Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

One law for us…

…and another for them.

A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he  was taught that women are worthless.

I don’t recall that being included in the national curriculum.

Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.

Where’s he been living?  Under a rock?  In some dark cave?  Has he never watched TV or read a newspaper?

Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.’

As mitigating circumstances go this one is thinner than a stick insect’s todger.  Worked like a charm though, didn’t it.

Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.

Used to result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.  The precedent this moron of a judge has just set into law has handed paedos of a particular hue a get out of jail free card.  What the Scammel happened to ignorance is no defence?  What happened to justice?  I’ll tell you what’s happened to it.  Our wonderful judiciary just cut off the blind old biddy’s head with that sword of hers and shoved the scales down the hole in her neck!

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

I guess Rashid dressing up to look like a schoolboy and standing in the dock clasping his hands in front and staring contritely at his feet did the trick, eh?

Rashid, from Birmingham, admitted he had sex with the girl, saying he had been ‘tempted by her’ after they met online.

It was all the girl’s fault.  She wasn’t done up in a tent like a human letterbox so Rashid didn’t have a choice.

Gimme a frigging break!  This is Britain we’re talking about, not some medieval shithole.  We don’t have Sharia courts here.

Oh, wait…

They initially exchanged messages on Facebook before sending texts and chatting on the phone over a two-month period.

They then met up in Nottingham, where Rashid had booked a room at a Premier Inn.

Yeah, he was so naive, passive and lacking assertiveness he had the forethought to pre-book a room in the hotel.

The girl told police they stayed at the hotel for two hours and had sex after Rashid went to the bathroom and emerged wearing a condom.

Wait.  What the…?

Let’s perform a little re-wind.

…you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.

Not so naive and immature he didn’t know about condoms and what they are for.  Clearly not much of a lily-white ingénue then.  Yet the judge chose to ignore that this paragon of Islamic values went equipped.

I’d say the only naive and immature tosser in the courtroom was Judge Stokes because he’s been had over good and proper.

Rashid then returned home and went straight to a mosque to pray.

Because praying to a Dark Ages warlord who had a nine year old bride is what you do after having sex with a child in a country that locks up paedophiles.  Or at least used to.

He was arrested the following week after the girl confessed what had happened to a school friend, who informed one of her teachers.

It’s a pity the silly girl didn’t confide to her very sensible friend before she met Rashid in the flesh, so to speak.

He told police he knew the girl was 13 but said he was initially reluctant to have sex before relenting after being seduced.

The accused was so reluctant he went to the expense of booking a room and nipping into a chemist for a pack of three. I say chemist since I’m assuming that procuring johnnies from a dispenser in the hotel lavvy is haram.  Or he could have got them from a third party of course.

Earlier the court heard how Rashid had ‘little experience of women’ due to his education at an Islamic school in the UK, which cannot be named for legal reasons.

The name of a school that labels a seven year old a racist for asking another child an innocent question about his skin colour gets splashed all over the papers.  So how come the name of the “school” that teaches its male pupils that women are scum and can be treated as scum gets a pass?  Surely this poison should be weeded out, not protected?

After his arrest, he told a psychologist that he did not know having sex with a 13-year-old was against the law. The court heard he found it was illegal only when he was informed by a family member.

At which point he was so full of remorse for breaking the law he gave himself up to the police.  Oh, wait.  No he didn’t.

In other interviews with psychologists, Rashid claimed he had been taught in his school that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground’.

I’d just love to see the last Ofstead report on this school.  I wonder if it was a glowing, politically correct one?  I can’t wait to see Ofstead explain how rampant Islamic misogyny passed under their radar, accepting, like the judge did, that Rashid isn’t a lying little scrote.  I take it that these Islamic schools are inspected like other faith schools are.  If what Rashid said is true, how many more madrassas in the UK wipe their arses with the national curriculum while under Ofstead’s purview?

When Judge Stokes said Rashid ‘must have known it was illegal, unless he was going round with his eyes shut’, defence lawyer Laban Leake said reports suggested Rashid had a ‘degree of sexual naivety’.

Clearly, Rashid wasn’t the only one going round with his eyes shut…

The school he attended, it is not going too far to say, can be described as a closed community and on this occasion this was perpetuated by his home life.

No shit, Sherlock!  Are we going to see the same largesse handed out to a boy, formerly cloistered in a Catholic school, grooming thirteen year olds and having sex with them?


Then why has Rashid been allowed to get away with it?

‘It is not too far to say that he may not have known that having sex with a 13-year-old girl was illegal.’ Judge Stokes sentenced Rashid to nine months youth custody, suspended for two years, along with a two-year probation supervision order.

But apparently it’s too far to say that Rashid had a mobile phone and a Facebook account which means he had access to the internet.  With all the news about Muslim child grooming gangs and teachers running off abroad with underage pupils being splashed around the media and internet how can he not have known?

