Poll: Muslim female "gang" beat up English women, but not jailed

Recommended Videos

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Ah, the good old 'I have no evidence but I've seen things' ploy, followed by the 'and I don't have time to tell you, so I'm bailing on this debate because I'm losing' ploy.
I've seen things, I've seen them with my eyes! I've seen things, they're often in disguise! Things like...Muslims, racists, evil brown people, KUALA LUMPUR!

Man, that takes me back :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBnXvhgrV8Q
 

Reishadowen

New member
Mar 18, 2011
129
0
0
Sigh...I have a bad feeling I'm going to be getting a word or two with the mods after this post...

Volf99 said:
But Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes".
Let me give you guys a hint: They weren't excused because the Judge believed their "We weren't used to alcohol!" nonsense. They were excused because a guilty verdict would upset the muslim population of England, and God forbid that we should treat them equally.

Yes, a verdict of innocent would upset the non-muslim group, but so far muslims as a whole seem to be the only ones who threaten "I'LL KILL YOU!" at the barest hint of every slight. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a muslim in America or Europe getting punished for a crime, and you heard something else besides muslim nations denouncing the decision, and the news footage panning over a crowd of a gajillion angry muslims with "death to the west"-ish signs?
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
Reishadowen said:
Sigh...I have a bad feeling I'm going to be getting a word or two with the mods after this post...

Volf99 said:
But Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes".
Let me give you guys a hint: They weren't excused because the Judge believed their "We weren't used to alcohol!" nonsense. They were excused because a guilty verdict would upset the muslim population of England, and God forbid that we should treat them equally.

Yes, a verdict of innocent would upset the non-muslim group, but so far muslims as a whole seem to be the only ones who threaten "I'LL KILL YOU!" at the barest hint of every slight. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a muslim in America or Europe getting punished for a crime, and you heard something else besides muslim nations denouncing the decision, and the news footage panning over a crowd of a gajillion angry muslims with "death to the west"-ish signs?
Look at post 179

That fine gentleman pretty much explains the Occam's Razor of the situation. Put all thoughts of enthnicity out of your mind for a second, and consider the legal issues here.
 

Reishadowen

New member
Mar 18, 2011
129
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Look at post 179

That fine gentleman pretty much explains the Occam's Razor of the situation. Put all thoughts of enthnicity out of your mind for a second, and consider the legal issues here.
*looks down in shame* uh, yeah....I only have a limited time to spend on this forum, so I normally read only the first page. If I don't I end up spending almost six hours on the forums, and I just don't have that kind of time.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
Reishadowen said:
Daystar Clarion said:
Look at post 179

That fine gentleman pretty much explains the Occam's Razor of the situation. Put all thoughts of enthnicity out of your mind for a second, and consider the legal issues here.
*looks down in shame* uh, yeah....I only have a limited time to spend on this forum, so I normally read only the first page. If I don't I end up spending almost six hours on the forums, and I just don't have that kind of time.
The fact that you're willing to admit that your were hasty to judge makes you a better person than most others in this thread.

Be proud of that.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Though I see it is too late to combat all the generalising, absurd remarks about political correctness gone mad, I'd like to make a couple of observations.

A judge is required to weigh up a sentence based on a number of factors. Is it a first offense? Was there provocation? Were the actions reasonable in context? Was the defendant in full control? Will a harsh punishment be of any use in preventing reoffence? Is reoffence likely? There are a lot of factors, many of which haven't been brought up by the Daily Mail. The only factor they have brought up is that the girl was a muslim. Is it asking too much to give the judge the benefit of the doubt? Somehow I doubt a judge would actually think to themself, "Nope, we can't persecute her. She is a muslim, and that is all that matters. And as we all know, we have never ever punished a single muslim for any crime in the history of English law." Don't be silly. How many muslims do you think get sent to jail? The number is more than zero.

Now here is probably how it went down: we don't know much about the victim, besides her side of the story. Often in bar fights, both sides will claim to be the victim - that the other started it. We know that the defendants made the claim that they were not used to alcohol, implying that they would not have committed the crime if they were not under the influence. The fact that the girls are muslim has no bearing on the case, beyond explaining why they drank too much alocohol. Claiming to be muslim isn't a get out of jail free card. It is just an explanation for why they drank too much. It doesn't excuse their actions, it just provides a reason for how they got into a state where they would do something so regrettable.

Therefore, what I suspect has happened is that the judge did not see any benefit in prosecuting the defendants to the full extent. This may be for a combination of reasons, but I find it interesting that the newspaper just assumes that it was because the girls mentioned they were muslim. As in, had they not said they were muslim, they would have got a maximum sentence? How could the paper assume that? On what grounds do we base the claim that judge is too stupid, prudish or cowardly to punish muslims when he must?

I am not denying the possibility of any of what is being said, but it seems to me that it only requires a basic trust in a professional's gumption to see this news story as a likely misrepresentation of the facts.

TLDR? Who do you trust more, a judge or a tabloid journalist? Bearing in mind that it is in the judge's interest to make the correct decisions, whilst it is in the journalist's interest to generate as much scandal as possible within 500 words.
 

katsabas

New member
Apr 23, 2008
1,515
0
0
I am no expert in law, nor do I know if this thing went down like the tabloids said it did. But if it did:

These four are extremists. Everything is bad when you practice it at a high degree and religion is one of the first things that that should not be coupled with. This should not come as an engraved note that all Muslims are like that. I know Muslims and they are anything but violent.

I know the best and the worst of Muslims and these people deserve jail time. The fact that they are Muslims shouldn't play a part in ANYTHING. They beat someone, in public, no less.

Also, the statements of their lawyers are full of holes. Have they been staying in England for less than 24h ? Cause right now, that the only way I can think off for one to get shocked to the sight of someone drunk.

And even if they were shocked, THAT'S how they deal with it ?!
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
JordanMillward_1 said:
Daystar Clarion said:
This is what it must feel like when a doctor is sorrounded by people who are talking about medicine, when they have no fucking clue what the hell they're on about.

As a law & criminology graduate, the amount of ignorance and outright bigotry in this thread disgusts me.
Same here, I'm utterly disgusted with the amount of racism here at the Escapist, which is a huge disappointment for someone who generally thought this community was relatively open minded.

1) In the UK, unless you have committed a major crime, you will almost always get a suspended sentence for your first offence, regardless of who you are, what your beliefs are, whatever;

2) Extremely minor injuries can be covered by Actual Bodily Harm, including minor cuts, scratches, abrasions, and other wounds you'd get from just tripping up yourself. This suggests that she barely suffered any injuries; and

3) Anyone could use the reasoning of "I'd never drunk alcohol before, I didn't know how great an effect it'd have on me" as a mitigating circumstance in a court, as long as you can prove it to be true. It actually applies to most drugs - if you have a severe reaction to a drug, whether you take it willingly or not, it is possible, at the judge's discretion, as to whether he'll accept it as a mitigating circumstance.

Please, for the love of God (ironic in this situation, I know), please actually try to learn ANYTHING about how the British legal system works before going "f-ing Muslims, they should go back home! I hate immigrants!"... please?
Ah, you ninja'd me. And infar more eloquent terms, I might add.

Thank goodness there are at least some escapists who aren't knee-jerking idiots.
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Anyway, thats kinda the point. This whole thread and all my posts were about basic rules in society being violated or ignored without just punishment because LOL ITS MA RELIGION!!! This is what pisses me off about the whole thing.
Wasn't this whole thread more about the fact that a tabloid newspaper ignored all other considerations and claimed that Muslims could could away with anything because "LOL ITS MA RELIGION"?

Depressingly, this was then echoed by quite a few posters, but the case in question doesn't appear to have anything to do with religion. The girls simply used their religion to explain what they considered mitigating circumstances, ie a low tolerance for alcohol. I fully agree with you that religion is all-too-often used as an excuse and as justification for behaviour that is disagreeable or downright anti-social, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
 

Triaed

Not Gone Gonzo
Jan 16, 2009
454
0
0
I think that every single report of abuse, battery or assault should begin with stating what religion the perpetrator is.

It will be so much fun to read the crime note from now on and it will shine a light on those religious naysayers, especially those who like to throw the first rock
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
harmonic said:
I did not say these things. If we're going to have a real conversation, don't mis-quote me.
If I did, then I'm sorry. When I break a post up into sections and reply to it piece-by-piece, I copy/paste the opening "
harmonic post = said:
As far as folks in your corner being the root of the problem, yes, you are. If there really is demographic warfare being waged, and people of a certain ethnic and religious group are milking the system and being given special treatment by your government, it is in your hands to stand up to your government in order to keep things fair for everyone.
Sure. However, the idea of demographic warfare is pretty much pure fantasy. The percentage population of Muslims in Europe is just over 3%. The claims that they receive special treatment above and beyond that of other citizens is largely scaremongering by those with a grudge (be it religious, a racist perception of Muslim and Middle Eastern being interchangeable terms, or whatever) or those who need to sell papers and are aware that attention-grabbing headlines about "Islam is taking over Europe!" will sell more copies than headlines like "Some Muslims live in Europe, most are generally just getting on with their lives but some are obnoxious dickheads"

These ideas - Islam gets special treatment, Britain is going to institute Sharia law, there are no-go areas where local Muslims forbid the police entrance - are nothing more than propaganda. Muslims are just the target of the day. Once it was black people, before that it was the Irish, but there will always be someone that certain antagonistic groups can point to and say "Those bastards are the ones to blame for our problems!". Doesn't make it any more true.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
SonicWaffle said:
It is. It probably should be - if all your holy rules are easy to follow and require no sacrifice, you're probably not making the amount of effort a deity usually requires.
Or you just follow an easy religion. Nothing about religion itself has to be hard. I follow the religion of the Chosen Ones: Be excellent to one another and party on, dudes!

To be fair to the majority of Christians I know, though, most are simply well-meaning people. The parts they cherry-pick from the Bible are usually the parts about doing good, helping others and spreading Christ's love. I don't blame them for not following the parts about stoning your kids or avoiding shellfish, because they're good people trying to reconcile their faith with modern life. The world has moved on, and the rules that governed the people who wrote the Bible simply do not apply anymore.
Then maybe the religion should fall by the wayside. If an all-encompassing spirituality cannot endure a modern century, then the problem is with the religion. It is inherrently flawed.

Recondiling your faith is merely sticking your head in the sand.

"We only want the good stuff" is also a problem, in that it justifies other selective interpretations. Hell, the beauty of Christianity is a weapon is that so many people claim to be it. You can, in America, claim moral majority for hate because 80% of the country is Christian

Validating a part of the book is hurtful, even if it's the "good stuff."

The Christians that piss me off are the ones who claim to be Biblical literalists, yet still pick and choose the bits they want to follow. They're perfectly fine with "God hates fags" but will bend logic into a circle to avoid the parts about loving, forgiving and not judging others. They'll tell you what the supposedly literal truth is just an allegory for, or what they think God meant to say, which to me seems highly presumptuous and a pretty good reason for a bolt of lightning up the jacksie.
that is a problem, but it's far from the only problem.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
JordanMillward_1 said:
Same here, I'm utterly disgusted with the amount of racism here at the Escapist, which is a huge disappointment for someone who generally thought this community was relatively open minded.
Socipathy seems to be a trend here, and really the internet in general. I'm not surprised racism is a thing here.

Please, for the love of God (ironic in this situation, I know), please actually try to learn ANYTHING about how the British legal system works before going "f-ing Muslims, they should go back home! I hate immigrants!"... please?
People won't even look for a legit source for their gripes....Why would they try and learn?

Daystar Clarion said:
We should start a club.

With Blackjack.

And hookers.
In fact, forget the club!

SonicWaffle said:
Wasn't this whole thread more about the fact that a tabloid newspaper ignored all other considerations and claimed that Muslims could could away with anything because "LOL ITS MA RELIGION"?

Depressingly, this was then echoed by quite a few posters, but the case in question doesn't appear to have anything to do with religion. The girls simply used their religion to explain what they considered mitigating circumstances, ie a low tolerance for alcohol. I fully agree with you that religion is all-too-often used as an excuse and as justification for behaviour that is disagreeable or downright anti-social, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Sadly, the lie is catchier than the truth, and people are looking for an excuse to hate.
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Or you just follow an easy religion. Nothing about religion itself has to be hard. I follow the religion of the Chosen Ones: Be excellent to one another and party on, dudes!
So when something awful happens, and the one who caused it is right in front of you, and all your animal urges are screaming at you to smack him upside the head with a spanner - you stop yourself, ponders what young masters Preston & Logan would do, and you're forced to be excellent to the guy instead. Sounds quite hard to me. It's still refusing your own urges to do something because your beliefs run contrary to that desire.

Besides, there's a limit to how long you can party on. I know I'm getting old (only a month until I turn 25!) but I can barely party for a whole night these days. To party on forever, without end, would leave me a broken wreck of a man within a week. I just don't think it's do-able.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Then maybe the religion should fall by the wayside. If an all-encompassing spirituality cannot endure a modern century, then the problem is with the religion. It is inherrently flawed.
Spirituality tends to come within a framework, of deity and myth and all those other things. Much of religion seems to me to be an appeal to authority; "I'll be a good person, because I've been told to be" is just an excuse to behave well and be decent. I'd like to think that a lot of people don't need the excuse, but they may need the encouragement.

Have you ever read a book called Join Me, by Danny Wallace? He was the guy who played the snarky tech dude in AC 2 and Brotherhood, and looks exactly like him in real life. He's much, much nicer though. Anyway, Join Me is a story of how he accidentally started a cult and then had to figure out stuff for them to do. So he started challenging them to do nice things for other people, complete strangers. He comes to the odd realisation that people like doing these random acts of kindness, but without him telling them to do it, they wouldn't be doing it. It's very interesting.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Recondiling your faith is merely sticking your head in the sand.
No, I think sticking blindly to your faith is sticking your head in the sand. Reconciling it to the world you live in is an attempt to take what you believe and make it work around real life. Reality disagrees with your belief system, but at least you're admitting that and trying to find a compromise rather than stamping your foot and saying "No, there is no such thing as evolution, the Bible says so! Everything works the way my ancient text describes it and anyone who disagrees is a heretic!"

Zachary Amaranth said:
"We only want the good stuff" is also a problem, in that it justifies other selective interpretations.
True, but would you rather have people who were selective about the good lessons or people who were emphatic that the entire world should work according to the way a 2000-year-old book describes it? Religion, for the time being, is here. It'll be around for a good long while yet. I'd much rather have people who tried to use it to do good things than people who refused to interpret at all.