Post: #1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/...ootballer/



A drunken gang of girls who took Snapchat photos and videos of a "ritualised humiliation" sex attack on an amateur footballer has been jailed.

Brogan Gillard, the 26-year-old ringleader of the group, was filmed dancing around the victim’s naked body as she cut his hair, sliced onions over him and sexually assaulted him with a pair of scissors.

Paige Cunningham, 22, and Shannon Jones, 20, also posed for "trophy photographs" with the unconscious 19-year-old victim and a Snapchat post showed one girl holding the man’s penis.

The video was shared on social media and was seen by their victim’s girlfriend, Preston Crown Court heard. Gillard then joked about using carrots and onions in the sex assault on Facebook.

Judge Graham Knowles QC said he sentenced as if it had been three men on a female.

“I sentence three people for glorifying in the humiliation and degradation of a fellow human being,” he said. He said the video and images were "profoundly disturbing".

He sentenced Gillard to 31 months and Cunningham to 10 months imprisonment. Jones will be sentenced at a later date.

Judge Knowles said they "entirely dehumanised" their victim.

The drunken girls picked up the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, in a bar in Barrow in Furness, Cumbria.

Prosecutor Francis McEntee said the victim had met his girlfriend in Barrow on November 28, 2015, but after an argument he continued drinking alone in Healey’s Bar.

The three girls met him and lured him back to Gillard’s home in Keith Street, where they plied him with vodka until he lost consciousness. They stripped him by shredding his clothes.

The next he recalled was waking up naked apart from his shoes on his doorstep at 5.25am, where his mother found him clutching his shredded jeans over his private parts.

“His hair had been cut off in clumps and he literally fell in through the front door,” said Mr McEntee.

He was said to be semi-conscious and screaming "get them off". He had no clear recollection of the evening, but felt "significant pain", the court heard.

Paramedics and police were called and the "dazed and confused" man was taken to hospital.

Later that day, his girlfriend told his mother she had seen the video on social media.

Police investigated and found photographic and video footage on Gillard’s white Samsung mobile. She told police: "I cut his hair and clothes because he's a d--k."

They stripped him naked and as he lay in the foetal position on a kitchen floor, while Gillard sheared off his hair egged on by the other two.

“Gillard performed what might be described, by her dancing, a ritual humiliation, encouraged by Jones and Cunningham,” Mr McEntee said.

All three posed individually for "trophy photographs" beside their naked victim. “The purpose of the drunken exploits was to demean and humiliate for their own pleasure,” said Mr McEntee.

As the video and some of the 40 stills were shown in court, Gillard broke down in tears. They showed Gillard, sporting a bare midriff, giving a "V" sign for victory in front of a full frontal nude of the footballer. Other Snapchats showed her in "gangster style" poses and dancing provocatively.

Judge Graham Knowles QC described Gillard as "gloating". “She is smirking, thrusting her own backside towards the camera, beer in hand, and one finger characteristic of people in gangster pose," he said.

In another she makes a gun with her fingers and points it at him. Mother-of-three Gillard ignored the crying of her children upstairs as she and the co-accused sexually demeaned their victim, whose mother phoned his mobile during the attack and heard "girly screams".

The court heard in his victim impact statement that he has flashbacks and suicidal thoughts and feels anxious.

Gillard has a string of previous convictions, including arson, false benefits claims, harassment of a neighbour, theft, and drink driving. Cunningham, a mother of two, has previous for battery, theft, shoplifting and assaulting a police officer.

All three pleaded guilty to sexual assault. Gillard also pleaded guilty to unrelated child cruelty charges.

Mitigating for Gillard, Sharon Watson, said her client had been drunk and did it as a joke, but admits it is "deeply unpleasant, disturbing and upsetting". Two of her children have now been adopted, it was added.

Mitigating for Cunningham, Mike Brady, said she is remorseful and “it was a sexual assault in unique circumstances”.

Brian Williams, for Jones, who has no previous convictions said she has little memory of that night because she was very drunk and had taken drugs. “She was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people,” said Mr Williams.

All three must sign the sex offenders register and are subject or restraining orders.


Good job Judge Knowles

Post: #2

Trash fashioned from flesh.

Post: #3

Those are our beloved council housed white trash. Probably what many Americans deem "typical English women" and are horrendous.

Council rats or council trash. This is part of their culture.

Post: #4

Sounds like a regular hen party in the UK to me.

Post: #5

If it was men doing this to a woman, they would get at least a 10 years jail term!!

Post: #6

BOOYAHHHHH

Post: #7

Can't help but imagine what the narrative would have been if this man had sobered up enough to violently fight off his attackers. God forbid one of them were seriously injured or killed in the fracas.

These bitches got off light. We need gender-blind sentencing laws in all western nations and any judge that can be seen to be giving women recognisably lesser jail terms than men for the same offences should be tossed onto the unemployment line.

Post: #8

Thanks for making a new thread.

I recorded the 3 offender's faces here:

/thread-9856-...pid1496109

I personally don't think they should have been jailed, not when women who do real cuts and glassings go free. It makes a mockery of our justice system.

But I am glad to see some kind of action brought against those that think there are no consequences.

I could start a whole new thread about bitches catching unsuspecting marks out, as I've experienced it a few times. And I bet a few of you have too.

But only men ensnare and entrap women, right? Wrong! Women do very much entrap and ensnare men, to humiliate them. It goes to show the hatred they have for them in the first place.

There you are fella, with your big 'Oh women are the fairer sex and they must be protected', and next to you is a bitch thinking 'how the fuck do I take this mark down'.

This case is unusual though, with regard to the fact that they have been given time. There are many cases of GBH against men, by women, where they have got off with non-custodial sentences.

Maybe the judge had a bad/good day, depending on his point of view.

Btw, this isn't just a class thing. Probably upper class wouldn't engage in it (too busy raping underage kids). But middle-class would have been right on it like the tramp on chips.

Do you think that the desire to humiliate menfolk stops at the better qualities of people? Nah, working class, middle-class. All want a go.

And what better than some pretender 'Amateur' football player, uh?

They probably wouldn't have the ovaries to go after a proper no.1 lad, but a pretend, wannabee wanker trying to make his way in this world?

This shit goes on every day.

They just got caught.

And more surprising, prosecuted.

I would have let them off.

Post: #9

Totally agree that women usually walk away with a slap on the wrist having done much, much worse. Brutal beatings, stabbings with various objects, requiring hospitalization, at the hands of women perpetrated against men just do not fit in with the political and cultural narrative of the UK so they are swept under the carpet. Law is ideally supposed to ignore political leanings and pop culture, but it has always been influenced by politics and culture of the present time. It depends what time and place you travel to: a certain act may get you 10 years but absolutely nothing a few years later.

While I think men would have gotten far harsher sentences, the judge in this case did very well by UK standards. An alarmingly increasing amount of judges in the UK and USA are white knights, "BP" to the extreme. White knights are a revolting scourge as it is, but when you combine that with the huge power a judge wields, it is a dangerous recipe for draconian sentences imposed on men, where women are concerned, and huge miscarriages of justice.

Juries are just as bad. If half of them are women, then by default we have a problem with half of all juries, because women are generally incapable of thinking rationally. The men in the jury are likely to be BP and influenced by political correctness, cultural trends and their own tendencies towards white knighting

So, against that backdrop, this was a case that worked out exceptionally well for the man. The main perpetrator's prior convictions were an aggravating factor in sentencing, otherwise the 2 1/2 years might have been much less. The judge did well but his claims of treating the women as if they were men are good to hear, but I think men would have gotten double sentences at least.

Post: #10

Talks cheap about treating them the same as men.

10 months, I think not. 10 Years more like.

At least the judge is worried about gender bias in the court. At least.

Post: #11

Less than 3 years for a previously convicted felon who has a history of fraud and violence and orchestrated a 3 person sexual assault?

You're CELEBRATING THIS?

It's a mockery. If 3 men had done the same thing they'd be in jail for 20 years, easily, given their previous convictions.

I get it, celebrate the small victories, but this is still a joke.

Post: #12

Resolute,

if we keep on stressing about the minimal sentences empowered womyn get for committing crimes like rape, statutory rape, raping babies in a nursery school, producing fetish videos of "breastfeeding" their 8-year-old sons while fully naked like a prostitute in a bar in Angeles, Philippines (oh wait that isn't criminalized as yet), producing snuff porn, etc, we gon lose our minds.

I wouldn't say that it is beyond our control, but look at me as an example. I was constantly worried that Chanty Binx Toronto feminazis would infest Miami, Florida with their feminism that American people were wondering who the hell was Chanty Binx/Big Red.

However, we sure gotta be vigilant against the empowered womyn, but not as a watchguard for a penitentiary.

Plus, it's lots of work to be worried over these things.

Ya know my views about these feminazi teachers spreading rape hysteria to groom females to become militant man-haters, while the same feminazi teacher takes a cock up her ass from a 10-year-old male student expecting sympathy when she is caught, but should I get worried and waste my time worrying over that if she gets probation while a man from England who trolls on a feminist Facebook Page will face jail time for "hate speech"?

Probably yes, but worrying too much takes away our time to game in other non-feminazi jurisdictions. Yes, while we are worrying, some female teacher is sucking a 9-year-old male student's weiner while spreading rape hysteria in the academic arena, but the feminazi shit gonna lead to a backlash from the General Public one day.

My motive is to stop the feminist rot from infesting other non-feminist countries, but even that is a lot of work. Roosh even told me that too.

Post: #13

(01-28-2017 01:33 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  Judge Graham Knowles QC said he sentenced as if it had been three men on a female.

Oh you mean you put men and women equal before the law? You didn't arbitrarily alter the sentence based on gender? Why does he even think this is worth mentioning like he deserves a cookie for doing what he's legally mandated to do?

The fact that it was mentioned is almost proof positive that the 'default case' for a woman would be a lighter sentence. I'd love to see what happens next time whitey is up there and a judge says "You screwed up. I'm going to treat you like a black person this time and see if that puts any sense into you".

Studies have been done that accounting for all factors like crime, previous record etc, women are better off than men, and whites are better off than blacks when it comes to sentencing. If these gender-neutral pronouns have any use, perhaps use them in blind proceedings so that no one knows the genders of the involved parties until after all is said and done.

Post: #14

Seadog,

Look at the previous criminal records and the sentencing given and you'll see immediately that the judge was full of crap.

Post: #15

Punishment should have been harsher. Bad people.

Post: #16

I think it's even worse for the mainstream narrative that the judge said he was being gender-neutral. One look at the nature of the crime, the prior record of the offenders, and the punishment meted out to men in similar circumstances says otherwise. His Honor would have been better off saying nothing and just sentencing. It's like someone saying to you, "I'm not a bad person" or "I'm a good person." "Why would they say that?" is our first thought and we immediately become skeptical.

People can judge for themselves the double standard, which is compounded by the feeble attempt by the judiciary to claim fairness. Inasmuch as I feel bad for this guy, it will take more crimes like this and more simp judges for a proper backlash.

Post: #17

Hope the dumb chavettes end up sharing a cell with a 350-lb lesbian former-rugby player named "Bertha".

On a side note, it's rare that you'll hear of women forcibly raping a stranger. I've heard of a few instances of women forcibly raping men, I think due to psychological differences it's pretty rare that a woman would just rape a random man on the street like Ted Bundy.

In most of the stories I've heard about woman-on-man rape, it was with a specific guy she was obsessed with who had spurned her. Such as this story where a woman who had a crush on a Mormon man who rejected her advances (possibly due to his religious beliefs) forced him at gunpoint to sleep with her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_sex_in_chains_case

Post: #18

BTW, WNB: