Racism is perfectly acceptable in the UK now
Perdurabo: Gang of white christians attack a black british girl whilst chanting 'kill the black slag'.
The attackers - three sisters and their cousin attack the girl yet none of them were charged with any kind of racially motivated crime? Their excuse for the crime? They weren't used to drinking alcohol, for which the judge let them all off with suspended sentences.
Is this wrong?
What is your opinion?
Full story here -
Sarcastic Dots: No it isn't. Perhaps you are unaware of another recent case.
Sarcastic Dots: Yeah... Are you a judge? Are you a lawyer? Hell, have you heard all the evidence, or have you just read a newspaper article without doing further research into the topic?
P.S. The daily mail isn't a real newspaper.If you did any research on the daily mail, you'd understand why it's a terrible source.
(Edited by Sarcastic Dots)
Perdurabo: >The daily mail isn't a real newspaper.If you did any research on the daily mail, you'd understand why it's a terrible source
Because it doesnt share your opinion? All newspapers are biased? maybe it wouldv''e pleased you if i had used the Guardian as a source.
Are you saying that maybe the Daily Mail would make up a story centering a round a court case?
I apologise, but it was very difficult to find any other news sources, including the BBC, that actually deemed this incident worthy enough to report.
I only used the Daily Mail as a source because it also provided CCTV evidence.
What further evidence, apart from CCTV footage and witness reports would satisfy you?
PS. please dont turn my post into another Daily Mail hating rant......start a new post if you wish to debate the legitimacy of the Daily Mail.
Sarcastic Dots: Fair enough. If it helps, I didn't claim your first source is crap because it isn't. The CCTV evidence is one thing, but I suspect the judge had a reason for his actions; Perhaps the prosecution were incompetent, or we are viewing the attack without objectivity.
Either way, the defence clearly made their case, and I suspect that was an act of persuasion rather than an open and close case. I have a hard time believing a judge didn't weigh up his options.
(Edited by Sarcastic Dots)
One Bar: What have the alleged collective religious orientation of the gang got to do with it?
And yeah, the Daily Mail => lol
Perdurabo: 'What have the alleged collective religious orientation of the gang got to do with it?'
Did you read the full report?
Did I misread the topic?? These were Somali, Muslim woman attacking a white woman. I read the links given.
YOU ARE ONE TWISTED PUPPY - DID YOU THINK NO-ONE WOULD FOLLOW YOUR OWN LINKS????????
Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling 'kill the white slag' freed after judge hears 'they weren't used to drinking because they're Muslims'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1j4IHz6Lm
Muslim women not used to drinking walk free after attack on woman
A gang of Somalian women who repeatedly kicked a young woman in the head walked free from court after a judge heard they were "not used to being drunk" because they were Muslim.
The four women - three sisters and their cousin - were told the charge of actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, against 22-year-old care worker Rhea Page would normally land them in custody.
However, the judge handed the women suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.
Miss Page said Ambaro Maxamed, 24, Ayan Maxamed, 28, and Hibo Maxamed, 24, and their 28-year-old cousin Ifrah Nur screamed "Kill the white slag" while kicking her in the head as she lay motionless on the ground.
The support worker from Leicester was left "black and blue" with bruises and needed hospital treatment following the attack which came as she walked to a taxi rank with her boyfriend.
Miss Page was left so traumatised by the attack that she lost her job due to repeated absences with stress and flashbacks.
dave3974: and do you realy think if the attackers were white they would have been dealt with the same-british justice is becoming more of a joke --this is bad for all members of the community
Serabi: No, I am saying if the attackers WERE white, you would have screamed blue murder and play the dreaded racism card. Twisting a news report to suit your own agenda is just infantile and stupid.
the real slim DEEPy: if they were white, they would have had a harder time using "my religion forbids alcohol" defense, for one. lots of christian sects discourage drinking, but none enfoces harsh punishment for drinking, so it would be a hell of a lot harder to convince the court that you had NEVER had alcohol before.
as far as hate crimes, i dint really think there should be a more severe punisment for "hatred", than for, what, random violence??? if anything, a personal conviction is a plea for a passion crime, a lighter sentence, than violence in the name of thrills or money- meaningless crimes, but my opinion is meaningless in the event that hate crime legislation is on the books in said locale, its just my two sense.
and either way, i wasnt gonna read the articles in the links, but i was just gonna say that its hard to make a judges call without even being aware of the injuries sustained to the alleged victim, adn ill still say the same, cause i still dont know. schoolyard scufles happen all the time, and charges are rarely filed. punishment should be based on the severety of the crime, and theres a lot of varience in severity when it comes to an "attack". id say the injuries sustained, cost of medical care, and missing time from work should be the prime considerations in sentencing. you could make some consideration for "hate" when considering emotional damages, as a minority would be more likely to sufer psychological trauma in the future, due to a history of opression or violence against their group.
if this is all black eyes and scrapes, and there isnt a chronic pattern of muslim/christian opression in the locale (which would exastorbate emotional trauma), probation may have been perfectly suitable. again, there should be no manditrory sentence, in my mind, for a hate crime- consideration of such shoud be considered in light of the actual severety of injuries, physical, financial and/or emotional, alongside the racial/religious/(what have you) tensions indicitave to the area in which the attack occurred.
Perdurabo: Even if you have never consumed alcohol in your life before, surely you have some idea of what the effects of it are. Ive never owned a gun in my life, but i know what the outcome would be if i fired it into my face. These people werent children, they were adults. And unless they grew up in isolation on maybe the Planet Atauraus 9 then i could forgive them for not knowing what the consequences of over consumption of alcohol were. Their religion should not have been used as an excuse for what could've amounted to charges of attempted murder.
Kaotic_J: People who abuse alcohol/drugs deserve no sympathy/leniency what so ever,the education that has been rammed down most western countries throats reguarding the dangers of them over the last 25 years should be used by prosecutors to fight defendants playing the stupid/ignorant card.
And any judge showing leniency should not be a judge imo..
Perdurabo: So i guess that makes it ok then. Or is this just the beginning of another Flashy illogical, circular argument? 'You too did it so it makes it ok!' etc etc
The UK justice system is rife with inequality.
How did they get away with it the 'same' way as those in the Stephen Lawerence case?
The killers of Stephen Lawerence escaped judgement because an institution was found to be racist and inept whilst the Somali gang, escaped sentence because they belonged to a religious group.
dave3974: the uk justice system has shown itself to be just as useless withe the racist somali thugs
lavendar_star: Firstly there are many incidents if anyone watched police, camera, action or any other UK fly on the wall reality cop shows of countless people who have been drunk and committed assaults and all they have received is a fine or a cautions. Also I imagine these Somalian attackers haven't committed any other crimes violent racial or otherwise, something I'm sure that the courts/judge would of took that in account if this was the case for sentencing. Furthermore, would the people who condemn this horrible crime so strongly have the same outrages for any other victims of racial crime of a different race.
Also to compare this crime to Stephen Lawrence case to this particular crime is wrong. First of all Stephen Lawrence was murdered, the police incompetence in investigating the crime (i.e racial stereotypes) and the police corruptions involved and only after ten plus yrs before 2 of the gang reached the courts system.
Furthermore, to say there is anti white bias which is pretty much what is been discussed here is yet again highlighting on this issue but ignoring others as white victims of crimes are more likely to be highlighted by the media and also normally black or Asian perpetrators are more likely to be dealt more harshly by the courts.
Also is there a pattern of such events as the author of this thread can present to show a pattern of an inequality within the courts in regards to racial crimes or are they using one example and trying to condemn the whole criminal justice system base on one racist attack. I personally condemn all acts of racial crime no matter the race of the victim or the attacker could the same be ask of others. I think the slap of the wrist and the excuse which was made is wrong. Furthermore, the fact that this case got to the courts in the first place shows that the police and prosecution took this case seriously, it was just the sentencing that was the issue, this is not always the case as some racial crimes or violence doesn't reach the courts or taken seriously by the police.
This is a incident that had patterns of racism considering the history of the attackers who I would call a gang of thugs (as they had history of crime) who weren't remorseful. It wasn't seen as a racist crime so they got a far lighter sentence than otherwise would of been, regardless if it was racist or not it was murder and they well be out in between 1- 3 years for taking another human life!!!!!!!!!!
Injustices are everywhere!!!!
The court take in account, if the criminal has a history of racism, chances of re offending, a history of violent crime and the potential threat to the community and the victim and did they show remorse etc. So to see things lol as just black and white is a bit simplistic without knowing any of these particulars.
(Edited by lavendar_star)
Perdurabo: You kinda didnt read the report lavender. Blinded by being over-zealous perhaps. Your argument is also fallacious, using tu quoque completely invalidates your eloquent, yet over-long post.
The soul reason they escaped punishement was because their religion was used as a defence. Not their race....their religion. want me to repeat that?
And i quote from the defence
"They're Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn't something they're used to.". (Maybe you could supply them with a couple of episodes from your beloved police, camera, action show).
'Also to compare this crime to Stephen Lawrence case to this particular crime is wrong. First of all Stephen Lawrence was murdered'
And this could've well turned into a murder case. Being kicked in the head and having your head stomped on could've well ended up in the death of this victim.
'Also I imagine these Somalian attackers haven't committed any other crimes violent racial or otherwise'
Thats a presumption and your opinion. Something we dont know.
A quote from the victim -
"I honestly think they attacked me just because I was white. I can't think of any other reason."
I thought if anyone reported a hate crime, whether it be from the victim, witness or even a member of public then it has to be treated as such. Why was this ignored.
'ignoring others as white victims of crimes are more likely to be highlighted by the media and also normally black or Asian perpetrators are more likely to be dealt more harshly by the courts.'
You have statistics to support this? Or just more polemic?
Here are some statistics
'The British Crime Survey reveals that in 2004, 87,000 people from black or minority ethnic communities said they had been a victim of a racially motivated crime. They had suffered 49,000 violent attacks, with 4,000 being wounded. At the same time 92,000 white people said they had also fallen victim of a racially motivated crime. The number of violent attacks against whites reached 77,000, while the number of white people who reported being wounded was five times the number of black and minority ethnic victims at 20,000.' (from Wiki...sources for these figures can be seen on the wiki page)
The Daily Record? You sure had to dig deep for that story.
Please dont steer this into an argument based on race, as you are keen on doing. This is about inequality. Inequality is wrong without exception.
Next argument - 'All whitey's are the same' by Dianne Abbott
lavendar_star: Your opening line of your thread "Racism is perfectly acceptable in the UK now" then using the visa verse argument as an a example. so telling me to not steer into argument based on race when that was used to highlight your thread.
If you read my post I said their excuse was wrong but how do you know this wasn't the case yourself said "Thats a presumption and your opinion. Something we dont know." So them taking alcohol and not knowing it make them violent could be seen as a legitimate defence and them being Muslim back it up for them ( even though many so called religious people are not 100 %kosher on their religious dedication or supposed clean living) also that what defence lawyers are for!!!!! Furthermore, the victims she didnt die so one can not make presumptions on something that didn't happen.
Thanks for the 7 year old statistics but despite right wing fears Asian people only make up 3-4% of the population and black people 2% compared to 90% of the population of the UK being white. "The numbers can be highly misleading, though. Since about 90% of people in Britain are white, the statistics actually show the risk of being a victim of race crime is significantly greater if you are from an ethnic minority. According to the most recent Home Office analysis, the chances for a white person is less than 1%. For Black and Asian people it is put at about 1%".
The evidence you asked for- http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/25/ethnic-variations-jail-sentences-study
The second point I made I came across in my research on the media at university i..e. books and obviously is less accessible on the net ( you can research yourself) there are extensive studies done in the states echoing my point on the net, even though I should add there is also a class aspect to it and gender one ( in favour of girls)
I find it interesting that you had no comment on the article I cited considering your concern for all types of inequality in British justice system and it mirrors the case you are discussing. As the police n the prosecution didnt see it as racially motivated and the sentence was small ( which is why I highlighted it and as you said many other news agents didnt see fit to highlight) and Dave mentioned if the attackers were white would the same thing happen and it did. I did come across a few other examples including a white women who has mixed race children who were been verbally abused and her daughter was attacked because of their race but the police didnt consider it serious enough to deal with it, let alone take it to court.
Also what if the attackers of the victim were white Muslims would you still be highlighting this crime or the victim was Hindu Asian and the attackers the Somalian?????? and yes I am being slightly polemic but no different from anyone else Ive seen in the political or religious forums yourself included. as from your other posts on other topic pages I am dubious about your statement on your concerned about all inequality no matter the race of the victim especially with your last comment which I think proves my point. wrong it is just wrong for me.
(Edited by lavendar_star)