Describing Rashid, the judge said: ‘He’s had an unusual education, certainly in terms of the sexual education provided. Comparing women to lollipops is a very curious way of teaching young men about sex.’

Bangs head on table.  It’s not “curious” shit-for-brains, it’s scammelling scandalous!  All those frigging gender equality laws the legal profession print money from vigorously support are being trodden into the mud and all Stokes can say is that it’s curious?  Is he high on crack cocaine or something?  Is he so blinded by political correctness that he can’t see where this will lead?

But he said that Rashid knew what he was doing was wrong.

Then why isn’t Rashid busy avoiding dropping the soap in a prison bathroom?  He groomed and had sex with an underage girl.  That is a prisonable offence.

‘It was made clear to you at the school you attended that having sexual relations with a woman before marriage was contrary to the precepts of Islam,’ he said.

So Rashid is being given this outrageously lenient sentenced for ignoring madrassa teaching?

Addressing Rashid, the judge said: ‘I accept this was a case where the girl was quite willing to have sexual activity with you. But the law is there to protect young girls, even though they are perfectly happy to engage in sexual activity.’

Unless some dhimmified Judge is willing to make an exception when it suits him?

The law my left buttock!  British law has become a travesty, a joke, a sham.  It is unfit for purpose.  Judge Stokes should hang up his wig and gown in shame. Letting a paedophile go because he went to the wrong school is an unacceptable defence. and the sentence handed down has no place in any civilised society.


  1. john b says:

    While the judge’s remarks are ridiculous, calling a teenage boy a paedophile for having consensual sex with a teenage girl is an insane perversion of language. The outrage should be in the fact that the poor sod would have been sent down for 5-7 years if he hadn’t had the ‘benefit’ of a backward fundie upbringing.

  2. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    Assuming the girl has a father in-situ, Mr Rashid may yet meet justice of a more informal kind.

  3. John Galt says:

    I’ve got two feelings on this, the first (and most likely the case) is that this is yet another example of the judiciary being turned over by some well dressed young tyke coming all innocent. In which case, our fellow judge should be reminded that the adage “ignorance of the law is no defence” and it certainly ain’t no mitigation either.

    If this is indeed the case, then the solicitor for the 13-year old victim (and I use this word carefully), should lodge the necessary paperwork for a review of the sentence and before too long he’ll be picking up soap in the showers and getting a more intimate knowledge of what rape means.

    Another aspect that occurred to me and I guaranteed that dodgy judiciary is far more likely, is that in light of occasional teams of plod ACTUALLY having the temerity to arrest followers of the religion of peace for carrying out perfectly natural cultural practices by drugging and raping under-age white girls, then our fine liberal establishment will need an excuse to prevent our culturally challenged Islamists from being persecuted by the police. In all of this, the case of young Mr. Rashid might be a very important step.

    Time for one of our senior judges to have a rather harsh word in Judge Michael Stokes shell-like.

  4. Lynne says:

    john b. We are not talking about some schoolboy having a quick shag with the school bike in the back seat of a car. At 18 years of age Rashid is an adult and planned ahead for his encounter with a child five years his junior. How is calling him a paedophile (which is exactly what he is) a perversion of the English language?

  5. Mr Ecks says:

    Sorry. Lynne but I agree with John B on this one. You are letting your dislike of special favours granted to the RoP cloud your judgement. I share that dislike but this “case” is still about two teenagers.If this youth had been 38 instead of 18 there would be some validity to the charges. As it is a young girl, past puberty, is going to start her sexual life somehow, probably with another teenager–why is this youth so monstrous a choice ?-and it was her choice,the Judge said as much, not genuine rape or sexual assault. The youth talks about the crap taught by the RoP but when facing 5-7 years most people would say anything they could in the hope of avoiding jail.

    John Galt: There is not the slightest suggestion (apart from legal phrasing and the newspapers use of the word “rape”) that the girl was forced let alone drugged.Nor does the youth seem to be a member of any network. The “grooming” sounds like the sort of chat males and females have done since the dawn of time. The vast majority of people in this country lose their virginity “around” the 16 year mark and many do so before the age of legal consent. If the boy had been just 16 would that still mean he should get 5 years?.

    I have no time for the double-standards that apply in this country. He should have been “let-off lightly ” because the laws are wrong not because of the RoP angle. But so should any teenager in his position.

  6. JuliaM says:

    “I have no time for the double-standards that apply in this country.”

    Me neither. Not do I have any time for the feminists who’d be all over any suggestion of a 13 year old girl being a ‘willing partner’ if this had been any other shade of 18 year old in the dock….

  7. Lynne says:

    Mr Ecks. I dislike special favours no matter what quarter they come from. I am as equally sickened by the glacial progress of Huhne case. You or I would have been dealt with very quickly because we are not figures of the establishment.

    Rashid is an adult. Had he been sixteen and therefore still a child in the eyes of the law then I would have expected a soft outcome. Sexual experimentation amongst young teens should be a matter for parents and schools to deal with, not law. Rashid isn’t a schoolboy, he’s reached his majority. Clearly the teacher to whom the information was given did not feel the same way as you.

    18 or 38, it doesn’t matter. It is illegal to have unlwful sexual intercourse with a child, even though that child has consented. That is the law. There is no grey area here because Rashid isn’t a child. Unless, of course, you believe that the age of adulthood should be redefined…? Would you still feel the same way if Rashid was 19 or 20?

  8. Mr Ecks says:

    Julia M: Not sure who you are aiming at, but if it is me , let me assure you that I have no time for the RoP and I absolutely despise the Radical feminist agenda of hate. I have no trouble with women being treated as equal with men but that has nothing to do with feminism. I just don’t think teens should get prision sentences or lifetimes on sex offenders registers for doing voluntary acts with each other, even if the law says one or the other or both don’t have agency.

    From this year all kids will be forced to be “schoolboys” until they are 17–and the scum of New Labour were going to make it 18 under threat of jail time. If he attended Sixth form (if they still have that-my schooldays were long ago) then he might have ceased being a “schoolboy” only a few months ago.
    Technically you are right–he broke the law. However, all of us have probably broken the law nowadays what with so many laws. And the fact that the laws are now being written in more and more vague terms as deliberate policy , to cast their net wider and wider. This is more developed so far in the US, where the “technically guilty=no excuses” approach is widespread.It is estimated that the entire population out of the cradle have broken at least 3 federal laws. You may have heard of the recent suicide of Aaron Swartz, a computer genius who pulled a prank on MIT, designed to prove a point which did them no harm (and indeed, MIT pleaded that he not be prosecuted) and was threatened by the federal thugs with 30 years in jail if he pleaded not guilty at his trial (80+% of federal trials result in conviction). They were willing to plea bargin only 6 months in jail (knowing that a thin, weak, white nerd would be beaten and sodomised prob the first night) and a life-long record as a felon which itself would leave Swartz a broken man. Still he was guilty right?. The law is the law. So that when, in the future, TPTB over here decide to roust you Lynne, for saying things about the RoP that they don’t like, they won’t have to openly assault free speech to punish you, they will have lots of other offences to go after that you have unwitingly committed and are “guilty” of. The law is the law right? and ignorance is no defence.

    Judges should deal out punishment in cases where deliberate harm has been done by bad people. Julia M rightly castigates the appalling weakness of UK beaks when faced with nasty, violent pieces of work. But Judges should also ensure justice and do have a function to protect people from the undue harshness of laws. In this case the beak should have looked at harm supposedly done, not just age=guilt alone. The only party that could have been harmed here is the girl. And if the Judge feels he has to say in court”It doesn’t matter if you consent or not” then it does not sound as if she is making any complaint about what happened. Indeed, it is very likely that , despite official anonimity, those in her orbit will know all to well what has happened. It is said that one of the things women fear most is being shamed as a “slut”. The girl is not any such thing but is highly likely she will be feeling that shame to some degree as a result of this legal farrago. If this matter had never come to light it is quite possible the girl might have been better off. Technical guilt should be weighed ALWAYS against harm done in cases such as this. For that reason the judge should have shown common sense not because of the RoP angle.

  9. Lynne says:

    Mr Ecks,

    I understand where you are coming from. However, we are dealing with British law and not US federal law. Given the amount of laws the EU has heaped upon us I’m fairly certain I unwittingly break some law or other from time to time. However, that doesn’t absolve me from having sex with a thirteen year old boy should I chose to do so. Not now and certainly not when I was 18.

    As for age: At 18 you can marry without parental consent. You can buy alcohol providing you carry ID, if not you are prevented from going about your legal business if you don’t look 25 which is a worrying and authoritarian victory for the anti-booze mob. You can vote. You can go and watch certificate 18 films. You can do all sorts of things that any adult can.

    One of those other things is serve your country in the armed forces. This country recognises that an 18 year old is considered adult enough to point a weapon at a designated enemy and pull the trigger. Are you honestly telling me that the 18 year old under discussion, knowing that he was having sex with a 13 year old girl, shouldn’t be held fully responsible for his actions because, although he’s an adult, he’s still a teenager?

    As for harm, how do you know that no harm was done? Consent doesn’t mean there will be no psychological consequences for the girl down the line. How do you know she wasn’t experienced, wasn’t too afraid to say no when she put herself in this predicament? Young girls can be very impressionable and can be flattered when an older male takes notice of them and says nice things. The answer is you don’t know. Neither do I. Is a young adult having sex with a consenting 13 year old girl acceptable? She’s barely entered pubescence, if at all. Would I have reacted so strongly had the girl been almost 16, just under the jailbait bar? Probably not. But she isn’t nearly sixteen is she. She’s just a kid.

    I reiterate, Rashid is an adult and enjoys the privileges of being an adult whether he attends a 6th form college or not. He should be treated like an adult by the courts. Unless, as I said in my previous comment, you want to revise the age of adulthood upwards? I think you might have a rather difficult time selling that to young adults. About as difficult a time Labour had when they wanted to increase the school leaving age.

  10. John b says:

    Nobody’s claiming he didn’t break the law. The fact that he’s over 18 has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he broke the law: he would have been guilty of the same offence had he been 17, 15, or even 13 himself. While there are various rights and responsibilities that come with turning 18, it has no bearing on criminal responsibility in England.

    But as Mr Ecks says, *even though it is illegal*, there isn’t really anything all that terrible about two adolescents flirting a bit and then deciding to shag each other. While clearly the claim that the boy here didn’t know it was illegal is bollocks, it sounds very much like he was sheltered and nerdy with the emotional maturity of a teaspoon.

    If someone our age were to shag a 13 year old, by all means throw away the key. But 18 year olds are basically kids (try spending time with some), and ruining a kid’s life for breaking a technical law in a way that doesn’t really do any harm doesn’t seem like something we should be doing.

    Prosecutors and judges have discretion. It’s a shame the first didn’t use it here; it’s good that the second did, even if the reasons he quoted were silly (I suspect he’s actually made many of the same points discussed here, but that the DM has only used the ones that fit its narrative. We know for a fact that they are lying in the piece, as they use the word ‘rape’ when that unequivocally did not take place).

  11. John Galt says:

    @Mr Ecks:

    Sorry, but despite what you say, at 18 he’s an adult at 13 she’s a child. We’ve got to draw the line somewhere and it is drawn exactly where it is. If the age difference had been less on either side this probably wouldn’t have gone to court. These guidelines are drawn up to prevent persecuting young lovers without protecting those who would rape young girls.

    A 13-year old girl CANNOT consent and therefore it is correct to charge ANYONE having sex with her with rape (i.e. non-consensual sex), it is not an ideal arrangement, but it is the one we have agreed upon and we should abide by it or all is chaos.

    Would you prefer the Pakistani way and have us force this poor 13-year old married to Mr. Rashid or face death by stoning?

  12. Lynne says:

    john b. But 18 year olds are basically kids (try spending time with some), and ruining a kid’s life for breaking a technical law in a way that doesn’t really do any harm doesn’t seem like something we should be doing.

    How do you know it did no harm?

    Would you have considered shagging a 13 year old a reasonable thing to do when you were 18? If your answer is no I rest my case.

  13. Mr Ed says:

    Perhaps HM Attorney-General will consider referring the matter to the Court of Appeal on the basis of undue leniency, but then again, perhaps not, for reasons not immediately obvious.

    Rather odd that the school cannot be identified, what possible harm could that do?

    At 18, you are a full adult, able to become an MP and therefore Prime Minister.

  14. John Galt says:

    I don’t think this is necessarily a case for the HM Attorney-General to intervene. Ultimately, it is not up to us to decide whether the sentence is too lenient or not (I believe it is).

    The decision should rest with the child, her parents and her solicitor. If together they believe that the sentence is unduly lenient then there are appropriate legal channels for them to object to the sentencing.

    However, all Daily Mail babble aside, senior judges might well agree with the trial judge that in view of the ACTUAL circumstances (1st offence, admitted guilt before trial, previous good character, etc.) a suspended sentence is appropriate.

    Whilst we can disagree, at some point we need to either support the judges or hassle the politicians to change the law / sentencing guidelines yet again.

  15. Henry Crun says:

    Jimmy Savile must be spinning in his sarcophagus

  16. APL says:

    “his education left him ignorant of British law.”

    What happened to the long established dictum, ‘Ignorance of the law is no defense”?

    Are our Judiciary so utterly …. expletives fail me!

  17. APL says:

    Lynne: “Would you have considered shagging a 13 year old a reasonable thing to do when you were 18?”

    When I were t’lad, I had a personal rule, any girl I wanted to shag had to have passed through puberty, that usually in them far off days meant at least sixteen.

  18. Henry Crun says:

    Judging from the comments by the male parties, none of them are fathers of daughters. Had some scrote tried that on with my daughter and gotten the soft touch from the judge, he’d be subject to the similar fate as Saudi Arabian thieves. Except it won’t be his hand I’ll chop off.

  19. John Galt says:

    What happened to the long established dictum, “Ignorance of the law is no defense”?

