Notice the language.
The 50-year-old, of Liphook, Hampshire, was convicted of raping five women and was also found guilty of attempting to rape and sexually assault two other women after chatting to them online.
Sentencing Lawrance for the attacks between June 2011 and November 2014, Judge Dickinson said: “I am convinced that you are devious, manipulative and highly dangerous to women.
Where did he learn those techniques?
“In my judgment these offences taken together – so many victims, the trail of terror and agony for which you are responsible – mean that the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life is fully justified.”
“Your aim was to get (the victims) into a compromising situation and then to do whatever you liked to them – anticipating that they would be too frightened or embarrassed to make a complaint, or that they would not be believed if they did come forward.
Coercion. Gaslighting, very serious since the Mental Health Act came in.
“Given the chance, you will rape again. I do not know when it may be safe to release you into the community.”
“The second woman attacked by Lawrance, a Lincolnshire single mother, said she had been forced to quit her job and move home ‘far away’ after he attempted to rape her in her own bed.”
“Lawrance’s next rape victim was a 44-year-old woman he forced himself on in a hotel in St Ives, Cambs, in October 2014, tying her up with her own tights.”
Was he filming it? Did they check? That type usually do.
“Some have continued to suffer fear in their own home, and fear Lawrance will come and seek them out.”
Very omega, that revenge thing.
“While this is not confined to dating sites or even the internet, those who do so should be convicted and sentenced, as has happened in this case.”
Ask yourself, is it rape or Last-Minute Resistance?
“Lawrance meets up with a sixth woman in a Leicestershire hotel, tells her “this is what you want”, tears her top off and rapes her.”
She wanted it secretly – The Rapist’s Line, itself a form of self-delusion and gaslighting. If that were the case, why didn’t they ask? If they were 100% certain, why not?
They should look at their internet use in cases like these, we already have the data, there might be gangs or ‘rings’ of them.
Theresa May has sought to allay fears about the new proposals, taking the unprecedented step of publishing an “operational case” on why MI5, MI6 and GCHQ need to carry out bulk collection of data, adding extra safeguards and further checks and balances to the wider package. She still faces a backbench revolt amid concerns that the legislation has been rushed, but as we point out in our leader, few voters share their concerns, and most of them are prepared to make the trade-off between privacy for greater security.
The one thing that will encourage the Home Secretary when she faces down her critics is that Britons are on her side. This could be proof of how well the argument is framed, as when voters are asked to choose between giving spies more powers to tackle terrorists or less, the choice they’ll go for is clear.