Muslim girl gang who kicked young woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' escape jai

page: 20
60
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sunshinesmile
Multiculturalism has worked without major problems for many many years. Countries such as the USA, Great Britain, France, Australia and Germany have grown strong and free with generations of hard working migrants... until the last 5 or 7 years. Hmmmm, can anyone tell me what has changed during this time? Or, more specifically, what religion/ race has changed the dynamic of every country it enters by aggressively spreading to every stable nation on earth and doing their best to piss the locals off and NOT fit in? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

...or do I have to point out the elephant in the room?


Er... Muslims have migrated to the USA, Great Britain, France, Australia and Germany for decades, yet you say the dynamic has changed in the last 5 to 7 years ?


Has it not crossed your mind that you are just a victim of hysterical anti-Muslim propaganda which has exploded since the 11th of September terrorist attacks ?

The ''5 to 7 years'' in which you bizarrely claim the dynamic of Western countries has changed, falls right in the middle of ''the war on terror''/anti-Muslim paranoia.

Sorry, but you've been duped.




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I'll make this the last one because I simply can't be bothered and I don't have time...

Again I say I bet you live in a nice settled peaceful area and you have no clue about the street level fear re this subject, the point being that it explains some of the comments made by people on here and its sad that some see, SOME of these people are being bannered by people like you as racist (no, I didn't say you said it about me but it was lightly inferred ).

Do you know what its like to live on a council estate where you have gangs galore?

Please follow me on this, there is a point and its in keeping with the subject.

Are you racially intimidated daily?

Do you have Muslim gangs calling your wife a whore or kaffur when she's on here own?

Do you get sneered at when walking up the main high street by Muslim men and women?

No?

Well my wife and I do as do many non Muslims on here, please don't be thoroughly boring and ask me for proof, I'm not a liar despite multiple attempts to suggest I was in you post two above the last one, nor was I uninformed, if I can be arsed I'll get the details of the Muslim only swim nights later, the necklace bit was about ward staff and cleaners, not the Doctors who for perfectly good reason do not wear stuff like that.

Anyway, back to the point as I'm not going to play the 'he's behind you' game with the facts.

Here in South Harrow which is a predominantly Asian area the Muslim radicals treat my wife and I and the non muslims like dirt, Police rarely patrol our estate despite me locking horns with them, my wife an I are selected for some extra abuse because its a mixed marriage, I'm white and she's British born (same hospital as my daughter) but of South American parents which is of an Asian bloodline if you trace it back. We are stared at, spat at, get verbal abuse but as I'm a pretty large chap they do not get physical with us.

Now we also get some abuse from elderly Asians who don't approve of mixed marriages but the brunt of our abuse is by radicals, the abuse by racist whites fizzled out years ago.

So, like it or not that sort of abuse in the country you grew up in does affect some and through ignorance will grace the BNP or EDL, both of whom people really should NOT go near with a barge pole unless you want to be presumed to be a loud thuggish drunken yob who shouts Paki and salutes in Nazi style, not all of them are like that but MANY are.

Other will rightly feel very threatened so are totally frustrated when some government idiot starts patronising them, they also feel just as frustrated when others who live a fancy middle class lifestyle start calling them racist or islamophobes.

That's the reason you get certain styles of reply re this case, they don't care if it was the defence lawyer, the judge or the 4 yobs used the Muslim non drinker type defence, they despise that it was allowed to be used in a court of law, the term Muslim should NEVER have been allowed to be used, non drinker who had taken drink yes but the second Muslim is allowed to be mentioned as would any religion or culture it taints the case to the watching public.

Forget the Daily Mail (that's what its called, we don't need snobbish slangs here) and any media rabble rousing, what people saw was a group of 4 girls who 'ganged' up (hence the usage of gang by some) on two people targeting the female in a 4 on 1 cowardly prolonged attack, the CCTV in itself showed that they were not as drunk as claimed, one staged being drunk for the camera when the Police came and the louts tried to blame the two people. That alone should have been enough to give these girls some sort of limited custodial sentence as a warning to stop that sort of cowardly stuff. But no, a normally tee total defence was brought up which apart form trying to prove good normal character had nothing to do with the vicious assault.

We were not privy to any Police previous on these girls, we can see from the Facebook pages that these are NOT devout Muslim girls and simply because they did drink proves this, hence mentioning Muslim was of no importance but we do know that Police and courts are told to be politically sensitive (don't argue on that, its true and you damn well know it) so the inclusion of Muslim was to appeal to that line.

Clever I'll grant you but very very offensive to the average poor sod on the street who gets abused by radicals, who see other countries being divided into cultural ghettos with the streets in Paris being taken over against the law and hearing how some Nordic countries have been seen to fudge the numbers of rape to keep the peace.

They see that and it scares them, forget the speed it IS happening at (faster than most would admit) but they don't want that here so Muslim does frighten, they are scared, not racist.

They object to people like you saying such..The louts got away with it



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Er... Muslims have migrated to the USA, Great Britain, France, Australia and Germany for decades, yet you say the dynamic has changed in the last 5 to 7 years ?


Has it not crossed your mind that you are just a victim of hysterical anti-Muslim propaganda which has exploded since the 11th of September terrorist attacks ?

The ''5 to 7 years'' in which you bizarrely claim the dynamic of Western countries has changed, falls right in the middle of ''the war on terror''/anti-Muslim paranoia.

Sorry, but you've been duped.


Ok, last one...sigh..

Its you actually who have duped, you actually believe what this and past governments have told you, you decide because you feel you are better educated (a seriously ignorant attitude) that you know and understand the issue better but as per my previous post I feel you actually have no idea at the ground level what its like.

Yes, Muslims including my in laws and their families have spread across the world for decades, in those days these were hard working and often well educated individuals whose faith was important to them but they had not been radicalised.

Long before 9/11 the more sadistic and radical side of Islam had started to grow and be seen, the West had been hated for countless years before but it was done FROM those countries and not being spread by immigration here.

Yes 9/11 scared people and introduced the Mad Muslim in peoples minds but apart from the media who is really to blame for that, I'd say the US in the hands of Bush started that hatred, people may take the simple ideal that one guy in a cave sorted 9/11 out but we know that there's so much more behind how it got to that state, who was funding these people, who put them in a place of power initially etc etc etc.

But 9/11 kick stared the prominence and push of radical Islam, Saudi and associates decided to spread the Shariah side which by nature is totally against the Western way of life so at odd's with us). Like it or not people were indoctrinated into moving to the West with the sole aim of converting or spreading Shariah Islam to the West, don't take my word which is accurate, watch Saudi TV, they go on about their wishes daily...

And please, don't be so silly as to suggest its all a media head job, most media is actually asked to stay clear of Anti Islam material incase they get that article 10? notice slapped on them. What people do see on TV on SKY BBC etc are streets full of rather aggressive Muslims screaming abuse at both the West and the country they are in, to suggest all this is staged would be mind blowingly daft, like it or not in the last few years the Islamic Shariah movement had started taking a hold, Saudi is financing mega mosques across the US, a lot in places that have very few Muslims to worship in, these are self integrated camps, there's no wish to integrate beyond the Shariah community.

These camps and the push for Shariah control is very very real, the ground level militants almost froth with the notion of control, I've chatted to some of these especially the converts and they are so Anti West it bordering on mania, whilst these are only little foot soldiers they DO have backing from Saudi, the Mosques (ever been to one?) have more and more direct from Saudi broadcasts in a VERY anti West nature, they have clerics coming over from Saudi who are dictating the line in the Mosques. How do I know, I've bee to Mosques on a regular basis with my mother in law, she by duty goes there on a friday to pray but is alarmed at what she see's. I've spoken to the Iman's, some treated me like a leper but others confided in me that the direction the mosques are taking is not one that they really want, the outside influence is growing.

And outside these Mosques you have the fully radical extremists giving leaflets, offering conversion and preaching hate, the Mosques are too frightened to move them on and others Mosques have been fully radicalised and welcome them.

This is happening all over the UK and in fact the Western world, you can close your eye's and believe the politicians all you want but RADICAL Islam is here and its well financed, the so called Moderates are not the nice friendly gentlemen they claim to be, they are here to make steady political in roads, the only thing moderate with them is their dress sense, pretty much all have their hands very much in the Shariah camp.

So yes, people are worried..

So yes, this is out there no matter how much you deem to play it down.

Don't take my word for it, ask the normal Muslims on here if any of what I say is a lie or exaggeration?

You'll find that these normal Muslims are unhappy with the radicals, they use the name of the religion, taint it and pretend they follow the book. More and more Muslims are going on rallies declaring their distance from these people, they can see the hatred these apparently non existent to you people are causing for them and us.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by sunshinesmile
Multiculturalism has worked without major problems for many many years. Countries such as the USA, Great Britain, France, Australia and Germany have grown strong and free with generations of hard working migrants... until the last 5 or 7 years. Hmmmm, can anyone tell me what has changed during this time? Or, more specifically, what religion/ race has changed the dynamic of every country it enters by aggressively spreading to every stable nation on earth and doing their best to piss the locals off and NOT fit in? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

...or do I have to point out the elephant in the room?


