Our thanks to Gerry for this. He writes:
“Forget about hate speech. Now banter is the crime. If the roles were reversed the man would go to jail. Everybody knows it by now. We’re watching the decline of the justice system, and therefore of democracy itself.”
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Beyond sickening!! The double standards out there are nauseating!
LikeLike
Of course being a “loving mother” and the supposed negative impact on her child should she be imprisoned was a key factor, I doubt any reader has seen being a “loving father” and the impact on his child of him being imprisoned used as a reason for a suspended sentence! And the influence of being drunk! As usual this is an excuse for a woman, yet as as we know its actually an aggravating factor in sentencing men. Men can never say being drunk was a mitigation. And the impact of the attack and injury. Mr. Cooper it seems recovered too well! No doubt not “turning on the waterworks” in court, and apparently having to be content with the scar he’s left with… can you imagine a Judge opining that the scar on a woman’s face is so unimportant? Most egregious of all is the fact that Mr. Cooper did the sensible thing to diffuse an argument and left the scene, only to be ambushed later! So this wasn’t even a “heat of the moment” assault but a very deliberate one indeed. A man gets drunk, has a row with a woman, she withdraws to calm the situation and later he ambushes her and cuts her face needing stiches and leaving a scar. Suspended sentence because he’s a good chap, loving father and apologetic ?
LikeLike
It’s time to open a debate in the public interest about judicial immunity.
And whether in exceptional circumstances a judge or judges should lose their judicial immunity to being prosecuted where the is evidence to a very high standard of proof that a judge or judge are committing an attack against a civilian population based on discredited ideology and not on up to date reputable science and evidence.
Let’s take an historic example and apply it to the modern day; if judges today were applying laws relating to witchcraft and imposing unjust laws on women; would we really turn a blind eye and say judges are exempt from prosecution due to judicial immunity?
And that is directly analogous to what activist feminist lawyers are doing when they apply discredited feminist ideology.
Judicial immunity needs to be protected, but so does the public interests when they become political and start engaging in an attack against a civilian population. Judges should have rejected the political Bench book, and their failure to do so arguable amounts to a waiver of their judicial immunity.
LikeLike
Thanks, good points!
LikeLike
That a woman convicted of a brutal unprovoked and serious assault against a man should receive no significant punishment at all is hardly surprising. What is astonishing is ths remark by the judge:
”There can be no doubt in this case that you are no risk to the public’. I would really like to see the judge forced to explain that remark given that she was referring to someone who had just been convicted of a brutal unprovoked assault on a man, that could have resulted in serious injury or death, and that the only explanation was a fit of drunken rage.
A judge who said there was no risk to the public would have taken leave of their senses but to say there is NO DOUBT that you are no risk to the public is just incredible. The remark is so absurd as to be beyond parody. Nobody who can state something so utterly against the established facts should be a judge.
LikeLike