You might like to know that of the two who were charged over the Caroline Criado-Perez case, the one who received the longer sentence was a woman, Isabella Sorley. Twitter trolls jailed over menacing abuse sent to feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez

You might like to know that of the two who were charged over the Caroline Criado-Perez case, the one who received the longer sentence was a woman, Isabella Sorley. Twitter trolls jailed over menacing abuse sent to feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez

Any idea why?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Like Chris I only read what's in the press, and background info is a bit thin on the ground.

How pathetic you must be if the best defense your lawyer can come up with is 'My client is a failure in life, forgive him for he is to stupid to know that what he did was wrong'.

Paul Kennedy, representing Nimmo, described him as a "somewhat sad individual" who is "effectively a social recluse".

Given the situation, his lawyers seem to have judged that effectively asking the court to take pity on him, was the only realistic way forward to achieve the lowest sentence. He was probably supported by legal aid, but I don't know. As WK commented, background info is a bit scarce.

I would not have thought that this particular instance was a good example of unfair bias against women, if that is what it was intended to be.

Oh yes, no doubt it was a good defense, but one has to actually be very pathetic before the court buys such a defense.

And agreed, I think the fact that the women got a heavier sentence is because she had a bit of a history with the police. Not because she was a women.

Paul Kennedy, representing Nimmo, described him as a "somewhat sad individual" who is "effectively a social recluse".

Given the situation, his lawyers seem to have judged that effectively asking the court to take pity on him, was the only realistic way forward to achieve the lowest sentence. He was probably supported by legal aid, but I don't know. As WK commented, background info is a bit scarce.

I would not have thought that this particular instance was a good example of unfair bias against women, if that is what it was intended to be.

Oh yes, no doubt it was a good defense, but one has to actually be very pathetic before the court buys such a defense.

And agreed, I think the fact that the women got a heavier sentence is because she had a bit of a history with the police. Not because she was a women.

Without knowing the full details of the case, we can't make an assessment on that one. We'd be better off looking at general statistics on how men and women are sentenced for the same crimes. I haven't looked at those figures recently, but I know there is a history of women being punished more severely than men.


EDIT: after a quick look it seems that men are more likely to receive longer sentences for more serious crimes, but women are more likely to go to jail for less serious non-violent crimes. So as usual its more complicated than that and the gender bias would have to be unpicked to see exactly how and where it affects each gender.

---

Reality Internet Personality

EDIT: after a quick look it seems that men are more likely to receive longer sentences for more serious crimes, but women are more likely to go to jail for less serious non-violent crimes. So as usual its more complicated than that and the gender bias would have to be unpicked to see exactly how and where it affects each gender.

I think it follows certain gender stereotypes. Like with cases of sexual assault, there is of course the huge problem with rape culture, but at the same time, when guys do get sentenced for that, I think they get harsher punishments because rape is seen as a male thing. But if guys get raped, well there is still the idea that guys like sex, any kind of sex and therefor can't be raped or that rape is less severe for them. That is especially true when the girl in question conforms to our beauty standards.

Murder and other violent acts are again more seen as male things. I mean, just look in our culture who is usually the person performing violent acts? Right, guys. In action movies its the guy that does all the violent stuff. Depictions of the military are overwhelmingly of guys. In video games, you usually play as guy, especially in violent video games. Then there are our toys. Action heroes for guys, plastic guns, toy soldiers, etc. So there is an obvious connection that our culture makes between guys and violence. So put a guy on trial for murder or something else that is violent and its relatively easy to convince a jury. After all, in their minds there is already a clear link between violence and guys, so its much easier to accept the idea of a guy being a murderer.

Now take girls, who have been pretty much detached from violence, or at least as the persons capable of violence. After all, they usually need a guy blasting their way in and killing all the bad guys because a girl would be incapable of doing that herself. No, girls spend all their time shopping for pretty clothes and hanging around with friends in the mall or playing with dolls and watching cartoons that reinforce this stereotype that belongs to the 50's. At the same time, girls are linked to innocence and purity, the whole virginity obsession. Any smart lawyer will exploit that and use that notion to present his client as innocently as possible. So put a girl on trial for murder and you have a much harder time convincing a jury that she is guilty because the link between girls and violence, or extremer acts of violence is not so obvious in the heads of most jury members, while innocence and purity is.

If I were to guess I'd say that the difference in statistics is perhaps due to the fact that guys get more easier convicted for heavier crimes than girls and that as a result prosecutors take that into account. So they seek lower punishments for girls than for guys because they know that they have a higher chance of success of getting a conviction that way. For girls it becomes that aiming to high gets them off, while for guys aiming to low makes you look like you are easy on crime. But thats just my guess.

I have been reliably informed that apparently 1 in 4 women in the UK have been victims of domestic violence. If this so, then that is a shocking figure that I for one was not aware of. But again, we would need to dig further into it all. All we talking systematic violence over many years with broken limbs and black eyes, or people sometimes losing their temper after the pub and throwing things. Neither of which is acceptable to me I must add. Why do so many women not report domestic violence, do they think they won't be believed? Do they think that people will say, your own fault for staying with him? Do they think that if they report it he'll take further revenge? Are they just too embarrassed to admit that they just put up with it? I have no idea why is is not more widely reported? Is it made too difficult to?

These women are in relationships because they love the person. It makes it very difficult to see clearly. There is often a power imbalance and if there are children in the relationship there is often a lot of pressure (as I am sure you as a former Daily Mail reader are aware) not to break up the family and to try and make it work. Often the men who hit women are very good at making excuses and making the woman feel like she was to blame. Its not easy to give up your whole home and your whole life to deal get away from something you've been promised won't happen again.

Could a major cause be that if a complaint is made against a violent partner by a woman, then if he is the single wage earner, she will end up in sheltered accommodation somewhere with the kids, who may have to change schools, and then she'll be in fear of him finding out where she now lives. So she puts up with it. I Don't know, I'm just trying to find answers to shocking figures in the 21C.

I think that is true in quite a few of the cases. If a complaint is made and then not followed up or taken seriously then the women runs the risk of facing retaliation.

I can remember back some years ago when a couple were having a right ding dong in their house a few doors down from me. All sorts of bangs could be heard, and concerned neighbours called the police. Two cars turned up and police banged on the door, they went inside and came out again 10 minutes later, and by this time half the street was outside. One copper said to me, it was a simple "domestic", no-one was hurt or likely to be, if they want to smash their possessions up through bad temper, down to them. They have been warned to pack it in, else we will be back and will take them both down the station for a caution". Was that the right way to deal with it?

It depends. In my own experience the police were less than useless. My ex was a shover. So in his head it didn't count as violence. If he shoved me over, no matter what sort of bruises I was left with, then I was "faking the fall because there was no way he pushed me that hard" He actually hit me only once, but was violent to me on many occasions, (throwing things at me, calling me abusive names, threats, shoving). I just didn't recognise it for what it was. It was always associated with drinking. I called the police once on him and all they did was take him and leave him in a park somewhere. I got to the point where I was sleeping with a knife under my pillow because I knew when he was drunk he didn't even know who I was and might attack me when he'd been drinking. I was going to take our son and leave him by then and he realised what he was doing and stopped drinking. It is so hard when you have children. In hindsight I should have taken my son and left earlier, but hindsight is so clear isn't it? These things creep up on you one step at a time. They never start out violent. He was a charming sociopath and knew exactly how to manipulate. So now you know. Do you have less respect for me because of this? I am sure a lot of people do and will blame me for staying so long. I blame myself. I feel so stupid for being taken in. Its no wonder women don't go around bragging about being victims of domestic violence. Did I stand up for myself? You bet I did. Did that make it worse? Absolutely.

When genuine domestic violence occurs that is not acceptable in my book, I just don't understand why men, or women, and they do it as well, get driven to behave like that. In an unhappy situation I would just sooner pack my bags and go and find somewhere nicer to live.

Its about control Chris. Thats why they do it.

Men often use their physicality and superior strength without even realising they do it. If a man has ever used his larger mass to block a women from leaving a room. If he's ever stood over her and yelled, if he's ever grabbed her arm to move her or pull her back, then he is abusing his position of strength and using it to intimidate. I bet at some point in their lives almost every man here as done that.

---

Reality Internet Personality

...

Now then a couple of questions Es. Do you think that the large increase in single parent families is an indication that more women are saying enough, we want out. And do you think that the large decrease in marriage in favour of just living together, is because of women wanting an easier and quicker way out if it does go wrong.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Most divorces are initiated by women. In the past they had to put up with bad situations because they had no way of being financially independent. It was a situation that was ripe for abuse. Now a woman can leave and support herself.