Er... Muslims have migrated to the USA, Great Britain, France, Australia and Germany for decades, yet you say the dynamic has changed in the last 5 to 7 years ?


Has it not crossed your mind that you are just a victim of hysterical anti-Muslim propaganda which has exploded since the 11th of September terrorist attacks ?

The ''5 to 7 years'' in which you bizarrely claim the dynamic of Western countries has changed, falls right in the middle of ''the war on terror''/anti-Muslim paranoia.

Sorry, but you've been duped.



Errr, I didn't say Muslim, you did. What makes you think I was talking about Muslims? You have just shot yourself in the foot my friend....



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Okay, if it has no relevance then it NEVER has any.


It has no relevance to the sentencing because the accused were not charged with, or convicted of, a racially-aggravated assault. A judge can not sentence people for a crime which they have not been charged with/convicted of.


Originally posted by Aeons
Either it matters, or it doesn't.


It doesn't matter. Any racial slurs which were alleged to have been used, and which were heard during evidence, should have absolutely no bearing on how the judge sentences someone for the assault. If the judge had given them a stiffer sentence based on the alleged racism of the perpetrators, then he would have been sentencing them for racially-aggravated assault - a crime which they were not charged with.

That's what the poster who I was debating this with appeared to be getting confused about. He appeared to want them sentenced for a racially-motivated assault, even so they were not charged with this crime.


Originally posted by Aeons
Are you saying that if this was the other way around this wouldn't be considered a hate crime as well?


I doubt it would be any different.

While everyone is getting hot under the collar about black Muslims not being charged with a racially motivated attack, they are letting their emotions and prejudices get in the way of a rational and critical appraisal of the case.

Rather than a knee-jerk, automatic assumption that this case is evidence of some kind of bizarre anti-white/pro-Muslim conspiracy in the English legal system, people should consider the far more logical possibilities first.

In this case, it appears the claims and counter-claims of racism were made on a ''he said/she said'' basis. That's never going to stick in court, which is the most likely reason why race-based charges were not brought against these women.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sunshinesmile
Errr, I didn't say Muslim, you did. What makes you think I was talking about Muslims? You have just shot yourself in the foot my friend....


LOL.

No I haven't shot myself in the foot, as it's blatantly clear, from the wording of your post and the subject of this thread, which religion you were making these insinuations about.

Or do I need to point out the elephant in the room ?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB
Just jailed like any other person. Religion is no excuse for breaking the law


ALCOHOL isn't supposed to be either!


Sorry, your Honour, but I was drunk at the time.

Little does the Judge know they get pissed every weekend...

This is a racial issue if anything. The only reason religion is relevant is because the Judge used it as an excuse for them...



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
The only reason religion is relevant is because the Judge used it as an excuse for them...


The judge made no mention of their religion, nor, to my knowledge, did it have any relevance on how he sentenced them.

As far as I'm aware, the only mention of religion was made in passing by the defence lawyer when his claim that the women were uncharacteristically drunk was used in mitigation. That's all.

If The Daily Fail hadn't completely misreported and misrepresented the events to fuel their pernicious agenda, then this would just be a normal, common-or-garden assault case which no-one outside of Leicester would have even been aware of.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
This story simply proves what a farce the British judicial system has become. If we set aside the issues of race, religion, gender etc we can see that at it's simplest these girls were allowed to get away with aggravated assault, pure and simple.

There should never be an excuse for such behaviour and the judge should be taken to task for allowing one in this case.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sunshinesmile
Multiculturalism has worked without major problems for many many years. Countries such as the USA, Great Britain, France, Australia and Germany have grown strong and free with generations of hard working migrants... until the last 5 or 7 years. Hmmmm, can anyone tell me what has changed during this time? Or, more specifically, what religion/ race has changed the dynamic of every country it enters by aggressively spreading to every stable nation on earth and doing their best to piss the locals off and NOT fit in? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

...or do I have to point out the elephant in the room?


They've been encouraging gigantic amounts of it from many ethnicities, but one religion. One religion that has a political intent to create paralell societies until they can get a large minority in place. A system that has worked for them before.

The middle ground exists. Our countries negotiated these waters already, and it is here. It is being rejected.

It isn't intolerant to notice reality. Not all points can be moderated between. I refuse to live in a bubble of illogic because it suits some people's political agenda. People who appear to hate my existence.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Why were they not charged with a racially motivated assault?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
At the end of the day, the race card is the ace up the sleeve of every minority who finds itself at odds with the law,its the same old,same old.

Be they whatever race or minority culture (gypsy's included), when they cant have something or when something does'nt go their way with the council or social security its always the same...out pops the "race ace" with its always present phrase "this is victimisation because i am/ we are a minority."

Then political correctness rears it's ugly head and common sense goes to hell.

God bless a once fine nation now in the grip of madness.

At they end of the day the are gulity of a crime that deserves upto 5 years imprisonment.
Why arnt they in jail.
There ARE NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. JAIL THEM.



edit on 8-12-2011 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Going back to the case, there is an article here that goes past the propaganda of the right-wing papers and looks at the real reason the judge gave them suspended sentences, which was because of what the judge deemed 'unreasonable force' by the girls boyfriend, not because they were Muslim or had been drinking

fullfact.org...



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Yegorovnam
 


Unreasonable force?!? Did you see that? His antics make me sad.

I've taken a couple of punches to the face that have literally made me FLY. I wouldn't in this case consider that unreasonable force.

Unreasonable force would have made these dummies pause in fear. I personally advocate unreasonable force anytime you are outnumbered. A bit of unreasonability in the face of an unreasonable situation is fully reasonable.

Unreasonable force.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
could it be your government is trying to show them leniency because where they come from, there's no leniency for anything at all. as a woman, if you get raped, it's not only your fault, but you may be stoned to death for it. three females out at night, would be a very big issue, and not a single punch or drunken episode would be necessary, as just being outside their homes without a suitable male companion is grounds for accusing them of prostitution. .



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


If it is or isn't unreasonable force is a valid argument. But it is important to note that the fact they were drunk Muslims was irrelevant to the verdict



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Why were they not charged with a racially motivated assault?



Two reasons, there were no third party witnesses and it was alleged her boyfriend made racially related comments to the louts..

I still cannot work out how these very in control girls didn't get done purely from the CCTV, what you see on there is a repeated serious attack, for me they looked anything bar drunk, I've no doubt they had been drinking and by the comment made by one after the case and the look of the girls from their face book photo's I'd guess this wasn't their first drink.

Also looking at the elder one's lips I'd think she's a smoker too..Not very Muslim these girls..Party girls yes, Muslims, not in the least.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yegorovnam
reply to post by Aeons
 


If it is or isn't unreasonable force is a valid argument. But it is important to note that the fact they were drunk Muslims was irrelevant to the verdict


It should not have been but someone be it the louts or the lawyer deliberately went for the Muslim card, as Sherlock has been saying and I fully agree, the defence lawyer will use every nook and cranny to get his clients off.

Our legal system needs a good kick up the arse as do the politicians, we are in a state where we cannot deport dangerous immigrant offenders because they claim a right to a family life. You will notice most of the more criminal minded immigrants instantly set up family now, while I agree they are entitled to the same love life as anyone else I think its a stupidity to make it a get out clause thanks to the EU.

All we are doing is filling our prisons with law breaking legal and non legal immigrants...Stupidity...

As for the 'unreasonable force', that makes me laugh because its so stupid. His girlfriend was being constantly kicked and punched by 4 girls, what was he supposed to do, use harsh language, stop saving her and get on the phone?

To be perfectly honest he was next to useless as it was but its 4 louts on one girl who already injured badly enough not to be able to move, he can only deal with one yob at a time, what type of self defence is allowed here?

So he punched them, he had no idea if they were carrying a knife etc, sometimes you have to make sensible choices when reviewing a man vs woman conflict, IF any had knives and chose to use them there was a 3 -1 chance she could have been stabbed repeatedly as he dealt with one at a time, he himself could have been stabbed.

How was he to know if they were armed or not.

Me' I'd have laid one of them out cold and made it quite clear there would be a next one if they didn't go..

Brutal yes but how many times can she be kicked and punched in the head and stamped on before there's a chance of brain damage, protect first, ask questions later.

In a combat encounter you protect each other while also protecting your own arse, almost the same principle applies in civilian life. The difference in combat is that one mistake will cost you or others your lives, saying that, its more like a warzone on the streets with all these weapons.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


I never said I think he did use unreasonable force, all I was saying is that is what influenced his decision, not their race or religion.

In regards to the EU, when people make claims about their right to a family life, it is on the basis of the Human Rights Act, which is not an EU piece of legislation but a British one, introduced by new Labour in 1998



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
why is it they get off free when that woman on the tram is gunna be in prison over christmas, yeah she was racist but she didnt assualt anyone. these girls were racist and violant WTF





top topics
 
60
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join