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

reply to post by Algernonsmouse


What are you talking about? This story has been reported in most news outlets in the UK and the court records are freely available should you be bothered to look. Why are you trying to deny it happened?

And also, who is spouting the hate? As far as i can tell, most of the comments are basically saying that the rules should be applied to all with an even hand.

reply to post by loves a conspiricy


how right you are, it does not matter what color a person is or is not - we all can be racially discriminated against

Originally posted by JessopJessopJessop

Originally posted by EvanB

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by EvanB

 

I read this story myself today, totally terrible. The sentence really does fly in the face of common sense.

However, it did state that the girls were Somalians. This does not excuse them for their behaviour but it may offer an explanation in that these girls will have been raised in a war zone and been used to witnessing extreme levels of violence. In my mind, this is one of the potential side effects of immigration - that is to say bringing in people from areas where their is extreme violence may introduce a level of violence into the host society.

As i said, this doesn't excuse the behaviour and jail sentences should certainly have been down. In future though, it may be worth working with immigrants from such places in order to remove any predilections towards violence.

Completely agree

I wonder how many PTSD suffering immigrants there are who have fell through the cracks in the system.

Maybe a full psychological assesment of people escaping war, and treatment, should be introduced.. Maybe it is already? I dont know, but it is clear that immigration authoroties need to drum responsabilities of citizenry and expectations of them before any rights are explained too

I'm not sure that washes though. Seen plenty of extreme violence from born and bred Britons in good communities. Unfortunately their behaviour is probably more a reflection of British society as it is Somalian war trauma.

Go up town on Thursday-Saturday and find as many piss-head mobs violently attacking people as you want. Too many examples I can give you of this sort of behaviour and worse. A migrant could come here from a peaceful country and learn that sort of violence from the locals

Unfortunately the reality is they're using their background as a cop out, as with the alcohol.

The irony is that there is no way in hell they would have got away with it in a shariah court...

I think some off you guys are missing an important part of this criminal case, They (The Somalians) have been found guilty off a criminal act so the victim can now pursue a civil case seeking compensation for the proven assault case.

The Somalian girls in the long run will have to pay compensation seeked by a civil case lawyer. just my two bobs worth.

Just to add, This is maybe a case to see if syria law works..

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by EvanB

 

Daily Mail and some blog? Those are the sources on this? Why is it everytime I see a thread about how evil Muslims are attacking white people, it comes from the Daily Mail? EIther they are the only ones taht ever know about this stuff or they are making it up.

Great to see people on ATS just believe anything they are told though. Way to combat ignorance.

That "some blogg" is a Leicester local news outlet.

It has also been reported in many other UK MSM outlets.

Before you play the "ignorance" card i suggest you do some checking before you get accused of being an ignorant muppet yourself

reply to post by Dr Cosma


It's not just Muslims and Jews who do not eat pork. Even in the Bible eating pork is advocated against.

These three religions, in essence, preach the same thing.

They weren't spared jail because they were Muslim. They were spared jail because the fact that they were uncharacteristically drunk was used as a mitigating factor for their actions by the defence counsel.

If you read reports from any local paper, you'll see that being under the influence of drink/drugs ( especially if it is out of character ) is probably the number one excuse which the defence uses in an attempt to get their client more lenient punishment.

I don't agree with the idea that being under the influence of drink or drugs should diminish the punishment for a crime, but it is misreprensentative to suggest that, in this case, their religion had any relevance, other than as an explanation to explain that they were normally teetotal.

Also, the fact that one of them called the victim a ''white bitch'' strongly suggests that there was far more of a racial motivation to the attack, rather than any religious one.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Dr Cosma

 

It's not just Muslims and Jews who do not eat pork. Even in the Bible eating pork is advocated against.

These three religions, in essence, preach the same thing.

Then I am the demon to these people then.
The bacondemon though.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

There is no suggestion that this was religiously motivated but plenty to suggest a racial motive.

However

Religion was used for their defence which should never happen in a British court.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Algernonsmouse

 

What are you talking about? This story has been reported in most news outlets in the UK and the court records are freely available should you be bothered to look. Why are you trying to deny it happened?

And also, who is spouting the hate? As far as i can tell, most of the comments are basically saying that the rules should be applied to all with an even hand.

Links?
Why only link to a tabloid and a blog if there is all this actual good information to use? You did notice my first post was ASKING is this all you got for sources?
If you have them, you should use them.

Let me guess, those two sources used just the right inflamatory spin where the facts did not? Thus the hate.

daily telegraph

Did her bf just stand there and watch this happen?

What a punk.

Originally posted by EvanB
Religion was used for their defence which should never happen in a British court.

I disagree that religion was used as a defence in this case.

The defence being used was that they were uncharacteristically drunk. The mention of their religion was only in passing as an explanation to support the notion that they were normally teetotal.

If the case had involved recovering alcoholics as the accused, then an explanation that they had been on an AA programme before falling off the wagon would have been used similarly to argue that their inebriation was out of character.

reply to post by Algernonsmouse


You may find this hard to believe but some of us have no idea to do even half the fancy things that some of you can do on here. I have no idea how to post links, add avatars, add pictures, etc to posts. And yes, i have followed instructions from mods, etc, i am simply not technologically gifted.

So instead, i throw it back to you and say instead of being so critical, why not search for your own answers? Or do you simply prefer to ask questions and not look for answers yourself?

We should be used to this by now. How foolish of us to think that as citizens of the nation we were born in, that we would be treated as equals to foreigners in our own country.

Just to put this into perspective, you're allowed to gang up on, and attempt to kill a white girl if you are a foreigner, especially a Muslim. If you are white, and you have literally had enough of the uncontrolled immigration, and you decide to speak your mind - you get charged with race hate.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Thanks, New Labour.

Originally posted by Twiptwop
Just to put this into perspective, you're allowed to gang up on, and attempt to kill a white girl if you are a foreigner, especially a Muslim.

Complete nonsense.

Their nationality or religion had nothing to do with not receiving a custodial sentence. I don't know where some of you have been all your lives, but assault isn't a mandatory prisonable offence.

Suspended sentences are regularly handed out to those convicted of assault, regardless of their race or country of origin.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Twiptwop
Just to put this into perspective, you're allowed to gang up on, and attempt to kill a white girl if you are a foreigner, especially a Muslim.

Complete nonsense.

Their nationality or religion had nothing to do with not receiving a custodial sentence. I don't know where some of you have been all your lives, but assault isn't a mandatory prisonable offence.

Suspended sentences are regularly handed out to those convicted of assault, regardless of their race or country of origin.

Well it does. When was the last time you saw an immigrant being charged for racial hatred against us? Ever heard of Muslims Against Crusades? They launched some of the most vicious and vile verbal attacks on our nation and people that I have ever heard. Yet it is the EDL and the BNP which are labelled "racist".

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

If you read reports from any local paper, you'll see that being under the influence of drink/drugs ( especially if it is out of character ) is probably the number one excuse which the defence uses in an attempt to get their client more lenient punishment.

Indeed, it is the status quo. Depending on whether it is alcohol or drugs(judged according to effect on consciousness) a person can act completely out of character.

Also, the fact that one of them called the victim a ''white bitch'' strongly suggests that there was far more of a racial motivation to the attack, rather than any religious one.

How's drunk for motivation?

Or did they pick a target before they got drunk?

Imho, it is disgusting the victim is not compensated in any way and lost her job due to complications from the assault. Yes, they were drunk - but that should not be a sufficient excuse for physical and mental harm inflicted upon the victim. Does that mean laws to compensate for damages and punishing senseless violence do not count for drunk people? Does it mean there are no legal consequences to ones actions when drunk?

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

If you read reports from any local paper, you'll see that being under the influence of drink/drugs ( especially if it is out of character ) is probably the number one excuse which the defence uses in an attempt to get their client more lenient punishment.

Indeed, it is the status quo. Depending on whether it is alcohol or drugs(judged according to effect on consciousness) a person can act completely out of character.

Also, the fact that one of them called the victim a ''white bitch'' strongly suggests that there was far more of a racial motivation to the attack, rather than any religious one.

How's drunk for motivation?

Or did they pick a target before they got drunk?

Imho, it is disgusting the victim is not compensated in any way and lost her job due to complications from the assault. Yes, they were drunk - but that should not be a sufficient excuse for physical and mental harm inflicted upon the victim. Does that mean laws to compensate for damages and punishing senseless violence do not count for drunk people? Does it mean there are no legal consequences to ones actions when drunk?

That is fine. If the incident was only a drunken assault, I would treat it as that. However, the fact that these animals used racist terms of abuse on the poor girl not only makes this a full blown racist attack, it confirms the rumours that the legal system places foreign born immigrants above the indigenous population.

Originally posted by Twiptwop

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Twiptwop
Just to put this into perspective, you're allowed to gang up on, and attempt to kill a white girl if you are a foreigner, especially a Muslim.

Complete nonsense.

Their nationality or religion had nothing to do with not receiving a custodial sentence. I don't know where some of you have been all your lives, but assault isn't a mandatory prisonable offence.

Suspended sentences are regularly handed out to those convicted of assault, regardless of their race or country of origin.

Well it does. When was the last time you saw an immigrant being charged for racial hatred against us? Ever heard of Muslims Against Crusades? They launched some of the most vicious and vile verbal attacks on our nation and people that I have ever heard. Yet it is the EDL and the BNP which are labelled "racist".

The EDL and BNP are labeled racist because they are racist. I'm also not sure where you have been but your post somehow implies MAC aren't vilified for being bigoted racist lunatics