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

[Brawndo]

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]

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?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Stublore]

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.

I would think most reasonable people think a suspended sentence is pretty much the same as getting off, especially when the offence is a violent one.
Perhaps a better description would be got off lightly?

 

[DanDeFool]

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.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Brawndo. That's really all this story amounts to: exploitation. Muslims are just easy targets right now because their belief system is so closely tied with violent radicalism and so much of their belief system chafes against the ideals of the western world (like in my reply above).

 

[SodaDew]

Wow! and here I thought that the U.S was the only ones sucking up to the Muslims! But, still religion shouldn't impact sentencing in court.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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.

Yeah, I dunno how people equate a suspended sentence with 'getting off free'. Your conviction is still recorded and up until the day the suspension ends, any trouble you get in can result in you serving the custodial sentence in full.

I was on a 2 year suspended sentemce amd good behaviour bond once (the GBB is the part in Oz where if you fuck up, you get to have your custodial sentence reinstated) and that was 2 years I near-to sweated blood any time the filth were around (anytime shit kicks off and I'm anywhere near it the filth really REALLY take an interest in me. I guess I just have that kind of face). Kept my fucking nose clean, I can tell you. Hell, even severed all ties with some of shadier people I knew because I didn't want any of their shit splashing on me while I had 2 years hanging over my head.

Oh yeah, and with a recorded conviction there's a lot of shit you can't do, especially if the conviction involved 'crimes against the person' (as opposed to crimes against property). Essentially you get the same treatment as some who's on parole, with all the bullshit that entails.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

Yeah, I dunno how people equate a suspended sentence with 'getting off free'. Your conviction is still recorded and up until the day the suspension ends, any trouble you get in can result in you serving the custodial sentence in full.

I was on a 2 year suspended sentemce amd good behaviour bond once (the GBB is the part in Oz where if you fuck up, you get to have your custodial sentence reinstated) and that was 2 years I near-to sweated blood any time the filth were around (anytime shit kicks off and I'm anywhere near it the filth really REALLY take an interest in me. I guess I just have that kind of face). Kept my fucking nose clean, I can tell you. Hell, even severed all ties with some of shadier people I knew because I didn't want any of their shit splashing on me while I had 2 years hanging over my head.

Oh yeah, and with a recorded conviction there's a lot of shit you can't do, especially if the conviction involved 'crimes against the person' (as opposed to crimes against property). Essentially you get the same treatment as some who's on parole, with all the bullshit that entails.

Exactly. It's not a light punishment, but it's preferable to the tax payer paying for your prison sentence when it's not really necessary, so there's space to, you know, keep the really bad people in there.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I would think most reasonable people think a suspended sentence is pretty much the same as getting off, especially when the offence is a violent one.
Perhaps a better description would be got off lightly?

Not really. A suspended sentence is most often the Courts' way of trying to give you a big reality check. People who get suspended sentences pretty much view them in one of two ways - either they realise how badly they fucked up and how close they came to serving real time (which is a massive fucking shock to most people) or they think they're clever fucks who got away with it... the first is way more common and the second usually fuck up again in short order and get to have their time in prison anyway.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Exactly. It's not a light punishment, but it's preferable to the tax payer paying for your prison sentence when it's not really necessary, so there's space to, you know, keep the really bad people in there.

And they can always stick you in prison if you fuck up again while your suspension/bond is still active...

Not to mention the actual conviction will hang over your head for the rest of your life.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Exactly. It's not a light punishment, but it's preferable to the tax payer paying for your prison sentence when it's not really necessary, so there's space to, you know, keep the really bad people in there.

And they can always stick you in prison if you fuck up again while your suspension/bond is still active...

Not to mention the actual conviction will hang over your head for the rest of your life.

The scary thing is, with the way most people react to suspended sentences, they give me the impression that everyone should either be lynched, thrown into prison for the rest of their lives, or executed.

It's hilarious.

Fucking scary, but hilarious.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The scary thing is, with the way most people react to suspended sentences, they give me the impression that everyone should either be lynched, thrown into prison for the rest of their lives, or executed.

It's hilarious.

Fucking scary, but hilarious.

I find it pathetic because I've known several of the type who've found themselves in trouble with the filth and by fuck did they change their tune.

What I find hilarious is that when most people of that sort get into trouble with the law their biggest objection is being treated like a criminal... Guess what, sparky? As far as the filth are concerned, you ARE a criminal.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The scary thing is, with the way most people react to suspended sentences, they give me the impression that everyone should either be lynched, thrown into prison for the rest of their lives, or executed.

It's hilarious.

Fucking scary, but hilarious.

I find it pathetic because I've known several of the type who've found themselves in trouble with the filth and by fuck did they change their tune.

What I find hilarious is that when most people of that sort get into trouble with the law their biggest objection is being treated like a criminal... Guess what, sparky? As far as the filth are concerned, you ARE a criminal.

Yeah, there have been several papers in the past to report on the living conditions of prisons, comparing them to 'holiday camps'.

I wonder how many of them would say that after a stint inside.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Yeah, there have been several papers in the past to report on the living conditions of prisons, comparing them to 'holiday camps'.

I wonder how many of them would say that after a stint inside.

I mostly wonder what kind of fucked up holiday camps they went to.

Those so-called journalists writing those reports rarely mention that those 'luxury' accomodations are minimum security and/or remand custody only.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

On the other hand if you behave, at the end of your probation you can apply for a full discharge and your conviction is sealed and you will be treated as if you had no record (so it won't show on a criminal reference check, you can still travel to other countries, etc)

Typical fucking Canadians, always having to go that one step further and be more civilised than everyone else.

Wait... Travel to other countries? Oh, you mean like Visa checks run by other countries not passport qualification, yes? Otherwise that'd be a bit fucked up.

 

[mega48man]

what the hell? THIS IS F**KING BULLSHIT!!! pardon my french but WHAT THE F**KING PASTRY RAPIST **** IS THAT ALL ABOUT!?!? i don't give a damn what religion you are, if you break the laws of whatever country/state/province/colony/cobra ruled nation you're in, you must be punished! that's the law! except for protesting here in america; i still can't figure out why cops don't respect our people's freedom of assembley, free speech, and the right to question the government which is a right that the god damn founding fathers gave us. but that doesn't included racial violence!!! maybe this is WHY drinking isn't permitted in the Quran (spelt with a Q you ignorant bastard. i'm a white atheist and even i know that) because maybe, just maybe, Muhammed recognized the effects of alcohol when he lived in poverty on the streets and watched the corruption of man go by and saw that GETTING WASTED CAN LEAD TO MISTAKES. doesn't taking a f**king prophet to see that, not that i'm against drinking, i'm drinking as i type this, just don't spend your earnings at the bar with your sisters plus 1 cousin so you can banter about the white man to each other.

seriously, what the f**k england, what the f**k? the image that brings to my mind is that scene from Sweeny Todd when Alan Rickman (the corrupt judge) sentences the young boy to death just because he can. in america, we have hippies and disenchanted college students with video phones to prevent that sort of thing. and guns, we have guns, that gave us dirty harry, thank god.

 

[Astoria]

"I'm going to let this girls off because I don't want to look rac- *cough* because they aren't used to alcohol"

I really really hope this isn't true.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Sounds like a racially motivated attack from the article. Those girls should be locked up for causing grevious bodily harm, because that is precisely what they did. Disgraceful that the judge let them walk, more so that they played the muslim card. It is irrelevant whether or not they "were used to drinking". The facts seem to be that they were drunk, they chose to make themselves that way, they assaulted a girl because of her skin colour and proceeded to slur racial epiphets at her. Judge is moron who should be disbarred for perverting justice.