In 2011 England, it’s not actually OK to get pissed up and then attack someone in the street, but the offence is a lesser one that being rude on a tram.
Four Somali Muslim women get drunk and repeatedly kick someone in the head. The judge decrees that shouting, “kill the white slag” is insufficient evidence to prove that the attack was racially motivated. The attackers get six months suspended and community service for actual bodily harm.
The lenient sentence is because these Muslims are forbidden by their religion from boozing, and were thus not used to alcohol.
Now I may be wrong, but if I committed a violent offence while drunk, wouldn’t my punishment be increased? Claiming that “I was in my cups, m’lud. I didn’t know what I was doing” isn’t likely to help my case. Yet here it reduced a possible five-year sentence for ABH to a non-custodial one.
Meanwhile, the alleged perpetrator of a foul-mouthed racist rant on public transport gets remanded in custody until January. She gets to spend Christmas in the slammer for an allegedly racist verbal attack. No matter how obscene the language and sentiments in the YouTube video may be, nobody was actually physically harmed, were they?
I do not care for street violence I have a particular hatred of drunken street violence, having been a victim. And of course, I only get what the papers choose to print rather than the full court transcripts. However, There must surely be something wrong with a legal system that allows one criminal gang to walk free after kicking someone in the head, yet incarcerates another for a month without trial for a verbal assault.
Daily Telegraph article
Another Daily Telegraph article
Something from This Is Croydon Today
]}:-{>
7 months ago
6 comments:
If they are going to play the religion card, well I believe they will find that the punishment for a Muslim being drunk is a minimum of eighty lashes.
The judges in both cases should be tossed off the bench.
perhaps the judges were drunk? That would excuse them...
Grumpy Goat, I know you are a man of reasonable intelligence, so don't let the inflammatory articles from the Telegraph, Mail etc fool you.
The judgement that was passed on this case was not because the girls were drunk. That was referred to in passing, but was not the basis on which the judgement was made.
For more, see:
http://fullfact.org/factcheck/Muslim_women_spared_jail_for_attack_because_not_used_to_drinking-3179
I hope you will consider revising your original posting to add an amendment that refers to this. The likes of the Daily Mail unfortunately infect millions with their insidious warping of facts to distort reality, and we should correct this whenever it happens.
That's interesting. According to fullfact.org, (link in the comment above) the Muslim women "may have been the victims of unreasonable force" from the assaultee's boyfriend, and this may be the a mitigating factor in the sentencing.
An open question: How would you react if four adults attacked the person you were with?
If it was unprovoked, of course I would be livid. But the key here is that it seems the four girls were incited. But can you see that it doesn't change the point that the story that you first reported on, in the way that was told to you, isn't actually what happened in the court room?
Interesting discussion, looks like Grumpy Goat is wrong but refuses to admit! It's almost as though he *wishes* the story was exactly as portrayed, to give him an excuse to hate targeted group in question...
Post a Comment