It's just word for the Scouts that they continue so popular, but it got me thinking around the peculiar way that sexual equality works.
When I was a boy the Scouts were only for boys - the handbook may still have nevertheless been called "Scouting for Boys". While I was even a member the UK leadership changed the rules to allow girls to join, but left the pick of whether to accept girls to individual troops. We had but one question from a daughter and the leader asked us to vote whether the flock should admit girls. The voting was a whole no and as I recall the chief cause was because we all good wanted somewhere we could all go that was just for us boys (I was roughly 10 at the meter so maybe the reasoning wasn't quite so clearly outlined as I recall).
Something that has always intrigued me is why there was a name for the Boy Scouts to accept girls but no similar name for the Girl Guides to take boys. I'm fairly sure that many people would say "well, boys wouldn't wish to connect the Guides", but that was just what we all thinking about girls before they were allowed to unite the Scouts!
This sort of positive discrimination can be seen in other aspects of our society. For example, when I studied A-Level law our teacher asked the year to vote on sentences. By a majority of about 20 to 3, the class voted to have a lower sentence to a woman than a man where both were convicted of the same crime. Even now, my advice to female clients is that although in theory they should be sentenced on the same principals as their male counterparts, in reality the chance of their loss to prison is far lower.
This isn't limited only to sentencing, it can likewise be seen in the way the prosecution present their cases to juries. A few days ago I defended in a conspiracy to cultivate cannabis case where two husband and wife teams were said to have been running cannabis farms on an industrial scale. It seemed to me that they were all in it together, but the prosecution went after the husbands so often that the wives defence barely had to say a word throughout the case.
In another example, three people were accused of money launder. The woman was found with all the cash (approx. one billion pounds cash) and all the banking records in her home. She was also observed making deposits into bank accounts as piece of the laundering activity. She was caught out lying several times during interview about her activities, land ownership etc. Her boyfriend and his nephew were hardly seen making deposits. The prosecution placed her death on the indictment and went for the two men with gusto. Both men were convicted but our client, the woman and brains behind the operation, was acquitted.
Is any of this good or wrong? Is it but in my imagination?
No comments:
Post a Comment