UK criminalizesbringing evidence of rape by racial minority

[Pete at Home]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-35310592

Black man rapes woman.
A white woman films the attack, shows the clip to victim, and the footage is used to incarcerate the rapist.

The rapist gets 27 months in prison and 10.years on the sex offenders registry.

The woman who recorded the evidence got 32 months in prison and is registered as a sex predator for life.

Shades of Sharia.

[scifibum]

What does race have to do with anything in this case?

Why are you claiming that the offense was "bringing evidence" - when it was that she was an accessory to the crime by egging it on, then standing by (and giggling) as it went down?

Here's a better article. http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/she_degraded_me_victim_speaks_out_after_woman_jailed_for_filming_sex_assault_on_mobile_phone_in_norwich_home_1_4378476

[Pete at Home]

if you have not been paying attention to the pattern of laws and court rulings that DJQ has brought to our attention, then ask him to explain it to you.  I doubt you would accept it from me.

[scifibum]

...or maybe you need to reconsider whether this fits any such pattern. 

[Pete at Home]

Reconsider based on any particular facts, or on your command?

Outside the UK examples that djq brought to the table of racist double think in British enforcement, there's the European precedent from Sweden, Germany etc. for authorities conspiring to prevent rape by "racial minorities" (remember that Euro peon lefties have classified Muslims as a "race") so prosecuting people that bring it to light is the next logical step.  Which is what happens in Sharia if you accuse a Muslim of rape without four Muslim eyewitnesses.

If the white lady had put the vid on facebook, then a prosecution would be conceivable. But facts only state that she showed it to the victim and to police. 

Apparently her recording and bringing evidence to light is treated as a much greater crime than the rape itself: she's branded a sex offender INDEFINITELY while the actual rapist is only on for ten years.  And her face is displayed in the article as a convicted sex predator alongside the rapist.

[scifibum]

Pete, again, why do you think she was charged for presenting the evidence?  I think you grossly misunderstand the facts. 

She was charged and convicted for her participation in the crime that she documented.  That she happened to create the evidence that was used to demonstrate her involvement isn't exculpatory in the slightest. 

[scifibum]

I agree that it doesn't appear to make sense that the rapist received a lesser sentence, btw.  It may come down to details of how the documentarian "facilitated" the sexual assault (which she admitted to doing), or it could be an injustice.  But it's not true that the woman is in trouble for documenting the incident and bringing the evidence to light, but rather for her role in the incident.

[Pete at Home]

How did she "facilitate"?

An "admission" of a general criminAl element without specific facts is, in my professionAl experience, just the prosecutor filling in the blanks in a coerced plea bargain. 

At no point does anyone actually say it's her giggling in the background. Exactly how did she "facilitate" anything?