Tags
(not satire – it’s the UK today)
Back in February, senior UK Judge Beverley Lunt gave a convicted rapist a suspended sentence instead of jail time citing the man’s ill health as the reason for her decision.
Here’s an article about the case (warning – link to Daily Mail!):
Rapist walks free from court because of his ill health
Not everyone may agree with Judge Lunt’s decision in that case but it’s actually not all that unusual for judges to give suspended sentences in cases of ill health.
It’s not unusual that is, until you notice what Judge Lunt had to say back in 2011 about the sentencing of people who have been convicted of benefit fraud.
She was angry that they didn’t automatically receive a custodial sentence (warning – link to Express!):
Anger of judge forced to free benefits cheat
Now I’m fully aware that for some inexplicable reason a lot of members of the establishment – such as judges, newspaper owners and politicians – seem to think benefit fraud is a much more serious crime than rape.
But I can assure them that the rest of us in the remaining 99% of the UK population don’t.
.
Please feel free to comment – you don’t need to register and I’m extremely minimal with the moderating – so please go ahead.
.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Pride's Purge 
Reblogged this on HUMAN RIGHTS & POLITICAL JOURNAL.
LikeLike
Pingback: The UK judge who thinks benefit fraudsters should be jailed but lets rapists go free » Alternative News Network
Pingback: The UK judge who thinks benefit fraudsters shou...
i asume you mean that judges are more likely to be rapists than commit benefit fraud.
you might be surprised to hear that some Scottish judges have been convicted of benefit fraud.
LikeLike
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3825.0.html
heres the link
LikeLike
Not only is it worse than rape, but it’s so bad that you can have all of your assets taken away from you:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/406381/Benefit-cheat-tycoons-to-have-assets-seized-in-tough-crackdown
Of course, the real scroungers like multi-home owning MPs, tax-avoiding businesses, grasping landlords etc. are all unaffected.
LikeLike
What I cannot understand is WHY SO MANY COMMON SENSE PEOPLE who express their views here are not listened to. We see case after case of the CORRUPTION that occurs among persons who are above us. I have watched as the years have gone by. Nothing has changed. The ENTIRE system is CORRUPT from MPs to Judges, lawyers, police etc. Am I wrong ?..
LikeLike
Tom in Feb a woman was charged with benefit fraud. She claimed 350,000 in total according to the daily hate mail. What struck me was what the judge said .he said that she had ‘exploited a weakness in the benefit system’..thats very odd..as we have Atos plus benefit fraud squad and benefit sanctions…so really sick people are told they are fit for work and swinging the lead then jobcentre who take away benefits if they dont like your shoes or any other feeble excuse and then theres the fraud office who screw up….
LikeLike
Tycoons? So that means benefit claimants are criminal class terrorist tycoons now.
LikeLike
One hardly needs to state what is the obvious rhyme for “Lunt”.
LikeLike
Well, up until recently I had some confidence in our imperfect justice system. However on closer examination of some judgements (the outcome and remedy) that I have followed and read recently, surely no rational or sane person could have reached the same conclusion as the judge.
Crimes of a sexual nature seems to be one area which generates the most controversial and bizarre outcomes. Some of the comments during these trials suggest that the judge has sympathy for the rapist or sexual abuser and there is a complete lack of empathy or an outright hostility for the victim. This often seems to be because the judge makes a judgement on the conduct of the victim (past history, clothes worn etc) thinking this to be a contributory factor.
Worrying inconsistencies come to light when you look at a variety of cases, ranging in seriousness. Some individuals have been imprisoned for making poor jokes on the internet which have at the time been taken out of the context they were intended or completely misunderstood – but have nevertheless offended some people at the time. Some of the stuff you hear about (the police response etc) is out of a Dickens novel which should be a concern for all who care about civil liberties and freedom of speech. On the other hand as I have indicated above, rapists and child abusers regularly go free when there is no rational basis for such a decision.
Personally I think the outcomes of many cases are decided before they are even heard and the case is then managed in such a way to produce the outcome desired. For example the Sally Bercow outcome was plainly wrong to anyone who knows anything whatsover about defamation. In similar libel cases the very same judge has reviewed all the factors you have to consider in a multiple publication and defendant libel case together and reached a judgement that despite there having been some defamatory statements, the costs of pursuing a case (in the context of a single publication amongst many others and compensation received elsewhere) outweighs any further vindication which can be achieved. This is the proportionate and common sense approach which up until Bercow was making a welcome return to our courts.
However, then out of the blue we have this case which involves a rich and powerful peer and a mouthy wife of a politician on Twitter who most people dislike. The case was managed in such a way that the crucial arguments were not heard. In other words, in my view the judge seems to have managed the case around the result he desired. No doubt if questioned about the bizarre outcome he will blame a curiously inept defence team for not raising the correct arguments. This despite the fact that the same judge himself has in very similar cases correctly produced arguments (when not raised) in the defence’s favour to justify dismissing the case. Based on the facts of the case and the precendents of others, there is little doubt in my mind that Bercow would have had a better chance researching case law and representing herself.
I would really be interested to know if anyone has any other examples of comparable cases which have produced vastly inconsistent outcomes, for no apparent reason.
LikeLike
And it’s not “punt”, “runt” or “stunt”.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ned Hamson Second Line View of the News and commented:
Split mind about sex crime not so bad and “evil” poor people harming society and threatening money tells you real values of Tory mindset
LikeLike
I don’t know why benefit fraudsters in particular are supposed to be “diverting money from people who really need it”, as this judge says.
It’s the government that’s been doing that with it’s immense welfare cuts( worth many times more than the cost of fraud) & tax cuts for the wealthy, policies which allow massive tax avoidance and evasion, low wages, high rents and all the other factors which increase inequality.
LikeLike
ireallymeanthis
Never a truer word spoken.
LikeLike
Perhaps she wanted him to come. And thank her personally for the reprieve
LikeLike
Crimes regarding money or damage to property rate higher in the judicial world than crimes against humanity – which rape is along with many others.
LikeLike
I entirely agree with you. Let’s not minimize the gravity of benefit cheat criminals who eventually deprive deserving people of vital financial assistance. This however this is a crime against the state and all it’s people, the combination of which has far broader shoulders than any individual, be it male or female, to cope with the personal, physical violation which is rape and any potential problems which may arise from it -e.g, Pregnancy STI’s including life threatening ones, physical and psychological damage.
LikeLike
That old thing called the law again put there by the wealthy to protect the wealthy and presided over by the wealthy 🙂
LikeLike
So much truth spoken by so many commenters on this post Tom.
LikeLike
Beverly Lunt is known for her soft spot with paedophiles and sex offenders giving them very soft sentences, she also let a thug who battered a young soldier on leave because the thug has his cultural and social reasons….compare this with her three year sentence for a man with severe multiple sclerosis who was a white collar thief who had lost his wife to cancer and seemed to be stealing under the mental stress of his circumstances. Lunt is one of those unique figures for whom the libera
Thinkers and EDL are united on her dubious handlings of cases…
LikeLike
She’s hated in Burnley and Nelson for her treatment of the disabled guy, Calderbank that Xan mentioned, yet she’s cosy with the nonces, a lot of Pendle folk would like to see her swing like on of those witches, she’s hated!
LikeLike
S’not a rhyme t’is a fact M’Lud she is a c@£t 🙂
LikeLike
When will mainstream Britain wake up?
LikeLike
Pingback: Mark Littlewood – why the poor should have their NI numbers tattooed on their forearms | Pride's Purge
Pingback: No blurred lines – Eddy Shah and co are excusing paedophilia | Pride's Purge