Page 1 of 1
#1 Youths photographed rape of girl
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:24 pm
by frigidmagi
BBC
A teenage girl was raped four times by a gang who took pictures of the abuse on their mobile phones.
The 16-year-old victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was attacked in the attic room of a house in Rochdale on 28 May 2008.
The girl's mother called her mobile phone after noticing she was missing from their home, only to hear the cries of her daughter on the end of the line.
Her four attackers, aged 17 to 20, pleaded guilty at Bolton Crown Court.
The girl had gone to the house after being called on her mobile.
I am of the view she will never be able to fully recover from the long lasting trauma of these offences
Case expert's opinion
While there she drank Jack Daniels whiskey and was possibly drugged with some form of sleeping medicine before being sexually assaulted, the court heard.
Ajmal Alfridi, 19, raped the girl twice along with Imitaz Syed, 20, and Tayub Hussain, who each raped the girl once.
They will be sentenced at a later date. Virginia Hayton, prosecuting, told the court that Alfridi and Syed sexually assaulted the victim while Mustafa Arshad, 17, took two photos of the abuse on his mobile phone.
At one point, the judge was told, she was unable to move or speak, but could vaguely remember Syed being in the same room as her.
Repeating name
Her mother discovered she was not at their house and was "frantically" calling her mobile phone until it was answered and she could hear "Asian male voices".
"In the background and through those Asian male voices she heard a female voice she recognised as that of her daughter. She was repeating a name," Miss Hayton said.
The mother then left home to look for her daughter and discovered her wandering in a dazed state in the street.
She could not recall what had happened but had bruising on her hip.
A day later she found evidence of the sexual assault and police were called.
The court heard a report from an expert in this type of case, which said: "I am of the view she will never be able to fully recover from the long lasting trauma of these offences."
Indecent photos
Alfridi pleaded guilty to two rapes and sexual assault and Syed admitted rape and sexual assault.
Arshad pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the sexual assault of the girl and taking two indecent photos.
He was sentenced to eight months in a young offenders' institute.
Another man, Mohammed Usman Raja, 20, of Free Trade Street, Rochdale, also pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. He was jailed for six months.
Passing sentence, Judge William Morris told Arshad: "By taking photos you made a permanent record of her being degraded in this way."
I have no evidence that race was a factor in this crime. Therefore I wish to make it clear that I am not claiming that race was a factor in the 3 males selection of the victim. In fact we don't even know the race of the victim (the less known in the general public the better for this poor girl I think, no need to drag out her suffering).
However, if the girl is white, given that her attackers are all likely to be either of Middle Eastern, Pakistani or Somalia in origin (Pakistani is the most likely bluntly), you can bet that certain English parties will be making hay out of this I think.
It also makes me wonder. We have seen evidence in the past that victims of various crimes (a young teen in North England a few years back being beaten to death because he was white, attacks on Pakistanis and Somalians) were chosen because of their race... I have to ask the English members of the board, do you think things like this are increasing and are a problem?
#2
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:10 pm
by The Minx
What kind of idiot takes pictures of the crime they are committing?
#3
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:12 pm
by frigidmagi
The kind of idiots that don't even get sentenced to a year in jail if you read the story.
Arshad pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the sexual assault of the girl and taking two indecent photos.
He was sentenced to eight months in a young offenders' institute.
Another man, Mohammed Usman Raja, 20, of Free Trade Street, Rochdale, also pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. He was jailed for six months.
#4
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:04 pm
by The Minx
I had read it, but only skimmed it towards the end, apparently...
But six months and eight months? That's ridiculous.
#5
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:45 pm
by The Cleric
So in Iran you get the death penalty for protesting, but in England you get less than 2 years for rape. Excellent legal systems we have...
#6
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:40 pm
by fgalkin
frigidmagi wrote:The kind of idiots that don't even get sentenced to a year in jail if you read the story.
Arshad pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the sexual assault of the girl and taking two indecent photos.
He was sentenced to eight months in a young offenders' institute.
Another man, Mohammed Usman Raja, 20, of Free Trade Street, Rochdale, also pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. He was jailed for six months.
Uh...these weren't the rapists. Re-read the story. These were only the ones who took the photos.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
#7
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:05 am
by General Havoc
Explain to me how someone who merely participated in the rape is morally so much better than the rapists themselves. It's not like said indecent image photographers were "unaware" of what was going on.
#8
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:35 pm
by fgalkin
General Havoc wrote:Explain to me how someone who merely participated in the rape is morally so much better than the rapists themselves. It's not like said indecent image photographers were "unaware" of what was going on.
Where did I say anything of the sort? I was responding to things like
in England you get less than 2 years for rape
, which is not addressed in the article. I have not made a moral judgment on the severity of the crime or the sentence in my post, so I'm not sure how you arrived to the conclusion that I agree with them?
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
#9
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:57 pm
by General Havoc
No, you merely commented that objections to the severity of the sentence were unfounded because the convicted criminals in question "weren't the rapists", but instead those who abetted and photographed the rape. As we were discussing the severity of the sentences, the implication is that you believe that it was justified that they receive less than eight months a piece.
And while you are correct that these were not themselves the men who were performing the rape, the point I was making (which you decided to ignore) was that such semantics do not excuse a laughably short sentence for the rape victims in question. I don't care whether or not they physically performed the rape, they assisted in and photographed it. In a perfect world, such men would be castrated.
#10
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:15 pm
by fgalkin
General Havoc wrote:No, you merely commented that objections to the severity of the sentence were unfounded because the convicted criminals in question "weren't the rapists", but instead those who abetted and photographed the rape.
Where have I said such a thing? Please point it out to me.
As we were discussing the severity of the sentences, the implication is that you believe that it was justified that they receive less than eight months a piece.
I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from a one-liner post correcting the misconception that the rapists received less than 2 years. I am genuinely curious as to your reasoning, now.
And while you are correct that these were not themselves the men who were performing the rape, the point I was making (which you decided to ignore) was that such semantics do not excuse a laughably short sentence for the rape victims in question. I don't care whether or not they physically performed the rape, they assisted in and photographed it. In a perfect world, such men would be castrated.
Ignore what point? That they should receive a harsher sentence? They should, but there was probably a plea bargain involved, due to the ever-present problem of lack of hard evidence in rape cases.
Here is a summary of the conversation so far:
Minx: "What kind of idiot takes pictures of the crime they are committing?"
frigid: "The kind of idiots that don't even get sentenced to a year in jail"
Me: It's the people who took the pics who got that. The rapists probably got more than a year in jail
You: The people who took the pics should have gotten more!
Me: Where did you get the idea that I disagree with that?
You: WAAAH! You support the scumbags!
Am I incorrect in reading the conversation?
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
#11
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:28 pm
by Stofsk
General Havoc wrote:I don't care whether or not they physically performed the rape, they assisted in and photographed it. In a perfect world, such men would be castrated.
In a perfect world, nobody would ever get raped.
#12
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:22 pm
by The Minx
Though they didn't actually participate in the actual rape itself per se, they "aided and abetted" it, that's what I meant by "the crime they were committing". It's sort of like someone aiding and abetting a burglary, even though they stand outside the building and don't actually enter it along with their accomplices. But I concede the nit-pick is accurate regardless. Technically. :)
#13
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:51 am
by Stofsk
One aided and abetted, that's what he plead to, and he looks like he's been sentenced as a juvenile. The legal system in the UK likely takes the view that young offenders need to be given consideration towards rehabilitation, and this may have been a first offence.
The other guy, who was sentenced to 6 months, 'perverted the course of justice', which is a vague statement and his role in this matter isn't made clear by the article.
#14
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:54 am
by Hotfoot
To aid and abet, you must actually help the criminals in some way. Simply standing on the sidelines and not calling the police is not aiding and abetting. In the American Legal system, it would be, at best, callous indifference. However, actively protecting the identities of the perpetrators would be hindering the prosecution and interfering with an ongoing investigation, which is something that can be acted on, though it's minor.