Quote from Zuberi

What a bunch of sub human garbage! An they have the nerve to call it the Equal Treatment Bench book?

Indeed, their policies make a mockery of the very term, “The Equal Treatment Bench book” which should be renamed, “The Un-Equal Treatment Bench book.”

Amazingly ironic, how a publication by the name of the 'Equal Treatment Bench Book' highlights immediately how men and women are UNequal, before promoting UNequal treatment between the two; irony that the braindead pillocks residing on 'Planet PC Moron' will probably always be too blinkered to see.

where are the feminists demanding equality?-i thought that is what they stand for?-hypocrites

Quote from savethemales

You are allowed to post that stuff on Answerbag, me and others have.

Cool I went to answerbag on the link you posted in your last post here and I did not see the post you wade with my post, I guess the swearing was what turned them off, good site though, so much so I book marked it.

Quote from Kargan3033

Cool I went to answerbag on the link you posted in your last post here and I did not see the post you wade with my post, I guess the swearing was what turned them off, good site though, so much so I book marked it.

AB is a good site, I have been on there for a while now. It's a good place to correct people who spout lies in the name of feminism, and they allow most comments, so long as you don't use harsh language.
I have a go at idiots on it all the time, and I've not had much bother regarding rules.

Mercy? They already get enough pussy passes as it is.

These women deserve to have the same sentencing and trial as a man would get.

I don't care what gender did the crime, they are going to serve the same amount of time.

If I was the judge, I'd make Judge Judy look like Martha Stewart.

I just read the UK's "Equal Treatment Bench Book" section on Gender Equality. A lot of it is OK but there is an under lying tone of sexism in it and some of the quoted factoids are simply a misuse of numbers out of context. Frankly after rereading it a number of times and fully understanding the message it is sending I find it a shocking document to come from the judiciary.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdonl...b_6_gender.pdf

Judges have been told to treat female criminals more leniently than men when deciding sentences.

New guidelines declare that women suffer disadvantages and courts should ‘bear these matters in mind’.

The rules say women criminals often have poor mental health or are poorly educated, have not committed violence and have children to look after.

All the studies I've seen show far more men having poorer mental health and education. Most male criminals are non-violent. And don't fathers have children to look after also? The excuses are pathetic.

‘Women’s experiences as victims, witnesses and offenders are in many respects different to those of men,’ according to the Equal Treatment Bench Book.

‘These differences highlight the importance of the need for sentencers to bear these matters in mind when sentencing.’

It's as ridiculous an argument to say every individuals experiences are different therefore leniency must be shown. No mention was made of whether women's experiences as perpetrators of crime are different. It's typical how the feminist/PC brigade relentlessly screech on about men and women being the same - until accountability is called for.

The controversial advice comes from the Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for training the judiciary.

It doesn't take a genius to work out the board is comprised of a sufficient number of ideologues and appeasers in order that these apartheid policies are 'directing' judges. It's simple, whenever ideology influences the law, there is no law.

Updated guidance on how to sentence female criminals was distributed in April in a new section on ‘gender equality’.

It told judges: ‘Women remain disadvantaged in many public and private areas of their life; they are under-represented in the judiciary, Parliament and senior positions
across a range of jobs; and there is still a substantial pay gap between men and women.’

Holy fuck! So women are to be given dispensation for imaginary social, political and judicial (ha ha) collective disadvantages that has no bearing on the crimes of an individual woman. The judge is supposed to decide the case on it's own merits, not factor in extraneous nonsense which has no bearing on the case whatsoever. This is scary stuff!

For every crime from theft to murder women are already punished far less severely then men, if at all. If the sentencing for female crimes becomes anymore lax they'll be handing out holidays and cash gifts to violent and murdering women next.

Furthermore, I'd posit that the extreme leniency in female sentencing has had a direct correlation regarding the explosion in female violence and crime which is at an unprecedented historical high. The corrupted judiciary is actually fueling this frenzied female free-for-all amidst an orgy of unaccountability.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Furthermore, I'd posit that the extreme leniency in female sentencing has had a direct correlation regarding the explosion in female violence and crime which is at an unprecedented historical high. The corrupted judiciary is actually fueling this frenzied female free-for-all amidst an orgy of unaccountability.

