Let off in court 'because of their religion'

[mcmiller]

I'm very sceptical about them screaming "racial hatred" and using the fact that they are muslims is pretty low, but this is the daily mail. Daily Mail aside they should have gone to prison, that was a sustained attack and if that was my girlfriend the girls most certainly not have gotten up again, I have 4-5 years martial art/fighting so I have no problem hitting anyone and knowing where to hit to cause the most pain.

*Edit* The telegraph is reporting same story almost, that the girls screamed racist comments. I wonder if the judge took that into consideration?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...Leicester.html

[peterb]

People like you disturb me.

No doubt that if this had been whites on blacks, you would be condemning the racist 'scumbags' and getting all high and mighty.

Now this is a different situation, all the immigrant-defenders pop up and start saying it's okay for people to kick people in the head... shocking.

Really? Perhaps you might want to look at yourself before you start making accusations of racism.

I am merely stating the facts. They were convicted, they received a jail sentence. That sentence has been suspended.

You are the one implying a racial/religious motive, not me.

What I finf disturbing are people who will jump on any bandwagon to stir up animosity and deepen divides - which is something we don't tolerate on HeXus.

[Disturbedguy]

People like you disturb me.

No doubt that if this had been whites on blacks, you would be condemning the racist 'scumbags' and getting all high and mighty.

Now this is a different situation, all the immigrant-defenders pop up and start saying it's okay for people to kick people in the head... shocking.

Tbh he hasn't done that.

He has covered the subject from the point of view none of us were really looking at, he also explained what this "let off" means. Do I agree with what he has said? No not really, as these women did worse then what the woman on the tube did last week.

Do I respect his opinion? Yes

Which is something you clearly lack.

[Fnoop]

Really? Perhaps you might want to look at yourself before you start making accusations of racism.

I am merely stating the facts. They were convicted, they received a jail sentence. That sentence has been suspended.

You are the one implying a racial/religious motive, not me.

What I finf disturbing are people who will jump on any bandwagon to stir up animosity and deepen divides - which is something we don't tolerate on HeXus.

It doesn't seem like you tolerate very much to be honest, other than supporting extremely dodgy court decisions.

Look at myself? Are you calling me racist? How dare you.

[peterb]

In other words let off.



Corrrection If the get "Caught" committing another offence.

No, an absolute discharge would be 'let off', and the implications of a criminal record are the same whether the sentence was ommited or suspended.

And as I said in the thread, arrested and charged, which imples being caught.

[Saracen]

.... Do I agree with what he has said? No not really, as these women did worse then what the woman on the tube did last week.

Do I respect his opinion? Yes

Which is something you clearly lack.

What I read Peter as saying wasn't that he thought the sentence was correct, but that basing an opinion that it was wrong on a newspaper report rather than actual facts, as the judge did, is dodgy.

First, newspapers sensationalise to sell papers. Second, they don't report all the facts, and what they do report is usually not done in an objective fashion. Third, they very likely don't have all the facts, as not everything is presented as evidence, but the judge will have ruled on it if it's kept out.

Was the sentence correct? On the basis of the newspaper account, no. But I completely agree with Peter, that it's "unwise" to form an opinion based on limited and very likely an inflammatory presentation of partial facts.

If nothing else, get hold of the actual judgement and read that, before forming an opinion, not a newspaper.

[melon]

Or they could be Andromedans, planning on taking her away in their flying saucer.

Suspended sentences are a common outcome in a lot of situations, especially where there are no prior offences or convictions. But one of the factors in determining whether a sentence is to be suspended is the attitude of the offender, so if there was any actual evidence of mental illness, etc, it would most likely have been used to further mitigate the sentence, not to impose jail time. We don't sentence people to jail for being mentally ill (well, at least in theory we don't). We treat them for their illness .... though in severe cases, that will be by committal to a mental hospital.

