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

If anyone has any questions about Freemasonary , I would be happy to answer them . Although I was invited/ joined/ …gave up after a few years as I could not see the point , other than as a meeting place and charity work . I do have a sexy little apron number and some white gloves though.
Having to memorise pages and pages of strange text did not help

1 Like

Perhaps this kind of logic was used.


reading from the top, I thought it was a movie poster pre-#metoo


Think about it: if you were writing about judicial bias, you would include the most incrimiating quotation you could find in your article, would you not? If the only potentially discriminatory comment you can find is that one, you certainly don’t have an open-and-shut case of discrimination, and you may not have a case at all.

Judges say lots of things peripherally. It’s not hard to imagine…

Without knowing the context, and with permission to invent bullshit quotations, you could just as easily do a headline like Judge slams “SNOWFLAKE FEMINIST” or whatever random crap you want.

I’m more inclined to trust the judiciary to keep its house relatively in order than to trust the DM to report about it accurately.

That’s a different issue.

This article gives more insight

Miss Tapper said Parry had been in an abusive relationship for 15 years, and for the last five years had found herself with a considerable drink problem.

“She was unable to tackle that after the first offence and after the second offence, but since this matter she has all but stopped drinking.”

Judge Buckingham remarked: “All but! So she hasn’t stopped.”

Miss Tapper said Parry had ‘got it under control,’ and was no longer drinking two bottles of wine a day, and was out of the relationship and in a job where she had stepped down from a management role but was now working her way back up.

The judge commented: “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.

“But this offence was committed in May 2018 and she has not been in trouble since. She has clearly got an alcohol problem. She is, whether she admits it or not, an alcoholic.”

This to me seems to suggest Miss tapper, her lawyer, used the information that the defendant started to drink because of an abusive relationship for the judge to consider. Along with the defendant seems to have been sober since that incident.

And that that the judge seems to have given her a pass due to the fact that she’s a women in a abusive relationship with also the fact that she has been sober since.

*edit. It doesn’t even seem the woman is sober. This article and the quotes seem to suggest she just isn’t drinking 2 bottles anymore.

Regardless of the whole woman remark. This to me is a bad sentencing. It’s not like she’s an addict caught with drugs. She’s driving around drunk. Caught 3 times. It’s time for some responsibility and for the woman to get the best consequence she can get, jail time to reflect and to keep her safe. The other consequence is her killing a person and herself.

Thankyou for your imaginative musing …are you not doing exactly what you were worried the reporters do ? The difference being that they did , in fact , quote the Judges words. :stuck_out_tongue:
There are many stupid decisions in UK Law …this is purely an example . Some is led by EU Law ( of which over 60% is now enshrined in UK law anyway) and some is led by the incredible social Justice opinions held by the judiciary …utter cuckoo-land reasoning …sadly the only “crap” would be a , stance denying an obvious leniency that has crept in to the Judicial decision making process .
There are reasons …but please don’t imply that this decision is a fair and just one …it’s a serious offence , a re-offender…who will end up killing someone .
I have no problem with jailing this offender…i give her the same consideration she gave other road users …I give zero fucks about her mental excuses, abuse and job,i give zero fucks that prison doesn’t work to stop people re-offending …it works for the safety of others , at least whilst they are incarcerated …and would stop this criminal endangering others.
In short , I disagree with your viewpoint :face_with_raised_eyebrow::wink:


Thanks @Andrew0409 for digging that up.

They quoted some words that were real, but the quotation in the headline (in CAPITALS) was fake. That’s not accurate reporting. It’s bullshit.

I never said leniency has not crept in. Did you notice the other cases I pointed out? My objection is that this case is being painted as an open-and-shut case of “she’s a woman ergo we should go easy on her”, which is not the same thing as considering a variety of factors, with gender in and of itself not being a factor.

And before you object that leniency is bad etc. etc., when did I say leniency is good? I didn’t. I don’t. In most cases I won’t, because I believe in law and order. But I also believe in honest and accurate reporting.

Please don’t imply that just because I’m calling a bullshit article bullshit, I must agree with the judge. I didn’t read the actual judicial decision, so how can I have an informed opinion about it?

I don’t have a viewpoint on the decision itself (other than that the first article can’t be trusted to tell us about it), so you can’t disagree with my non-existent viewpoint. :no_mouth:

The Sentinel article at least sounds plausible. :2cents:

ETA: I mean the context it provides, not the quotation in the headline that, once again, does not appear in the body of the article.

They censored a brief remark. That’s not the same as banning a common word.

There’s a great interview somewhere out there, iirc a talk show where Linda Lovelace and a feminist confront Hugh Hefner. To paraphrase,

Perhaps in this decade most young adults wouldn’t be offended by the words girl and boy, and in the BBC case the woman at 19 wasn’t offended, but it’s not hard to see why some people take exception to a traditional double standard like that.

Do they still give everybody edited-down versions of Pike’s Morals and Dogma?

I guess they do…

How dare they assume Jake’s gender?

The earth , constantly revolving on its axis in its orbit round the sun , and freemasonary blah blah … pages and pages . So many levels of secrecy , that I doubt all but a few understand the objective … so I respectfully declined to continue with something that was not opaque. I can see the attraction of it … like a golf club or social club , and it does some sterling charity work , but probably an excuse to get out of the house for most members . I still to this day am not sure why things need to be so secret … re : signs and handshakes etc … but

My apologies if I was a little brusque, but the wording would seem to confirm that , at least within reason, the article was fairly accurate . The fact that the defendant was female , seems to have had a bearing on the judgment . Headlines are just that … meant to grab your attention … scoop scoop … many are misleading and I thought your inference was that it was completely false … it was not … it was a tad misleading for drama , but not bullshit as you say imo. Is that fair ?

That’s from the Second Degree. Which is one degree further than Prince Charles got! And about the same as the heroes of The Man Who Would Be King.

The use of quotation marks in the headline was bullshit, and they knew it. (The CAPITALS within the bullshit quotation make that crime against journalism even more serious.) They didn’t even bother attributing the phrase to a “critic” or “commentator”. They want to get a visceral reaction and count on people not taking the time to analyze the matter critically – also known as the fake news playbook.

And no, I don’t think the longer article confirms the first one. The fact that the case exists, yes that seems to be true, and the quotation in the body of the first article, that seems to be real, but the longer article explains that the judge saw the defendant as a woman in an abusive relationship, not simply as a woman. The implication – which we could probably read about in detail if we saw the actual sentencing decision – is that there was a mitigating circumstance because she wasn’t entirely in her right state of mind, and so on. That in no way precludes a man in an abusive relationship and not entirely in his right state of mind being treated more or less the same way, or a primary breadwinner (of whatever gender) being treated leniently, like I said before.

And again, this does mean I agree with leniency. I’m not absolutist about it, and I’m willing to listen when people try to persuade me it’s the right policy, but in general I see it as undermining the deterrent effect of any penal provision.

And way below the degree of the folks who keep the Martians under wraps…

1 Like

Where’s me prize ? Please refer to me as "Worshipful Master " from now on @yyy .if it’s not too much trouble?

You vastly underestimate the greatness of the God-Emperor.

What punishment does the foolish human deserve this time? @discobot quote

:left_speech_bubble: Those who will play with cats must expect to be scratched. — Cervantes

1 Like

Dirty Kitty is waiting for you to make a move.


1 Like