A policing fuck-up. It's already a crime, so it's not relevant. Also, the people pushing men's rights against them are not the same people defending Islamic rape gangs, that's their own side, because they'd love to sacrifice a few women if it means they can get a few more of our rights taken.
Oh, when Pakistanis rape thousands of white girls at will, and no one does a thing, it's suddenly a "fuck-up", but when a woman doesn't get a sufficient sentence for murdering a man - it means that you can be murdered without a woman being punished?
By that same logic, a woman could - far more credibly - argue that she can be raped without anyone receiving any punishment, citing Rotherham.
It's already a crime, so it's not relevant.
Bruh, murder is also a crime, yet you were using the hypothetical of getting murdered by a woman as an excuse to play the victim.
Also, the people pushing men's rights against them are not the same people defending Islamic rape gangs, that's their own side, because they'd love to sacrifice a few women if it means they can get a few more of our rights taken.
I never said they're the same people. I said that if you're going to claim that women are not oppresesd in the UK, you would have to deal with Rotherham. And the many other rape-gangs. Sure were a lot of "policing fuck-ups" eh?
Except it's literally part of UK law that you must be lenient when sentencing women.
You said not be punished. Now it's only leniency? And if UK law (retardedly) requires that you be more lenient to women, why is it that women commit so many fewer crimes than men still, despite the lesser deterrent?
Rotherham was the police choosing to not enforce existing law.
And in so many other places as well. That somehow is not oppression? And Saudi Arabia is not oppression?
What do you call Rotherham? Just treatment?
Classes don't abuse power, people do. Otherwise, I'm going to treat you badly because you don't do anything to stop rape and domestic violence.
A policing fuck-up. It's already a crime, so it's not relevant. Also, the people pushing men's rights against them are not the same people defending Islamic rape gangs, that's their own side, because they'd love to sacrifice a few women if it means they can get a few more of our rights taken.
Oh, when Pakistanis rape thousands of white girls at will, and no one does a thing, it's suddenly a "fuck-up", but when a woman doesn't get a sufficient sentence for murdering a man - it means that you can be murdered without a woman being punished?
By that same logic, a woman could - far more credibly - argue that she can be raped without anyone receiving any punishment, citing Rotherham.
Bruh, murder is also a crime, yet you were using the hypothetical of getting murdered by a woman as an excuse to play the victim.
I never said they're the same people. I said that if you're going to claim that women are not oppresesd in the UK, you would have to deal with Rotherham. And the many other rape-gangs. Sure were a lot of "policing fuck-ups" eh?
Except it's literally part of UK law that you must be lenient when sentencing women.
Female Offender Strategy (all sentences under two years will be thrown out.)
"Coercive Control". (Any woman who claims the victim harassed her in any way, even verbally, cannot be charged with murder.)
The guidebook for judges in the UK actively states to be lenient with women.
Rotherham was the police choosing to not enforce existing law.
You said not be punished. Now it's only leniency? And if UK law (retardedly) requires that you be more lenient to women, why is it that women commit so many fewer crimes than men still, despite the lesser deterrent?
And in so many other places as well. That somehow is not oppression? And Saudi Arabia is not oppression?