A "Poisonuos Crime"

[TW]Fox;27232086 said:
They should have been punished even if it was absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Imagine somebody chucked a pigs head into your garden as a 'prank' - that sort of thing isn't acceptable either.

It's just not something that is ever acceptable in society so it's correct that those who do it are punished to send out the message that it's not something we do.
Click to expand...


Imagine. No, wait. I don't have to imagine.. A guy lets his dog **** on your front lawn, not just the once mind, no, several times over a period of time. Now I don't know about you, but most people find dog**** unacceptable, some even find it offensive, but it is pretty much universally accepted as being a not a very nice thing (Unless you're some weird fetishist).

If I got the Police involved on this matter, what would happen? Yeah, if I was really lucky and they were really bored they might pay me some lip service but you're delusional if you think they would 'investigate' it let alone prosecute and jail the perpetrator.

If your Religion dictates that you must find something 'Offensive' or 'Taboo' then why don't you just pray really hard to your respective deities for the nasty thing to go away instead of taking up the time and costs of valuable Public Resources.
 
doofer said:
Imagine. No, wait. I don't have to imagine.. A guy lets his dog **** on your front lawn, not just the once mind, no, several times over a period of time. Now I don't know about you, but most people find dog**** unacceptable, some even find it offensive, but it is pretty much universally accepted as being a not a very nice thing (Unless you're some weird fetishist).
Click to expand...

Agreed but he isn't doing it deliberately to annoy you - he's just a selfish **** so it's a bit different

Imagine if he constant threw dog **** at your house - that would be a criminal matter I would imagine?
 
I think it's more telling that the Imam asked for leniency and understanding than the fact fact that, quite rightly, these men were jailed. It flies in the face of accusations laid at the feet if Muslims and their spiritual leaders.

The intention of these men is what jailed them, so it's deserved.
 
Harsh but sadly needed, when you have gutter press like Sky/daily fail inciting racial and religious hatred on a daily basis then cases like this need to be made an example of otherwise things could spiral out of control :-(
 
doofer said:
Imagine. No, wait. I don't have to imagine.. A guy lets his dog **** on your front lawn, not just the once mind, no, several times over a period of time. Now I don't know about you, but most people find dog**** unacceptable, some even find it offensive, but it is pretty much universally accepted as being a not a very nice thing (Unless you're some weird fetishist).

If I got the Police involved on this matter, what would happen? Yeah, if I was really lucky and they were really bored they might pay me some lip service but you're delusional if you think they would 'investigate' it let alone prosecute and jail the perpetrator.

If your Religion dictates that you must find something 'Offensive' or 'Taboo' then why don't you just pray really hard to your respective deities for the nasty thing to go away instead of taking up the time and costs of valuable Public Resources.
Click to expand...

True but that might be more comparable to a butcher being careless with his rubbish and some pork off cuts getting discarded in the carp ark if the next door mosque... tis lazyness but not intended to intimidate.

While I'm not sure about the prison sentence and don't care that some sky pixie worshipers don't like pigs I do think this sort of intimidation deserves punishment. If someone threw a horses head on your door mat because you represent some group or other then you might feel a bit threatened... While I don't think there should be extra punishment because a group involves a 'god' etc... a blatant act of intimidation like that is wrong and is more than just a lazy attitude to dog poo.
 
The fact is it was done on purpose to intimidate and to offend. Regardless of whether it did or not it isn't an acceptable thing to do in society.
 
Freefaller said:
The fact is it was done on purpose to intimidate and to offend. Regardless of whether it did or not it isn't an acceptable thing to do in society.
Click to expand...

As obnoxious as the acts may have been, it was disproportionately harsh to deprive someone of their liberty for a year for such an act.

Especially galling is a rising feeling that certain rights/groups/ethnicities (not saying its actually true, but perception is important) receive preferential treatment in what is actually classified as a hate crime and the subsequent punishment.


Edit: I would also like to add, that it was far more (from my interpretation on reading) on the lines of offending rather than intimidating.
 
If it was a sheep's head in a church or chapel I doubt they get jail time, anyone kid yourself on otherwise.

The poppy burners should have got jail in this case, £50 fine out his dole money instead.
 
jh30uk said:
If it was a sheep's head in a church or chapel I doubt they get jail time, anyone kid yourself on otherwise.

The poppy burners should have got jail in this case, £50 fine out his dole money instead.
Click to expand...

I don't think the poppy burners should have got any punishment. Frankly if he'd been standing next to me while burning a poppy if have been likely to punch him... I still think he's got every right to freedom of expression. Just like some numpty in the US can burn a Koran etc... If he'd dumped burning poppies on the doorstep of say the Royal British Legion or at a war memorial then that would be another matter and more in line with this pigs head incident.
 
I did say "in that case" so if he shouldn't get jail neither should these 2.

I doubt a Brit in Iran would get away with burning their book.

You do realise if you did punch him you would be in far more trouble than he got, esp once the race hate crime card was played.
 
HaX said:
Ridiculous,

Around 10 years ago, my local art gallery hosted a contemporary exhibition by an African "Artist" which revolved around visitors being invited to kick bibles around a room.

Although it generated a few angry letters to the local paper, no one batted an eyelid really and it certainly didn't attract the attention of the law enforcement agencies.
Click to expand...

You don't think that might have been because it was in an entirely different context to throwing a pigs head into a mosque?
 
jh30uk said:
If it was a sheep's head in a church or chapel I doubt they get jail time, anyone kid yourself on otherwise.

The poppy burners should have got jail in this case, £50 fine out his dole money instead.
Click to expand...

While I don't know if that exact crime has happened, Church Vandalism is often punished with jail-time as have people who have harassed Christians.
 
Should this be punished? Yes.
Should they serve jail time? No, a heavy fine and some community service would be just.

However, the law isn't as silly as the 'Offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications bill' in Scotland. The trouble is no one knows what songs aren't allowed and there is no consistency in who gets pulled up.
I firmly believe that Salmond would like 'Rule Britannia' and 'God Save the Queen' to be included in this bill.
 
ArchAnGeL said:
Actually this peeked my interest about what's so bad about porky pig. Pretty much the first link (and I have no idea how true this is) pointed out that basically it is because a pretty old book says its just bad.

http://www.whyislam.org/faqs/restrictions-in-islam/why-do-muslims-abstain-from-pork/

Apparently there is another popular work that also says the same thing (I am ashamed I didn't know this even though I am mid way through they typical christian-atheist-oops, i'm getting on a bit, better be a believer again lifestyle)

Unfortunately none of them really explain why but my personal interpretation is that these two deities where pretty good food hygienist for the age and had significant experience that it could make you pretty ill. I also believe that had they issued a current edition of either book, they could have updated their studies and concluded that the health risks were no longer a real concern and everything is now ok.

Quite why it is possible to get so offended by advice on food hygiene is beyond me. Even if I were to make you wear a nice pig skin coat, no one is asking you to eat it so where is the problem?

If I am wrong with my interpretation here I would welcome correction so I fully understand this as I am genuinely interested
Click to expand...

That part of the Koran is extremely out of date now. As said in the link British pork is probably the cleanest farmed meat in modern times. If the Koran was written today i'm in no doubt it would have been Chicken that would be banned with Bird-Flu, E-Coli, Campylobacter, Battery hens, Hormones etc
 
Castiel said:
I think it's more telling that the Imam asked for leniency and understanding than the fact fact that, quite rightly, these men were jailed. It flies in the face of accusations laid at the feet if Muslims and their spiritual leaders.

The intention of these men is what jailed them, so it's deserved.
Click to expand...

Freefaller said:
The fact is it was done on purpose to intimidate and to offend. Regardless of whether it did or not it isn't an acceptable thing to do in society.
Click to expand...

Agree with both statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom