Judge says: "She asked for it!"

Given the squishy-soft approach to crime here in Britain, it's really no surprise that this land has become of the most dangerous in the Western world. The government and the nation's judiciary alike insist on granting human rights to the exponentially growing population of baggy-panted, ball-scratching apes that make everyone else's life sheer misery. Reading the reports in the papers last night, I came across a real feel-gooder: In a township just three miles away from where we live, a 16-year-old was chased and beaten to death by a 30-strong gang Saturday night. They impaled him on a spiky fence. Isn't that wonderful? And, here's the clincher: I have always considered this township in question one of the safer areas of Greater London. I like this place in question; it gets rowdy on the weekends but name me one place in this country that doesn't. Binge-drinking ought to be declared a sport for the 2012 Olympics here; the British would win this contest by a long shot.
But I digress ... They've caught one of the youths involved in the killing and he's being questioned. He'll probably be given community service.
However, this story defies whatever little remaining shred of faith that I was foolish enough to countenance:
A man in his mid 20s raped a ten-year-old girl—that's right, ten as in "10"—and the judge gave him four months—that's right, four as in "4"—months in jail. The judge, Julian Hall, decided that the girl had "dressed provocatively" in a strappy top and low-rise jeans. He also opined that because the girl looked more like 16, as oppposed to 10, her perceived maturity was a factor.
"Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16, that was a matter that was accepted," Judge Hall said. Hall also stated that this case caused a real dilemma for him. "In my experience, this has been the most difficult sentencing exercise I have ever had to decide on. The circumstances in this case are exceptional. It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively."
So apparently, what we're to gather from the saintly Judge Hall is that as long as a woman either is or just looks 16 or over and dresses provocatively, then she's fair game. Did you ever think you'd hear a judge of all people defending the drunken Neanderthal argument, "well, she dressed like a slut, she obviously wanted it, she asked for it"?
Only in Britain, folks. Only in Britain.