Muslim girl gang escape jail after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because of their relig
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Lol.
Regardless of that? You can't just disregard that. That's the point.
The only information you have has come from the daily mail who will have strategically written the article to make the situation look like 4 Muslims got off just because they're Muslims.
I'm not going speculate why the judge handled the case the way he did because like you, the only details i have about this whole thing came from the daily fail.
Also, more importantly I'm not, you know... A ****ing judge who works in a crown court.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 3,888
- Location
- Nottingham
-.-
This is being reported other places than the Daily Mail.
It's a perfectly good question, if you don't have an answer, just say so instead of constructing a silly reply.
Without being in the court at the time of sentencing, then we do not know the facts of the case beyond what the media are reporting. The sentencing report transcript does not exist online at this moment in time.
Just because it's one race attacking another does not mean that it wasn't race based. As for saying "kill that white *****" or words to that effect, that doesn't necessarily construe a racist slur.
I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm being quite impartial and trying to get to the bottom of this as we all are.
Just because it's one race attacking another does not mean that it wasn't race based. As for saying "kill that white *****" or words to that effect, that doesn't necessarily construe a racist slur.
I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm being quite impartial and trying to get to the bottom of this as we all are.
Discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin is racism (unless their white).
Discriminating against people because of their religion is wrong (unless their Christian).
Simple
I said the information I have on this has come from the daily mail, not the only information on this has come from the daily mail.
Exactly what was silly about my reply?
I have no answer to your question. I have not studied law. I do to pretend to know the intricate ins and outs of how our justice system works.
What I do know is that a judge doesn't get to work in a crown court without all of these things and I am therefore certain his/her decision was right.
Yes, and no doubt they were. If they had been completely nude, I expect that would have been mentioned.
Not necessarily. Clothing rules in Islam are unclear and open to interpretation. The only definite thing is a requirement to dress modestly, but that could mean almost anything. There's some text that implies that it's good for a Muslim woman to leave only her hands and face uncovered, but that's not a definite requirement. Some Muslims do interpret the lack of clarity as reason to cover completely, to be sure of meeting whatever the requirements are, but it's not necessary. Of course, since it's only applied to women it also serves to seperate women from society so they can be more easily oppressed, which some Muslims want.
Yes. Muslims are not allowed to drink alcohol. Some do anyway, of course, since any religion is open to interpretation.
Depends, much like the full covering.
4 racist scumbags attacked someone and tried to kill them. It's not really a religious thing at all. The defence used religion and the judge caved, but the attack itself wasn't religious. They attacked her because of her "race", not her religion.
Dangerous view to have. Judges aren't infallible and they and their decisions should be open to questioning.
Source?
He did. Or at least it looked like he did. Although he seemed to be on the floor more than anybody else.
Racially motivated attempted murder by a group is not simply "a street scrap". People certainly do get sent to jail for that sort of thing.
I'm assuming that the OP isn't making it all up. Do you have a source to prove that they are?
Indeed, we should always question.
It it was just a normal assault (punching somebody a few times) I'd understand letting them off due to being drunk (for the first time).
Four people kicking somebody who is on the ground is a whole different league compared to a few people have a scuffle (which the police normally do little about & understandably so).
I really don't care what colour they are, four people kicking somebody in the heat while on the ground is not something that should just be left off - they are in serious need of some rehabilitation at least.
You must realise how everything you're saying is conjecture and not fact?
Show me the evidence that there was an intention/desire/will to kill.
Where is the racist element?
You're making things up with absolutely no evidence, it is that which I am questioning.
Yeah. You also have to take into account that the sentence given wasn't necessarily the one the judge would have liked to give.
Again this is just speculation and I by no means pretend to understand how things work but perhaps loopholes in evidence or witness statements led to lesser sentencing. I don't know?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Was the boyfriend just standing by and having a snack or something? I have this image of him blankly munching a bag of doritos while watching his girlfriend get stomped.
Even when there's three or four of them, has he never heard of Windmilling? There is no defence for that.
THERE IS NO DEFENCE!
Even when there's three or four of them, has he never heard of Windmilling? There is no defence for that.
THERE IS NO DEFENCE!
No. One of the attackers claimed that as their defence. Would you automatically believe that claim from a "white" person who got 3 of their mates with them to repeatedly kick a "black" person in the head while shouting "kill the black bitch"?