Poll: Muslim female "gang" beat up English women, but not jailed

[Helmholtz Watson]

So I was on another forum and somebody brought up this article about a group of girls that apparently went up to another girl and proceed to beat the crap out of her until the police came. The victim claims that,

"We were just minding our own business but they kept shouting ?white *****? and ?white slag? at me. When I turned around one of them grabbed my hair then threw me on the ground.
?They were taking turns to kick me over and over. I thought they were going to kill me."


However when it came to sentencing the "girl gang", the article states that:

"Ambaro Maxamed, 24, students Ayan Maxamed, 28, and Hibo Maxamed, 24, and their 28-year-old cousin Ifrah Nur each admitted actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years? imprisonment.

But Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes".

So, as the title states, England (or to be specific English court/judges), what the hell? How does the excuse "the women were not used to being drunk [because] [t]he Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol" sound logical? What does it matter what religion the accused practice? What about you escapist, what do you think about the situation?

Here is the article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html

EDIT: People have asked to see other sites that have reported this, so here you go:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8938468/Attack-on-Rhea-Page-captured-on-CCTV-in-Leicester.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3981429/Muslim-girl-gang-who-kicked-woman-in-head-freed-after-court-hears-they-were-not-used-to-drinking.html

http://www.carbonated.tv/blogs/judge-frees-muslim-girls-who-beat-up-woman-after-hearing-they-are-not-used-to-being-drunk-video

http://www.anorak.co.uk/304408/news/sun-telegraph-and-daily-mail-use-rhea-pages-attackers-to-bash-muslims-with-dishonest-reporting.html/

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Why are you asking everybody in England about a horribly judged court case? They obviously had an extremely good lawyer and got away with a terrible crime, like this never happens in any other country? This has nothing to do with England's law or it's people, I'd suggest a different title for the thread.

Why does the fact that their excuse originated from their old religious practices have anything to do with it, their defence is not their book, its the fact that their book used to force them not to drink (admittedly a poor defence), but they were not 'let off' on religious terms.

Also that's the daily mail, take every 'fact' you see in there with a pinch of salt.

 

[mcdain]

I'm amazed that they got a suspended sentence. Whether or not they were used to being drunk should have nothing to do with it. They committed actual bodily harm, so they should serve the appropriate sentence.

That's like me getting away with murder because I'd had too much coffee, and I'm not used to the effects of caffeine. :/

 

[Thaluikhain]

So, as the title states, England (or to be specific English court/judges), what the hell? How does the excuse "the women were not used to being drunk [because] [t]he Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol" sound logical? What does it matter what religion the accused practice? What about you escapist, what do you think about the situation?

I think we shouldn't trust the Daily Mail. Reading the article, it says that that was brought up in their defence. It also says:

"But he said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore as he tried to defend his girlfriend, and handed the defendants a suspended sentence."

Looks to me like the Daily Mail is doing its best to imply that was what got them off, without actually saying it, in order to get more copies by provoking racism.

 

[Psychedelic Spartan]

Ugh. I'm Jewish and that's like me getting off of murder by saying "I killed that hooker because I'm not used to eating pork. I mean, what the hell?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

So, as the title states, England (or to be specific English court/judges), what the hell? How does the excuse "the women were not used to being drunk [because] [t]he Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol" sound logical? What does it matter what religion the accused practice? What about you escapist, what do you think about the situation?

I think we shouldn't trust the Daily Mail. Reading the article, it says that that was brought up in their defence. It also says:

"But he said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore as he tried to defend his girlfriend, and handed the defendants a suspended sentence."

Looks to me like the Daily Mail is doing its best to imply that was what got them off, without actually saying it, in order to get more copies by provoking racism.

how can that be racist, their defense was because of Islam, not because of their race/ethnicity

 

[Marc Marcus]

It is either that the judge is being secretly threatened or the judge is being a real life troll.

 

[YawningAngel]

So I was on another forum and somebody brought up this article about a group of girls that apparently went up to another girl and proceed to beat the crap out of her until the police came. The victim claims that,

"We were just minding our own business but they kept shouting ?white *****? and ?white slag? at me. When I turned around one of them grabbed my hair then threw me on the ground.
?They were taking turns to kick me over and over. I thought they were going to kill me."


However when it came to sentencing the "girl gang", the article states that:

"Ambaro Maxamed, 24, students Ayan Maxamed, 28, and Hibo Maxamed, 24, and their 28-year-old cousin Ifrah Nur each admitted actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years? imprisonment.

But Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes".

So, as the title states, England (or to be specific English court/judges), what the hell? How does the excuse "the women were not used to being drunk [because] [t]he Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol" sound logical? What does it matter what religion the accused practice? What about you escapist, what do you think about the situation?

Here is the article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html

I think you shouldn't go to the Daily Mail for coverage of Muslims for much the same reason that you shouldn't go to Al-Qaeda for coverage of the US government.

 

[Thaluikhain]

how can that be racist, their defense was because of Islam, not because of their race/ethnicity

True, though too many people use "Middle East" and "Islam" interchangably nowdays.

The title does specify the victim being white though, that's what I was getting at, though it might have been better to say islamophobia.

 

[SonicWaffle]

How does the excuse "the women were not used to being drunk [because] [t]he Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol" sound logical?

It doesn't. At all. However, the spin on the story makes out like the girls were let off because they were Muslims rather than because the judge believed their decision making skills were heavily impaired by the alcohol. It's still a load of bullshit, but the paper is attempting to make it bullshit that paints the judicial system as pro-Islam.

It's a very poor judgement, but not in any way indicative of how England is being overrun and conquered by Muslims as some (a depressingly large number, even) believe.

What does it matter what religion the accused practice?

Sadly, religion matters far more in this sort of situation than it ought to. It's often treated as central rather than incidental to a person's character. For example, in a case like this there are people who will see it as evidence not that these girls are yobby twats, but that all Muslims are aggressive and want to beat up "white slags".

 

[SonicWaffle]

Ugh. I'm Jewish and that's like me getting off of murder by saying "I killed that hooker because I'm not used to eating pork. I mean, what the hell?

Pretty sure pork doesn't have the same effect on people that alcohol does, even in large quantities

 

[Kukakkau]

So I've been properly drunk maybe twice in my life so if I commit a felony I can use that excuse? Sweet

This applies to everyone nobody besides hardcore alchohlics are "used" to being drunk.

They commited a hate crime there is no good excuse - punish them and let them reflect on their actions if it was because they were drunk.

EDIT: OH the daily mail - CREDIBLE SOURCE! -.-

 

[OriginalLadders]

Alcohol does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions; this is already well established in law. The judge is an idiot. Also, given what was shouted immediately before the attack the charge should have been racially aggravated assault.

Alcohol doesn't change your personality, it just diminishes your inhibitions. You do not suddenly change opinions; you're just more likely to voice the ones you already have when drunk. If a drunk person is shouting racial slurs; it's not because they are drunk but because they are racist.

EDIT: Ah, Daily Mail. Okay, until there's a link to an article on the same events from the BBC or the Guardian, I'm going to consider the story grade A bullshit.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Why do people take things like the The Sun, Daily Mail, and Huffington Post seriously, yet bash FOX News?

I'll just never understand some people I guess.

Didn't they have that comic called "Liberality for all" where Fox news is banned so the Democrats totally take over, and a bunch of ex-Fox newsreaders who are genetically superior superheroes have to stop UN Ambassador Osama Bin Laden from nuking New York on September 11 2021?

That might be it.

[small]Mind you, Ollie North has some sort of qualifications for a superhero comic, just not as a hero[/small]

 

[LordFisheh]

I wouldn't say this is a case of positive discrimination towards minorities. The sad fact is that nobody in Britain is imprisoned for this kind of crime, whatever their background. Apparently the prisons are full, but God knows what they're full of as casual, widespread, small scale crime like this is never punished.

Edit - Didn't realise it was Daily Fail. Chances are that the article is so skewed that the original story is unrecognisable.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

*ahem*
Daily Mail:
'We got big balls to print it, cos it's 60 pages of scary bullshit'

Daily Mail, i bet a lot was left out.
Plus, not the English courts fault, the judges fault.

Also, i could name 100 things that American courts do, and many other countries courts.

 

[Something Amyss]

Here is the article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html

I can't find this in any non-tabloid source that doesn't cite one of the two tabloids running with it.

Maybe you should hold off foaming at the mouth until then?