And they still didn't "get off". They also got a mix of curfews and community service awards, and as Peter pointed out, now have criminal convictions which can have further consequences, including precluding certain careers, and even making it very difficult to get visas to visit some countries, like the US.

Ok - not so straightforward but still hardly deterrent if its only for a set time before we're back where we started, I doubt social or career path will make much difference to folk who have no aspirations to better themselves any way , afterall isnt that half the reason their in the situation their in to start with ?

m

[Disturbedguy]

What I read Peter as saying wasn't that he thought the sentence was correct, but that basing an opinion that it was wrong on a newspaper report rather than actual facts, as the judge did, is dodgy.

First, newspapers sensationalise to sell papers. Second, they don't report all the facts, and what they do report is usually not done in an objective fashion. Third, they very likely don't have all the facts, as not everything is presented as evidence, but the judge will have ruled on it if it's kept out.

Was the sentence correct? On the basis of the newspaper account, no. But I completely agree with Peter, that it's "unwise" to form an opinion based on limited and very likely an inflammatory presentation of partial facts.

If nothing else, get hold of the actual judgement and read that, before forming an opinion, not a newspaper.

Yup and I understand that, thanks though

Fnoop,

To be frank, IF I were to take the original thread title into consideration, then yes I would brand you a racist, but that's just me.

Before you think I am calling you a racist, I am not.

[Fnoop]

What I read Peter as saying wasn't that he thought the sentence was correct, but that basing an opinion that it was wrong on a newspaper report rather than actual facts, as the judge did, is dodgy.

First, newspapers sensationalise to sell papers. Second, they don't report all the facts, and what they do report is usually not done in an objective fashion. Third, they very likely don't have all the facts, as not everything is presented as evidence, but the judge will have ruled on it if it's kept out.

Was the sentence correct? On the basis of the newspaper account, no. But I completely agree with Peter, that it's "unwise" to form an opinion based on limited and very likely an inflammatory presentation of partial facts.

If nothing else, get hold of the actual judgement and read that, before forming an opinion, not a newspaper.

Why don't you watch the CCTV evidence of everything that happened then, you can't get much clearer than that.

Every single online publication is reporting basically the same things, sure, they all put their own spin on it, but the FACTS remain the same.

[Saracen]

It doesn't seem like you tolerate very much to be honest, other than supporting extremely dodgy court decisions.

Look at myself? Are you calling me racist? How dare you.

He did not support the decision. He said we don't have all the facts. And we don't.

Nor did he call you a racist. He said you were implying he had racist motives. And you did. You said ....

No doubt that if this had been whites on blacks, you would be condemning the racist 'scumbags' and getting all high and mighty.

In other words, he would be taking a different line, had the races involved been different. You have implied that his remarks are racially motivated.

[peterb]

Why don't you watch the CCTV evidence of everything that happened then, you can't get much clearer than that.

Every single online publication is reporting basically the same things, sure, they all put their own spin on it, but the FACTS remain the same.

And the facts are that they were caught, charged, convicted and received a suspended custodial sentenced.

[Saracen]

Why don't you watch the CCTV evidence of everything that happened then, you can't get much clearer than that.

Every single online publication is reporting basically the same things, sure, they all put their own spin on it, but the FACTS remain the same.

Yes, you can get clearer. The CCTV doesn't show what, if anything, happened earlier, doesn't show everything from all angles, doesn't record what was said, and so on.

CCTV evidence is part of the whole, not the whole.

And you're making assumptions again, this time that I haven't watched it.

[Mossy]

People like you disturb me.

No doubt that if this had been whites on blacks, you would be condemning the racist 'scumbags' and getting all high and mighty.

Now this is a different situation, all the immigrant-defenders pop up and start saying it's okay for people to kick people in the head... shocking.

If it was the other way round I agree they probably be thinking of re-introducing the Death penalty.. or at least be getting the maximum sentence.

[Disturbedguy]

Why don't you watch the CCTV evidence of everything that happened then, you can't get much clearer than that.

Every single online publication is reporting basically the same things, sure, they all put their own spin on it, but the FACTS remain the same.

Tbh while the CCTV footage is there and DOES show this woman being attacked, it only shows it from the time the women were running at the girl and not what happened before and as I said before, there are clearly sections of the video where it has been cut.

Maybe showing that the woman that got assaulted isn't so innocent? I'm not saying this is the case, but surely its a possibility?

[Knoxville]

That makes it even more outrageous. He hardly did anything to them.

If it were me, I would have ripped their eyes out not just thrown a few weak punches.

And now you'd be inside for GBH with intent and your girlfriend (assosciate to a man who beat four asian women near to death in her neighbourhood) would be walking the streets alone with a huge target on her back. It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, in the real world things happen sometimes before you even have time to react.

I'm going to take five minutes out here and speak not as a Moderator but as a human being because stuff like this annoys the living hell out of me. Aren't we a bit beyond the Mails closet racism now? Aren't we all a bit too clever to buy into the mis-quotes and biased articles? If you read the whole thing beyond the inflamatory headlines or find yourself a better source the facts are fairly clear.

Look at the way the article is constructed. Before you even know what really happened the headline and sub-headlines fill you with all the opinion you think you need. They screamed "kill the white slag" and "escaped with a suspended sentence". They've been convicted and sentenced one has a curfew for the next six months, they just aren't going away quite yet no but that is not an "escape" that's the way our legal system works for people of any race, colour or creed. Does any ethnic community raise the race issue when a white guy convicted of sexual assault or stealing millions of quids worth of goods from private residences gets a suspended sentence and community service with paid accomodation? No. They get on with their day just like you should be now.

Every image of the suspects in that article is taken from Facebook by the looks of things and probably aren't the best pictures either while the victims of the piece have been given the chance to doll themselves up nicely for the Daily Fails best photographer. They're all mid-twenties and from Leicester right? I bet one of them at least has graduation photos but you'll never see them. Yes, that's specualtion too, but I'm not printing it and calling it news.

That's before you even start on the facts, it's alleged that the victims boyfriend hurled a fair few of his own racial epithets before violence took place, are they quoted? No, they weren't even admitted to in court. Are there pictures of the bruises and cuts he left on the four while defending his girlfriend? No, of course not. Because six of one and half a dozen of the other isn't news, but a vicious racially motivated beating by hooligans is.

It is the groups in society that read into and believe these articles that help create the gap between communities. That foster the belief that just because of someones religion they got away with something and it has to stop.

None of us were there, none of us heard every witness statement, watched all the uncut cctv footage, none of us have access to the Polices incident reports.. Fact is, we know what we're told and if you're reading Daily Mail articles you aren't getting facts, you're getting an opinion with the facts they like thrown in to help make their point. Nothing more.

Oh, and lets not start the Sharia law debate. It's not an issue in this country and never will it be and poking misguided jabs at something that has been misunderstood and used to stir the racism pot for years when our own and Americas legal system are currently eroding your rights to things as basic as your privacy is ridiculous to me; especially as it has absolutely nothing to do with the article in question, if you can shoe horn it in there you're a better man than I and maybe you should be applying to write the next one of these "news" articles for them.

If you all want to discuss how stupid it is that four people can beat up a woman in the middle of the street and walk away with a suspended sentence be my guest, it is stupid. If you want to talk about the failings in our legal system across the board and how full our prisons are, go to it. But lets leave religion out of it shall we, we're all smarter than that.

Idiots are idiots, no matter where they're from or what version of god they choose to worship, end of.

Rant over. Mod hat firmly back on

[Disturbedguy]

< -- Snip -- >

Well said to be honest.

While I understand what you said and if the guy did racially abuse the four women then he is an idiot and his actions got his girlfriend viciously assaulted.

At the same time, if he did racially abuse the four women, it still doesn't give them the right to assault someone the way they did.

But, as you said, we don't and probably won't have all the facts.