Criminal men will just pay criminal women to do the crimes. Make the sentences light enough and crime will begin to pay for women, and ironically, the men paying the women to do the crimes! This will result in the eventual collapse of society. We may see Sharia law imposed in the UK afterwards.

Judges have been told to treat female criminals more leniently than men when deciding sentences.

This is one of the fundamental principles of feminism - female chauvinist double standard.

FEMINISM IS SEXISM.

Somebody should sue these sexist jackasses for discrimination. Is it possible? I'm not fimiliar with British law.

Quote from outdoors

where are the feminists demanding equality?-i thought that is what they stand for?-hypocrites

It shows their utter corruption. They'd say treating a man like a women in sentencing shows neanderthal thinking. That it is not sophisticated enough thinking to account for victimhood.

You see, even when women are the victmizers, they are really the victims. Similarly, even when men are the victims, they are really the victimizers. Sentencing needs to account for this (feminazi) reality.

Quote from Tyrael

It's very sexist and discriminatory to give women softer sentences, merely due to their gender. This goes against basic principles of equal treatment for all people, regardless of gender.

Men and women must be sentenced based on the same criteria, or there's no equality.

It is fascist justice and nothing less than that.

In NAZI Germany the Jews use to be the object of such discriminatory laws. The book of equal treatment may well have been written by Goering himself, during his spare time from prosecuting people on the basis of their creed and gender.

In NAZI'S courts, the dispute between a german national and a Jew was a one way bet, using their discretionary powers (the same way as brittish courts do), the german will walk away from court with the lot.

Therefore, leniency for women means that women or the feminazi will walk from court (just like the german did) with the lot.

We'll soon enough have to "HEIL" to this state of justice.

NEVO

It's a classic the way chapter 6.1 (Gender equality) starts off with a bunch of stereotypes and assumptions:

Women remain disadvantaged in many public and private areas of their life; they are underrepresented in the judiciary, in Parliament and in senior positions across a range of jobs; and there is still a substantial pay gap between men and women.

and then immediately says

Stereotypes and assumptions about women’s lives can lead to unlawful discrimination.

No shit? Really?

But they don't mention that women have huge advantages such as almost certain child custody, owning almost twice the personal wealth that men do, spending 80% of personal income, having over twice the length of retirement etc. etc.. Oh no, instead of explaining how this means that it is fair to lock men away for only half the time of women, they use matters that reflect PERSONAL CHOICE by women to justify giving them extra favouritism for female criminals.

Quote from pzreb

Somebody should sue these sexist jackasses for discrimination. Is it possible? I'm not familiar with British law.

That may be possible, yes. It would be darned expensive but maybe it would also be darned worthwhile.

It's not as if they are saying (nor probably able to say) that justice can be served by giving women lighter sentences because they are less likely to re-offend. There is no basis on law, justice, fact, recidivism, or anything else.

Even when a paragraph starts off promising, it goes into pure feminism in drawing a biased conclusion. For example, most of us would probably have little problem with most of this paragraph, right up to the last few words, where "people," if not "men," would be appropriate:

Gender inequality is reflected in traditional ideas about the roles of women and men and, though they have shifted over time, the assumptions and stereotypes that underpin those ideas are often very deeply rooted. Thus, it is common to assume that a woman will have children, look after them and take a break from paid work or work part-time to accommodate the family. However, such assumptions and stereotypes can and often do have the effect of seriously disadvantaging women and may be discriminatory.

This document is dangerous, wrong and possibly illegal.

This is what men get for being born with a fucking Y chromosome. I am tired of this gender apartheid and I am trying my best not to lose my mind. Somebody here better fucking ban me, I don't have the heart for this anymore, and I swear I am going to lose it. This is too much.

Quote from Douglas

It's a classic the way chapter That may be possible, yes. It would be darned expensive but maybe it would also be darned worthwhile.

So... who's up to start a unique website purely for the purposes of drawing public attention to this hate campaign against men under the laughable claim of "equality"?