Wednesday, 13 January 2016

"Police officers have to endure certain types of behaviour that are inappropriate."

Paul Blanchard, for Whitaker, said she struggled with drink and drugs.
“I have no doubt that her intentions at the time were nothing more than friendly
“This young lady is not a sex offender and going on the register would be catastrophic.”
No need to work so hard, chum. Leniency's practically guaranteed, right?
Whitaker was jailed for 16 weeks and ordered to pay £1,330 in fines.
The court heard she had a previous record of failing to carry out community orders.
Chairwoman of the bench Ms Julie Houston said: “This offence is so serious a custodial sentence is necessary.”
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Whitaker will also have to register as a sex offender for the next seven years.
Good to see a judge not following the progressive script.

H/T: Budvar in comments


Libertarian said...

She touched his chest and called him Babe, leaving him feeling violated? What level of milksop are we allowing into the Police these days?

wiggiatlarge said...

I saw this story in a different national and the slant was a bit different, as in the Huddersfield paper there was no mention of any "actual" sexual assault it was described as in the Huddersfield paper, she may be a loud mouth chav, but do Police fold like this when a woman puts her hands on his chest and shouts from a distance about his d--- , sensitive souls these days aren't they.

Any Saturday night town centre would see worse.

Budvar said...

Oh I think the point is, that if I were to to get plastered, and begin touching some random woman (Or WPC) around her "Chest area" and began calling her "Babe", the squeals of calling for my castration would be deafening, and a spell in the pokey would be well on the cards.

Welcome to the age of equality for the sexes, they got what they wanted.. Oh wait..

Do take a look at the comments, and read them as if it were men defending another man for doing what she did.. I believe the next dictionary under the word "Hypocrisy" has "See this article" as the definition..

Anonymous said...

How does it look when put as follows:...?

"…Whitaker, 23, was arrested by the officer after displaying drunk and disorderly behaviour at the Ashfield Hotel on New North Road, Huddersfield.

Whitaker, from Wyke, near Bradford, made unwanted sexual advances to the officer which left her feeling violated, Kirklees Magistrates heard.

Alex Bozman, prosecuting, told the court Whitaker was getting in a taxi when he began to shout at the officer and another woman before he was asked to calm down.

She said: “He kept calling her ‘babe’ or ‘baby’ and touching her round the chest area and she asked him to stop.

“She felt his behaviour was becoming increasingly sexualised.”
Whitaker was put in the back of a police vehicle.

The court heard Whitaker then shouted at hotel staff and other police officers who had attended the scene, before making vulgar remarks.

Mr Bozman said Whitaker told the officer: “I’ll call you baby when I can grab hold of your c***”.

A different picture begins to form...

Radical Rodent

Northish said...

It does look different, because it is different. A man shouldn't take a page from the feminists special snowflake how offended I am by the disgusting patriarchy handbook. He should be better than that.
I heard that this type of behaviour was a common occurence down the nick, but that was between officers, and in the days before PC's were PC.

Lord T said...

This is what happens when you let girly men in the police. What would have been dealt with easily has been blown out of all proportion. Pretty much standard for the last 20 years or so.

What a wimp.

Anonymous said...

Hey! I was only trying to point out that this is a result of "equality". That this is not a result that those pursuing "equality" had in mind makes it an interesting story.

But yes, you are right - a real man should be able to handle a pathetic creature like that without being too upset.

Radical Rodent

Northish said...

Sorry R R, I made it read like I was having a pop at you, but that was not my intention at all. It was the rozzer who went crying to teacher with the "sir, sir , she said naughty words to me sir", who was the subject of my disdain.

JuliaM said...

"What level of milksop are we allowing into the Police these days?"

I think we can see that now!

"...sensitive souls these days aren't they."

Or, as Budvar points out, are they simply applying some sauce to the gander too?

"A man shouldn't take a page from the feminists special snowflake how offended I am by the disgusting patriarchy handbook."

It's a weapon. If men decline to use it, I'm not sure realisation will dawn quicker (if indeed it ever will).

Anonymous said...

Presumably, the plod in question saw an easy opportunity to score an arrest for sexual violence, and was well on the way to a commendation from the plod brass before he was told it doesn't count.

Still, that's a conviction for a sex crime, which is what the Something Must Be Done department keep yelling for.

Personally, I think this is an implementation of the Ways and Means Act, and a noisy obnoxious chavette got a dose of payback and a court appearance, for the otherwise unpunishable offence of "being a noisy obnoxious chavette who thinks nobody can stop her."

The jail time and sex offender bit suggest a long history of committing that, too- I wonder if the Plod was surprised, assuming it'd be another wrist slap?