I am not altogether sure why actual marriage is on the decline, but I suspect what you say is part of the picture. Now both men and women can try out living with a partner. Sometimes that is quite enough. Some couples like to keep all their finances separate, some don't. Marriage is harder to get out of than common law, also, from my own current experience actually getting married (the ceremony and reception and all that tosh) is really expensive.

I think marriage is on the decline because women no longer need a handsome prince to give them their happy ending. They make their own happy endings and if a man wants to come along for the ride then good. (That sounded more Freudian than I intended).

---

Reality Internet Personality

... I think marriage is on the decline because women no longer need a handsome prince to give them their happy ending. They make their own happy endings and if a man wants to come along for the ride then good. (That sounded more Freudian than I intended).

Hopefully that is all for the good to keep better balance and to kick Man into a much more healthy shape! ;-)


Life is what we make it...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Eh, if you look at the long term marriage rates, you'll see that during most of the 20th century (at least in the United States) the marriage rate was actually pretty high, with an absolutely insane spike right after WW2. Its only since the 1980's that the rate has been consistently declining and its now just below 19th century levels. No doubt that feminism and other forms of cohabitation that have become more acceptable are to some degree the cause of the decline in marriage rates, but perhaps its also a little flawed to see the 20th century as the standard of marriage rates to begin with.

Eh, if you look at the long term marriage rates, you'll see that during most of the 20th century (at least in the United States) the marriage rate was actually pretty high, with an absolutely insane spike right after WW2. Its only since the 1980's that the rate has been consistently declining and its now just below 19th century levels. No doubt that feminism and other forms of cohabitation that have become more acceptable are to some degree the cause of the decline in marriage rates, but perhaps its also a little flawed to see the 20th century as the standard of marriage rates to begin with.

Good point. Marriage used to be only for the wealthy anyway. The poor used to live common law.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Its peoples own business whether they wear rings or not. However, I do not think it indicates 'ownership' of any kind. Its just a material sign that states you made a commitment as well as a declaration of love to someone who has the other ring and that that person accepted. I'd wear one if I got married.

You do realise that the fashion of men wearing wedding rings only started during WW2.

In the UK nearly all Prime Minister have not worn rings. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25320428

Through habit I don't wear any metal, I go for days without my watch on and loose change is usually to be found in my desk or bedside table not in pockets, because for a long period I worked on equipments with very high voltages and magnetic fields.

Back on topic, Recorded rape figures vary widely across England and Wales

A pal of mine who lives long time with his partner just says, she knows I come home each night because I want to, not because I have to. Not quite sure what comfort she is supposed to get out of that but there you are! I do know some right pigs :-) I'm just sad that the romance seems to have gone out of it all. Yeah, I'm a soppy old sod, always have been ....

That sounds quite positive, it reads to me as he wants to come home because he loves her, rather than having to come home because he's married to her.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Engagement ring
Wedding ring
Maternity ring
Eternity ring

Understand the first two, but the last two?

You mean they get a ring for every kid?
As for eternity, damn, after 50 years of marriage one would think that once they get upstairs they would want peace and quiet :)

Like Chris, just kidding lol.

---

Hadn't heard of the last two until now.

Maternity ring sounds risky, don't women's fingers often swell during pregnancy?
Edit: My mother's did, she had to have her wedding ring nipped off and enlarged while she was expecting me.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Huh, I never heard of those last two rings. Also, I thought engagement rings are basically the same rings you give each other when you are at the altar.

Engagement rings are traditionally diamond rings given by the Fiance to his Fiancee upon their betrothal. The traditional wedding rings are plain gold bands that are swopped during the marriage service itself.

I see. Well, not planning to get married anytime soon, so no need for me to start looking for those things yet.

I will put my two cents in seeing how this thread hasnt gone anywhere. I dont wear a wedding ring because at my last job I didnt want to get electracuted by 460 volts 3 phase. I dont wear one on this job as I dont need a ring to get caught on a tool. I am a CNC operator. I have the scars to show that just changing a tool is hazordous to ones skin.
I wear my wedding band on a chain around my neck. It only comes off when the Dr. needs to do a chest x-ray.

The day I retire I will gladly put that ring back on my finger if it stil fits.

I dont pretend to know how most guys think. But I know im married with or without a ring on my finger. I kiss her goodbye when I leave for work and tell her I love her and when we go to bed I kiss her goodnight and say I love you.

Maybe Im old fashioned, But it works for us.

---

[/quote]

Old James