    In fairness to the case, he did not use “Ignorance of the law” as a defense (as it would have been rejected), he actually pleaded guilty to the charges and offered his bullshit pack off lies…creative interpretation of his legal education…in mitigation.

  20. dcardno says:

    Henry Crun – as the father of a (now 20 year old) daughter, I’m with you all the way.

    John Galt – I am not sure how this differs fom pleading ignorance of the law:

    After his arrest, he told a psychologist that he did not know having sex with a 13-year-old was against the law.

  21. CountingCats says:

    I’m sorry, but those who think that she made some sort of informed choice are nuts.

    An 18 year old is an adult. A young adult, but an adult regardless. A thirteen year old is a child, still some years away from even young adulthood. I’m not talking legal distinctions here, I’m talking fact. There is no mechanism by which a child can make an informed choice in this matter, therefore it was rape of a child by an adult.

    As to ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’? Well, that’s true if the law is knowable. I would argue that where it is not likely that a reasonable person could know the law than ignorance IS an excuse – the more esoteric crimes under financial laws come to mind, but in this case? Is it ok for an adult to fuck a child? No reasonable person would be so ignorant.

    Those who defend this bloke are talking bollocks, and that is with a capital BOL.

  22. CountingCats says:

    Would you have considered shagging a 13 year old a reasonable thing to do when you were 18?

    When I were a lad of 18 there is no question but that a thirteen year old girl would have been too young. Not just for me, but all my friends would have laughed at me and derided me as well.

    These days, at my age, a twenty year age difference elicits “who gives a toss”, but at that age, those five years really really mattered. She would have just been too bloody young.

  23. John Galt says:

    The rule of thumb for men (I’ve never come across one for ladies) is that they should be older than 1/2 the man’s age plus 7 years.

    Thus for Mr. Rashid, (18/2) = 9 + 7 = 16 years, so in effect the actual age of consent in the UK.

    As I say, it’s only a rule of thumb, but it feels about right.

  24. PeterT says:

    “As to ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’? Well, that’s true if the law is knowable. I would argue that where it is not likely that a reasonable person could know the law than ignorance IS an excuse”

    I would go one step further and say that when a reasonable person might not suppose that a law existed against what he was doing, because it was obviously wrong, then ignorance is an excuse. Well, actually its an excuse for breaking the law even if you know what it is.

    In this particular case I don’t see how I can comment intelligently without having met the individuals concerned. But in general 13 years old does seem too young. In the 12-15 year range each year can make a tremendous difference.

  25. Mr Ed says:

    Just because he told a psychologist that he didn’t know his act was against the law doesn’t mean that he actually believed that. He had internet access, he had every opportunity to find out what he was doing was wrong.

    It would be better if juries were invited to make declarations as to their findings of fact on key points in a case, with an absolute majority required for a finding to be made, e.g. 7/12 or more, and perhaps for juries to vote on sentences, with an average of the total time/12 and the same for a fine. Keep the Judge as an arbiter and safeguard against prosecutorial abuse. So if 6 jurors say no prison, and 6 say 2 years, the total is (6 x2)/12 = 1 year.

  26. NickM says:

    No way! Sentencing and guilt ought to be separate and a majority verdict as you describe drives a coach and eight through “beyond reasonable doubt”. Your idea is a for a legalized lynch mob.

  27. Mr Ed says:

    The concept of proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt on liability, is entirely separate from the concept of the sanction, on which a jury has no say in England and Wales.

    The majority verdict would not be for a legalised lynch mob in my view, as it would not remove the requirement for a conviction based on the decision of the jury. Until the 1967 CJA, in England and Wales, a jury had to be unanimous, a judge can accept a majority verdict 11-1 or 10-2.

    Scots law allows conviction by majority vote, with a simple majority of 8 for a criminal jury on liability.

    I don’t see how with the judge sentencing, after sitting to ensure a fair trial, is any way superior. The more votes on a sentence, the less likely a stand-out decision, and the more likely a nuanced verdict, with lenient votes being capable of diluting the impact of more severe ones. I would accept that a potential problem with jurors is that they are diverse members of the public, and encountering them in small aliquots might give sampling ‘errors’.

    In some American States, juries vote in capital cases on the death penalty, with a life sentence as an alternative. I’m not sure if there is a Polish veto on death, but I’d hope so.

  28. RAB says:

    Rashid is a cunning lying little bugger with a very good legal team, and Judge Stokes should be retired forthwith.

    He knew exactly what he was doing and should be doing time for it. He is 18. When I was 18 I had just completed my A Levels in English, Economics and History. I had only just lost (got rid of) my virginity at that age too, so I was very inexperienced with the ladies also. But I knew what was and was not legal. There was this term called Jailbait for under age girls who however eager they were you would not touch with a bargepole.

    The thing I want to know most, seeing as the little shit is a guilty as sin, is why his “School” (Madrassa) cannot be named for legal reasons. What fuckin legal reasons!!? We are assured by the Gubbermunt that Faith schools follow the National Curriculum, as well as pandering to the Sky Fairy of their choice. So what is this canny little git doing for A Level then? Not Biology for sure.

    The Madrassa should be shut down. If it is teaching its pupils that women are of no more worth than a discarded lollypop lying on the ground, then Offstead needs its feet holding to the flame too for permitting them to continue to operate.

  29. Mr Ed says:

    The only reasons that spring to mind for preventing the school from being named might be.

    1. To protect the identity of the victim, which seems tenuous, as she was from Nottingham and he from B’ham, so they aren’t (as is otherwise obvious) from the same school.

    2. Other legal cases involving pupils at the same school, lest it be thought to be Brummie Grooming High for the next accused.

    3. Some compelling reason involving concerns over inciting ‘inter-communal’ violence, like the recent alleged attack on a Muslim restaurant in Leicester, allegedly by a Sikh gang reacting to false rumours of the rape of a Sikh girl.

  30. NickM says:

    Mr Ed,
    I prefer division of powers.

    Agreed on all points. He was clearlly swinging the lead on the “ignorance of law” front. And yes, since TB et al introduced so many laws of such bizarre obscurity that I can understand that for some things but not for such seemingly obvious things…

  31. RAB says:

    Oh and another thing.

    What the hell were Premier Inn’s doing giving him a room? A very young looking 18 year old turns up at the check in desk with a 13 year old and no luggage?

    The Graduate was on the other night, haven’t seen it in centuries, but Dustin trying to book a room for him and his parent’s best friend was comical in its torturous contortions. People who work in hotels know (or should) every trick in the book, and become suspicious very fast. Yet the young Muslim Lothario and his Lollypop lover were handed the keys in no time at all, with no eyelids blinked. Interesting times we live in.

  32. John Galt says:


    Certainly the budget hotels are simply not staffed to act as gatekeepers against under-age sex. Certainly in most hotels, once you have a key you can come and go as you please as there is no-one on reception unless called.

    So, Mr. Rashid could book the room in his name, collect the key, go indoors and then SMS the child/victim the room number. Everything will be caught on CCTV of course, but this is only of use after the fact, chances of being stopped are slim-to-none.

    Even if the child/victim IS stopped, she could easily bluff her way through.

    It’s easy to blame the budget hotel chains, but when you are paying minimum wage for 12-hour shifts then these tend to go to youngsters anyway, amongst whom a “Nowt ta do wi’ me” attitude prevails.

  33. Lynne says:

    Rashid pleaded guilty therefore he didn’t get to face a jury. Because he pleaded guilty the girl would not have to attend court. The only evidence the prosecution would need to offer would be the girl’s statement and Rashid’s admission of guilt. No other evidence for the prosecution would be necessary.

    The defence consisted of psych reports and mitigation, to be considered by the judge before sentencing.

    I’ve been a prosecution witness in a number of cases and I’ve seen and heard some weird things in my time. Let me give you my opinion on this case. I can’t prove anything without evidence and only the Wail carries the original story since all other media sources decided to sing la, la, la inside their colonic echo chambers.

    A couple of commentors have offered a “no harm” defense. I have serious doubts about this claim and here’s why.

    Rashid lives in Brum. If he wanted a bit of slapperette and tickle all he needed to do was splash the cash in the right places and he would have attracted jailbait like bees to nectar. It’s how Islamic nonce gangs operate to snare victims. Instead he decided to groom a girl from a distance. Now this could be because he chose not to foul his own doorstep. Or it could be that he wasn’t looking for a slagling. He wanted something pure. Most 13 year old girls, contrary to what the papers print, tend to be virgins. You don’t invest two months honey-talking a slagling into bed and going to the effort of booking a hotel 50 miles away. I’m of the opinion that the silly little bint found herself way over her head when lover boy came out of the bathroom wearing nothing but a Durex. No harm done? Really?

    Why did Rashid hold up his hand and plead guilty? Was it because he was overcome by remorse and wanted to spare his victim the ordeal of being cross-examined in the witness box? Or was it because he had a wily defence council who told him that pleading guilty, thanks to that Hushpuppy wearing clown, Ken Clarke, would see a reduced sentence handed down. It would also ensure that any evidence not included in the girl’s statement would never see the light of day. Rashid had the golden opportunity to enter his bullshit mitigation unchallenged by any evidence to the contrary.

    A commentor mentioned Daily Wail cherrypicking of facts. I suspect the “facts” were cherrypicked before the hearing. The full story has not come out and probably never will.

  34. John Galt says:

    Unfortunately, since I’ve been unable to find an account other than the Weekly Wail, I’ve found no source for what he actually pled guilty to.

