I may be missing something here, but can someone please explain how two me can be in bed together, having sex with the same drunken woman at the same time, yet only one of them, the white one, is guilty of rape?
12 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Well well well white people better start waking up to the fact they are discriminated against if the facts are correct.
The guilty party has been credited with greater intelligence and a greater sense of responsibility owing to his innate racial superiority, which even a bent judge recognises.
In this country, remember that individuals must reach a certain age, which equates to maturity, before they become legally liable.
Some population groups, based on ethnicity, will reach it far sooner than others.
It's the same principle as in Luke 12:47-48.
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
The current inequality before the law w.r.t. ethnicity is itself the strongest proof of inherent racial inequality.
Well? Which is it? Was she too drunk to give consent or wasn't she? This split verdict is nonsensical and will surely be overturned on appeal.
Mind you, when 2 guys can be convicted of an 18 year old murder for which they have already been tried, without any real or substantial evidence against them, nothing surprises me about the ideologically-driven British "justice" any more.
In any case, I weep for the morals of our nation. How can a 19 year old girl go to a cheap hotel and have sex with stranger she encountered in the street and think that that is acceptable behaviour? And how can a young man find it acceptable to have sex with a clearly drunken young woman whom he has never met before, whether she consents or not? It's vile and morally repugnant and none of them come out of this with any self respect.
"The guilty party has been credited with greater intelligence and a greater sense of responsibility owing to his innate racial superiority, which even a bent judge recognises."
Same can be said for the woman. Neither of these men are guilty of rape.
Both these men are innocent and it's a tragedy that women, in this day and age, are thought of as beings who cannot be held to the same moral standard as men.
She was 19 years of age, knew full well what can happen when she got drunk and consented to sex. I really don't see the racial issue here but more a feminazi sexism issue.
I think there is a racial issue in that the white man was found guilty of doing the same thing which the black man did, but the black man was acquitted.
The very valid point you make about personal accountability and the politically correct insistence on treating incidents such as this as rape is a separate issue.
I think the Irish Savant put it well when he stated;
"This grotesque distortion of justice underlines once again an important issue for all of us. It’s this. Will such outrages have the effect of – at some stage – galvanising white men into a rebellion against the injustices heaped on them for two generations? Or will they just sink further into the new Orwellian reality that has been created with them in mind? I fear the latter. Look at how the British working class male has been eviscerated and emasculated over the last fifty years. Abused, mocked and denigrated. Yet he’s taken it all and in fact, if you read the comments to the article (filtered no doubt, but still….) you’ll find no shortage of British men supporting what happened."
When I first saw this story on the BBC I just assumed there was a good reason for the conviction, which the article wasn't explaining for the sake of creating a headline.
Now I've read this thread I'm wondering.
I've suspected for some time that different standards are being applied to different ethnic groups with regard to the law in this country. Or is this something that's already self-evident in the justice system? If so, what do the judiciary think about it? I'm assuming the majority of the judiciary are British or at least proportionally represented in that sector.
I dwell on various assumptions about the legal system: that the levels of overview on judgments handed out is such that there is always a continual effort to ensure equal application of the law. Or is this naive? I'm asking.
If it is the case that there is unequal application of the law then it must be easy to demonstrably prove, right? If one can prove it, then surely it has to be acknowledged by the authorities and they can do something about it.
12 comments:
Well well well white people better start waking up to the fact they are discriminated against if the facts are correct.
Damn good question and posted.
Easy.
The guilty party has been credited with greater intelligence and a greater sense of responsibility owing to his innate racial superiority, which even a bent judge recognises.
In this country, remember that individuals must reach a certain age, which equates to maturity, before they become legally liable.
Some population groups, based on ethnicity, will reach it far sooner than others.
It's the same principle as in Luke 12:47-48.
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
The current inequality before the law w.r.t. ethnicity is itself the strongest proof of inherent racial inequality.
See Wednesday's headline on this site.
Well? Which is it? Was she too drunk to give consent or wasn't she? This split verdict is nonsensical and will surely be overturned on appeal.
Mind you, when 2 guys can be convicted of an 18 year old murder for which they have already been tried, without any real or substantial evidence against them, nothing surprises me about the ideologically-driven British "justice" any more.
In any case, I weep for the morals of our nation. How can a 19 year old girl go to a cheap hotel and have sex with stranger she encountered in the street and think that that is acceptable behaviour? And how can a young man find it acceptable to have sex with a clearly drunken young woman whom he has never met before, whether she consents or not? It's vile and morally repugnant and none of them come out of this with any self respect.
Its like racism, its only against the law when white people do it.
"The guilty party has been credited with greater intelligence and a greater sense of responsibility owing to his innate racial superiority, which even a bent judge recognises."
Same can be said for the woman. Neither of these men are guilty of rape.
Both these men are innocent and it's a tragedy that women, in this day and age, are thought of as beings who cannot be held to the same moral standard as men.
She was 19 years of age, knew full well what can happen when she got drunk and consented to sex. I really don't see the racial issue here but more a feminazi sexism issue.
Hi Normal Guy
I think there is a racial issue in that the white man was found guilty of doing the same thing which the black man did, but the black man was acquitted.
The very valid point you make about personal accountability and the politically correct insistence on treating incidents such as this as rape is a separate issue.
A shame both of them weren't hanged.
Perhaps the white guy was engaged in more-or-less standard intercourse, while the black guy was being fellated?
I think the Irish Savant put it well when he stated;
"This grotesque distortion of justice underlines once again an important issue for all of us. It’s this. Will such outrages have the effect of – at some stage – galvanising white men into a rebellion against the injustices heaped on them for two generations? Or will they just sink further into the new Orwellian reality that has been created with them in mind? I fear the latter. Look at how the British working class male has been eviscerated and emasculated over the last fifty years. Abused, mocked and denigrated. Yet he’s taken it all and in fact, if you read the comments to the article (filtered no doubt, but still….) you’ll find no shortage of British men supporting what happened."
Now you see why this sort of justice is allowed.
When I first saw this story on the BBC I just assumed there was a good reason for the conviction, which the article wasn't explaining for the sake of creating a headline.
Now I've read this thread I'm wondering.
I've suspected for some time that different standards are being applied to different ethnic groups with regard to the law in this country. Or is this something that's already self-evident in the justice system? If so, what do the judiciary think about it? I'm assuming the majority of the judiciary are British or at least proportionally represented in that sector.
I dwell on various assumptions about the legal system: that the levels of overview on judgments handed out is such that there is always a continual effort to ensure equal application of the law. Or is this naive? I'm asking.
If it is the case that there is unequal application of the law then it must be easy to demonstrably prove, right? If one can prove it, then surely it has to be acknowledged by the authorities and they can do something about it.
Post a Comment