Judge Sarah Buckingham said: 'If Miss Parry was a man, there is no question it would have been straight down the stairs, because this is a shocking case of dangerous driving against a background of two previous convictions for excess alcohol.
There you have it, in open court women get special treatment.
It looks like my complaint, and other annoyed members of the public, has paid off.
**She is being investigated.**
[https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint/](https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint/)
**A spokesman for the independent Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: 'The JCIO confirms it has received a complaint in connection with remarks attributed to HHJ Buckingham today.**
They update the articles throughout the day. This morning there was no mention of an investigation.
The fact they acted on my and everyone else's complaint is news to me.
They received it, but if you look at that link, you'll see that they won't take any complaints about the judge's decision or her conduct of the case. Arguably, this is personal conduct, but it's also part of her ruling, and I can see them turfing all these complaints because they are ultimately about her sentencing.
Two hours ago, when the comment I responded to made a post, the information was there.
I don't understand how you can hate words, but I guess you've already shown that you're just an asshole
Gender malagency.
Female hypoagency, specifically (or male hyperagency, for the comment that a man would be off to a cell).
Not a justification, but more of an explanation for what's going on.
No a jury only finds someone guilty or not. The sentencing is left entirely up to the judge.
In this case there was no jury since she pleaded guilty from the start. No point in a jury so it goes straight to a judge for sentencing. A judge has guidelines for sentencing but can actually do what ever they want. In this case the judge has gone way outside the guidelines. But the judges word is final so other than a complaint not much else will happen. Because every case is different the judges have rejected having fixed punishments for crimes. So you get huge variances in sentencing on who is the judge.
Another strange thing about UK law is that we do not have a written down set of laws of what is illegal or not.
All our law is based on previous cases so you do not know if you have broken the law until it goes to court. This means that the law in the UK is always evolving and changing based on the most recent case.
Anyone from the UK and near where this case propagated? Any judge that openly admits to gender bias, right in her own courtroom, doesn't deserve a single day more on the bench. If there's a mechanism to lay complaints, lay them. If there's regional media that can be leveraged, leverage them.
This judge should not be adjudicating cases.
Judges are taught to be lenient on women who commit crimes, because they have a history of abuse. Men it seems do not get abused.
They are trying to move the laws away from punishing women for non-violent crime. Because if you punish a woman you punish the whole family, and some shit about prison makes woman depressed and does not reform the criminal.
> 'There is deep and genuine regret on her part. Having a crash presents its own consequences in terms of what you've done, and to have your car burst into flames is quite terrifying. '
...Regretting doing a crime has never been a justification for a light sentence. It usually is three times and you're out, not two times have a punishment but the third time you're off the hook.
I'm sure it was terrifying, even alcohol riddled as she was. It was probably more terrifying for the people she crashed into and could have killed. Shes fucking lucky people came to help her arse.
For anyone who refuses to ready the Daily Mail (notorious liars) there is a [Telegraph](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/12/drink-driver-spared-jail-given-another-chance-judge-woman/) story saying the exact thing.
This is crazy. I have never seen someone in a position of power *openly admitting* they are being biased over gender like this before.
...and that does not even get into the issue of the judges lack of concern for the firefighters and police officers that put themselves at risk to "pull her from the burning wreck".
They are just NPCs in the land of toxic estrogen.
How about this little nugget of insanity...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/oxford-student-judge-suggested-bright-prison-spared-jail-stabbing/
Here’s the follow up...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/08/oxford-university-student-avoided-prison-stabbing-boyfriend/
Wow it's almost like she didn't just murder her fucking boyfriend. That's it guys we all gotta get super smart and get a sex change, that way we can all stab, drink drive, Rob and commit all the crimes we want and not worry about jail!
She articulated that if the offender were a man and not a woman that she'd be in jail? What an absolute perversion of justice and yet another judicial embarrassment for the UK. Fuck this.
>I think implicit bias might be something worth measuring. It's this "unconscious bias" stuff that worries me.
Oops. Hey - you're actually right, I was conflating the two accidentally. I'm still rather wary of implicit backing but it's not thoroughly repudiated clinically like unconscious bias.
People say she must be fired.
No, that won't do. This judge must be relocated and housed in the block where all the criminals she let off are living. She wants an Uber, well this woman she let off should be the driver.
IMO these bitches believe they are sitting in the high horse and there will be no reactions to their actions. Mostly there aren't, but this is how we make them face their responsibilities. Politicians must be forced to live among their largest voting block.
The article states that she judge is being investigated because of the comments she made. The scary thing is that if she'd been a tad more dishonest this would have gone under the radar.
How is this legal? If a judge literally admits they are sexist, how can they continue to sit when their job is to be impartial and uphold/interpret the law? Where's the part of the law that says the punishment can be determined based on the judge's feels?
Fuck everything about this.
Now imagine this:
A month later the woman is driving drunk again as there'll be no consequences anyway, she hits the judge's husband car killing him and her 5 years old daughter.
I wonder what would be the sentence now...
This shit pisses me off to no end. The judge has the typical smug “all males are abusers” look to her as well. Sad thing is, the only way they will learn is when something similar happens to them.
> Lucy Tapper, defending, said Parry started drinking up to two bottles of wine a day after being caught up in an abusive relationship.
Aaaaand there you have it.
Do you have any good sources on this? I have bullshit from CoventryLive, Daily Star and some other bullshit. Court cases have been fabricated by 5-8 news agencied before (that bullshit with the mom grooming her son to be transgender gets torn to pieces again and again, despite all the "news" on it). Just saying I'm wondering if there's a way to see the actual court transcripts and not take you at face value
I swear to fuck at least a decent fraction of the stories that make headlines on this sub are either non-falsifiable or shittily reported. And then the comment section blows up with how "unacceptable" the supposed event is. Meanwhile, on the subs that **these same people** criticize, people hear about rape accusations and talk about how "unaccpetable" the supposed event is, and so people from this subreddit throw spitballs and say how people are just believing everything they hear. Like jesus christ guys turn your brains on.
I'm not saying I'm guaranteed correct in saying the story is bullshit, but the fact that basically nobody here is pursuing the unobstructed truth is... fascinating, to say the least.
A legislature and executive that doesn't give a monkeys about democracy and a biased judiciary, A full house for the awful state of the UK as a functioning liberal democracy in 2019.
What a cunt. Just confirming our suspicions that the courts are sexist against men.
This investigation will not be cheap; really if it were to be done properly, every case she has judged should be called into question.
Maybe it's about time we start electing judges in the UK? Hold them responsible.
I'm sure some states in the USA do this I think?
Wait a minute... Did she not even get community service? I didn't see it mentioned anywhere, or did I miss it. I was a first time offender 2 years ago caught driving on the same level as she was on the Breathalyzer and I caused no injuries, barely any damage other than to my own car, and I got 170 hours Community Service!!! and license taken away for 2 and a half years. That was also a woman judge I hasten to add, though not this one.
With all the laws she broke, and the damages she caused she should have done at least some jail time and or paid some heavy fines. The fact that she pointed out that she benefited from sexims, but then continues to grant her a lighter sentencing just makes it worse.
Not getting in trouble for a year doesn't erase your crimes. I've done that for 30 years straight, since the day I was born.
The sexist judge *is* the one doing the sentencing and she *did* have the option of jail time and a fine (read the article). Furthermore, this is the criminal's third offence.
Whatever. You obviously have a problem with facts which are:
1) This is the criminals third offence.
2) This offence causes significant damage and could easily have lead to serious injury or death.
3) The judge had the option of a custodial sentence or a significant fine and chose only a suspended sentence.
4) The judge literally said that the criminals gender affected the sentence imposed.
You can yell 'clickbait' all you want, but that doesn't erase the reality that this actually happened, and the facts are clear for all to see.
Sure whatever. You believe what you want. I don't have time to check but I'd be very surprised if a custodial sentence or significant fine were unusual for an repeated and highly dangerous offence like this.
That's ridiculous - merely staying out of "trouble" for 11 months since committing a crime isn't grounds for leniency. The reason she is being sentenced now is simply because it took this long for the case to work it's way through the justice system. How many people commit another crime while still awaiting sentencing for a previous one? That should be the default, expected case, and certainly not grounds for leniency.
Unless the quotes are incorrect or misleading, the judge in question had full authority to enact a custodial sentence. I find it hard to believe that the option whether to instate that immediately or only under the condition of failed alcoholic therapy wasn't under her full authority as well.
She does speak as if she would like to place harsher punishment on Parry though, so who knows.
Judge Sarah Buckingham said: 'If Miss Parry was a man, there is no question it would have been straight down the stairs, because this is a shocking case of dangerous driving against a background of two previous convictions for excess alcohol. There you have it, in open court women get special treatment.
It is also a crown court judge who can dish out life in prison sentences. It deserves a complaint to the Judicial conduct investigations office.
It looks like my complaint, and other annoyed members of the public, has paid off. **She is being investigated.** [https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint/](https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint/) **A spokesman for the independent Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: 'The JCIO confirms it has received a complaint in connection with remarks attributed to HHJ Buckingham today.**
HHJ?
Title: His/Her Honourable Justice
Thanks
Lol it literally says in the article you posted that she's being investigated.
They update the articles throughout the day. This morning there was no mention of an investigation. The fact they acted on my and everyone else's complaint is news to me.
They received it, but if you look at that link, you'll see that they won't take any complaints about the judge's decision or her conduct of the case. Arguably, this is personal conduct, but it's also part of her ruling, and I can see them turfing all these complaints because they are ultimately about her sentencing.
Well we will see but I am pretty sure they will investigate.
you literally can't even understand the concept of updating articles. I hate that word
Two hours ago, when the comment I responded to made a post, the information was there. I don't understand how you can hate words, but I guess you've already shown that you're just an asshole
dear friend I kind of understand this feeling.. nevertheless the way we speak to each other influences the whole community.
And I firmly believe that letting people get away with asshole behaviour is worse behaviour than stating someone was being an asshole.
well in that case, I'm afraid you're the asshole here, my friend
Pardon me but do you know that it’s not okay when someone is calling others „asshole” in here aaand we would like to keep it that way. Thanks :)
Hey I appreciate it, but I don't think saying "hey it already says that in the article" is that bad. Have a nice life!
Also: two previous dui convictions **and** banned from driving for 3 years when she had this wreck and third offense
Surreal. How is that justifiable ?
I would like to say misandry, but who knows?
Gender malagency. Female hypoagency, specifically (or male hyperagency, for the comment that a man would be off to a cell). Not a justification, but more of an explanation for what's going on.
I appreciate you letting me know more terms I can look up. Sorta new in regards of terminology.
I'll bet the income didn't hurt either
I’m sure feminists, as supporters of equality, will be furious about this and will fight for equal sentences. After all, feminism helps men too.
To be fair, in TwoXChromosomes they don't seem happy about this.
Wait, it was that explicit? Can someone explain? How was this allowed?
So do men get harsher sentences or women get more lenient ones?
[удалено]
That is copied from the article.
[удалено]
No a jury only finds someone guilty or not. The sentencing is left entirely up to the judge. In this case there was no jury since she pleaded guilty from the start. No point in a jury so it goes straight to a judge for sentencing. A judge has guidelines for sentencing but can actually do what ever they want. In this case the judge has gone way outside the guidelines. But the judges word is final so other than a complaint not much else will happen. Because every case is different the judges have rejected having fixed punishments for crimes. So you get huge variances in sentencing on who is the judge. Another strange thing about UK law is that we do not have a written down set of laws of what is illegal or not. All our law is based on previous cases so you do not know if you have broken the law until it goes to court. This means that the law in the UK is always evolving and changing based on the most recent case.
Anyone from the UK and near where this case propagated? Any judge that openly admits to gender bias, right in her own courtroom, doesn't deserve a single day more on the bench. If there's a mechanism to lay complaints, lay them. If there's regional media that can be leveraged, leverage them. This judge should not be adjudicating cases.
This should be criminal frankly.
We need Judge Judges
But then who will judge the judge judges?
Judge judge judgers
turtles all the way down
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Judges are taught to be lenient on women who commit crimes, because they have a history of abuse. Men it seems do not get abused. They are trying to move the laws away from punishing women for non-violent crime. Because if you punish a woman you punish the whole family, and some shit about prison makes woman depressed and does not reform the criminal.
> 'There is deep and genuine regret on her part. Having a crash presents its own consequences in terms of what you've done, and to have your car burst into flames is quite terrifying. ' ...Regretting doing a crime has never been a justification for a light sentence. It usually is three times and you're out, not two times have a punishment but the third time you're off the hook. I'm sure it was terrifying, even alcohol riddled as she was. It was probably more terrifying for the people she crashed into and could have killed. Shes fucking lucky people came to help her arse.
"Arsonist given lighter sentence for being scared of the fire they started."
For anyone who refuses to ready the Daily Mail (notorious liars) there is a [Telegraph](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/12/drink-driver-spared-jail-given-another-chance-judge-woman/) story saying the exact thing. This is crazy. I have never seen someone in a position of power *openly admitting* they are being biased over gender like this before.
Thanks for the link
Does not matter until she kills someone...someone not male.
And then, they'll blame some man for it, not the poor snowflake.
"The bartender should have cut her off, 3 years in prison for him."
...and that does not even get into the issue of the judges lack of concern for the firefighters and police officers that put themselves at risk to "pull her from the burning wreck". They are just NPCs in the land of toxic estrogen.
This is just retarded honestly the world's mad.
HONK HONK
How about this little nugget of insanity... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/oxford-student-judge-suggested-bright-prison-spared-jail-stabbing/ Here’s the follow up... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/08/oxford-university-student-avoided-prison-stabbing-boyfriend/
Wow it's almost like she didn't just murder her fucking boyfriend. That's it guys we all gotta get super smart and get a sex change, that way we can all stab, drink drive, Rob and commit all the crimes we want and not worry about jail!
pussy pass as always
You sure that has a pussy?
Girls will be girls. I guess. Or maybe its the “Old Girls Network” exerting influence.
She articulated that if the offender were a man and not a woman that she'd be in jail? What an absolute perversion of justice and yet another judicial embarrassment for the UK. Fuck this.
BuT mUh PaTrIaRcHy
this is **insane**.
This was posted to the sub a short while ago: https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/bialik-gender-1.png?w=575
Implicit bias tests like this are bad science. I would avoid using them, especially given how many other arguments there are to be made out there.
I think implicit bias might be something worth measuring. It's this "unconscious bias" stuff that worries me.
no. it's all complete hogwash
>I think implicit bias might be something worth measuring. It's this "unconscious bias" stuff that worries me. Oops. Hey - you're actually right, I was conflating the two accidentally. I'm still rather wary of implicit backing but it's not thoroughly repudiated clinically like unconscious bias.
People say she must be fired. No, that won't do. This judge must be relocated and housed in the block where all the criminals she let off are living. She wants an Uber, well this woman she let off should be the driver. IMO these bitches believe they are sitting in the high horse and there will be no reactions to their actions. Mostly there aren't, but this is how we make them face their responsibilities. Politicians must be forced to live among their largest voting block.
Perhaps they mean from a cannon, into the sun.
We need to have a conversation about female privilege
Feminism is stupidity
The article states that she judge is being investigated because of the comments she made. The scary thing is that if she'd been a tad more dishonest this would have gone under the radar.
How is this legal? If a judge literally admits they are sexist, how can they continue to sit when their job is to be impartial and uphold/interpret the law? Where's the part of the law that says the punishment can be determined based on the judge's feels? Fuck everything about this.
Wait, judges actually wear those creepy wigs in English court?
And lawyers as well
[удалено]
Some traditions should die.
Apparently, so should some judges
you misspelled 'transition'
Now imagine this: A month later the woman is driving drunk again as there'll be no consequences anyway, she hits the judge's husband car killing him and her 5 years old daughter. I wonder what would be the sentence now...
As long as she cries in court probably not much.
She'd walk again.
This shit pisses me off to no end. The judge has the typical smug “all males are abusers” look to her as well. Sad thing is, the only way they will learn is when something similar happens to them.
> Lucy Tapper, defending, said Parry started drinking up to two bottles of wine a day after being caught up in an abusive relationship. Aaaaand there you have it.
Actual sexism
So June 2015 she got banned from driving for 3 years for this same thing, not only was she driving while banned, she was drinking, again.
If there are any English women reading this article: go out and get drunk while driving. Free get out of jail card! Woo hoo!
This patriarchy.
This is a disgusting fucking joke. She should be locked up too.
Is there a process to launch complaints against judges? Any Brits here should do that
Damn patriarchy. Reeeeeeee!!!!!
I look forward to seeing her fired. If the world is just
Jesus. She needs to do the perp walk, she could have killed a lot of people doing that careless act
**MALE PRIVILEDGE**
> PRIVILEDGE** Check your privilege. *** ^^^BEEP ^^^BOOP ^^^I'm ^^^a ^^^bot. ^^^PM ^^^me ^^^to ^^^contact ^^^my ^^^author.
Do you have any good sources on this? I have bullshit from CoventryLive, Daily Star and some other bullshit. Court cases have been fabricated by 5-8 news agencied before (that bullshit with the mom grooming her son to be transgender gets torn to pieces again and again, despite all the "news" on it). Just saying I'm wondering if there's a way to see the actual court transcripts and not take you at face value
[удалено]
your link has nothing to do with this case not being true?
I swear to fuck at least a decent fraction of the stories that make headlines on this sub are either non-falsifiable or shittily reported. And then the comment section blows up with how "unacceptable" the supposed event is. Meanwhile, on the subs that **these same people** criticize, people hear about rape accusations and talk about how "unaccpetable" the supposed event is, and so people from this subreddit throw spitballs and say how people are just believing everything they hear. Like jesus christ guys turn your brains on. I'm not saying I'm guaranteed correct in saying the story is bullshit, but the fact that basically nobody here is pursuing the unobstructed truth is... fascinating, to say the least.
[удалено]
Exactly.
Typical.
Damn shame they pulled her out of the wreck. I wouldn't have helped her
A legislature and executive that doesn't give a monkeys about democracy and a biased judiciary, A full house for the awful state of the UK as a functioning liberal democracy in 2019.
Yes, toxic masculinity rears it's ugly head again.
The judge should be reprimanded
What a cunt. Just confirming our suspicions that the courts are sexist against men. This investigation will not be cheap; really if it were to be done properly, every case she has judged should be called into question. Maybe it's about time we start electing judges in the UK? Hold them responsible. I'm sure some states in the USA do this I think?
Holy shit that thing is ugly
Wait a minute... Did she not even get community service? I didn't see it mentioned anywhere, or did I miss it. I was a first time offender 2 years ago caught driving on the same level as she was on the Breathalyzer and I caused no injuries, barely any damage other than to my own car, and I got 170 hours Community Service!!! and license taken away for 2 and a half years. That was also a woman judge I hasten to add, though not this one.
[удалено]
Not breaking the law for a whole year?? Let's have a ticker tape parade for this amazing human being!
With all the laws she broke, and the damages she caused she should have done at least some jail time and or paid some heavy fines. The fact that she pointed out that she benefited from sexims, but then continues to grant her a lighter sentencing just makes it worse. Not getting in trouble for a year doesn't erase your crimes. I've done that for 30 years straight, since the day I was born.
[удалено]
The sexist judge *is* the one doing the sentencing and she *did* have the option of jail time and a fine (read the article). Furthermore, this is the criminal's third offence.
[удалено]
Whatever. You obviously have a problem with facts which are: 1) This is the criminals third offence. 2) This offence causes significant damage and could easily have lead to serious injury or death. 3) The judge had the option of a custodial sentence or a significant fine and chose only a suspended sentence. 4) The judge literally said that the criminals gender affected the sentence imposed. You can yell 'clickbait' all you want, but that doesn't erase the reality that this actually happened, and the facts are clear for all to see.
[удалено]
Sure whatever. You believe what you want. I don't have time to check but I'd be very surprised if a custodial sentence or significant fine were unusual for an repeated and highly dangerous offence like this.
That's ridiculous - merely staying out of "trouble" for 11 months since committing a crime isn't grounds for leniency. The reason she is being sentenced now is simply because it took this long for the case to work it's way through the justice system. How many people commit another crime while still awaiting sentencing for a previous one? That should be the default, expected case, and certainly not grounds for leniency.
Unless the quotes are incorrect or misleading, the judge in question had full authority to enact a custodial sentence. I find it hard to believe that the option whether to instate that immediately or only under the condition of failed alcoholic therapy wasn't under her full authority as well. She does speak as if she would like to place harsher punishment on Parry though, so who knows.
>the daily mail How about no?
[удалено]
Better flat asses than fat asses, you sister fisting, oil guzzling, 60 iq having, 100 kilo sack of lard.
You might be retarded. Should get that checked
[удалено]
You still have shit food and flat asses, and your men are walking vaginas. Lmao. Not mad. We laugh at you lame fucks.
Cringe