    I’m not sure if it’s rape, unlawful sex with a minor, sexual grooming or some other offence entirely.

  35. NickM says:

    Last comment. Very good analysis. I have the distinct impression that quite a few in the Islamic community have a twisted view on sex.

    “Thou hast committed Fornication: but that was in another country, And besides, the wench is dead” – Christopher Marlowe – The Jew of Malta – written 1589/1590

    For a scrote like Rashid Birmingham/Nottingham is not exactly “another country” but nigh on for his small purposes. Which was just to get his end away. Perhaps before he was married off to a cousin he’d never met from the “Old Country”he wanted a “fling”. So, I guess he may well have preyed on her naivety. There is something twisted in many cultures (both geographically and historically) that rather than the current UK etc. (in general) sloping-up from hanging around with girls to kissing them, to “a bit of a fondle”, to playing the field, to regular 1-1 sex, to things like co-habitation and perhaps marriage. Now in a mathematical sense that is a smooth differentiable curve going from paddling at the beach via stages to swimming the Channel to go from not even being allowed on an un-chaperoned date to wedding night and the expectation that the marriage is consummated. Now that is a step curve and believe me they have caused major difficulties for analysis over the centuries. Sorry for the mathematical digression but that is how I see the world.

    Any culture (and there have been loads over the years and there still are) that regards sexual activity as one rapid cliff-climb rather than a leisurely stroll to the same altitude is going to be very weird. The issue here is if you embed[!] the former culture into the later[!] then you are up for trouble.

    Now I called Rashid a “scrote” (and as you hint a pretty pathetic one) and I maintain that for the simple reason that at the age of 18 he should have at some level discerned how British “mating rituals” tend to work these days. Although maybe he was shielded by his family/community from the wider culture but still… “If ignorance is no defence in face of the law” (a common point on this thread) then neither is it in the face of culture. There is no real excuse not to learn

    The end result of not developing natural relationships with girls and women is this sort of thing – the “dropped lollypop approach”. Recall post 7/7 some Muslim terrorists in the planning stage were apprehended and convicted for bomb plots including blowing up a nightclub in London? Well the surveillance tapes were subsequently released and a “moral discussion” was included which included the point about slaughtering innocents to make their point. It was concluded that, “All those slags slags dancing around are hardly innocent”. Note the implicit repressed desire? The tension between wanting a shag and feeling the need to live a life of warbling to Allah and not talking to girls. It breeds self-righteousness that has to regard (in order to square the circle) non-Muslim (or “deviant” Muslim) females as dropped lollypops. It has to deny them agency.

    In Egypt recently female protestors against the Muslim Brotherhood (note not Sisterhood) were sexually assaulted in the streets. I leave the final (almost) words to Sayyid Qutb (a big wheel in the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood)…

    “…the American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it.”

    That was written about a Methodist tea-dance in Colorado c.1950!!! Qutb never married. He never found anyone “pure enough in the deen”.

    That is the tension that leads to this sort of thing.

  36. Woman on a Raft says:

    Here’s one which Court News briefly outlines. At this stage the other papers are not mentioning it.

    ILFORD, ESSEX A maths teacher pretended to be the gas man when he was caught having a secret affair with a 13-year-old girl, a court heard. Abdul Mossobir, 36, kissed and cuddled the teenager after the pair began their six-week romance on his birthday – October 1, 2011. The pair met about three times a week, enjoying trips to a park close to his home in Ilford, Essex.

    If the Mail follows up with a fuller report at the verdict, I hope they list the charge properly.

  37. Mr Ed says:

    Meanwhile, a District Judge (Stipendary Magistrate as was) imposes a £1 compensation order on a thief who stole two letters as part of sentence, and then pays the compensation money himself! Nemo judex in causa sua? (mutatis mutandis).

    Now that, to me, is outrageous.

  38. Plamus says:

    Lynne: “How do you know it did no harm?”

    Lynne, how do YOU know it did? Should not this be the relevant standard? Yes, there may be “psychological consequences for the girl down the line” – or there may not be. There may also be psychological consequences for her if her first sexual encounter sends a man she might well be in love (or at least infatuated) with to jail. Or, for that matter, if her father did not hug her enough, or her mother did not buy her the doll she wanted, or she saw a scary movie. There may even be such consequences for Muslims when you mock their faith – should that be illegal too? Are psychological consequences only important when it suits our preferences of how other people should behave?

