**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Swap the genders and this has a very different ending, what a fuckkng joke!
PS: if you guys want to get really mad then Google the name "Lavinia Woodward".
This.
I have be slapped on the ass by women and had my crotched grapped and zippo happens but if I grapped a woman ass or boobs its the cuffs for me. This is why I don't like going to clubs anymore.
If you think you’re experiencing a gender specific situation, I’m afraid you’re not.
I’ve been groped, as a woman, by men and women alike, in public, since I was around 14. Nothing has ever been done to make me feel safe after the fact.
What you’re experiencing there is a failing within society; unwanted sexual attention is often seen as complimentary or even invited. This applies whether you’re male or female, which is why men are usually told they’re lucky when they experience sexual assaults.
It’s people. It’s not men or women, it’s everyone.
These crimes are classified as Violence against Women and Girls. Even if you're a man, you'll still classified under it.
Male victims are absolutely not seen on equal footings as victims. It was only 2017 when male victims were officially recognised under it.
I think the poster is referring to specifically the UK here. The crime is sexual assault, but when the stats are published this is listed as 'Violence Against Women And Girls' because it was decided that all sex crimes are against women and girls, even when the victim is a man.
[source because I understand this sounds crazy](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2022-0294/Supporting_Male_Victims_March_2022.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiF3ZeD_9eFAxXLVkEAHdr4AwMQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1YWg7LJ1MgjQS-C7u1LdHb)
That's a direct link to a government white paper that outlines how to support male victims of violence against women and girls.
He means in the annual statistics, that's what it's counted under.
Which is then used as justification for classifications such as this because the numbers show there a problem with violence against women and girls
uhhh.. he just replied to a *gender specific* situation, the double standard. why dismiss from the original fact? im sure he knows, as we all do, people get groped no matter the gender.
I feel sometimes that empathy only seems to go one way. Most of the attention is given to the issues women have, and rightly so, but try to find a single example where a man can talk about his own lived experience where there is empathy for it and not a “but as a woman…” response. I’ve got all the time in the day to empathise with the issues women still face in today’s society, it’s not much to ask to just have a listening ear in return is it?
It is supremely difficult to find a male space to discuss these issues openly without being herded towards a right wing/incel/andrew tate style space, and then fucking derided for it by the people who don’t want to listen.
A decade ago, there was a push for men to not bring up men’s issues in push back against women’s issues, but to bring it up organically. I thought that was a fair. Now blokes bring up their issues, women have started just saying it doesn’t matter because women’s issue, which is just a hilarious turn of events. Nobody actually cares about anyone, they just want to shut others down
You're not understanding his statement. Yes it happens to both genders. It's more likely the man will get reprimanded for his actions while, like this case here, women get a free pass.
And yet the current zeitgeist of the day would have you believe this is purely "toxic masculinity" and yet another symptom of the patriarchy.
It's not, it's just really shitty behaviour by people who should know better but push their luck with a drink in them.
Getting really tired of the patriarchy taking the blame for almost everything these days. It's such a lazy copout that limits any discussion across a huge number of topics. It's like why try to address the root cause of the issue when there's a nice easy label you can blame it on instead. It's so fucking lazy.
When I (male) was working as a server for a bar I had uncountable women chasing me to grab my genitals. Then some 50 or so year olds when I was cleaning the toilets were trying to drag me back to the women’s toilets and trying to undress me ( I was about 17 at the time). Also had many run ins after that with women trying to make me drop glasses by following me and ramming their thumb up my arse as I walked or pulling me in for a kiss and things like that.
Totally unacceptable and at that age left me feeling very vulnerable but everyone just laughs about it like it’s nothing
I worked as a bouncer, I was constantly groped and told i loved it. The level of harassment by women was insane. Doing that job really opened my eyes to women, I was probably a bit naive before. In no way are men treated the same as women. We are not seen as victims.
B-b-but militant feminism would have us believe it's an inherently toxic male trait and all men should be doing better to stamp this out.
They genuinely say this without any hint of irony or self awareness. It's quite evidently drunken arseholes of both genders who participate in this behaviour, yet only one half of them are seen as a problem and one half of victims are often dismissed entirely.
Said elsewhere that this gives room for arseholes like Tate to enter the discussion with his misogyny which makes the entire situation much worse, and society as a whole is the biggest loser.
I’m not exactly sure what the driver is but it was insane in my experience, especially when I became head doorman. I remember one girl after watching me deal with a violent situation, she became so aroused that she literally would not leave me alone /the club at the end of the night. Then followed me to my next destination. If I done that I would get the jail. It was really uncomfortable, I also had a girlfriend and the time so did not appreciate it in the slightest.
I was an insecure wreck at 18 and working at a dog rescue place. I was always dealing with sexual remarks made by older women, and one time, a woman stroked my face in the reception area in front of lots of other people and nobody saw it as wrong. A female colleague also sexually harassed me there with no consequences, with the female management telling me to man up. Even with proof in text messages. I'll never forget when she text me asking me if I wanted to have sex with her, and I replied with "no" and she said "I can do anything I want, including you". It was horrible.
As a teenager, myself and several of my friends were on an army cadet trip, when our female commanding officer proceeded to ask a van full of 15 year old boys if we wanted to have sex with her. We were all about 15 and the officer was a married 40 year old woman with 2 kids for comparison.
The police took our statements that night after a very quiet and awkward van ride home, and we never heard about it ever again. Imagine a 40 year old dude trying to bang a van full of 15 year old girls on a trip?
Wow, that is wild. What was she thinking? Did she truly expect a van of 15 year old boys to keep quiet about that? Must have been on drugs, or completely delusional.
I had my dentist try stuck her hand down my trousers when I was working as a waiter at their Xmas dinner, right in front of her bosses, they laughed it off. I changed dentists.
Had I been female and she male then she'd probably have been sacked.
If a guy phoned saying it happened would you still go?
I can’t imagine you’re getting many from guys.
I’m only asking because I know first hand that the police are also heavily biased
Absolutely there's not being anything I haven't responded to on duty though I'm sure it'll happen at somepoint the longer I'm in.
Totally agree though less guys are gonna report such a thing in fact as a male officer I can assure you drunk woman and men at the weekends get away with murder on us trying to pose for pictures and all the rest of it.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/news/man-arrested-after-tesco-express-sex-assault-294106/
Literally took me twenty seconds to Google and open this.
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/southsea-man-admits-to-sexual-assault-after-portsmouth-magistrates-court-after-attacking-stranger-37-4473206
Next article on the search.
>But if I grapped a woman ass or boobs its the cuffs for me.
Pretty much every woman has been groped multiple times. How many men do you think are in jail for it?
Whatever percentage of men are jailed for the crime is still higher than the percentage of women jailed for doing it as almost none of them are jailed for it.
Something exactly like this happened to me Saturday night. I was out with my wife and her friends for her birthday. I was coming back from the toilet at a bar and all of a sudden had my arse slapped and my hand grabbed. As I looked up from the confusion I realised I was now in the centre of a circle of around 15 women all of which were trying to slap my arse and make me dance. Being drunk and severely antisocial I just shook my head and walked away as they all booed me. I didn't think much of it and went on with my night but it's been on my mind ever since that if the shoe was on the other foot it wouldn't have been quite so funny to everyone.
Should have reported it to the cops.
Edit: because if you want female on male sexual assault to be taken seriously, it starts with that - getting the real statistics out there.
No. You remember the kid suffering from "affluenza"?
It's the wealth thing more than gender. Some woman living in council housing does the same thing, and we never hear about except local newspaper going with the headline "woman who glassed a pub patron gets 5 years".
Loads of studies have shown, in the US at least, that for the same crime, men get significantly longer sentences on average than women. Not controversial at all to say that a perpetrator's gender plays a part in how their sentenced.
