Life For 'White Man' Murder Gang

Today, at the Old Bailey, London, three British-born Pakistani men where sentenced to life for the murder of Christopher Yates, 30. The victim was attacked at the University of East London a year ago by the men, who had been on a violent, drink fuelled rampage throughout the day.

---

The reason I am posting this story is in response to a number of cases that have appeared recently of white men being prosecuted for racist crimes when other ethnicitys are involved, like the current Anthony Walker trial, but when the reverse happens, it is not a racist crime.

This is despite the three Asian assailiants boasting ""We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business."

Why does the law work one way and not the other? These men also racially abused a couple of Black men during the day, so in my opinion the crimes where most definately racially motivated.

The main reason I am upset is that if they had been found guilty of a racially motivated murder, they would have had a much stiffer sentence than the minimum 15 years they eventually received.


Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk

[edit on 28-11-2005 by asala]

Ok, before I get a whole host of "not right" U2U's, lets look at it from a Political/conspiracy angle.

Why do white people who attack/kill blacks get prosecuted for racist crimes, but when the opposite happens they do not?

Why wasn't it?

To be honest, there are a number of reasons.

Firstly, the defence lawyer has a job to do his best and attempt to make sure these people are not convicted. If they made it about a 'race crime', it can be argued in an appeal court that this was unfair especailly if the jury was primarily or all white.

Secondly, you have more to proove. You have to display that they set out with the intention of harming this person, because he was white and although the statement does indicate that it also has the line 'Paki business', which any half decent lawyer will rip to shreads. Making it seem a though they attacked him as an act of vengence for being involved with them, even attempting to get a lower prison sentence than the one they gained.

Thirdly, it can drag the time in court out even more and run the risk of creating jury apathy. After so many days or weeks, the Jury tend not to care anymore and their interest in the case slips. If you play it on 'race', it can make it even worse as you have to bring in witness after witness to the event, the people, friends who argue if they would have done such a crime as well as murder.

Wait a second...they are sentenced to life imprisonment and they only got to serve 15 years for killing this man?......

And they call this justice in the UK?....

BTW, it was a racist crime despite what the judge said.... PC is allowing criminals to have more rights than law abiding civilians......

Odium..

My point being specifically this Anthony Walker murder. There is as much evidence in this murder that it was racist as there is for Anthony's. So why do they not get prosecuted for it, but the white men in Mr Walkers case are?

Everybody's favorite person, Jesse Jackson, was on one of the news talk shows the other day, about the founder of the Crips that is on death row. Now they're trying to get his sentenced reduced from death to life, because he has wrotten some books, and talked to kids about staying out of gangs. One of the things that killed me that Jackson said was "He wasn't tried by a jury of his peers, because there wasn't one black man on that jury." If a white person said the same thing, or said "The jury wasn't a jury of his peers because they weren't all white" there would be screaming so loud you'd hear it in England without benefit of the news.The double standard is one of the things that really makes me really mad.

stumason, basically it'll be due to the appeal.

If you begin to play 'race' into it, if the Jury isn't mixed the defence lawyer will claim that this was unfair on them, the case was biased because they made the 'Asians' out to hate white people, etc, and they will either get a re-trial or the case will be thrown out both of which place these people back on the street.

Lawyers [CPS] are having to weight up how to argue cases and it is a shame, but it is normally easier to argue a white person is a racist. It is a sad fact of life mate and a major problem with the U.K. Legal System.

Not so much the legal system, but peoples perceptions and the whole PC garbage that is about corrupts the system.

On a side note, slightly related, is the Archbishop of Yorks recent statement that the English need to be proud of their Heritage and stop being ashamed. This is coming from a Black Ugandan! He says that whislt, admittedly, the Empire did do bad things, it also did many good things for people around the world and is not something to be ashamed of.

The analog of a black man saying that a jury wasn't fair because there were no black men on it would be a white man saying that a jury wasn't fair because there were no white men on it, which may be acceptable, and is dissimilar to saying that the jury wasn't fair because there weren't all white men on it. Right?

Zip

What are the hate crime laws in the UK? I know that the US has specific Hate Crime laws, what are they for the UK tho, is it a seperate legal offense or is there simply more coverage when its Whites killing Non-Whites and thus a stiffer penalty?

Nygdan, it is covered in "Section 144-146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003".

Here is the full text to the document.


...and here is a link to Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is the main hate-crime document.

I hope this helps you all out.

They do seem to have more coverage. PC has gone mad in the UK, to the point where we cancel Christmas lights for fear of offending immigrants.

No PC Christmas lights to be axed

What a bunch of crackheads.

If they disliked white people so much, why didn't they go back to their #ty countries?

Ok ? hence the reason I can't believe people who don't understand why some of us get so fired up about people being sentenced to death row for murder.

Go figure

15 YEARS???

Thats all Christopher Yates life is worth I guess......

If it was white men doing the crime against these Muslims, you can bet there would be a non-stop media assault and Im sure the Muslims would riot in the streets if this light sentence was handed down.

Stu is right...England is PC crazy and so is our country.

Maximu§

The UK has indeed gone 'PC' CRAZY.

Why is it acceptable for there to exist in the UK an organisation called 'The Association of Black Police Officers'?

You can bet that they would never allow a corresponding organisation for white police officers.

The country is fast becoming a laughing stock in an attempt to ensure that nobody is discriminated against and by allowing ethnic minority groups like this to reinforce their identity rather than encouraging them to try to be British.

I predict that in the not too distant future, when you call the police for assistance in the UK, you will be asked whether you would like a white, black, Asian or Chinese officer to respond to your emergency situation.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Englishman_in_Spain]

Simple/obvious answer would be the history between them, people still refer to it and even use it as an excuse to this day..



Wow, your quick to judge (especially when it comes to Muslims)...
Where does it exactly say these guys are Muslims? All I noticed regarding race/nationality/religion is "British-born Pakistani".

Pakistan is almost entirely muslim.
The men are named Imran Maqsood, Zahid Bashir and Sajid Zulfiqar.
They shouted "We killed the white man." in Urdu.

All indications point to them being muslim.

If you still need further evidence, here's another article from the BBC:

- Well, it might help if some of you guys understood how this works before racing off to rage on in ignorance.

Under UK law these men have been sentenced to 'life'.
That might turn out to actually mean their entire life.

However, under UK law the trial Judge also must to set a minimum time at which point these men might be considered for any kind of early release.
Hence the 15 years mentioned.

In other words these men have not been sentenced to 'just' 15 years.
These men must serve a minimum of 15 years before any question of an early release can even be considered.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for how come the Judge said this wasn't a racial crime?

Here's what he had to say -

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 1-12-2005 by sminkeypinkey]