Skip to content


The Attorney General is to review the jail sentences of an Asian grooming gang after a judge ruled the exploitation of white girls was not racially motivated.

The judge’s decision meant stiffer penalties for racially aggravated crimes could not be applied in the case of the Newcastle-based sex ring.

Judge Penny Moreland said the gang picked out their victims “not because of their race, but because they were young, impressionable, naive and vulnerable”.

Prosecutor John Elvidge told Newcastle Crown Court the victims were “white, British and female” and the defendants were “of Asian extraction” but insisted there was no direct evidence race had played a part in the gang’s process for selecting the girls.

100 offences?

19 thoughts on “Rilly?”

  1. To some extent, it has always seemed absurd to me that a heavier sentence should be applied because of the supposed racial, gender, religious or sexual characteristics of the offense. Its just another way of prosecuting thought crime, IMHO.

    I do not think it logical, though, to believe that these offenses weren’t racially motivated. Consistency is not a strong point of SJWs, as we all know.

    Having said that, these offenses, however motivated, are clearly very serious, and deserve a long sentence and, hopefully, expulsion from the UK. I doubt we will see that though – the SJW establishment has been protecting these offenders for some years, and aren’t about to stop now.

  2. Bloke in North Dorset (mid channel)

    Did the victims think it was a hate crime?

    That always seems to be the test when it’s whites accused of crimes against blacks.

  3. The milk of feminist cooperation seems to run pretty thin in the British liberal establishment. It seems to be full of cunts who are happy to take the side of rapists.

  4. BiND – when it’s white on non-white, the mere feeling of racism is enough to make it a hate crime.

    But, because racism is prejudice + power and whites have all the power* they can’t be victims of hate crimes.

    *even when the whites in question are vulnerable children and the non-whites are an organised and violent gang apparently…

  5. @Hugh
    September 6, 2017 at 7:15 am
    It’s not a thought crime if you act on it, Jack.

    Indeed – the crime is actually a crime.

    The thought behind though, is not. Sentence should be imposed for the crime, not for the underlying thought process, which is likely unknowable and over-determined.

  6. Just when I thought the ‘law’ couldn’t go lower, they dig a hole to get the extra depth.
    You couldn’t design a better way to rot the fabric of society than have legal outcome depend on skin colour, and penalise the host population to boot.

  7. The very definition of a crime combines an action with mens rea i.e. The mental element of a crime or underlying intent. Without mens rea you do not have a crime.

    The racial, religious elements that you mention are aggravations of the initial crime thus attracting a more severe punishment.

    None of this is difficult or controversial.

  8. @Hugh

    If I am assaulted, I am assaulted. Unless it is accidental, or not meant by the assailant, their motive matters, to me, not a jot, whether it is because of the colour of my skin, my (lack of) religion, the fact I am hetero, or because he wanted to sell my gold Rolex (which I do not have) to feed starving children in Africa.

    The protected characteristics are, in any case, arbitrary. The closest I have come, lately, to being assaulted came because I voted Conservative and for Brexit. Neither of those is protected.

    And arbitrary, also, in interpretation. How anyone could think the offenses under consideration are not racially motivated is beyond me – that is quite clearly part of the motivation, though, as I say, the full motivation is likely unknowable & overdetermined.

    It is not, as you say, difficult to understand this law, but it is most certainly controversial. Especially when adjudicated in arbitrary fashion as it seems to be in this case.

  9. There should be NO cultural Marxist laws–assault is assault as is said above.

    However since we have such to then see scum like this judge throw said Marxian bullshit in white peoples faces is a piss-boiler all right. The beards just picked out all white girls because? There aren’t any vulnerable girls from the perps own race?

    The Judge needs his career ending with a nice “conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice” charge.

  10. None of this is difficult or controversial.

    I believe that particular error of logic is called “begging the question”.

    As the thread above illustrates, many disagree with your contention that the underlying intent of these rapists – systematically and repeatedly to rape children and vulnerable adolescents whom they despised – was in any way “aggravated” by its (obvious) racial slant. The offences are appalling and should be punished as harshly as possible.

    The concept of racial (etc.) aggravation of mens rea is profoundly unjust: either a given action plus intent is a crime worthy of punishment or it is not.

    Why should somebody who murders my straight friend be punished less severely than he might be if he had murdered my gay friend in identical circumstances? What happened to the idea that we should all be entitled to equal treatment under the law?

  11. You couldn’t design a better way to rot the fabric of society than have legal outcome depend on skin colour, and penalise the host population to boot.

    Rot? They’ll be murdered in their beds if they’re not careful. I wrote about this in the context of America today when a Muslim woman called for the suppression of opinions that Trump’s voters hold. Muslims in America make up 0.9% of the population, which is a rounding error. They ought to pray somebody much more brutal than Trump doesn’t get in, but instead they’re making it more likely.

  12. Bloke no Longer in Austria


    Mens Rea and Asctus Reus SHOULD be the two arbiters of a crime, but over the last 20 years or so we have had a continued erosion of legal bases that served us for a 1000 years previously. The increasing number of “strict liability” offences means that it is possible to commit a crime and have no intent ( accessing child porn is the best example ).
    And don’t get me started on double jeopardy…

  13. “You couldn’t design a better way to rot the fabric of society than have legal outcome depend on skin colour, and penalise the host population to boot.”

    See also the Irish travellers able to commandeer a portion of a hospital car park (without paying parking fees, naturally!) while their relative gets treatment. Somewhere in Manchester, I think it was.

  14. @Hugh The test for intent (dolus) is a subjective one. Did the accused have the intent to commit the crime? It has no room for gradations. You can’t have half a guilty mind or twice as much of a guilty mind. You either have mens rea (a guilty mind) or you don’t. Of course, if the crime is attacking a protected group, then the test is whether the accused had the intention to commit the crime against a member of the protected group for being a member of such group or not. Two separate enquiries. An aggravation of the first offence which needs to be proven.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *