Ed Lines

IT’S refreshing to be able to broach this subject with a compliment for campaigner Tanweer Khan, who is furious over the decision of posh British, lah-de-dah judges to hand down more punitive sentences to men who abuse modest Muslim girls, as opposed to little white tramps.

That’s not what the judges said of course. But I think it’s  what they implied.

As Mr Khan heroically asserts – a child is a child. A paedophile is a paedophile.

That notwithstanding, Judge Sally Cahill decided that because Liversedge pervert Jamal Nasir preyed on two Muslim girls aged nine and 14, as opposed to white children, he deserved a more punitive sentence. His sin was greater.

Their innocence had a greater value.

And Cahill’s perverted decision was even upheld by Appeal Court judges this week. It beggars belief.

The sanctity of a child’s innocence should be universal, regardless of colour, creed, religion – anything.

Mr Khan campaigns against sexual grooming and has complained to the Home Secretary. Well done, sir.

But what this case tells you above all else is the inherent bigotry and prejudice among the self-entitled British middle and upper classes.

They are the problem, every bit as much as the individuals, or gangs, of sexual predators.

The abusers in Rotherham and Rochdale, Oxford and Aylesbury, got away with so much for so long precisely because idiots like Sally Cahill occupy the positions of power and influence they do.

If she wasn’t a judge she’d probably have been a social services boss, or a local authority chief executive, wielding her malign influence and her agenda across entire regions.

‘Oh, we don’t need to lock them up, we need to educate them’ … ‘the poor mites are from rural Kashmir, they don’t know any better’ … ‘well, the girls were in care, trouble with a T, they undoubtedly asked for it’...

When people ask why the Muslim and white communities in this country are growing ever further apart, you can point at the Judge Sally Cahills first and foremost.

They foment ill feeling, resentment and division, and appoint a sense of preference and privilege for one so-called ‘deprived’ community, over and above another.

Cahill said those girls’ future prospects of marriage within their communities had been adversely affected by Nasir’s actions.

Well, it’s nice to know that Judge Cahill favours arranged marriages. Very progressive – not.

Is she saying that Muslim girls are examined like yearlings at the Tattersall horse sales, while our dissolute youngsters would actually benefit from the early exposure to the world’s wicked ways?

In a prior sex case, where a (female) teacher got intimate with a pupil, Cahill told her “to grow up” – and gave her community service. Hmmm.

The patronising sub-text inherent in all of this is that if it’s ‘minority’ and non-British, it is to be elevated, preferred, pandered.

And the unavoidable flip side of her warped logic, is that if they’d been white girls who’d been molested by Nasir, it wouldn’t matter because they’d be round the back of the bike shed before long anyway, and losing their virginity on somebody’s sofa before they took their GCSEs. So no harm done.

No? You can explain it differently?

Please, fill yer boots, I’m all ears.

But of course Judge Sally Cahill isn’t called on to explain her own legal perversions, because she’s above all that. Part of the establishment, unsackable.

This, mind you, is a female judge who also refused to imprison a man who carried out a ferocious and terrifying attack on his 36-week pregnant partner, during which he repeatedly threatened to shoot and kill her.

Well, she probably asked for it, didn’t she pet? But she’s okay, had the baby, so, again, no harm done.

IF I SOUND flippant, it’s my way of coping with being bloody furious. Because having opened this can of judicial worms, where does it stop?

Is this a precedent in law, a cure-all for convicts of different ethnic backgrounds?

Does a Muslim drink driver get a longer ban because he was brought up to avoid the evils of alcohol and should know better, or does he get a benign slap on the wrist and a tut-tut from Judge Cahill because the poor mite wasn’t used to it, and it was all the booze or the landlord’s fault?

There you go – let him off and lock up the licensee!

I know where my money would be. And it’s probably only a matter of time.

Does a white mugger get a longer sentence for robbing an elderly Muslim lady than a white OAP, because it simply doesn’t happen in her community and constitutes a greater shock than to mine or your gran, who should know better than to leave the house after dark?

With the hundreds of thousands of migrants pouring aboard our cramped island, do we give special dispensation to eastern Europeans for whom tearing down metal structures and selling them for scrap is an honourable profession back home?

Seriously, where do you start and stop, once you begin applying a two tier code to what I thought was an impartial, immutable part of our legal fabric.

And to develop the thought to an absurd length – for now at least, but only for now – at what point does a Sharia decree usurp British Common Law, within our own realms of jurisprudence, rubber-stamped by morons like Sally Cahill and our own Appeals and Supreme courts?

It’s probably already happening.

It’s just that, like the appalling sex grooming scandals, our authorities are choosing to pretend they don’t know.

Don’t know? They’re the reason we have the damn problems to start with.

NEWS of the row going on between Sport England and the English Bridge Union had me chuckling.

Bridge – the sedate, high-brow card game – believes it’s a sport and deserves central funding as such. Sport England, in a rare moment of undiplomatic abruptness, told them to get stuffed.

Well, the Sport England bureaucrats were on safe ground. It’s not as if the bridge players were likely to stick the nut on, challenge them to a best-of-three on a judo mat, or even decide the argument over an arm-wrestling challenge, is it?

I could see someone making a case for poker being a sport – get too far out of your depth playing Texas Hold ‘em and you really might have to fight your way out of the bar. That or do a runner down the high street. Very good for both the lungs and the adrenaline.

At its core, the argument is whether bridge, with its cerebral if sedentary application, exercises the mind in a way that can be judged to have health benefits. Sport England says its definition of sport being “activity aimed at improving physical fitness and well-being, forming social relations and gaining results in competition”, says, rightly in my mind, that bridge fails the crucial test, even if it ticks two out of those three criteria.

However, angling is classed as a sport, as is flying model airplanes. And really, I’m struggling to see how they improve athletic flexibility or lung capacity.

All in all, it’s best if bridge loses this hand – because next out of the proverbial traps would be sudoku, scrabble and crossword devotees. And how are we going to fund the next Mo Farah if all our Olympic funds are thrown at a bunch of geriatric retirees.

And besides, if the English Bridge Union can afford to take this ridiculous case to the Royal Courts of Justice, they’ve too much money for their own good anyway.

PS: After the final episode of Super League Back Chat on Sky last season, Stevo got an argument going with Rod Studd about whether darts is a game or a sport.

Rod, Sky’s senior darts commentator, almost bust out of his big-bellied shirt in indignation at the insult. “It’s sport man, without a doubt!”

I said that not only is it a game and not a sport, it should be banned anyway, because not only does all that boozing shorten the competitors’ lifespan, but eyeing up all that Sky totty, that ‘escorts’ them to the stage in their bum-and-booby-revealing costumes, plays havoc with the darts players’ blood pressure!

We put it to the vote. Darts is a game – but we decided Sky can keep it on the telly. We weren’t bothered about ‘the arrers’ but the ladies got a universal thumbs-up...

Share this post