Our thanks to William for this.
Three months ago we posted a piece on Natalie Saul, a 37-year-old accountant who stole £350,000 from her technology firm. From the article:
Saul was given a two-year suspended sentence and 250 hours unpaid work by Judge Catherine Newman, who admitted her sentence was ‘wholly exceptional’ and fell outside sentencing guidelines.
She told Southwark Crown Court Saul was ‘not the general stuff of which the prison population is made’. [J4MB: Possibly true, but if so, it’s only because gynocentric judges are so reluctant to send women to prison.]
The judge added: ‘I’m taking a considerable risk that the Crown will think it lenient and appeal, but it’s a risk I’m willing to take.’ [J4MB: What risk is the judge taking upon herself? Precisely none.]
Lucie Daniels, defending Saul, had argued her client was ‘shaken’ by the loss of her grandmother in 2013 and was a committed charity worker.
‘This offending is so out of character, she has worked hard and paid her taxes and been a responsible citizen,’ said Ms Daniels.
Yet her charitable efforts could not mitigate the loss to Idio, who hemorrhaged a total of £348,439 to her gambling addiction. [J4MB: The company lost a total of almost £350,000 not to Natalie Saul, you’ll notice, but to her ‘gambling addiction’. The “journalist” of the piece is, predictably, a woman.]
Justice for Men & Boys 
I glanced at this and no doubt thought had the same thought as many here. Change the sexes and I,m pretty sure an abusive boyfriend plea would have got a suspended or community sentence.
LikeLike
Hang on. The judge’s name was Cathy Newman…???!!!
LikeLike
Women are not fit to be judges, because most of them will automatically treat a female suspect much more leniently than a male one. On the other hand, male judges need to be re-educated to remember that in the court of law they are not allowed to practice the gentleman code of conduct through which they treat female suspects more leniently.
LikeLike
‘Women are not fit to be judges, because most of them will automatically treat a female suspect much more leniently than a male one.‘
It is not their bias that disqualifies them, all judges suffer from that, it is their irrationality. Many years ago, some decades now, I recall there were two of many political scandals that have claimed the careers of government ministers, in this example two of Margaret Thatcher’s ministers. What makes these two stand out is the different responses to their very similar transgressions and the explanations given. In one case the minister was either sacked or resigned and his career brought to an end, and in the other no irrevocable or terminal action was taken. The explanation was that in the one case the dirty deed was the result of a weakness in the minister’s character whereas in the other the fault lay in an error of judgement. You see the difference?
LikeLike
What’s the opposite of the pussy pass?
LikeLike
Male culpability.
LikeLike
Isn’t it possible for any member of the public, not just the Crown, to challenge sentences/convictions? If so, perhaps such challenges could be crowd-funded?
LikeLike