Muslim girl gang escape jail after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because of their relig

Efour · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:14

joxang said:
You guys are all getting duped by the DM. Read my post above.

This does not mean "The judge handed out suspended sentences BECAUSE they were not used to alcohol". It means the defence lawyer used this line, amongst many other things e.g. dialysis, youth, previous good behaviour etc, and the daily stupid mail jumped on that particular line to stir up a ****storm of controversy with clever wording.

indeed, but to play that card at all is still disgusting. Consequences/actions.
all on CCTV? Dont care if its white on white crime no racial motivation. You shouldn't walk away from a more severe punishment for ruining a random persons life.

trigger-happy · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:14

Tomcat825 said:
Brb converting to muslim, getting plastered and knocking the **** into a few peeps.

Seriously. What a joke.

*Islam.

joxang · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:15

Robbo said:
Moving away from that point though, why isn't this being dealt with as a race related attack and just an attack? Seems odd.

Just playing devil's advocate here (I think they should be in jail, and repeat offenders should be deported), but it's possible that there was no solid evidence that the attack was racially motivated. If both parties were white, or both parties muslim for example, it would just be another typical street disturbance. Maybe the white girl gave them some attitude beforehand, and the Muslim girls yelled out 'white ****' etc amongst a whole boatload of other insults.

I like to think that the judge heard all the evidence and wasn't being influenced by a load of PC ********. The problem is, some newspapers like putting a heavy slant on reporting of these cases so unless you're actually in courtroom you'll never know.

As to getting jail time, I think people rarely get anything above community service and 'rehabilitation' for an attack like this, where there's no GBH. It's rubbish, but I think that's how it is.

Abraham · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:15

joxang said:
I'm sorry, but some people need to read the article more carefully. The judge didn't give them suspended sentences because they weren't used to drink, the line is actually "after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because of their religion'. The article is twisting words to make it sound like the sentence was handed out for that reason, when all it actually and literally states is that the judge 'HEARD' this from the defence lawyers.

The actual reasons, as with all street yob crime, is most likely that there's no room in prison. When was the last time you heard of people involved in a street scrap been sent to jail?

I do agree that if it had been a bunch of white girls attacking a muslim, the sentencing may have been harsher. But I seem to remember a recent racially motivated attack where the white chavs were given suspended sentences too.

Fact is, this kind of **** happens all the time, everywhere. And no one goes to jail.

Beat me to it, I wouldn't for a second think that was the reason until I'd seen a sentencing report that said as much. It may have been taken into account, but then it can be taken into account for anyone, I'm not defending the case in question but the diminished responsibility of a first time drinker is probably closer to someone who has been spiked than your standard intoxicated offender.

cheets64 · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:15

Somalian Muslims

Shouldnt they be deported, do we want this sort of scum in this country. Bad enough with British people doing this, why do we need to take in scum from other countries.

First plane to Somali, first class, bye.

Ahleckz · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:15

Burnsy2023 said:
I'd like to see a transcript of the actual judgement before I form an opinion. Can't seem to find one yet though.

Let me know if you do find it.

RopAyy · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:17

Castiel said:
You're quite right.

He may be right but that still does not explain how after serious GBH and assault showing no mercy while the victim was out cold on the floor they managed to get 'suspended sentences'

Robbo said:
Moving away from that point though, why isn't this being dealt with as a race related attack and just as an attack? Seems odd.

Right without been one of those 'send em back' sorts, surely if a white group went out and kicked the **** out of a 'minority group' individual while shouting racists remarks it would have been dealt with much more serious with the racist aspect scrutinized over.

I know if it was my girl been beaten down on not one of those lasses would have been left standing! Then again, i suppose that been the case id be locked up for been a racist woman beating scum bag!

Abraham · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:19

cheets64 said:
Shouldnt they be deported, do we want this sort of scum in this country. Bad enough with British people doing this, why do we need to take in scum from other countries.

First plane to Somali, first class, bye.

The DM describing someone as a Somalian Muslim doesn't neccessarily mean they're an immigrant from Somalia, their parents may well be.

Xandos · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:19

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...drinking-walk-free-after-attack-on-woman.html

Bit more info in that. Daily Mail obfuscated the fact that it was her boyfriend that started being racially abusive. Wonder how he managed not to defend his girlfriend from them though, not that hard to knock out a few women surely (not speaking from experience).

Seems like a strange response from the Judge though... Let me off because I'm not used to crack because it's illegal?

[edit, just an accusation]

ubersonic · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:20

Discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin is racism (unless their white) and that's wrong.
Discriminating against people because of their religion is also wrong (unless their Christian).

Ah, equal rights in the UK /smirk

Ahleckz · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:21

Ah ha, found a sentencing report, though it isn't very detailed:

"One of a group of four women who attacked their victim, 22-year-old Rhea Page, in Leicester city centre. The victim suffered injuries to her head, legs, and arms.

The Judge said: "This was ugly and reflects very badly on all four of you.

Those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside, but I'm going to suspend the sentence.""

They got suspended sentence for 2 years, as well as a curfew from 9pm-6am for 4 months...

ikillbears · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:22

cheets64 said:
First plane to Somali, first class, bye.

bit severe isn't it

Abraham · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:23

RopAyy said:
He may be right but that still does not explain how after serious GBH and assault showing no mercy while the victim was out cold on the floor they managed to get 'suspended sentences'

Without seeing the sentencing report you can't know, first offence, the DM article hints at a level of it being retaliatory, there could be hundreds of influencing factors on the judges decision.

Right without been one of those 'send em back' sorts, surely if a white group went out and kicked the **** out of a 'minority group' individual while shouting racists remarks it would have been dealt with much more serious with the racist aspect scrutinized over.

It seems particularly flakey on the racist remarks in the DM article, there is also a step between racist remarks being made and it being a racially motivated attack.
I'm not going to dwell on whether it would have been different if different racial sides had been involved.

Yas786 · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:23

Abraham said:
The DM describing someone as a Somalian Muslim doesn't neccessarily mean they're an immigrant from Somalia, their parents may well be.

Indeed but dont let that get in the way of Cheets and his racist/xenophobic rants...

D.P. · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:24

cheets64 said:
Shouldn't they be wearing some sort of clothing and hiding their face, not drinking and being at home.

If "Muslim" women are that way inclined to attack white girls then what the hell are "Muslim" men like. Scary times.

What an utterly retarded statement, :rolleyes:

Skii · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:24

cheets64 said:
.

First plane to Somali, first class, bye.

I'd have them strapped to the undercarriage.

Ahleckz · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:26

They were tried for Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Offences aganist the Person Act 1861). There are three categoreis within this, with the two highest categories requiring serious injury. The range of sentences for cat 1 (most serious) = 1 - 3 years custoday. cat 2 = low level community order - 51 weeks custody and cat 3 (least serious) is a Band A fine - High level community order.

It looks like it was probably a category 3 offence so the judgement seems inline with that.

Don't moan about the judge, moan about the sentencing council.

Stretch · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:28

joxang said:
The actual reasons, as with all street yob crime, is most likely that there's no room in prison. When was the last time you heard of people involved in a street scrap been sent to jail?

I do agree that if it had been a bunch of white girls attacking a muslim, the sentencing may have been harsher. But I seem to remember a recent racially motivated attack where the white chavs were given suspended sentences too.

The attackers - three sisters and their cousin - were told by a judge that normally they would have been sent to jail.

However, he handed the girls - all Somalian Muslims - suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.

Seems quite clear from the judges statement that they would have gone to jail if it had not been for them being drunken Muslims.

RopAyy · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:30

Abraham said:
Without seeing the sentencing report you can't know, first offence, the DM article hints at a level of it being retaliatory, there could be hundreds of influencing factors on the judges decision.

Regardless of a first offence, if i went out now and beat the hell out of someone and continued once they were down, especially in a group i would not expect to be let off.
I know they could have been provoked but that does not excuse kicking her head or continuing a beating while they are un-conscience.

An offence is just that, first time or not.

Abraham said:
It seems particularly flakey on the racist remarks in the DM article, there is also a step between racist remarks being made and it being a racially motivated attack.
I'm not going to dwell on whether it would have been different if different racial sides had been involved.

Having read the article again i will agree with you, theres no way to tell either way for certain if they were out and enjoyed a white bashing crusade or if they were just slandering comments.

TommyV · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:32

cheets64 said:
Shouldnt they be deported, do we want this sort of scum in this country. Bad enough with British people doing this, why do we need to take in scum from other countries.

First plane to Somali, first class, bye.

First class at the expense of taxpayers....no way!

Just execute them, better and cheaper for all.