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

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Well, im not so sure. Maybe I should be more wary of english newspapers. Its been ages since I was in Britain so I dont really know which newspapers make up stories for the lolz and which dont.
That would be the Sport, it's hilarious. They were the ones who revealed the other week that Gaddafi was secretly a woman, and that all her sprees of violence coincided with her period. They don't give a fuck, and make up anything for the hell of it because they know nobody takes them seriously.

Other papers tend to report the truth, but massage it or only shows a single angle. Like the article that sparked off this thread - it was treated as a "Muslims get preferential treatment!" issue when it was actually nothing of the sort. They don't usually make things up, they just report them in a really misleading fashion.
 

JordanMillward_1

New member
May 19, 2009
263
0
0
Reishadowen said:
Sigh...I have a bad feeling I'm going to be getting a word or two with the mods after this post...

Volf99 said:
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".
Let me give you guys a hint: They weren't excused because the Judge believed their "We weren't used to alcohol!" nonsense. They were excused because a guilty verdict would upset the muslim population of England, and God forbid that we should treat them equally.

Yes, a verdict of innocent would upset the non-muslim group, but so far muslims as a whole seem to be the only ones who threaten "I'LL KILL YOU!" at the barest hint of every slight. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a muslim in America or Europe getting punished for a crime, and you heard something else besides muslim nations denouncing the decision, and the news footage panning over a crowd of a gajillion angry muslims with "death to the west"-ish signs?
THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY!

Do you not know what a suspended sentence is? It means that they were found guilty, sentenced to time in prison, but that sentence is suspended for a period of time (depending on the crime, judge, etc), and will only come into effect should that person commit another crime and be found guilty, in which case both sentences (the suspended one, and the new one) would be cumulative.

Seriously, why do people bother commenting on stuff they know nothing about, when it just makes them look like they don't know what they're talking about?
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
JordanMillward_1 said:
Seriously, why do people bother commenting on stuff they know nothing about, when it just makes them look like they don't know what they're talking about?
Speaking as one who does that all the time, it's because my life is empty and I'm sad so I reach out desperate for any human contact even if it is negative. Now, how about that local sports team you like? I hear they suck.
 

Savryc

NAPs, Spooks and Poz. Oh my!
Aug 4, 2011
395
0
0
Erm, this is England remember? Pathetic slaps on the wrist are pretty much the default sentence these days so yeah, just because they are Muslims means this is newsworthy?

Typical tabloid bullshit.
 

JordanMillward_1

New member
May 19, 2009
263
0
0
Father Time said:
JordanMillward_1 said:
Daystar Clarion said:
This is what it must feel like when a doctor is sorrounded by people who are talking about medicine, when they have no fucking clue what the hell they're on about.

As a law & criminology graduate, the amount of ignorance and outright bigotry in this thread disgusts me.
Same here, I'm utterly disgusted with the amount of racism here at the Escapist,
Muslim is not a race. In fact I don't actually remember anyone reporting on their race.

JordanMillward_1 said:
2) Extremely minor injuries can be covered by Actual Bodily Harm, including minor cuts, scratches, abrasions, and other wounds you'd get from just tripping up yourself. This suggests that she barely suffered any injuries
Instead of pulling speculation out of your ass why not read the articles.

Multiple kicks to the head from multiple people, black and blue all over, a bald spot from having her hair pulled clean out, and covered in blood. Oh yes this is barely any injuries at all.

Yeah that sounds like the injuries you'd sustain from tripping ... directly onto a cactus.

JordanMillward_1 said:
3) Anyone could use the reasoning of "I'd never drunk alcohol before, I didn't know how great an effect it'd have on me" as a mitigating circumstance in a court, as long as you can prove it to be true. It actually applies to most drugs - if you have a severe reaction to a drug, whether you take it willingly or not, it is possible, at the judge's discretion, as to whether he'll accept it as a mitigating circumstance.
So I really can go to England, get drunk, beat the shit out of someone and then blame the alcohol? England has a fucked up judicial system then.
The law in the UK equates racism and insults/discrimination based on religion as one and the same. So yes, they are being the religious equivalent of racists.

As I said, if the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) had thought she had suffered serious injury, they'd have charged the girls with Grievous Bodily Harm. They didn't, which suggests that the article (which is the Daily Mail, and therefore prone to hyperbole and lies) is being hyperbolic over the injuries.

As for the the "drunk" mitigation - no. Voluntary intoxication can only be used as a mitigating circumstance if it is judged that the effect that the intoxicant had on the defendant was greater than normally expected, or it effected their behaviour in a greater way than expected. In this case, it was judged that, because the girls had never drunk before, the alcohol effected them in a greater way than an average person, and so that was taken into account.

This is based on my knowledge of British law (being a graduate in it myself, as well as currently studying a Masters in the subject), and the way the judicial system usually operates. In this case, since you seem to suggest that you are not British, I would humbly put forward that I would know more about my nation's legal and judicial system than yourself, which is obviously not a fault of your own, but means that you seem to not fully understand how our justice system works.

Obviously, neither of us can have a conclusive view of the case until such time as the transcripts or case files are released, and I look forward to reading them if/when they are released for reading. I'd certainly like to see exactly what was said in court, so I can make an informed decision upon my opinion of the judge's findings.
 

JordanMillward_1

New member
May 19, 2009
263
0
0
SonicWaffle said:
JordanMillward_1 said:
Seriously, why do people bother commenting on stuff they know nothing about, when it just makes them look like they don't know what they're talking about?
Speaking as one who does that all the time, it's because my life is empty and I'm sad so I reach out desperate for any human contact even if it is negative. Now, how about that local sports team you like? I hear they suck.
I don't actually like sports all that much - politics and law are much more interesting to me.

I know, I'm a bad Englishman... *hangs his head in shame*

I do sort of support Liverpool though! And yea, they do suck sometimes, but they're doing better!
 

Fleischer

New member
Jan 8, 2011
218
0
0
OP: I've watched the video a few times. It's a disturbing event; however, I have yet to see a news report from a trustworthy source. Until then, I am not putting any credence into what the Daily News is reporting.

Heimir said:
Ive met wonderful and nice people who are arabic and muslim. But in my experience, throughout my school years and observations made throughout life to his point has been negative. Prime example, the said wonderful people are our family friends. So they brought my mom along to their mosque for some big get together. Because they were friends, thats what friends do. Sure she got some odd looks, acceptable, she was the only non-muslim and white person present. However afterwards when my mother had left. A group approached her(My mothers friend) and told her never to bring her again. When she asked why, they said because she is swedish. Being a person of strong principles she left that congregation/group shortly thereafter, effectivley becoming excommunicated for not being a bigot like the rest.

On plenty occassions arabs and muslims will curse or taunt white/swedish people as they walk past them in arabic wearing serpent smiles. Same woman again stood up for my mom. 2 arab young men walked by the two and one faced them and called her a "Swedish whore" a very common term used every day by immigrants to describe swedish women, more often than not to peoples faces. Whereas her friend scolded them. Not that it changes anything. She's a good person, they are not.

Prime example from my younger years would be the daily berrating(spelling?), violence and threat of violence from muslim arabs towards whites, almost specifically always. Apart from the occassional gang vs gang crap (not common here, but is basicly the only time they don't pick on or mess with people of european descent).

Schools do not do anything about it. Nor does the government. If a white person retorts to an immigrant after being insulted or offended racially/ethnicaly or religiously that person will get punished for being a racist and then stigmatized for it. But if you are brown/black and muslim you can do whatever you like because no one will lift a single finger in fear of being labeled a racist.

And you can look on norwegian police reports and statistics of who commit the vast majority of gangrapes and aggrevated assaults upon innocents. Arabs, somali's and muslims. That is when its racially motivated, wich it always is. Don't bother with swedish media though, they cover up everything all in the name of political correctness, because only swedish people can be racist. If a swedish person commits a violent crime, their face, name and age will be in the newspaper. If a non-white immigrant commits a crime ,no info at all. Only "A young male adult with an accent bla bla bla". They are also immune to criticism and everyone who even questions anything about their culture or religion or anything whatsoever is censored and silenced.

Are all of them like this? Ofcourse not but increasing numbers of them are. Shit, jews have all but left Malmö due to persecution by the muslim immigrants. If anything, they are intolerant nazi'esque scum who get preferrable treatment by the government. They are also usually rude, loud and obnoxious, so if you wish, we can trade them for yours. They seem much more pleasant people.

And im not a racist, this isn't inherent genetical traits we are talking about, they are caused by tradition and culture (i use those terms loosely). Call me a bigot if you wish, couldn't care less. I have nothing but contempt for them and little will make that change.

The list goes on, but thinking about it puts me in a foul mood and takes away energy I could've used to watch porn or eat something. Take my word for it that ive tried to like them and meet them with an open mind. But he more I meet them, the less I like them.
The story of your mother and her friend warmed my heart. I'm glad some people, such as your mother's friend, are brave enough to stand against intolerance, standing for their beliefs more than public opinion. From the ending of your post, I am hearing you are feeling unwelcome by people. I may be an educator an ocean away from you, but I would not tolerate such behavior. My school district has a firm policy against bullying.

If people only followed that damn simply rule - do onto others as you want others to do unto you, we'd have a lot of this crap sorted out.

Also, I think you were trying to use the word "berated."
 

Mark Chipperfield

New member
Jan 17, 2011
40
0
0
I think that if they are going to live in my country then they should abide by the rules, if they don't then they should gtfo.
 

JordanMillward_1

New member
May 19, 2009
263
0
0
maninahat said:
Ah, you ninja'd me. And infar more eloquent terms, I might add.

Thank goodness there are at least some escapists who aren't knee-jerking idiots.
I'm glad that a little injection of actual legal knowledge is appreciated. Thank you, yourself, for not then deciding to jump on me and start making unfounded accusations.

Thank goodness there are at least some escapists who actually appreciate reasoned, informed debate.
 

Buccura

New member
Aug 13, 2009
813
0
0
Yet another reason political correctness is cancer. And don't try to tell me that isn't what this is about.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
Buccura said:
Yet another reason political correctness is cancer. And don't try to tell me that isn't what this is about.
That isn't was this is about.



Courtesy of Jordanmillward_1

1) In the UK, unless you have committed a major crime, you will almost always get a suspended sentence for your first offence, regardless of who you are, what your beliefs are, whatever;

2) Extremely minor injuries can be covered by Actual Bodily Harm, including minor cuts, scratches, abrasions, and other wounds you'd get from just tripping up yourself. This suggests that she barely suffered any injuries; and

3) Anyone could use the reasoning of "I'd never drunk alcohol before, I didn't know how great an effect it'd have on me" as a mitigating circumstance in a court, as long as you can prove it to be true. It actually applies to most drugs - if you have a severe reaction to a drug, whether you take it willingly or not, it is possible, at the judge's discretion, as to whether he'll accept it as a mitigating circumstance.
 

Charli

New member
Nov 23, 2008
3,445
0
0
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
The whole thing reeks of fake or blown up by the Daily Mail, but I will say this...

I see them wearing make up and not covering their hair.

They obviously don't follow Islam, so it should not be a valid defense for them.
Truth, what a terrible misjudgment, I hope they're properly vindicated by the community because that is just despicable. As would the crime be in a reversed situation.

Law and Religion do not encroach on one another in England, no Christian can plead bible commandments when committing a wrong doing so this is just in terrible taste. I don't care how Zealous the Islamic people are, about their religion, if they don't like how our practices work I suggest they adjust or move to a country that has it's laws and society based around Islam. Not enjoy the benefits and dangers of our arguably more relaxed views on Holy Writ from over 2000 years ago and then turn around and use religion as an excuse afterwards.

Drinking? Exposure of Skin and Hair?

Ladies please. You'd have your hands cut off and faces disfigured before being stoned before you knew what was happening. You want to go down that route? Okay girls, lets do it right.

Buccura said:
3) Anyone could use the reasoning of "I'd never drunk alcohol before, I didn't know how great an effect it'd have on me"
Being Islamic should have played no part in the plea then. And true the daily mail does tend to jump on religion as a rule so until I know what took place, not that I'm probably going to, I'll reserve judgement but I still feel the ruling was a mite dumb.
 

Phoenixlight

New member
Aug 24, 2008
1,169
0
0
What the fuck, I thought yeah ok it's because it happened in a piece of shit country like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia but ENGLAND?!!? There's no way this should have happened.
 

JordanMillward_1

New member
May 19, 2009
263
0
0
Charli said:
Buccura said:
3) Anyone could use the reasoning of "I'd never drunk alcohol before, I didn't know how great an effect it'd have on me"
Being Islamic should have played no part in the plea then. And true the daily mail does tend to jump on religion as a rule so until I know what took place, not that I'm probably going to, I'll reserve judgement but I still feel the ruling was a mite dumb.
You misquoted - I said that.

And it didn't take part in the plea at all. All that has happened is, from what I've read, that they made the plea for mitigating circumstances based on intoxication, and when asked why voluntary intoxication should be accepted, they indicated that they had never drunk alcohol before, because they were Muslim. It was merely used as a qualifying statement, as a reason for why they'd never drunk alcohol before.

Sure, they could have left it out and it'd have been the same, but why not point out the reason for you never drinking before? It's just the same as saying "My parents were strict Baptists", or "My parents were teetotalers, and never allowed us to drink". Why should it just be Muslims that aren't allowed to give reasons for not drinking previously?

If all of the article never mentioned that they were Muslim, I can guarantee there wouldn't be nearly this much bigoted uproar on the forums, and the Daily Mail wouldn't have printed it (and no one else would), because it would have been entirely un-newsworthy.

The only reason this has been printed is because the Daily Mail knew it could spin it into "THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT COS THEY ARE MUSLIM!", and the majority of people here seem to be dancing away to that tune without a care in the world, despite the judgement having nothing to do with them being Muslim, and they were still found guilty, which means the Mail got what it wanted - more people saying nasty things about non-white people and being bigots.
 

Brawndo

New member
Jun 29, 2010
2,165
0
0
I don't know British law, but the judge's ruling definitely fails my bullshit test.

However, what distresses me more than the ruling is the fact that any event like this where Muslims are the bad guys (or girls in this case) are exploited to the ends of the earth by political groups opposed to immigrants and/or Muslims, like the BNP and EDL.

Here's what I think about this: every ethno-religious group is going to have a minority of criminals, racists, thugs, rapists, and murderers who should be condemned, but the sooner we stop trying to extrapolate their behavior towards an entire group, the better.
 

Stublore

New member
Dec 16, 2009
128
0
0
JordanMillward_1 said:
As for the the "drunk" mitigation - no. Voluntary intoxication can only be used as a mitigating circumstance if it is judged that the effect that the intoxicant had on the defendant was greater than normally expected, or it effected their behaviour in a greater way than expected. In this case, it was judged that, because the girls had never drunk before, the alcohol effected them in a greater way than an average person, and so that was taken into account.
So based upon what you have said, in British Law, the first time someone gets drunk, and then proceeds to break the law, they have pretty much a free pass??
Or at least something that will weigh very heavily in the mitigating circumstances defence?
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
Stublore said:
JordanMillward_1 said:
As for the the "drunk" mitigation - no. Voluntary intoxication can only be used as a mitigating circumstance if it is judged that the effect that the intoxicant had on the defendant was greater than normally expected, or it effected their behaviour in a greater way than expected. In this case, it was judged that, because the girls had never drunk before, the alcohol effected them in a greater way than an average person, and so that was taken into account.
So based upon what you have said, in British Law, the first time someone gets drunk, and then proceeds to break the law, they have pretty much a free pass??
Or at least something that will weigh very heavily in the mitigating circumstances defence?


The women in this story didn't get a free pass, they were convicted, so I don't know where this bullshit about them 'getting away with it' came from.

They have suspended sentences and community service, which means that if they commit an offence before it's up, they go to prison, no matter how minor.
 

Stublore

New member
Dec 16, 2009
128
0
0
Isn't the Telegraph considered a reputable paper in the UK?
I always thought it was streets above the Daily Mail, and it's also reporting the same story, so how do those who dismiss the story on the basis of :
"Oh, it's the Daily Mail, so we can pretty much dismiss it a false" say?
Granted I may be completely off in my assumption of the Telgraph's integrity compared to the Daily Fail.
A longer version than the OP link to the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8937856/Muslim-women-not-used-to-drinking-walk-free-after-attack-on-woman.html
This somewhat baffling comment struck me:
"Gary Short, defending Ambaro Maxamed, said the attack was down to alcohol.
He said: "Although Miss Page's partner used violence, it doesn't justify their behaviour.
"They're Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn't something they're used to."
Why did he refer to drugs, I understand the alcohol comment, but not the drugs part.
 

DanDeFool

Elite Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
41
Midgeamoo said:
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.
If it's any consolation, I did not think this post had anything to do with England, the country. I thought it might have even taken place in the Middle East, like some unruly throng of Saudi women got a little too excited and punched some English tourist in the jowls. But if that were the case, we would all be upset because the Muslim women all got the death penalty for not coming when their husbands called them, or whatever.