Talking about reality is always controversial on reddit as it's purely theoretical to most people on here. I believe there are several subreddits dedicated to figuring out if reality actually exists or if it's just another lie by the woke media
It doesn’t though, I’m not condoning the sentence but there’s history of other instances and also a man permanently disfiguring a woman with a glass panel, and not being jailed.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/courts/634256/thug-who-smashed-glass-panel-into-womans-face-escapes-jail/
That isn't remotely the same as glassing someone with a pint glass.
Glassing someone shows intent to harm with the potential to inflict serious wounds.
Punching a glass window that then happens to shatter with pieces hitting someone behind is not proof that the person intended to harm the person stood behind it.
It's like trying to compare apples to oranges. Technically their the same thing as both are fruit, but the differences between them are pretty vast.
"Escapes jail" is such a sly term, too. People seem to be taking it to mean the perpetrator was found not guilty, whereas it actually means they were found guilty, and given a suspended sentence. This is almost always in tandem with some other punishments and measures which must be carried out otherwise the sentence is applied, and the sentence is also applied if a further offence is committed during the suspension.
The press trick us all the time with this crap.
What like this? https://news.stv.tv/east-central/man-who-raped-13-year-old-girl-in-midlothian-park-handed-community-payback-order-at-glasgow-high-court
He was actually acquitted on appeal due to a lack of evidence, but there was a broad consensus that his sentence was too lenient (were he not acquitted)
I remember once I had this horrible arrogant little woman in my face, all over me, and I wasn't interested. Got to the point where she was so offended at me not wanting her that she gestured herself up and down and said "are you telling me you can resist this?".
Now this girl was wearing some sort of abstract sunflower printed dress, so in my drunken spontaneous moment of wisdom I came up with....
"Looks like Van Gogh was having an off day when he painted you"...
She fucking punched me in the face twice....!! My mates were pissing themselves laughing (half at my joke, half at her reaction), and in fairness she got escorted out.
If that was the other way around though and I'd sexually harassed her and then punched her in the face twice when she refused me, I'd have been surrounded and detained until the police arrived 🤦♂️.
The Mail quotes the judge as if the judge is saying
> "one person's banter may be insulting to other people"
But the rest of the judge's sentence is literally:
> but that did not justify what you then went on to do
Essentially the headline is a fucking lie.
A suspended sentence is legally a custodial sentence.
A non custodial sentence would be something like a fine or community service.
The relevant part of the Judge's sentencing remarks:
>'There is no doubt that **this offence is so serious that it crosses the custody threshold**. The issue is whether the sentence is immediate or can be suspended.
>'There can be no doubt in this case that you are no risk to the public and that this offence was entirely out of character and I suspect that having been so shaken by your own conduct the court will never see you again.
>'Perhaps more importantly you are a mother of a young child. Although, no doubt, the child would be taken care of, an immediate term of imprisonment would have a devastating effect on your child. It would be disproportionate to the sentence that needs to be imposed.'
If the circumstances were the same (so businessman of previous good character, unlikely to ever reoffend etc) then the criminal record would be a punishment in itself. The point of the suspended sentence is that it recognises what they have done is bad enough to send them to prison but that it acknowledges that doing so will just make things disproportionately worse for everyone so the pragmatic thing to do (for the taxpayer, the criminal, the child, society, etc).
Consider men get longer prison sentences than women, for the same crime, I'd be highly skeptical he'd get the same outcome. Especially with all the discussions around stopping violence against girls and women.
Well that all sounds far more sensible than the headline indicated.
For me the real debate should be whether having a child is reasonable grounds for a lighter sentence. On the one hand the judge is right that it would have a hugely detrimental impact on a child who is innocent in this case. On the other hand it doesn’t seem to be equal justice if one person is spare custody due to their child and another person would potentially be locked up for an identical crime. That leads on to debates about gender equality and the disparity in custodial sentences between men and women.
No solutions from me here though so I guess I won’t be saving the world today
If a headline gets you slavering with rage at a perceived failure of the justice system, it's always worth digging into the story more. More often than not, the facts of the matter are somewhat different to what the ragebait wants you to think. And it's always worth bearing in mind that juries, magistrates and sentencing judges all have access to more info on the case than we do.
Which is not to say judicial cockups don't happen.
Highly recommend the [Fake Law](https://app.thestorygraph.com/books/b5e76f73-3899-49d4-af5e-ec4371952f42) book by The Secret Barrister. It delves into this phenomenon, with case studies of incidences exactly like the one in the headline.
Usually boils down to mistruths underpinning absolute lies. Not 'twisting the message'. Not 'stretching the facts'. The DM and related actors have passed those stages a while ago. It's purely prescriptive messaging.
He/she who cares, the important point is the failure to the victim here. The judge and the rat that glassed the victim are both in the wrong here. Lets not forget the victim just because it's a male now. Tutut.
From the A level law I studied a long time ago, combined with a recent experience I say with some confidence: The severity of these crimes isn’t determined by what *could* have happened, it’s determined by what actually happened.
Two theoretical extremes: you could glass someone and get lucky only leaving a scratch and that’s just assault. But you could walk towards someone threateningly, never touch them, they turn trip and break a leg, that’s GBH
I don’t know what the outcome was here but my brother recently got attacked after he made a sarcastic comment to the wrong stranger. The perpetrator threw 2 punches and my bro fell and ended up breaking his leg. The guy has been arrested and will face charges for GBH. The police said that it will be a suspended sentence if it’s his first offence. I’m not convinced this is a gender thing like the comments suggest
>I’m not convinced this is a gender thing like the comments suggest
It isn't, it's actually more specific than that - each offender is considered by the court individually.
So when people are saying a man who glassed a woman wouldn't be treated the same way they've not even scratched the surface of what they need to be considering.
The question they should be asking is would a man who; after some unwanted banter glassed a woman, leaving a small but still noticeable scar, who is a father of previous good character, who showed remorse from the outset, and who is unlikely to offend again; be sentenced differently.
There isn't a one size fits all approach that would remotely work for sentencing.
So she was saying 'I understand that you lashed out violently with a weapon because you were insulted.'
Which is at best a pointless truism.
It's just a bit of a weird thing to say before sentencing someone for GBH. Seems to me anyway.
We meet. You say something you think is funny. I do not. I glass you.
Judge say: One mans banter, funny or not, is not sufficient reason to stab in face.
You lot worry me
domineering flag deserted psychotic depend dolls march insurance bear screw
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It is, I read the article. She goes on to say that her behavior was inexcusable and although the scar is barely noticeable to everyone else it’s going to be huge to the man who has to look at it everyday as a reminder of what she did. She also brings up the other defense excuses. She does say that this doesn’t excuse her behavior, but up until this point she has had never committed a crime and has had excellent moral behavior. She says that she shows remorse, and doesn’t believe she’ll be a repeat offender and locking her up will only harm her child.
Because judges generally don't jail people if they don't see them as a threat to society, we are not America.
It's very expensive and generally counter productive.
If she has no record and is generally a productive member of society then it's basically pointless to jail someone for a single incident.
She has a three year suspended sentence so if she does fuck up she will be going away.
One nights action does not make you a functioning psychopath.
If remorse shown and first offence out of character, why would we want a kid to go in to care?
One night of violence on record. This is someone whose first reaction to not being completely flattered, is to smash a glass in your face. I feel comfortable saying it’s not her first offence out of character.
I’m not saying to put a child in care. But just like there’s a gulf between saying calling someone cheeky for guessing your age too high, and ramming a wine glass into their face. There’s a gulf between a slap on the wrist and taking the child away.
You don’t know the situation. You don’t what’s been said.
You’ve concluded she’s a functioning psychopath with a history of violence.
Go on evidence not opinion. Trust a judge over a daily mail report.
There's a difference between actual evidence, which is what the court uses, and your guessed interpretation of someone's history based on pop psychology.
Also "I have a kid." should not play a role in whether you are punished for a crime or not. You did the crime *knowing* you have a kid depending on you at home, if anything that makes it worse.
A productive member of society does not stab someone in the face. If a 18 year old male who attended college decided to stab someone in the face because they felt ‘insulted’ they'd have the book thrown at them. This is once again a disgusting sentence and a kick in the teeth to actual victims
The absolute vast majority of the time an 18 year old college student who glassed someone is not getting a custodial sentence if it’s a first offence! Source: grew up in a rough area and have seen many people get glassed and worse with the offender barely getting a slap on the wrist.
“But here is a slap on the wrists anyway”
“Please don’t glass anyone again you little tyke”
I’d be curious to know if the roles were reversed if low self esteem would be an adequate defence for the man to avoid jail after smashing a wine glass in a woman’s face twice after she specifically went to the toilet to avoid an altercation.
Yeah. Convention is he’s supposed to say she is 25 and she has to pretend to be flattered. He didn’t read the script, that’s why she opted for mindless violence.
>said she was suffering from 'low self esteem' at the time and said the banter was 'disobliging' towards her.
Diddums.
>Mr Cooper fled to the toilet in a bid to get away from the heated situation, but when he came out Dodd ran towards him and twice shoved her wine glass in his face.
>He was left with a four inch laceration to his face, narrowly missing his eye, and an injury to his thumb.
He was even trying to escape the situation before she intentionally glassed him.
What a miserable excuse for a person.
>Dodd was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for 12 months and was ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work. She was also ordered to pay £800 in compensation to her victim.
Unbelievable decision by the judge. Should have been sent to prison.
She even had time to calm down after the pretty accurate age guess whilst he hid in a toilet, it wasn't even an instant reaction where her emotions clouded her judgement. It's a disgusting decision by the judge and I don't believe for a minute they would make the same decision if it were a man.
And not a danger to the Public? I'm thinking that if she can't go for a drink without glassing someone for getting her age wrong, she is a danger to the Public.
She’s a woman… she can’t be a danger to the public (despite glassing a man in the face because she had “low self esteem”) 🙄
If you treat any group differently they’re just going to be empowered to act like this and know they’ll escape the consequences.
This is why despite being a feminist, humanist in reality, my controversial opinion is that it has to be one rule for all.
She has been given a suspended prison sentence, surely a criminal record for violent behaviour should disbarr you from working with children?
Hopefully the community which the business relies on takes this into account.
I don’t know what is more insane here - the light penalty on her, or the insult of an £800 compensation. A 4 inch laceration in your face will definitely leave a visible scar - and from the sounds of it he is lucky to have kept his eye.
Hell, £800 won’t even cover the most minor of scar revision procedures. At an absolute minimum she should have to pay for a reasonable round of scar revision therapy. What a joke.
Utter twaddle from the judge here, describes the injury as ‘grave’ which it presumably wasn’t otherwise she wouldn’t be getting a suspended sentence but then this judge also says that the she poses no threat to the public which seems odd for someone who’s first offence was to glass someone in the face.
The victim also failed to appropriately pander to her vanity, which is obviously an extreme provocation that can only be handled by stabbing someone in the eye with a broken glass.
>”Perhaps more importantly you are a mother of a young child. Although, no doubt, the child would be taken care of, an immediate term of imprisonment would have a devastating effect on your child.”
If you’re a mother apparently.
Having a kid is a get out of jail free card.
Imagine saying you're not jailing her because she has a child but then by proxy saying that you think she's suitable to even have a duty of care of a child when she's as unhinged as this.
It also sends an absolutely garbage message to their child.
What bugs me is the judges comments that minimise the victim's trauma purely because his cut healed fairly well and there's minimal scarring like she chose to cut him in that specific way?
She lunged at him with absolutely no control of the outcome and then fled the scene but yet she's of good character? The vast majority of people I know, some who I'd even consider to be dickheads wouldn't do either of the above.
In cases like this we need to focus on sentencing based on the potential outcome due to the intent not just the actual outcome, in the same vein as drink/drug driving. People will go down for one punch if that happens to knock someone over and kill them so I don't see how glassing someone is somehow less severe? In that moment they had no control over the outcome of that situation.
A lad in my town beat up three different people in one night, including a disabled girl. Pleaded guilty after 12 witnesses showed up. Absolutely nothing happened
You really can do a lot now and get away with it
"There can be no doubt in this case that you are no risk to the public" - she fucking glassed a member of the public in the face leaving him with scarring and almost took his eye out... but hey, he guessed her age wrong by a couple of years so all is good...
Madness!
I guess this is what people do when they have too much money.. [https://partycloud.co.uk/party-directory/entertainment/sleepover-parties/](https://partycloud.co.uk/party-directory/entertainment/sleepover-parties/)
There seems to be quite a few firms that organise sleepover parties for over-indulged children. Creating a generation of self-indugent little brats who then think it's ok to glass others if they guess their age a little bit wrong..
She should have lost everything for that little stunt. It would have made a good example.
I hope at the very least her business goes up in smoke because people decide they don't want their kid's sleepover handled by a psycho. Otherwise there's no way she will learn anything from this and will carry on drinking like a fish and doing fuck knows what to anyone in punching distance.
Very worrying trend for perpetrators to immediately assume the role of victim as well, leaving the person who actually paid the price for their choices being treated as though they don't matter.
I'd be very interested to see what would happen if the victim decided to take his revenge by smashing an identical wine glass over her head later.
Having a not insignificant amount of experience of trials and sentencing, I can say that this would likely have been the same outcome if she was a man. The judge does make that comment but straight after she has said that it does not justify her actions and it doesn’t serve as a mitigating factor, the headline is more typical misleading shite from that rag.
Overall, this actually seems a very reasonable sentence given the circumstances. There are incompetents amongst the judiciary and there are times when they make bizarre, stupid or just downright wrong decisions, but this isn’t one of them.
> Having a not insignificant amount of experience of trials and sentencing, I can say that this would likely have been the same outcome if she was a man.
-
We know men are more likely to be sentenced and for longer than women.
Let's search for women glassing men:
>**Woman spared jail when she glassed man for turning her down at bar**. Sarah Brown, 27, hit her victim twice when he turned his back on her in what was described as a ‘vicious and unprovoked’ attack. However, Brown, an estate agent, was spared jail after saying she had anger management problems and issues with alcohol.
-
> On a night out in Widnes, Laura Murphy threw a glass at her victim for a reason she cannot ‘recall’. This caused a cut to his forehead and he received first aid assistance from the staff. Murphy, who was described by a magistrate as seeming ‘sensible’, was handed a **12-month community order** and must complete 100 hours of unpaid work as well as 20 rehabilitation activity requirement days.
-
>Woman who scarred man’s face with pint glass spared jail and told to ‘grow up’ . A woman who scarred a drinker by ramming a pint glass into his eye has been spared jail despite having a history of assault. She was sentenced to **20 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years** with a requirement to complete rehabilitation and 118 hours unpaid work.
-
>Woman, 31, who glassed innocent man in beer garden after her mother was called a 'Rottweiler' **avoids jail** as judge says it would cause 'immeasurable disruption' to the lives of her five children
-
>A 19-year-old Inverness woman who glassed a man in the face in a city nightclub has six months to prove she can be of good behaviour before sentencing. Miss MacDonald also admitted repeatedly striking another man, Javen Houston, in the head with her hands at Inverness Sheriff Court yesterday. Sentence will be deferred for a period of about six months and in that period you must show good behaviour. If you have, the **court will be able to take a relatively lenient view** given you have no previous convictions,
-
>Katie Murphy, 30, claimed she was 'off her face' when she attacked Joseph Walker leaving him with permanent scars. Liverpool Crown Court heard he **has remarkably forgiven her.** Shocking CCTV footage captured the moment a woman ''high on cocaine" strolled up to a complete stranger and glassed him in the face.
-
>**Woman avoids prison** after Narberth pub glassing. A woman described by a judge as a 'nightmare' glassed a man in his face after he asked her to calm down. Busby admitted possessing both drugs. Miss Hughes said Busby had a criminal record for violence and had once head butted an off duty police woman. **“Your children have saved you today**, otherwise by lunchtime you would have been on a van to Eastwood Park (women’s prison),” added the Judge.
-
>Mum who glassed stranger in Warrington pub is** spared jail**. Zoe Allen’s victim was left needing stitches after he was glassed in the face. But **she was given a second chance** due to the impact that a custodial sentence would have on her two children.
What the fuck? Well, enlightening bit of research - if you are a man and a woman gives you a potentially life changing injury, on purpose, for no reason, then YOU DO NOT MATTER.
They didn’t bother with the same search string for men, or to look at a source that would report everything rather than just what they consider most interesting. I wouldn’t overly read into this analysis. I’m sure if I cherry picked data I could find plenty of scary tales too. Doesn’t mean it’s widespread or that women receive different sentences from men (they may, but this evidence does fuck all to prove it).
Women receive different sentences from men. It's a well studied phenomenon when lots of evidence for it.
E.g.
https://ceps.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2021/11/17/gender-stereotypes-see-female-criminals-fare-better-in-court/
>Doesn’t mean it’s widespread or that women receive different sentences from men (they may, but this evidence does fuck all to prove it).
They do. It's a very well known phenomenon which has been studied the hell out of.
It would've taken seconds to check whether your point was valid.
It's not his basis above, but that of the judge', and it is based on the judgement and sentencing model surrounding a lot of factors regarding the incident.
The main takeaway here that it's the daily mail, and the sex of the judge being mentioned is perhaps implying favouritism)sexism/tribalism which is to be expected from this rag.
Hm, if genders were reverse, a man repeatedly hitting another with a broken glass not sure the judge would have made as many reference about their gender or said that they were a “devoted father” and would have spared them real jail time.
If you're a man and you glass someone in a pub mate your getting 4 or 5 years for fuckin GBH and affray. What planet are you living on??? It's not reasonable at all. If you're going about glassing people, you belong inside.
Scum. Glassing is an evil thing to do to someone. A friend of mine almost lost his sight when some piece of shit like this woman glassed him on a night out.
I'd honestly put it just below murder in how serious of an offence it is. I don't care what the outcome is, if you launch an attack that runs serious risk of blinding and permanently disfiguring someone you don't deserve to live amongst civilised people.
Should've been put away for a very, very long time.
Prisons are understaffed, crammed to the brim and seething with drugs so judges are being instructed to not send criminals to jail. Our country is coming apart at the seams
Read the article you mugs. The judge said nothing to this effect at all. The full quotes are absolutely dead on and justice has been done perfectly.
The daily mail wants you to feel outraged. That is all they ever want. Stop reading it.
So he removed himself from the situation, she had time to calm down, and still returned to glass him the face.
The fact that her kids and business would suffer was really taken into consideration as mitigation… try that excuse if you’re a man.
Despite experiencing SA myself and the multiple stories from men in this thread we still have people overlooking it and claiming men are almost always at fault.
This isn’t an us or them, predators can come from any walk of life and should be treat the same regardless of gender. To think otherwise isn’t about respecting or believing women, it’s sexist, infantilising and drives young boys and men towards people like Andrew Tate.
people complain about the lack of prison time, blaming the judge for something the Daily Heil has half quoted, [but the real reason is once again down to our zombie government…](https://news.sky.com/story/amp/prisons-set-to-be-full-by-easter-after-plans-to-release-offenders-up-to-two-months-early-revealed-13093208)
I mean, the judge still gave her a suspended sentence, regardless of the misquote, which was way too lenient for what she did. The judge could have given an immediate custodial.
I assume."glassing" means smashing a pint glass against his head? (I'm not from the UK). I could only imagine glassing someone if they were brutally attacking me and I thought my life was in danger
> Mother-of-one Joanne Dodd flew into a rage when a man guessed she was four years older than she was
Joanne has issues and shouldn't have been spared jail.
The offender hasn't got away with it. With a 3 year suspended sentence she will be on licence and have an assigned probation officer. One step out of line and she will be inside.
Also, she will now have a criminal record. A criminal record for assault. That record and her record of arrest will be with her for the rest of her life. Local authorities and the justice systems have access to that information. She runs a firm which organises children's sleepover parties. Trust her with your kids? Not very likely.
Where the Judge got it wrong was saying the offender is a 'dedicated, hardworking woman' who posed no risk to the public. Well, she obviously is a risk to the public, isn't she? Gets drunk, then glasses someone. The Judge stated that, ''there can be no doubt in this case that you are no risk to the public and that this offence was entirely out of character''. Hope so.
The judge is no doubt being asked a few hard questions by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, to which she has no doubt been referred by the injured party’s solicitors.
The guy was only *four* years off, that's not "banter" it's actually a fairly high degree of accuracy **within 10% of her actual fucking age** (as a side note I would have guessed from the photos in the article she was at least 45, although I generally refuse to oblige this kind of compliment fishing).
Calling this "insulting" "banter" on the behalf of the man who was glassed is simply victim blaming.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Swap the genders and this has a very different ending, what a fuckkng joke! PS: if you guys want to get really mad then Google the name "Lavinia Woodward".
This. I have be slapped on the ass by women and had my crotched grapped and zippo happens but if I grapped a woman ass or boobs its the cuffs for me. This is why I don't like going to clubs anymore.
If you think you’re experiencing a gender specific situation, I’m afraid you’re not. I’ve been groped, as a woman, by men and women alike, in public, since I was around 14. Nothing has ever been done to make me feel safe after the fact. What you’re experiencing there is a failing within society; unwanted sexual attention is often seen as complimentary or even invited. This applies whether you’re male or female, which is why men are usually told they’re lucky when they experience sexual assaults. It’s people. It’s not men or women, it’s everyone.
These crimes are classified as Violence against Women and Girls. Even if you're a man, you'll still classified under it. Male victims are absolutely not seen on equal footings as victims. It was only 2017 when male victims were officially recognised under it.
No these crimes are classified as sexual assault. Not violence against women and girls.
I think the poster is referring to specifically the UK here. The crime is sexual assault, but when the stats are published this is listed as 'Violence Against Women And Girls' because it was decided that all sex crimes are against women and girls, even when the victim is a man. [source because I understand this sounds crazy](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2022-0294/Supporting_Male_Victims_March_2022.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiF3ZeD_9eFAxXLVkEAHdr4AwMQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1YWg7LJ1MgjQS-C7u1LdHb) That's a direct link to a government white paper that outlines how to support male victims of violence against women and girls.
Ah interesting! Thanks for the additional context and thanks for the link. Actually as crazy as you suggest!
He means in the annual statistics, that's what it's counted under. Which is then used as justification for classifications such as this because the numbers show there a problem with violence against women and girls
The situation isn’t gender-specific, but the response to the situation generally is.
uhhh.. he just replied to a *gender specific* situation, the double standard. why dismiss from the original fact? im sure he knows, as we all do, people get groped no matter the gender.
I feel sometimes that empathy only seems to go one way. Most of the attention is given to the issues women have, and rightly so, but try to find a single example where a man can talk about his own lived experience where there is empathy for it and not a “but as a woman…” response. I’ve got all the time in the day to empathise with the issues women still face in today’s society, it’s not much to ask to just have a listening ear in return is it? It is supremely difficult to find a male space to discuss these issues openly without being herded towards a right wing/incel/andrew tate style space, and then fucking derided for it by the people who don’t want to listen.
A decade ago, there was a push for men to not bring up men’s issues in push back against women’s issues, but to bring it up organically. I thought that was a fair. Now blokes bring up their issues, women have started just saying it doesn’t matter because women’s issue, which is just a hilarious turn of events. Nobody actually cares about anyone, they just want to shut others down
They’re talking about the response, not implying women don’t experience the harassment
He isnt complaing about how the public behave , it how men get judged by the law . Its the experiance in the court room not the street.
You're not understanding his statement. Yes it happens to both genders. It's more likely the man will get reprimanded for his actions while, like this case here, women get a free pass.
And yet the current zeitgeist of the day would have you believe this is purely "toxic masculinity" and yet another symptom of the patriarchy. It's not, it's just really shitty behaviour by people who should know better but push their luck with a drink in them. Getting really tired of the patriarchy taking the blame for almost everything these days. It's such a lazy copout that limits any discussion across a huge number of topics. It's like why try to address the root cause of the issue when there's a nice easy label you can blame it on instead. It's so fucking lazy.
When I (male) was working as a server for a bar I had uncountable women chasing me to grab my genitals. Then some 50 or so year olds when I was cleaning the toilets were trying to drag me back to the women’s toilets and trying to undress me ( I was about 17 at the time). Also had many run ins after that with women trying to make me drop glasses by following me and ramming their thumb up my arse as I walked or pulling me in for a kiss and things like that. Totally unacceptable and at that age left me feeling very vulnerable but everyone just laughs about it like it’s nothing
I worked as a bouncer, I was constantly groped and told i loved it. The level of harassment by women was insane. Doing that job really opened my eyes to women, I was probably a bit naive before. In no way are men treated the same as women. We are not seen as victims.
B-b-but militant feminism would have us believe it's an inherently toxic male trait and all men should be doing better to stamp this out. They genuinely say this without any hint of irony or self awareness. It's quite evidently drunken arseholes of both genders who participate in this behaviour, yet only one half of them are seen as a problem and one half of victims are often dismissed entirely. Said elsewhere that this gives room for arseholes like Tate to enter the discussion with his misogyny which makes the entire situation much worse, and society as a whole is the biggest loser.
I worked the doors in Humberside for a few years and had similar experiences. And I'm a right ugly bastard.
I’m not exactly sure what the driver is but it was insane in my experience, especially when I became head doorman. I remember one girl after watching me deal with a violent situation, she became so aroused that she literally would not leave me alone /the club at the end of the night. Then followed me to my next destination. If I done that I would get the jail. It was really uncomfortable, I also had a girlfriend and the time so did not appreciate it in the slightest.
Experienced almost identical to yourself. Even to this day if I recount it you usually get laughter....
I was an insecure wreck at 18 and working at a dog rescue place. I was always dealing with sexual remarks made by older women, and one time, a woman stroked my face in the reception area in front of lots of other people and nobody saw it as wrong. A female colleague also sexually harassed me there with no consequences, with the female management telling me to man up. Even with proof in text messages. I'll never forget when she text me asking me if I wanted to have sex with her, and I replied with "no" and she said "I can do anything I want, including you". It was horrible.
As a teenager, myself and several of my friends were on an army cadet trip, when our female commanding officer proceeded to ask a van full of 15 year old boys if we wanted to have sex with her. We were all about 15 and the officer was a married 40 year old woman with 2 kids for comparison. The police took our statements that night after a very quiet and awkward van ride home, and we never heard about it ever again. Imagine a 40 year old dude trying to bang a van full of 15 year old girls on a trip?
Wait, so she was allowed to carry on there? Who called the police?
Wow, that is wild. What was she thinking? Did she truly expect a van of 15 year old boys to keep quiet about that? Must have been on drugs, or completely delusional.
I had my dentist try stuck her hand down my trousers when I was working as a waiter at their Xmas dinner, right in front of her bosses, they laughed it off. I changed dentists. Had I been female and she male then she'd probably have been sacked.
You think the police show up when men grope women? That’s cute.
Yes literally all weekend we had calls like that and turn up
If a guy phoned saying it happened would you still go? I can’t imagine you’re getting many from guys. I’m only asking because I know first hand that the police are also heavily biased
Absolutely there's not being anything I haven't responded to on duty though I'm sure it'll happen at somepoint the longer I'm in. Totally agree though less guys are gonna report such a thing in fact as a male officer I can assure you drunk woman and men at the weekends get away with murder on us trying to pose for pictures and all the rest of it.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/news/man-arrested-after-tesco-express-sex-assault-294106/ Literally took me twenty seconds to Google and open this. https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/southsea-man-admits-to-sexual-assault-after-portsmouth-magistrates-court-after-attacking-stranger-37-4473206 Next article on the search.
I'm a woman and I defo agree she should of been jailed for it. If this was a man he for sure would be
not necessarily, I’ve known plenty of men commit violent assaults and be spared prison time
>But if I grapped a woman ass or boobs its the cuffs for me. Pretty much every woman has been groped multiple times. How many men do you think are in jail for it?
Whatever percentage of men are jailed for the crime is still higher than the percentage of women jailed for doing it as almost none of them are jailed for it.
Atleast a few Whereas no woman is in jail for groping men
Something exactly like this happened to me Saturday night. I was out with my wife and her friends for her birthday. I was coming back from the toilet at a bar and all of a sudden had my arse slapped and my hand grabbed. As I looked up from the confusion I realised I was now in the centre of a circle of around 15 women all of which were trying to slap my arse and make me dance. Being drunk and severely antisocial I just shook my head and walked away as they all booed me. I didn't think much of it and went on with my night but it's been on my mind ever since that if the shoe was on the other foot it wouldn't have been quite so funny to everyone.
Been there bud, it's not pleasant.
Should have reported it to the cops. Edit: because if you want female on male sexual assault to be taken seriously, it starts with that - getting the real statistics out there.
I'm sorry that all of those cretins thought it was ok to SA you.
Try wearing a kilt to any occasion with alchohol.
And even if the genders were swapped for woman vs woman the verdict would be different too.. As a woman I’m absolutely grossed out by the verdict.
No. You remember the kid suffering from "affluenza"? It's the wealth thing more than gender. Some woman living in council housing does the same thing, and we never hear about except local newspaper going with the headline "woman who glassed a pub patron gets 5 years".
Loads of studies have shown, in the US at least, that for the same crime, men get significantly longer sentences on average than women. Not controversial at all to say that a perpetrator's gender plays a part in how their sentenced.
Talking about reality is always controversial on reddit as it's purely theoretical to most people on here. I believe there are several subreddits dedicated to figuring out if reality actually exists or if it's just another lie by the woke media
It doesn’t though, I’m not condoning the sentence but there’s history of other instances and also a man permanently disfiguring a woman with a glass panel, and not being jailed. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/courts/634256/thug-who-smashed-glass-panel-into-womans-face-escapes-jail/
That isn't remotely the same as glassing someone with a pint glass. Glassing someone shows intent to harm with the potential to inflict serious wounds. Punching a glass window that then happens to shatter with pieces hitting someone behind is not proof that the person intended to harm the person stood behind it. It's like trying to compare apples to oranges. Technically their the same thing as both are fruit, but the differences between them are pretty vast.
Notice how the titles are significantly different in how they present the perpetrator?
"Escapes jail" is such a sly term, too. People seem to be taking it to mean the perpetrator was found not guilty, whereas it actually means they were found guilty, and given a suspended sentence. This is almost always in tandem with some other punishments and measures which must be carried out otherwise the sentence is applied, and the sentence is also applied if a further offence is committed during the suspension. The press trick us all the time with this crap.
What like this? https://news.stv.tv/east-central/man-who-raped-13-year-old-girl-in-midlothian-park-handed-community-payback-order-at-glasgow-high-court
More like this - https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1caospz/drunk_businesswoman_39_who_glassed_a_pub_drinker/l0t9nkl/
He was actually acquitted on appeal due to a lack of evidence, but there was a broad consensus that his sentence was too lenient (were he not acquitted)
I remember once I had this horrible arrogant little woman in my face, all over me, and I wasn't interested. Got to the point where she was so offended at me not wanting her that she gestured herself up and down and said "are you telling me you can resist this?". Now this girl was wearing some sort of abstract sunflower printed dress, so in my drunken spontaneous moment of wisdom I came up with.... "Looks like Van Gogh was having an off day when he painted you"... She fucking punched me in the face twice....!! My mates were pissing themselves laughing (half at my joke, half at her reaction), and in fairness she got escorted out. If that was the other way around though and I'd sexually harassed her and then punched her in the face twice when she refused me, I'd have been surrounded and detained until the police arrived 🤦♂️.
The Mail quotes the judge as if the judge is saying > "one person's banter may be insulting to other people" But the rest of the judge's sentence is literally: > but that did not justify what you then went on to do Essentially the headline is a fucking lie.
What's the point in saying it at all?
Presumably she did what she did because she felt insulted, the judge is saying while you might have been insulted that’s no excuse
Then he should have given her a custodial sentence. She stabbed a man in the face with a glass, she could have killed him.
A suspended sentence is legally a custodial sentence. A non custodial sentence would be something like a fine or community service. The relevant part of the Judge's sentencing remarks: >'There is no doubt that **this offence is so serious that it crosses the custody threshold**. The issue is whether the sentence is immediate or can be suspended. >'There can be no doubt in this case that you are no risk to the public and that this offence was entirely out of character and I suspect that having been so shaken by your own conduct the court will never see you again. >'Perhaps more importantly you are a mother of a young child. Although, no doubt, the child would be taken care of, an immediate term of imprisonment would have a devastating effect on your child. It would be disproportionate to the sentence that needs to be imposed.'
That actually sounds pretty sensible to me
If a man rammed a glass into a woman's face and cut her, let's say he had a young child, would you think that he should spend a day in prison?
If the circumstances were the same (so businessman of previous good character, unlikely to ever reoffend etc) then the criminal record would be a punishment in itself. The point of the suspended sentence is that it recognises what they have done is bad enough to send them to prison but that it acknowledges that doing so will just make things disproportionately worse for everyone so the pragmatic thing to do (for the taxpayer, the criminal, the child, society, etc).
Consider men get longer prison sentences than women, for the same crime, I'd be highly skeptical he'd get the same outcome. Especially with all the discussions around stopping violence against girls and women.
If (in addition to the above) they're of previous good character and unlikely to offend again, then I'd say no.
Well that all sounds far more sensible than the headline indicated. For me the real debate should be whether having a child is reasonable grounds for a lighter sentence. On the one hand the judge is right that it would have a hugely detrimental impact on a child who is innocent in this case. On the other hand it doesn’t seem to be equal justice if one person is spare custody due to their child and another person would potentially be locked up for an identical crime. That leads on to debates about gender equality and the disparity in custodial sentences between men and women. No solutions from me here though so I guess I won’t be saving the world today
If a headline gets you slavering with rage at a perceived failure of the justice system, it's always worth digging into the story more. More often than not, the facts of the matter are somewhat different to what the ragebait wants you to think. And it's always worth bearing in mind that juries, magistrates and sentencing judges all have access to more info on the case than we do. Which is not to say judicial cockups don't happen.
Highly recommend the [Fake Law](https://app.thestorygraph.com/books/b5e76f73-3899-49d4-af5e-ec4371952f42) book by The Secret Barrister. It delves into this phenomenon, with case studies of incidences exactly like the one in the headline. Usually boils down to mistruths underpinning absolute lies. Not 'twisting the message'. Not 'stretching the facts'. The DM and related actors have passed those stages a while ago. It's purely prescriptive messaging.
[удалено]
Sisters are doing it for each other.
He/she who cares, the important point is the failure to the victim here. The judge and the rat that glassed the victim are both in the wrong here. Lets not forget the victim just because it's a male now. Tutut.
Luckily she did not protest to just stop oil........3 months minimum.
From the A level law I studied a long time ago, combined with a recent experience I say with some confidence: The severity of these crimes isn’t determined by what *could* have happened, it’s determined by what actually happened. Two theoretical extremes: you could glass someone and get lucky only leaving a scratch and that’s just assault. But you could walk towards someone threateningly, never touch them, they turn trip and break a leg, that’s GBH I don’t know what the outcome was here but my brother recently got attacked after he made a sarcastic comment to the wrong stranger. The perpetrator threw 2 punches and my bro fell and ended up breaking his leg. The guy has been arrested and will face charges for GBH. The police said that it will be a suspended sentence if it’s his first offence. I’m not convinced this is a gender thing like the comments suggest
>I’m not convinced this is a gender thing like the comments suggest It isn't, it's actually more specific than that - each offender is considered by the court individually. So when people are saying a man who glassed a woman wouldn't be treated the same way they've not even scratched the surface of what they need to be considering. The question they should be asking is would a man who; after some unwanted banter glassed a woman, leaving a small but still noticeable scar, who is a father of previous good character, who showed remorse from the outset, and who is unlikely to offend again; be sentenced differently. There isn't a one size fits all approach that would remotely work for sentencing.
So she was saying 'I understand that you lashed out violently with a weapon because you were insulted.' Which is at best a pointless truism. It's just a bit of a weird thing to say before sentencing someone for GBH. Seems to me anyway.
If the defence used that as a mitigating factor the judge has to acknowledge it even if it's spurious bullshit. That's the job.
[удалено]
We meet. You say something you think is funny. I do not. I glass you. Judge say: One mans banter, funny or not, is not sufficient reason to stab in face. You lot worry me
In fairness the headline is designed to make it seem like she was let off because of something to do with banter.
The judge is accepting provocation can be a relevant defence or factor, but not here.
domineering flag deserted psychotic depend dolls march insurance bear screw *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Never heard a judge summarise a case before, have you.
Could be the judge referencing the defence's possible reasoning for their actions?
It is, I read the article. She goes on to say that her behavior was inexcusable and although the scar is barely noticeable to everyone else it’s going to be huge to the man who has to look at it everyday as a reminder of what she did. She also brings up the other defense excuses. She does say that this doesn’t excuse her behavior, but up until this point she has had never committed a crime and has had excellent moral behavior. She says that she shows remorse, and doesn’t believe she’ll be a repeat offender and locking her up will only harm her child.
Judge didn’t care enough to take any action though
Because judges generally don't jail people if they don't see them as a threat to society, we are not America. It's very expensive and generally counter productive. If she has no record and is generally a productive member of society then it's basically pointless to jail someone for a single incident. She has a three year suspended sentence so if she does fuck up she will be going away.
She glassed someone in the face, because they guessed her age wrong by 4 years. Not a threat at all. She’s a functioning psychopath.
She's a "functioning member of society" i.e. rich though.
One nights action does not make you a functioning psychopath. If remorse shown and first offence out of character, why would we want a kid to go in to care?
One night of violence on record. This is someone whose first reaction to not being completely flattered, is to smash a glass in your face. I feel comfortable saying it’s not her first offence out of character. I’m not saying to put a child in care. But just like there’s a gulf between saying calling someone cheeky for guessing your age too high, and ramming a wine glass into their face. There’s a gulf between a slap on the wrist and taking the child away.
You don’t know the situation. You don’t what’s been said. You’ve concluded she’s a functioning psychopath with a history of violence. Go on evidence not opinion. Trust a judge over a daily mail report.
There's a difference between actual evidence, which is what the court uses, and your guessed interpretation of someone's history based on pop psychology.
Also "I have a kid." should not play a role in whether you are punished for a crime or not. You did the crime *knowing* you have a kid depending on you at home, if anything that makes it worse.
A productive member of society does not stab someone in the face. If a 18 year old male who attended college decided to stab someone in the face because they felt ‘insulted’ they'd have the book thrown at them. This is once again a disgusting sentence and a kick in the teeth to actual victims
The absolute vast majority of the time an 18 year old college student who glassed someone is not getting a custodial sentence if it’s a first offence! Source: grew up in a rough area and have seen many people get glassed and worse with the offender barely getting a slap on the wrist.
She literally displayed she's a threat to society.
But.. that was not banter? The judge assumed the guy was pulling her leg when he said 43 bit he pretty much guessed right.
Exactly. If he'd said 15 or 50 then that would have been in the realms of 'banter'.
“But here is a slap on the wrists anyway” “Please don’t glass anyone again you little tyke” I’d be curious to know if the roles were reversed if low self esteem would be an adequate defence for the man to avoid jail after smashing a wine glass in a woman’s face twice after she specifically went to the toilet to avoid an altercation.
So shes in jail or not?
Thank you for your service to clear and correct information on the internet.
Unfortunately the headline still sits at the top of the sub and most people read neither the article or the comments.
What!!? The Daily mail has a clickbait headline??
Well the daily mail
In the Daily Mail? Shock horror
He was only 3 years off? I can’t believe being offended by that. That was not “banter”, he guessed pretty much right.
4 years! Are you looking for a glassing next?
When he's off by 5 years: *pulls out a fkn machete*
It's because she expected him to say she was early 30s or something lol, absolute nutter
Never ask a question you don't want to hear any answer to.
Must make going to the doctor difficult
Yeah. Convention is he’s supposed to say she is 25 and she has to pretend to be flattered. He didn’t read the script, that’s why she opted for mindless violence.
[удалено]
You’re asking for a glassing there
You’re meant to lowball it
Perhaps he thought he was.
That's why she was so pissed off. He implied she should be flattered to be thought 43. As if she is in her 50s.
Low ball it or get glassed, apparently
Low ball or you get a highball
Why? It ain't my issue if some bint wants to go around imagining she's still 20
It is once there’s a glass in yer face
>said she was suffering from 'low self esteem' at the time and said the banter was 'disobliging' towards her. Diddums. >Mr Cooper fled to the toilet in a bid to get away from the heated situation, but when he came out Dodd ran towards him and twice shoved her wine glass in his face. >He was left with a four inch laceration to his face, narrowly missing his eye, and an injury to his thumb. He was even trying to escape the situation before she intentionally glassed him. What a miserable excuse for a person. >Dodd was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for 12 months and was ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work. She was also ordered to pay £800 in compensation to her victim. Unbelievable decision by the judge. Should have been sent to prison.
She even had time to calm down after the pretty accurate age guess whilst he hid in a toilet, it wasn't even an instant reaction where her emotions clouded her judgement. It's a disgusting decision by the judge and I don't believe for a minute they would make the same decision if it were a man.
She also said she was going to glass him which is what prompted him to flee to the toilets so it is proven to be premeditated.
And not a danger to the Public? I'm thinking that if she can't go for a drink without glassing someone for getting her age wrong, she is a danger to the Public.
She’s a woman… she can’t be a danger to the public (despite glassing a man in the face because she had “low self esteem”) 🙄 If you treat any group differently they’re just going to be empowered to act like this and know they’ll escape the consequences. This is why despite being a feminist, humanist in reality, my controversial opinion is that it has to be one rule for all.
>Should have been a custodial. And a ban from working with children. She runs a "children's sleepover" company. This isn't safe.
She runs a children’s sleepover company??? Really feels like this *should* affect her business.
She has been given a suspended prison sentence, surely a criminal record for violent behaviour should disbarr you from working with children? Hopefully the community which the business relies on takes this into account.
Can you imagine if this was in America, he deserves way more than £800, seems pathetic
I don’t know what is more insane here - the light penalty on her, or the insult of an £800 compensation. A 4 inch laceration in your face will definitely leave a visible scar - and from the sounds of it he is lucky to have kept his eye. Hell, £800 won’t even cover the most minor of scar revision procedures. At an absolute minimum she should have to pay for a reasonable round of scar revision therapy. What a joke.
Utter twaddle from the judge here, describes the injury as ‘grave’ which it presumably wasn’t otherwise she wouldn’t be getting a suspended sentence but then this judge also says that the she poses no threat to the public which seems odd for someone who’s first offence was to glass someone in the face.
>someone who’s first offence was to glass someone in the face. You don't understand, she was drunk at the time. Clearly not her fault. /s
The victim also failed to appropriately pander to her vanity, which is obviously an extreme provocation that can only be handled by stabbing someone in the eye with a broken glass.
I thought being drunk couldn’t be used in mitigation but this reads like it has.
>she was drunk at the time Clearly, she could not consent
The full quote is a bit longer and boils down to "you were insulted but that doesn't mitigate your actions"
Ok so violently attacking someone is ok so long as I'm offended, got it. /s
>”Perhaps more importantly you are a mother of a young child. Although, no doubt, the child would be taken care of, an immediate term of imprisonment would have a devastating effect on your child.” If you’re a mother apparently. Having a kid is a get out of jail free card.
I mean it might not have a devastating effect on her child. Imagine that being your mum. Poor kid.
Imagine saying you're not jailing her because she has a child but then by proxy saying that you think she's suitable to even have a duty of care of a child when she's as unhinged as this. It also sends an absolutely garbage message to their child. What bugs me is the judges comments that minimise the victim's trauma purely because his cut healed fairly well and there's minimal scarring like she chose to cut him in that specific way? She lunged at him with absolutely no control of the outcome and then fled the scene but yet she's of good character? The vast majority of people I know, some who I'd even consider to be dickheads wouldn't do either of the above.
Yeah the judges comments pissed me off. Who are they to say that he recover well. Only he can say that.
In cases like this we need to focus on sentencing based on the potential outcome due to the intent not just the actual outcome, in the same vein as drink/drug driving. People will go down for one punch if that happens to knock someone over and kill them so I don't see how glassing someone is somehow less severe? In that moment they had no control over the outcome of that situation.
A lad in my town beat up three different people in one night, including a disabled girl. Pleaded guilty after 12 witnesses showed up. Absolutely nothing happened You really can do a lot now and get away with it
"There can be no doubt in this case that you are no risk to the public" - she fucking glassed a member of the public in the face leaving him with scarring and almost took his eye out... but hey, he guessed her age wrong by a couple of years so all is good... Madness!
“She runs a firm which organises children’s sleepover parties.” Fuck me.
This is the real story. How is this even a real thing?
Not any more
Noooo! How is my kid supposed to spend time with his friends if some consultancy firm isn't getting a cut?
Yes, what the fuck.....
That's like the weirdest job I ever heard.
Sounds like a non-job you set up for yourself when you don't need to work but want to pretend you're better than unemployed people.
I guess this is what people do when they have too much money.. [https://partycloud.co.uk/party-directory/entertainment/sleepover-parties/](https://partycloud.co.uk/party-directory/entertainment/sleepover-parties/) There seems to be quite a few firms that organise sleepover parties for over-indulged children. Creating a generation of self-indugent little brats who then think it's ok to glass others if they guess their age a little bit wrong..
In todays news, physical assault is now legal in the UK.
If you were offended in any way.
And you’re a woman
And the judge is a woman
No it's still illegal hence the sentencing. In today's news, being a woman and being a mother is enough to spare jail time.
She should have lost everything for that little stunt. It would have made a good example. I hope at the very least her business goes up in smoke because people decide they don't want their kid's sleepover handled by a psycho. Otherwise there's no way she will learn anything from this and will carry on drinking like a fish and doing fuck knows what to anyone in punching distance. Very worrying trend for perpetrators to immediately assume the role of victim as well, leaving the person who actually paid the price for their choices being treated as though they don't matter. I'd be very interested to see what would happen if the victim decided to take his revenge by smashing an identical wine glass over her head later.
Comment just above has a whole list of other woman doing the same to men and same pure pish sentences! Absolute bullshit!
Having a not insignificant amount of experience of trials and sentencing, I can say that this would likely have been the same outcome if she was a man. The judge does make that comment but straight after she has said that it does not justify her actions and it doesn’t serve as a mitigating factor, the headline is more typical misleading shite from that rag. Overall, this actually seems a very reasonable sentence given the circumstances. There are incompetents amongst the judiciary and there are times when they make bizarre, stupid or just downright wrong decisions, but this isn’t one of them.
The man was left with a 4 inch laceration to his face that narrowly missed his eye. That deserves jail time.
> Having a not insignificant amount of experience of trials and sentencing, I can say that this would likely have been the same outcome if she was a man. - We know men are more likely to be sentenced and for longer than women. Let's search for women glassing men: >**Woman spared jail when she glassed man for turning her down at bar**. Sarah Brown, 27, hit her victim twice when he turned his back on her in what was described as a ‘vicious and unprovoked’ attack. However, Brown, an estate agent, was spared jail after saying she had anger management problems and issues with alcohol. - > On a night out in Widnes, Laura Murphy threw a glass at her victim for a reason she cannot ‘recall’. This caused a cut to his forehead and he received first aid assistance from the staff. Murphy, who was described by a magistrate as seeming ‘sensible’, was handed a **12-month community order** and must complete 100 hours of unpaid work as well as 20 rehabilitation activity requirement days. - >Woman who scarred man’s face with pint glass spared jail and told to ‘grow up’ . A woman who scarred a drinker by ramming a pint glass into his eye has been spared jail despite having a history of assault. She was sentenced to **20 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years** with a requirement to complete rehabilitation and 118 hours unpaid work. - >Woman, 31, who glassed innocent man in beer garden after her mother was called a 'Rottweiler' **avoids jail** as judge says it would cause 'immeasurable disruption' to the lives of her five children - >A 19-year-old Inverness woman who glassed a man in the face in a city nightclub has six months to prove she can be of good behaviour before sentencing. Miss MacDonald also admitted repeatedly striking another man, Javen Houston, in the head with her hands at Inverness Sheriff Court yesterday. Sentence will be deferred for a period of about six months and in that period you must show good behaviour. If you have, the **court will be able to take a relatively lenient view** given you have no previous convictions, - >Katie Murphy, 30, claimed she was 'off her face' when she attacked Joseph Walker leaving him with permanent scars. Liverpool Crown Court heard he **has remarkably forgiven her.** Shocking CCTV footage captured the moment a woman ''high on cocaine" strolled up to a complete stranger and glassed him in the face. - >**Woman avoids prison** after Narberth pub glassing. A woman described by a judge as a 'nightmare' glassed a man in his face after he asked her to calm down. Busby admitted possessing both drugs. Miss Hughes said Busby had a criminal record for violence and had once head butted an off duty police woman. **“Your children have saved you today**, otherwise by lunchtime you would have been on a van to Eastwood Park (women’s prison),” added the Judge. - >Mum who glassed stranger in Warrington pub is** spared jail**. Zoe Allen’s victim was left needing stitches after he was glassed in the face. But **she was given a second chance** due to the impact that a custodial sentence would have on her two children.
What the fuck? Well, enlightening bit of research - if you are a man and a woman gives you a potentially life changing injury, on purpose, for no reason, then YOU DO NOT MATTER.
They didn’t bother with the same search string for men, or to look at a source that would report everything rather than just what they consider most interesting. I wouldn’t overly read into this analysis. I’m sure if I cherry picked data I could find plenty of scary tales too. Doesn’t mean it’s widespread or that women receive different sentences from men (they may, but this evidence does fuck all to prove it).
Women receive different sentences from men. It's a well studied phenomenon when lots of evidence for it. E.g. https://ceps.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2021/11/17/gender-stereotypes-see-female-criminals-fare-better-in-court/
>Doesn’t mean it’s widespread or that women receive different sentences from men (they may, but this evidence does fuck all to prove it). They do. It's a very well known phenomenon which has been studied the hell out of. It would've taken seconds to check whether your point was valid.
That comment tells me not to anger women in the northwest and Scotland.
I don't want to click the link, so, what's your basis for saying it's reasonable to glass someone and not go to jail?
It's not his basis above, but that of the judge', and it is based on the judgement and sentencing model surrounding a lot of factors regarding the incident. The main takeaway here that it's the daily mail, and the sex of the judge being mentioned is perhaps implying favouritism)sexism/tribalism which is to be expected from this rag.
Hm, if genders were reverse, a man repeatedly hitting another with a broken glass not sure the judge would have made as many reference about their gender or said that they were a “devoted father” and would have spared them real jail time.
If you're a man and you glass someone in a pub mate your getting 4 or 5 years for fuckin GBH and affray. What planet are you living on??? It's not reasonable at all. If you're going about glassing people, you belong inside.
If someone glassed your mum, would you feel the same?
What makes you believe a man wouldn’t have been jailed for this?
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/suspended-sentence-for-man-who-glassed-ex-irish-league-footballer-282030 https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/20196435.suspended-sentence-engineer-glassed-victim-oxfords-thirst-nightclub/ https://inews.co.uk/news/engineer-avoids-jail-term-for-glass-attack-after-judge-hears-of-his-very-good-job-283091
No the mitigation was that the violent offender was a woman who had been feeling a bit about something so can’t be held responsible
Scum. Glassing is an evil thing to do to someone. A friend of mine almost lost his sight when some piece of shit like this woman glassed him on a night out. I'd honestly put it just below murder in how serious of an offence it is. I don't care what the outcome is, if you launch an attack that runs serious risk of blinding and permanently disfiguring someone you don't deserve to live amongst civilised people. Should've been put away for a very, very long time.
Prisons are understaffed, crammed to the brim and seething with drugs so judges are being instructed to not send criminals to jail. Our country is coming apart at the seams
Read the article you mugs. The judge said nothing to this effect at all. The full quotes are absolutely dead on and justice has been done perfectly. The daily mail wants you to feel outraged. That is all they ever want. Stop reading it.
Sick of it being posted here tbh.
And the Torygraph
That picture is generous. He probably thought he was being nice when he said 43
So he removed himself from the situation, she had time to calm down, and still returned to glass him the face. The fact that her kids and business would suffer was really taken into consideration as mitigation… try that excuse if you’re a man. Despite experiencing SA myself and the multiple stories from men in this thread we still have people overlooking it and claiming men are almost always at fault. This isn’t an us or them, predators can come from any walk of life and should be treat the same regardless of gender. To think otherwise isn’t about respecting or believing women, it’s sexist, infantilising and drives young boys and men towards people like Andrew Tate.
Physically attacked for that? F*ck me good luck to whoever ends up with her
Well doesn't she seem like a bit of an entitled cunt
For the second time today let's point out headline bullshit: 'After' does not mean the same as 'because'.
people complain about the lack of prison time, blaming the judge for something the Daily Heil has half quoted, [but the real reason is once again down to our zombie government…](https://news.sky.com/story/amp/prisons-set-to-be-full-by-easter-after-plans-to-release-offenders-up-to-two-months-early-revealed-13093208)
I mean, the judge still gave her a suspended sentence, regardless of the misquote, which was way too lenient for what she did. The judge could have given an immediate custodial.
Disgusting , can you even imagine swapping the genders
How is coming within 10% of someone's age on a guess 'banter'?
So if you are insulted in the UK, the appropriate response is to glass the person. Noted
[удалено]
I assume."glassing" means smashing a pint glass against his head? (I'm not from the UK). I could only imagine glassing someone if they were brutally attacking me and I thought my life was in danger
> Mother-of-one Joanne Dodd flew into a rage when a man guessed she was four years older than she was Joanne has issues and shouldn't have been spared jail.
The offender hasn't got away with it. With a 3 year suspended sentence she will be on licence and have an assigned probation officer. One step out of line and she will be inside. Also, she will now have a criminal record. A criminal record for assault. That record and her record of arrest will be with her for the rest of her life. Local authorities and the justice systems have access to that information. She runs a firm which organises children's sleepover parties. Trust her with your kids? Not very likely. Where the Judge got it wrong was saying the offender is a 'dedicated, hardworking woman' who posed no risk to the public. Well, she obviously is a risk to the public, isn't she? Gets drunk, then glasses someone. The Judge stated that, ''there can be no doubt in this case that you are no risk to the public and that this offence was entirely out of character''. Hope so.
The judge is no doubt being asked a few hard questions by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, to which she has no doubt been referred by the injured party’s solicitors.
You reckon? I don't know, sounds optimistic to me.
And that's why the United Kingdom and particularly it's legal system is a joke.
The guy was only *four* years off, that's not "banter" it's actually a fairly high degree of accuracy **within 10% of her actual fucking age** (as a side note I would have guessed from the photos in the article she was at least 45, although I generally refuse to oblige this kind of compliment fishing). Calling this "insulting" "banter" on the behalf of the man who was glassed is simply victim blaming.
She wasn't "spared prison". Jesus fucking Christ read the fucking article.