    Mind, I am not saying this fellow is not guilty of a crime as the law stands, or that he did not get special treatment. I am just questioning the wisdom of laws that protect people from such fuzzy harm – and send others to jail for “causing” such harm. This can escalate fast into a powerful tool to suppress free speech… and not only speech – a quick googling tells me that studies show that Facebook, consumerism, regular consumption of soda, and heavy metal music cause depression; social media and watching TV cause low self esteem. I can go on for a long time on causality in psychological research… but I am probably supposed to be outraged and rattling my pitchfork demanding justice, so just I’ll leave a few studies here:

    Study: “premarital coitus… does not precipitate overwhelming changes in an adolescent’s social psychological framework over a subsequent two-year interval.”
    Study: “She found that a majority of teens did not experience depression or low self-esteem as a result of first-time sex.”
    Study: “Early sexual initiation was not associated with depression but led to an increased subjective estimate of likelihood of risky sexual behaviours in the future.”

  39. c sullivan says:

    i was always taugh that ignorance was no defence in law ,for a judge to countenace this as a defence he should be struck off surely at eighteen he can read papers ,and at this present time there several asias in the courts for this very crime.are they going to try ignorace as a defence

  40. Lynne says:


    Show me a study of underage sex where the child was tricked into it by an adult rather than sharing a mutual experience with a contemporary and then we’ll discuss whether or not any harm may have been done.

  41. Plamus says:

    Lynne, first of all, I get the impression (say, from your use of “tricked”) that you have prejudged and would not adjust your priors no matter what. If that’s not the case, I apologize; if it is the case, please let me know, so we can agree to disagree and save our efforts.

    Second, you are asking for a study that cannot possibly be executed properly. A researcher would have to study multiple (for significance) cases that are either known, and thus almost certainly prosecuted, with all the burden from opprobrium and possible convictions tainting the outcome, or unknown, and thus unlikely to be available for study (and that’s leaving alone possible post-study pressure to disclose them – with disclosure may come prosecution; without disclosure, they may be made up).

    Third, I’ll repeat my original question. Should the burden of proof be on the “no harm has been done” side, or on the “harm may have been done side”? I can certainly provide anecdotal evidence that harm is not ALWAYS done – for example, Mary Kay Letourneau’s husband (12 years old at the time of the “crime”) is happily married to her, with two children, and claims “I’m not a victim. I’m not ashamed of being a father. I’m not ashamed of being in love with Mary Kay.” Does the presumption of innocence mean as little as “well, nothing specific in this case, but, statistically, some harm may come out of this if many people did this – let’s string that person up”?

    Fourth, I expect you are aware that originally in the American colonies, the age of consent was between 10 and 12 years of age (I am not familiar with the British legal history on the issue, but would welcome reading suggestions). Virginity was then a valuable commodity to the father of the girl/woman and to her potential husband, and the laws were instituted to protect it, with little consideration for her welfare – when women could bear children, they were married off. Statutory rape laws were very, very loosely enforced until the late 1980′s, when a couple of studies showed that between half and 2/3 of children to single underage mothers were fathered by men above the age of consent. Bingo, easy way to curb teenage pregnancy – let’s go after the bastards that have sex with these women, that should cut down underage sex, and hence teen pregnancies. A convenient pretext was “underage sex does a boatload of psychological damage to the victim”, so it was used, to great effect. I earnestly and sincerely ask for your evidence of the harm done. Not anecdata, but actual, hard research the merits of which can be debated – data gathering procedure, confidence, causality direction, etc. If you do not have it, I ask just as earnestly and sincerely that you re-examine your assumptions, or at least ask yourself why such evidence is not obtainable at a couple of clicks’ distance in this internet age.

  42. Lynne says:

    One: I’m an ex-copper and I have seen this before. The crime has a particular pathology so my “bias” is based upon real cases. At least one of the victims, who was only 11 at the time, is still being treated for depression thirty-five years on. She wasn’t violently assaulted, she was coerced by someone whom she should have been able to trust. So no harm done there, then.

    Two: Yet you are happy to quotes case studies that have no relevance to the case in hand.

    Three: The burden of proof was in his confession. Whether or not harm was done was, in all likelihood, not considered because the guilty party “coughed” to the crime so no other evidence was heard. How do you know that the young girl was as resilient as the victim who married his rapist teacher? And does that justify the teacher abusing her position of trust even though she eventually married her victim? No, it doesn’t since she was imprisoned for the offence and rightly so.

    Four, in Islam it is permitted to take a wife of nine years of age. Are you saying that because having sex with a child is historical and cultural it is also justified even in countries that consider it to be a crime?

    You are coming across to me as someone who thinks that sex with children isn’t a big deal because it was practiced in more primitive times. So was incest. Historical and cultural precedent doesn’t make that right either.

    Or you could be a wind-up merchant deliberately pulling my chain. Whatever your motive this discourse with you is finished. You want to argue an adult rapist’s case then go right ahead because I am a defender of free speech. I don’t have to listen or respond to you.

  43. Plamus says:

    Lynne, fair enough, thanks for your responses.

  44. Lynne says:

    You’re welcome, Plamus.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: