liberalism” and “minorities” (like the rich and powerful?) if you like, but the truth is not black and white.


Indeed, the judge didn’t said such sentence.
However, she said this:

If Miss Parry was a man, there is no question it would have been straight down the stairs, because this is a shocking case of dangerous driving against a background of two previous convictions for excess alcohol.

Isn’t it the same?


This article says that the judge making that comment was investigated but cleared. It’s a simple two-sentence remark that feels like there are details missing :thinking::

In April, Judge Sarah Buckingham was investigated after she said Parry would have gone “straight down the stairs” to jail if she was a man. But the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said there was now no “outstanding complaint”.

Maybe the Judge and the Woman are both Freemasons… she might have flashed the sign

1 Like

I actually agree with this.

On the other hand, there was that one time BBC banned the use of the word “girl” as sexist.

Only trans women are permitted to be Freemasons.

Actually, having looked at the photos…

If she has access to a vehicle she will get back behind the wheel should she get blackout drunk again. Hopefully she won’t have a vehicle in future now she’s written off her Fiat. I doubt she will stay sober.


I did not know that.

Perhaps the people who investigated her were also women.

1 Like

You aliens, as usual are out of date with our Human Culture.

The year is 12019 on the Human Calendar


She has a wife you know :smiley: