Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Man jailed for raping lesbian at wedding reception

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Helen….are you reading this? Well,he got more than the five years you were proposing for the other assault victim. But then that’s because he lured her there and raped her, not felt her up opportunisically while inebriated. Neither are right, but one is more serious than the other and the perpetrator should be sentenced accordingly.

  2. mmmmmmm

    ” but one is more serious than the other”

    There are no levels in assualt what you may think is ok as its just feeling someone up could affect that person for the rest of their life. You were not there so dont assume its not as bad.

  3. @mmmmmmmm,

    to quote from the other one,

    “He was convicted of assault by penetration”

    assault by penetration would seem a bit more serious than,

    “felt her up opportunisically (sic) while inebriated”

  4. One was under the influence of drink, the other was not. Neither are right, but one deserves a lesser sentence than the other. Akin to murder versus manslaughter.

    James!

    You weren’t there either, so don’t assume it IS as bad. We aren’t talking about emotional pain inflicted, we are talking about the sentencing of an action.

  5. One was under the influence of drink, the other was not. Neither are right, but one deserves a lesser sentence than the other. Akin to murder versus manslaughter.

    James!

    You weren’t there either, so don’t assume it IS as bad. We aren’t talking about emotional pain inflicted, we are talking about the sentencing of an action.

    That’s why these two have different sentences.

  6. @ mmmmmmmm /spanner whoever you are today

    Are you really this petty that you carry a personal vendetta from one thread to another. (and this vendetta carried over from the trans drug dealer thread from a week ago)

    As others have said, he did not merely ‘fell her up’ he violated her by penetration. If this rapist got six years I would of thought the other rapists sentence would not be far behind the six year in this case.

    What must the first woman feel looking at this case and seeing the clear gaps between the sentences.

  7. Helen

    It’s because I answered your comment on the other rape thread….hence why I have referred you to this.

    Call it a vendetta if you want, but given the kind of hysterical posts you make, someone needs to counter that to bring a sense of balance. Your paranoia helps no-one.

    Personally, I don’t care what your ‘wish’ in terms of sentencing is. you’d probably have them jailed for life if you could. The courts have obviously distinguished a difference in severity, pre-meditation and physical intoxication leading to diminished responsibility. I know you don’t understand this, so I will gve you another example: a man kills his wife on finding out she has had an affair in the heat of the moment. Versus, a man finds out his wife had had an affair, before planning and subsequently carrying out her murder. One is premeditated, one is not. One is murder, one is manslaughter. Like with the rape cases, one was clearly planned, one was not. And sentencing should take that into consideration. It doesn’t make the crime any less odious, it doesn’t mean the victims suffer any less. But it takes into account the before, the after and everything in between. Not to mention the fact that it is known for even the most mild-mannered, respectable, considerate people can absolutely lose it once they’re drunk. The article also omits things that could be quite important (that’s the Daily Mail side of Pink News, I mean no-one hear is arguing it is a top-quality publication are they?): how much remorse was shown, previous good character, attitude towards the police and victim, pleading guilty or not guilty…..these all influence the judge and jury. Have you ever been in a courtroom?

    If the woman understood the law, then she would see the difference. But if she were hysterical and irrational, like you Helen, she would presumable have called for the death penalty for the pair of them.

    Don’t enter the legal profession, you have to think with your head and not your heart. It’s all about facts and ticking boxes, not what YOU personally think the crime deserves.

  8. Erm, and how can I be Spanner when I have disagreed with his/her posts regularly? You are just a speculation machine, aren’t you. Plus, my spelling is nowhere near as bad as Spanner’s!

    Prat

  9. TheSuburbanBi 21 Jan 2011, 10:22pm

    “given the kind of hysterical posts you make, someone needs to counter that to bring a sense of balance. Your paranoia helps no-one.”

    Hm. Not to get in the midst of a flame war, no sir/ma’am, but I have seen more than several posts by ‘Helen’ by now and not one has been hysterical, paranoid or unbalanced. Interesting that all 3 words chosen to attack Helen are historically used to smear women in particular, and rarely used against men (except when the desired effect is to effeminise and thereby humiliate them)… as a choice of rhetorical tactic on a thread about attacks, rape and abuse of women, that kinda crosses the smarmy mark by far.

    Anyway, glad that justice was done in this case and ‘seen to be done’ as they say.

  10. Be ironic if he got raped in prison, although I certainly wouldn’t wish it upon him, still I wouldn’t be able to stop myself from seeing the funny irony.

  11. TheSuburbanBi

    Erm, how do you know I’m not actually a woman? And how is my language ‘gender specific’? Have you looked at my universal policy on using the terms ‘hysterical’ and ‘paranoia’? There are plenty of men that I’ve described being that way. Presumably you don’t know any men, they do get hysterical, paranoid, irration and neurotic too, it’s never been the sole reserve of women. As you have made the suggestion of that stereotype, are you perhaps speaking from your own point of you? If you want to label genders in a particular way, go ahead, but I’m indiscriminate in my condemnation of hysteria. From the few posts I’ve seen by Helen, I have been struck by the amount of speculation and overreacting. Her post here was no different. Bite me.

    Your gender discrimination argument is petty and just amounts to baseless accusations. But there are lots of people who try to make out discrimination when there isn’t any. The problem is you undermine the genuine cases and then the real victims are taken less seriously.

    Make like easier for females and put a sock in it.

  12. mmm “You weren’t there either, so don’t assume it IS as bad” yes some assualts are good you sick pig. Thasnks for the heads up Helen I think it posts as pumkin pie too

  13. James!

    Erm, no-one said that either, it’s only you that has suggested anything about that. But how they are SENTENCED depends on the circumstances – do you know anything about law? I mean, do you assume that when someone is killed, the person who did the killing should get life automatically? As opposed to differetiating between pre-meditated murder, self-defence and accidentatl death? People who don’t have a clue, shouldn’t comment, you only make things more confusing for everyone. More importantly, you should stay well away from any legal process!!

    Insult me and speculate about me all you want, same for you Helen, it’s your democratic right, but I don’t see that many people saying that they admire YOUR common sense approach to an issue.

  14. mmmmmmm,

    Do you think that someone done for drunk driving should get a lesser penalty because they were under the influence of alcohol.

    Do you think penetration with a finger is a lesser violation (to the victim) than with a penis.

    Do you think that because one was asleep it lessens the impact on the victim.

    You ask other people if they know anything about the law in a way that suggests you do so you should know that intoxication cannot be used as a defence on a rape charge (it is described as a crime involving basis intent) and so cannot influence the judgement or sentence.

  15. Thanks Dave G spanner mmmmm and pumkim pie are all the same poster

  16. David G

    Did you not read the part about it depends on the CIRCUMSTANCES?

    Your statement on intoxication is incorrect because ‘intent’ can be different where alcohol or drugs are concerned. That’s why a drunk driver who has been shown to have deliberately got drunk knowing full well he would be driving home later receives a higher sentence than someone who was drinking at home, had a row with the wife and jumped in the car in the heat of the moment. BOTH are criminalised, but the CIRCUMSTANCES through which they became intoxicated are considered along with all the other evidence. Hence the difference is sentencing. Don’t like it? Complain to a judge, these aren’t my rules. But they follow a pattern of logic, though that is the reserve of those with the greatest expertise, not armchair critics like you.

    That is the difference!

    Like with many people on here who like to twist the words of others to suit their own arguments, you have ASSUMED that I think the impact of finger rape is different to penis. I didn’t. But rape with a penis has greater ramifications. It can lead to pregnancy or infection, hence it is considered to add an extra layer of seriousness in terms of the physical impact. Physical and mental impact are NOT the same. Do not confuse the two. Why do you think paedophiles who have fingered a child get lower sentences from the ones they pin down and penetrate with their penises? Monica Seles was stabbed only to the extent that she required two stitches, but it wrecked her career because of the mental impact. Others have had much more serious injuries, yet not been so affected. This because mental strength differs between humans. A stab in the same place in the leg on two different people will cause almost identical physical injuries, but the pyschological damage can differ hugely between those two people.

    Again, this is the difference. You are seeing things only from the psychological impact, not the physical, but BOTH of these must be considered.

    And…..being asleep or being awake make no difference, you have no right to be violated in any instance. Why you have made such a bizarre point, I’m not sure, I can only guess it’s because you didn’t have enough points to raise and just threw it in or extra padding. The law doesn’t differentiate on the grounds of the victim being conscious or not.

    Think about what you write in future, you just look uninformed.

  17. James!

    I can only deduce that you are very thick and very speculative on the basis of that assumption. Conviction requires evidence and, if you had been an intelligent being, you would have noticed many differences between Pumpkin Pie and myself. As I remember, from months ago, before I even started posting here, he was a lot younger than me (I’m 29). He was bisexual, I’m gay. And we have totally different styles of writing. Not to mention our opinions.

    It is sad that you are not very bright, but that’s Darwinism. Even Human Rights legislation cannot protect society from people with your minimal levels of perception and common sense. At least those of us of sound and reasoned minds can limit the impact, although you guys tend to have a habit of doing that all by yourselves – I refer you to the Darwin Awards…..

  18. omg its so sick ffs pink news ban it or im not comming back

  19. James!

    How totalitarian of you for trying to ban things just on the basis that you don’t understand them. You may as well ban the law while you’re at it.

  20. Both attacks are equally abhorrent. As for the sentencing – no idea. I guess they follow guidelines. I did read that the man in this disgusting attack had a previous record though:

    http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Best-man-sent-jail-despicable-wedding-rape-castle/article-3101618-detail/article.html

    Who know what the judge took into account when sentencing. There’s no way we can know without all the facts.

  21. Someonewhoworksfor the CJS. 22 Jan 2011, 5:32pm

    A smooth talking defence solicitor can vary the sentence with tales of woe ‘he has a drink problem’, ‘he is very remorseful’ ‘he had a crap upbringing’ ‘he has since given up the booze’ etc I have seen it plenty of times. Depends on the bench, the available guidelines (which can vary wildly) & the defence. Not that I agree with any of that – rape is rape, regardless of whether alcohol is involved – some perpetrators drink purposefully to enable them to commit these crimes too.

  22. CJS

    It also works the other way round: a smooth-talking PROSECUTION witness can also vary sentences with such extra details and tales of woe. Considering you work for the CJS, you should know and understand this. The view you proposed was unbalanced.

    We’ve already seen the variations in sentences stemming from ALL the factors infuencing the given rape case. But, as you say, rape is rape, right? Are you sure you want that enshrined in law without circumstantial evidence taken into account?

    What about forced rape? You know, where someone has a gun to your head and forces you to rape a girl/guy? Ah, but it’s rape right, so the guy doing the raping should be charged with rape? Not at all. If duress is proven, the guy who did the raping would be rightfully acquitted with the gone-toting bully receiving the sentence. Or are you going to say ‘no, rape is rape, the guy under duress should have resisted the gun-wielding maniac a bit more’.

    What about statutory rape? If someone lies about their age when you met them in a nightclub (where you have to be 18 to enter), should the man in question be convicted of rape and forced to sign the sex offenders register for life? Was it not safe for him to assume the girl/boy he had sex with was over 16 given that it was in a venue with age restrictions and bouncers on the door checking for ID? Or would you argue that he should have asked for ID from the girl/boy first? If you do, then, you are potentially have an 18 year old branded a sex fiend for life when it is quite unjust. His life would be ruined, all because of someone who lied about their age and some useless bouncers.

    If you want a law that is so black and white, go and live in Iran and see if you like that kind of justice system. Circumstantial evidence is unbelievably important in a fair trial.

    Like me, you weren’t in any of these rape situations reported on Pink News, neither of us are privvy to the finer details of the case and therefore neither of us can make an informed judgement. As someone who has a great deal of faith in the justic system (let’s not get hysterical about how unfair it is, those gay guys won in Cornawall, right?), I feel confident that the judge and jury will make an appropriate judgement and hand out the right sentence. I also feel strongly that if there s not enough evidence to charge someone, that person should be freed. The act of simply convicting ‘someone’ does not equate to justice.

  23. @ James! – “omg its so sick ffs pink news ban it or im not comming back”

    will you stop trying to get peoplke banned just because they don’t agree with you. FREAK. and no I’m not mmmmmmmmmm, and mmmmmmmmmm isn’t spanner, and spanner isn’t pumpkin pie. I think you might smoke too much weed James and you’re paranoid. Sort your head out, or as you suggested, don’t come back.

  24. God

    I understand where you’re coming from, although neither of us should be wasting much time chastising him. He is little more than an inverse-Bill O’Reilly. Every social group has its irrational types, why should we be any different?

    Now that’s equality for you :)

  25. TheSuburbanBi 24 Jan 2011, 2:29pm

    @ mmmm : “TheSuburbanBi — Erm, how do you know I’m not actually a woman?”

    What about my post claimed you were of any gender or sex? Or do you assume that only a man/male can be called out for sexist language? You used sexist language; it was pointed out; it obviously irked you to be called on it.

    I don’t care what gender or sex or orientation you are, your choice of words was unfortunate at best and off-base in my opinion.

    But why am I bothering to address a troll? I must be having a slow day…

  26. I think your use of the word ‘troll’ is actually quite cringeworthy. It’s akin to Godwin’s Theory (look it up), at which point you lose all credibility for using it. Moreover, if I had something outrageously sexist, a few others might have complained, don’t you think? You were the only one implying any language was sexist – associating hysterical directly with women. Your link, not mine. Quite petty. Moreover, had I been a woman, it would have been unlikely I would not have used ‘sexist’ language, right? Anyway, good question, why are you bothering? Other than to try and antagonise people for the sake of it (Melanie Philips a relative of yours?). What a great life you must have.

    I normally find people who have nothing to say tend to accuse other people of being whichever -phobe/-ist that first comes to mind. It’s the Tesco value of debating. Try not to punch above your weight next time, eh.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all