UK: Two Systems of Justice

I don't think they were jailed because some Muslims saw a severed pigs head, it appears as though the crime was the act of launching it into the grounds of a mosque.
 
Dis86 said:
Sorry, edited whilst you were replying.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/four-jailed-throwing-pigs-head-4644958

Would be a prime example.

"Some of them saw the head and felt offended and angry"

The same as people who saw poppies being burned.
Click to expand...

In fairness that offence took place 2 days after Lee Rigby was murdered. Tension was much higher and the sentencing I believe took that into consideration.

Edit: and even more telling the Imam for the mosque asked for clemency which the judge rejected.
 
Caged said:
I don't think they were jailed because some Muslims saw a severed pigs head, it appears as though the crime was the act of launching it into the grounds of a mosque.
Click to expand...

I can't find anything to state that at all. Seemingly nobody actually saw the act of them throwing/putting it there. It was the discovery of it. The location and the item was what was meant to offend. The same as the burning of a poppy on armistice day.

"He added: "Against that background, interrupting the two minutes' silence by chanting 'British soldiers burn in hell', followed by the burning of poppies, is behaviour that is bound to be seen as insulting."
The court was previously told that the grandson of a World War II soldier felt "sick inside" as Muslim extremists burned replica poppies."

Yet one of them got off with not guilty and the other received a £50.00 fine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12664346

Link
 
Last edited:
Pudney said:
In fairness that offence took place 2 days after Lee Rigby was murdered. Tension was much higher and the sentencing I believe took that into consideration.

Edit: and even more telling the Imam for the mosque asked for clemency which the judge rejected.
Click to expand...

Exactly...even the Imam thought the sentences were taking the mick. It just shows that there really are two systems of justice!

See my post above for timing and how for other crimes it seemingly bears no relevance.
 
I don't follow? If the offence was 'causing people to be offended' then you'd see people getting prosecuted all the time. The clear difference in the pigs head in the mosque case was that, you know, a pigs head was chucked into a mosque car park.

I don't agree with people who want to burn poppies but as far as I can tell they aren't covered by the same sorts of laws. If there was an equivalent to a pig in a mosque in other faiths that seemed to attract consistently lower sentences then I'd agree that there might be something there worth looking at.
 
Dis86 said:
I can't find anything to state that at all. Seemingly nobody actually saw the act of them throwing/putting it there. It was the discovery of it. The location and the item was what was meant to offend. The same as the burning of a poppy on armistice day.
Click to expand...

Your own link says this (I have a tendency to read links :p )

The friends dumped a carrier bag containing the severed pork head in the car park of Blackpool Central Mosque in Lancashire, in front of shocked women and children.
Click to expand...

"He added: "Against that background, interrupting the two minutes' silence by chanting 'British soldiers burn in hell', followed by the burning of poppies, is behaviour that is bound to be seen as insulting."
The court was previously told that the grandson of a World War II soldier felt "sick inside" as Muslim extremists burned replica poppies."

Yet one of them got off with not guilty and the other received a £50.00 fine.
Click to expand...

2 days after the murder of Lee Rigby meant this action isn't just "offensive", it's downright intimidating and tantamount to a threat. I point out the cases in my previous post where similar crimes were given MUCH more lenient sentences. I'd strongly contend that your example had a sentence that moved those four peoples action beyond merely "offensive".
 
Caged said:
I don't follow? If the offence was 'causing people to be offended' then you'd see people getting prosecuted all the time. The clear difference in the pigs head in the mosque case was that, you know, a pigs head was chucked into a mosque car park.

I don't agree with people who want to burn poppies but as far as I can tell they aren't covered by the same sorts of laws.
Click to expand...

Right, but was is the outcome of chucking the pigs head in to the mosque car park?

Offence.

That's it. Nothing more. Seemingly some people (the Imam) weren't even all that peeved. Nobody was physically hurt.

So how is that any different to any other action that causes offence? It simply isn't.

Why is it that because someone is offended due to being Muslim that it is more serious than someone being offended due to something else?
 
Well one is covered by religious hate laws and the other isn't.

Edit: Oh I see, you're not arguing about lenient sentencing but about how the law can see two similar actions as being different levels of 'bad'. In which case I think someone with a legal background would have to step in.
 
Pudney said:
Your own link says this (I have a tendency to read links :p )





2 days after the murder of Lee Rigby meant this action isn't just "offensive", it's downright intimidating and tantamount to a threat. I point out the cases in my previous post where similar crimes were given MUCH more lenient sentences. I'd strongly contend that your example had a sentence that moved those four peoples action beyond merely "offensive".
Click to expand...

It also says;

"Clare Thomas, prosecuting, said a volunteer discovered the pig's head in a carrier bag outside the mosque, after receiving a Facebook message that an unpleasant package had been sent there."

Which kinda refutes sentence number 2. Basically it's a crap source and crap article but used just to show the sentence that was received.

I fail to see how it equates to a threat though? It's no mafioso horses head in the bed. The significance of it is obviously the fact it's a pig and thus haram.
Dropping a couple of pork steaks probably wouldn't be too obvious that it was pork!
 
Caged said:
Well one is covered by religious hate laws and the other isn't.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this as well as I've shown examples of similar crimes which had more lenient sentences. It appears to be likely it's to do with Lee Rigby, but annoyingly I can't find the judge's sentencing remarks (or whatever they're called in criminal cases).
 
Caged said:
Well one is covered by religious hate laws and the other isn't.

Edit: Oh I see, you're not arguing about lenient sentencing but about how the law can see two similar actions as being different levels of 'bad'. In which case I think someone with a legal background would have to step in.
Click to expand...

Aye :)

I appreciate both are equally douchebag moves - but why when they're basically the same option is one worthy of such a poor excuse for justice and the other far more extreme?
 
Dis86 said:
It also says;

"Clare Thomas, prosecuting, said a volunteer discovered the pig's head in a carrier bag outside the mosque, after receiving a Facebook message that an unpleasant package had been sent there."

Which kinda refutes sentence number 2. Basically it's a crap source and crap article but used just to show the sentence that was received.
Click to expand...

We can agree on that :D

I fail to see how it equates to a threat though? It's no mafioso horses head in the bed. The significance of it is obviously the fact it's a pig and thus haram.
Dropping a couple of pork steaks probably wouldn't be too obvious that it was pork!
Click to expand...

As above, I really want to see the judge's remarks about sentencing, especially given he ignored the imam!
 
Dis86 said:
But so did the poppy burners.
Click to expand...

I meant the case you cited vs. the others on the previous page.

Dis86 said:
Aye :)

I appreciate both are equally douchebag moves - but why when they're basically the same option is one worthy of such a poor excuse for justice and the other far more extreme?
Click to expand...

On that I'd take a guess at the laws covering things that people can't change being harsher than against groups they choose to associate with. To people of a faith I assume they see it as a part of them that they cannot change, so therefore it's protected the same way as ethnicity, sexuality, disability etc. Whereas someone firebombing a political association wouldn't have committed the same offense. That may be way off and I have no legal background at all.
 
Last edited:
Caged said:
I meant the case you cited vs. the others on the previous page.
Click to expand...

Oh I think they all know what they're trying to achieve. A suspended jail sentence is still just that though, a jail sentence. It'll get added on to any others they earn.

I can safely say I'd much rather pay £50 than live under a suspended sentence. Keep in mind as well if they so much as look at a judge wrongly in the future it's very likely they will face a custodial sentence with additional time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom