The BBC reports that a key government body has advised that drug mules (women) are to be treated more leniently in the courts to drug ‘gangs and criminals’ (men).
People who smuggle drugs will face more lenient sentences if they have been exploited, under new guidelines.
The change in approach on “drug mules” forms part of new comprehensive rules on drugs offences from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
The council said judges should distinguish between those who have been exploited by gangs and criminals heavily involved in the drugs trade.
But it said large-scale drugs producers should expect longer jail terms.
The council’s role is to provide judges and magistrates with a set of broad guidelines so that sentencing is more consistent across England and Wales.
Last year the council carried out research into 12 women convicted of drug mule offences, all of whom received sentences of between 15 months and 15 years.
The majority of the women said they did not know that they had been carrying drugs when they arrived in the UK, although some admitted being suspicious. In most cases they had carried the drugs for someone they trusted or feared what would happen if they did not do so.
This fits in with the infamous advice that another advisory body, the Woman’s Task Force, gave to the government last year – that no woman should go to prison.
Meanwhile, Sir Richard Branson told a parliamentary commission that he thinks that no drug user should go to prison.
Like any libertarian, I agree entirely with Sir Richard, as I’m sure most of you do. I can honestly say that, for a variety of reasons, I have no interest in drugs myself, and have never taken illegal drugs. But isn’t it striking that it is perfectly acceptable to express opinions on the unfairness of existing drug laws, and little or no suspicion is cast on your personal likelihood of taking illegal drugs, and yet it is assumed that if a man calls into question laws on, for example, child porn, or the age of consent, then he must have a personal vested interest in doing so – even though such ludicrously defined feminist child porn laws criminalise far more people than do drug laws?
To dear American readers – in Europe and in most countries feminists have legally defined a man as a paedophile and a child porn downloader for merely once clicking on a YouTube video of a 17 year old dancing ‘sexily’ in her room. It is no excuse even if you did so because you were simply watching a video of Lady Gaga, and you happened to click on the thumbnail of a 17 year old imitating the dance that appeared in the sidebar (related videos), not knowing that she was under 18. In fact, the thumbnail itself might be enough for you to be thrown in jail. And the girl doesn’t even have to be 17 – she simply has to look under 18 (to a middle-aged jealous feminist hag judge). And simply viewing that one video (or thumbnail) will soon be enough to get you a minimum 1 year sentence under recently passed EUSSR legislation. How can anyone who calls themselves libertarian – wait a moment, scratch that. How can anyone who isn’t a f****g Nazi, NOT object to the state having that power over its citizens (men) especially a men’s rights activist?
@theantifeminist
“How can anyone who calls themselves libertarian – wait a moment, scratch that. How can anyone who isn’t a f****g Nazi, NOT object to the state having that power over its citizens (men) especially a men’s rights activist?”
I think Inquisition21 answers it very well and very comprehensively and I’m sure you’ve most likely read it all.
He essentially explains how these totally psychotic laws evolved in the first place and refers to the present police state that most of western society is already under the control of, together with the ever-worsening laws and more importantly: the abilty of the radical lunatics who dream them up then enact them: to convince all of society that they are for the ‘good of everyone’…
Thus what we are witnessing now is a real inquisition, not unlike the totally barbaric, cruel and mindless inquisition managed by the churches during the 15th and 16th centuries, when alleged ‘witches’, ‘heretics’ or other unholy types were identified, hunted down and gleefully executed.
Also: anyone who dared question the ‘dominant narrative’ (which was effectively a set dogma or ‘law’ everyone was told they had to believe and abide by), was a diessenter or non-conformist, thus also became part of the evil doers group known as the ‘crimen exceptum’ and were thus similarly persecuted and punished.
The original inquistion of the middle ages was based upon the ‘Malleus Malleficarum’ which was basically a guide book used to define the ‘crimen exceptum’ and detailed how that ‘crimen exceptum’ should be identified, pesecuted and punished.
Under the guidelines set out in the Malleus Malleficarum anyone belonging to the crimen exceptum group: accustion alone was all that was needed to prove actual guilt!
From these basic points it can quite easily be understood why anyone would never dare question, let alone suggest that the ‘dominant narrative’ was wrong or indeed a total lie that had no useful purpose other than to encourage institutionalized hatred by the majority against a small group people that the lunatics at the top (governments, religious zealots, and the judicial systems), using the Malleus Malleficarum as their guide, said were the crimen exceptum: ‘evil’ or ‘witches’, ‘heretics’ or of course ‘dissenters’..
Today in the twenty first century we are witnessing the same phenonemna, the only differences being the ‘crimen exceptum’, where instead of witches or heretics, we have ‘child-sex offenders’ or paedophiles’.
Similarly, the ‘crimen exceptum’ of today, also keeps changing where now the ‘crimen exceptum’ covers almost ANYTHING related to the child-sex or paedophilia, such as you suggest: images of fully dressed 17 year old girls dancing, now qualifies as child-porn’ and anyone found possessing such an image or images, faces punishments, much tougher than those actually handed down to REAL actual child-rapists and murderers!
Anyway there are two reasons why anyone that is not a f***ing Nazi does NOT object to the state having power over its citizens (men) especially one who claims to be a MRA:
He is either not a true MRA, or more likely: he does believe like us that the inquistion and its associated barbaric and nonsense feminazi driven hysterical no: psychotic laws is wrong, but is too AFRAID to be identified under the ‘Malleus Malleficarum’ as a dissenter. If he dares question the dominant narrative, he too could well end up being identified as one of the ‘crimen expectum’ and treated exactlty the same as anyone else defined by it – as an actual ‘paedophile’ or ‘child-sex offender’ himself.
Synonymous with the old inquistion: the twenty first century equivalent also must attribute most of its great ‘success’ to one basic human frailty: FEAR.
Simple. Demand that REAL pedophiles, people actually f…. children below ten, should be executed.
A law that demanded mandatory execution for any man that f***ed a child ten or younger would be a disaster for the feminists, as so few men would ever be executed. Such is the rarity of those types of crimes. Feminists don’t care about kids anyway – just look at how many are murdered by their mothers. Feminists support a woman’s right to do so!
Far easier to define 17 year old bikini models as babies and then prosecute any man who admires them on the basis that they are attracted to babies. This equals more men in jail. That’s the aim.
Deano, we’d probably in fact see more WOMEN being executed than men under such a law, so yes it would be a great tragedy for feminists, but that’s assuming that they would still insist upon (as they are at present) enforcing their principle or dogma of EQUALITY under the law.
Their insistence upon it is what is now (hopefully) starting to shake the very foundations of the feminist empire, enough to cause it to topple over into a heap of rubble.
What we’re seeing now (I mentioned this in an earlier post too) are events such as female school teachers being similarly persecuted, punished, ostricized (put on sex-offender registers as ‘paedophiles’), and hated by the sex-hysterical majority for having (fully consensual) relationships with their underage male charges; or worse: children as young as 4 years old being charged as sex-offenders, for playing doctor or hugging a teacher inappropriately, etc. etc…
Inquisitions of past eras always ended in the same way: when EVERYBODY in society eventually became part of the ‘crimen exceptum’…
Alan, I like your comparison to the inquisitions of the middle ages.
One of the aspects of Shakespeare that each new generation finds astonishing is that his writings from hundreds of years ago are still as fresh today as when first written. Fashion changes, but people’s basic thinking doesn’t. The same psychology that produced the inquisitions is in use now. Anyone thinking it couldn’t happen again needs to read their history books.
That’s one reason why I follow trans-humanism. Technology progresses, human nature doesn’t. That might be about to change for the first time in history.
One reason why this medieval psychology can flourish in our supposed ‘enlightened’ world is because feminists have somehow managed to embed paedohysteria into the myth of progress. The mob burns down the homes of paediatricians because we care more about children than we used to – because we’re progressive. And we must be sexually progressive because we accept gays and transsexuals, so it’s impossible that we can be wrong in our hatred of paedophiles. And the mob still needs some group to hate, after all.
Of course, we have progressed as a society and the way we treat children in many ways. It’s good that we don’t send 10 year old children out to work up chimneys for 40 hours a week anymore. But feminists have exploited that, and any new ‘child protection’ law is taken as another sign of progress.
I actually do hope that, even if human nature is changed through trans-humanism, that we can still appreciate Shakespeare – the man who wrote the most beautiful sonnets in praise (it is thought) of a young adolescent boy.
“Last year the council carried out research into 12 women”. This one small sentence tells you how”objective” the researchers were. There conculsions and recomendations were already drawn up before the study began.