http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7014701.ece

"“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.[/i]”

"She said that he would have got a six-month sentence but was suspending it because he was a religious man and would know he was doing wrong, which we feel implies that a non-religious person wouldn't know it was wrong."

Err, If he understood it was wrong, why did he do it? I am so sick and tired of religious people who assume anyone without a god or gods has no decency or morals or standards – just because they need a god to put limits on thier own bad behaviour does not mean we are all that weak and shallow.

I am so sick and tired of some religious people who assume anyone without a god or gods has no decency or morals or standards

Fixed it for you.

Besides, saying that someone does X because they're religious is not the same as saying non-religous people do not do X.

Had he been on his way back from the Jedi Temple he could have received the same leniency and have beaten the guy up without laying a finger on him.

burn the witch

It definately implies that she wouldn't have let him off if he wasn't religious, is that acceptable in a secular society?

Besides, saying that someone does X because they're religious is not the same as saying non-religous people do not do X.

It is when the judge says they're giving a different sentence because of the religion stuff.

Fair dues about it only being 'some' – its just I have come across rather a lot of them in the last year.

Passing thought… I wonder if thats how she justifies Mr Blairs behavour?
🙂

It definately implies that she wouldn't have let him off if he wasn't religious, is that acceptable in a secular society?

England is not a secular society, we have a state constituted religion, the Church of England and the head of state, the Queen, is also head of the Church of England. In addition, 26 Lords Spiritual (Bishops) sit in the House of Lords. That being said, I don't agree with her conclusions.

so we are not all equal in the eyes of the law
Surely someone who knows this is wrong and does it is worse than someone amoral doing it. The former breaks the law and their own personal moral code and belief system the later just breaks the law.
Personally think it is worse but no you should not get special treatement because you believe in a religion that you cannot follow in the bank or on the streets and fail to tturn the other cheek – yes I know what religion he was.

He should've got the 6 months. Don't see how his beliefs make any difference in this case.

Passing thought… I wonder if thats how she justifies Mr Blairs behavour?

A crusade and fulfilling some biblical predictions. See Chirac's comments on Bush's justification for the war that wouldn't have been lost on Cherie.

I reckon her real justificaton was that as the victim also had a foreign name he deserved it and sending the aggressor to jail would be a waste of money that would be better spent used to kill muslims in Irag and Afghanistan.

England is not a secular society,

to be pedantic, I didn't explicity state it is, although I probably did imply that I think it should be 🙂

Another view

to be pedantic, I didn't explicity state it is, although I probably did imply that I think it should be

To out pendant you, you implicitly state it by the way you phrase the question without conditionality. If you had said "would that be acceptable in a secular society?" then you wouldn't have implied anything. Sorry I normally refrain from doing this.

An absolute disgrace,he should have been jailed.Why would "being devout" be a good reason to avoid jail for assaulting somebody twice?Being a Christian/moslem/Jedi does NOT make somebody morally superior.(NOT even Jedi)
I'm off down to LLoyds with a stocking mask and a bagette in tinfoil,I will let you know how I get on.I will be playing the "Godbotherer defence" if it all goes wrong.

LOL at duckman

The Southern Yeti – Member
Another view

😆

Cheers DezB – Slippery When Wet was £7 wasted btw.

Sorry I normally refrain from doing this.

Hey no worries, my fault entirely.

I am so sick and tired of religious people who assume

Hey, lets all be pedants today… 🙂

This is entirely appropriate and does not need the 'some' adding. I am of course making my own assumption here that is I would be sick of ALL religious types who make that assumption. To put 'some religious types' is to state that not all religious types who make that assumption make you sick. I'd say they ALL would. 🙂

I'm with Dawkins on this one. The fanatical religious nuts are actually at least being a bit more faithful to what their beliefs are supposed to be…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007065.ece

"“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before

Aren't lots of sentences suspended on this basis?

Not that you or the paper is seeing to undermine CB of course, no, not at all… 🙄

If it was suspended just because of the bit you've bolded, then why even mention the religion bit? The fact she did has to imply it made some difference to her consideration.

I am not saying it didn't, I am merely pointing out that it's not exactly unlikely, and sentences get mitigated in this way for first offenders, people of good character etc.

So I bet it's not the first time, and it's therefore a pretty poor bit of Cherie bashing.

ok al can you find one where a judge says the following then to prove your point?

I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are an atheist and have not been in trouble before

mumbo jumbo is taking over the world.

You've missed my point junkyard.

So I bet it's not the first time, and it's therefore a pretty poor bit of Cherie bashing.

OK, so find us another judge saying something similar if that's your point. I'll happily complain about him or her in just the same way – don't particularly have anything against Cherie, in fact she is often wrongly maligned IMHO.

Are you telling me it never happens?

Don't get me started.

Give Tony's track record with picking on muslims perhaps Cherie thought she'ed let this one go. After all it may bring her down the hit list.

Are you telling me it never happens?

Until I've got evidence otherwise, yes.

Of course if other judges did say something similar the story might be a bit less newsworthy, but all the comment in this thread (well apart from the ad-homs obviously) would stand.

So you'll believe the thrust of the story over my point without looking into it? Interesting position to take.

I guess if I was as concerned as you seem to be I'd want to look into it a bit.

She's dead right. He should get off because he's religious. It has always been so.

That's why all the paedos in the church weren't punished.

Aaaaargh!

So you'll believe the thrust of the story over my point without looking into it?

Your point being that other judges do it too? Maybe you should try something similar as a defence if you ever find yourself up in front of her. Can't see anything in that story suggesting otherwise – the thrust of the story being that a (newsworthy, though that doesn't really make any difference) judge did something wrong. If anything the implication from the comment at the end is that it's not an isolated incident "We are hopeful that some kind of guidance will be put out to judges saying that they cannot use this kind of language in court and treat religious people differently from non-religious people,".

Conventionally it's up to you to prove your point – especially when it's impossible to disprove without looking at every single judgement passed down. Not that I care one way or the other how many judges have said something similar, so back to you.

i have not really missed your point – yes Cheerie is getting bashed – I have no opinion on her though her judgement is clearly questionable – I mean she married Tony 😯
I think you missed my point I know they get mitigated for a variety of reasons but clearly his religous views were part of the reason I know this because she said so in summing up

I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before

Not exactly open to interpretation.
We could argue whether it was more or less important than his previous good charachter if you want but one cannot argue it was not a factor.

I would say that the religious reasons were the main ones.When I am giving a pupil a ration the most important reason is the one I mention first.Oh and I broke my jaw playing rugby,it hurts; what on earth is a mild fracture of the jaw?

jnyard – my point was not that atheists get the same treatement, but that religious folk, those of former good standing etc do.

Not that I care one way or the other how many judges have said something similar

Well if you don't care, even if I prove my point, then there's no way I am looking into it.

cynic-al is quite correct. If you are asserting that he is wrong, the onus is on you to prove it. This concept is enshrined in criminal law (the onus is on the prosecution to prove a defendant guilty of wrongdoing).

It is a daily occurrence that judges suspend sentences, due to first offence, of good character etc. The religious context that was put across was perhaps ill advised, but then judges have never really had a good reputation where tact is concerned! 😆