One rule for them…

This is important.

Screen Shot 2019-04-12 at 14.49.10

A judge told a banned drink-driver who smashed into three other vehicles that she would have been jailed if she were a man.

Judge Sarah Buckingham said “alcoholic” Victoria Parry would have been “straight down the stairs” to prison had her sex been different.

The 30-year-old, who already had two previous convictions for drink-driving was dragged from her Fiat Stilo after the car caught fire following the pile-up on the A46 last May.

Tests showed she was almost three times over the drink-drive limit, while Warwick Crown Court heard she had been drinking up to two bottles of wine a day.

Parry – left with a “considerable drink problem” after a 15-year abusive relationship – had also been banned from driving for three years in July 2015 for her second excess alcohol offence.

It’s important for many reasons.

The first is that what I suspected (posts passim) is now confirmed, in black and white, on the official public record, and an important debate can start in earnest.

The second is that I agree with the judge that this woman should have an opportunity to avoid prison in the circumstances.

The third is that a man who has a substance abuse problem, has been a victim of domestic abuse, and has shown efforts to mend his ways in-spite all the odds should be availed of the same opportunity to avoid prison – especially when a man is likely to have a harder time in prison than a woman, where — I haven’t looked up the numbers on this but tell me if I’m wrong – he is far more likely to face serious physical and sexual assault than a woman in prison.

The fourth is that I imagine there are people out there who are able to hold the following two propositions in their mind at the same time without undue cognitive dissonance:

i) The war on drugs is evil – substance abuse is a health issue, and addicts are sufferers, not criminals.

ii) This woman should be in prison.

Or do I still have the good opiates in my system?



4 thoughts on “One rule for them…

  1. If she was banned for three years in July 2015, why was she driving in May 2018? If the ban was still in force I would have jailed her just for that.

  2. “ to hold the following two propositions in their mind at the same time without undue cognitive dissonance..”

    It’s her actions in driving while under the influence that makes us believe prison is the right place for her, though, isn’t it?

  3. Don’t see why you need cognitive dissonance.

    1) The war on drugs is wrong but nevertheless it is policy of the UK. We are a law abiding nation, for the moment anyway.
    2) She broke the law and the penalty for that should have been prison and would have been if it had been a man.

    So much for justice.

  4. I don’t see it as a cognitive dissonance. Yes the war on drugs is wrong and yes this woman should be allowed to drink/smoke/shoot herself up to death if she chooses BUT
    if she causes an accident then she needs to go to jail. Her suicidal tenancies, while tragic, do not give her licence to endanger bystanders. And that’s without getting anywhere near the point of the post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.