Alexikokopops Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 I was going to write a response, but Lisa does it all better than I could here, with added knowledge of law.
Leicester_Loyal Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Its the old debate that keeps popping up again, but if this was a white gang attacking Muslims, it would be front page news and we'd hear about it for weeks.
I am Rod Hull Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Sure it's those minorities who come from backward countries who are getting drunk off their tits every weekend and getting into street brawls. When I go out on weekends, I see all types of people in town behaving like total animals with no regard for the law. BTW, your first bit contradicts your second bit. Does it ? The people that I mentioned in my "second bit" contribute to society unlike the skanky unsocial, uneducated, superstitious filth in the "first bit" that you seem to be happy to defend just because you are from the same region.. Why did your mother/father come to Britain ?
Koke Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Does it ? The people that I mentioned in my "second bit" contribute to society unlike the skanky unsocial, uneducated, superstitious filth in the "first bit" that you seem to be happy to defend just because you are from the same region.. Why did your mother/father come to Britain ? My dad was a student here and my mum was the daughter of an Ethiopian diplomat. They met each other in here in Britain. Go read my other post and see if I have defended anyone. Drunk idiots are drunk idiots. Its full of them in town centres every weekend.
I am Rod Hull Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 My dad was a student here and my mum was the daughter of an Ethiopian diplomat. They met each other in here in Britain. Go read my other post and see if I have defended anyone. Drunk idiots are drunk idiots. Its full of them in town centres every weekend. But the big picture passes you by.....
Koke Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Loads of lads get out of going to prison for violent crime by becoming 'born again' Christians. The number must be into the tens of thousands by now because it's been going on for years. Happens all the time. You don't see the papers kicking up a fuss about that. And these girls are not Muslims so I'm not sure why people (and the newspapers) keep calling them that. They might call themselves Muslim but they are about as far away from Islam as can be by the sounds of it. It's like saying we're all Christians because were English, i.e total bollocks. Most Djboutians/Somalis are part-time fake Muslims anyway. Going to Mosque on Fridays and getting drunk off their tits on Saturdays whilst having unprotected sex with strangers. Most of them are about as Muslim as many on here are Catholics. But the big picture passes you by..... Actually it doesn't.
I am Rod Hull Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Most Djboutians/Somalis are part-time fake Muslims anyway. Going to Mosque on Fridays and getting drunk off their tits on Saturdays whilst having unprotected sex with strangers. Most of them are about as Muslim as many on here are Catholics. Actually it doesn't. On saturation immigration it does..... Britain as been a nation of immigration for over 2000 years and we tolerate it more than any other nation because we absorb all but these are dark times and the echos from it will be felt by our kids (yours and mine) for years to come....
Babylon Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Loads of lads get out of going to prison for violent crime by becoming 'born again' Christians. The number must be into the tens of thousands by now because it's been going on for years. Happens all the time. You don't see the papers kicking up a fuss about that. And these girls are not Muslims so I'm not sure why people (and the newspapers) keep calling them that. They might call themselves Muslim but they are about as far away from Islam as can be by the sounds of it. It's like saying we're all Christians because were English, i.e total bollocks. There's an agenda going on. The powers behind the law want violent people and other scum on the streets. They protect alot of paedos too, but that's a different matter. RACE WAR AGENDA Red capitals yo......and don't forget that the last time I used red capitals I was 100% correct. Deary me. Could you please provide evidence of the tens of thousands on recent cases where people have been let off for becoming a born again Christian.... What's that you can't? Oh and the newspapers and people call them Muslims because that was part of their ****ing defence case. They chose to classify themselves Muslim, not the other way round.
breadandcheese Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 I don't know why people are linking the two cases. The Somalian 4 should have been jailed. The judge is a t*t. The Somali women were found guilty of an unprovoked assault and frankly should have been given a custodial sentence. A different judge would have sentenced them. The lady on the tram is an ignorant fool and deserves our disdain. She should be charged as it is harassment and unacceptable. Nobody should be allowed to shout a tirade of abuse at another member of the public, it is harassment, she should be arrested. I wish we'd clampdown a lot more on loutish behaviour like this. The fact her abuse was racist is even worse. However, to draw a link between these groups of reprobates is misguided and false logic.
Finnegan Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 I don't know why people are linking the two cases. The Somalian 4 should have been jailed. The judge is a t*t. The Somali women were found guilty of an unprovoked assault and frankly should have been given a custodial sentence. A different judge would have sentenced them. Actually, if you go back and read Lisa's blog entry as linked by Kokopops you'll see that the judge gave them a sentence at the top end of the scale for the crime. Each of the four attackers received a six month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months after pleading guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).A look at the Sentencing Guidelines suggests that the six month sentence is at the top end of the sentence range for a s.47 offence, this being an attack that was not pre-meditated with no lasting physical injury.
breadandcheese Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Actually, if you go back and read Lisa's blog entry as linked by Kokopops you'll see that the judge gave them a sentence at the top end of the scale for the crime. Really? Didn't read that. Well in which case, I'd like to see the sentencing guidelines being changed. Edit: I did read that the judge when summing up said something along the lines of "those who kick someone in the head, should expect a custodial", although gave them a suspended. Maybe it's because they pleaded guilty, I don't know.
Finnegan Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Really? Didn't read that. Well in which case, I'd like to see the sentencing guidelines being changed. Perhaps. I certainly feel these girls should have been made to actually carry out their six month sentence. But I don't feel we should go particularly overboard, either, unless we're advocating that everyone who gets involved in a drunken brawl is jailed for years - which I'm pretty sure would fill up our prison system drastically in a matter of weeks! Kareem is making a very sensible point that, unfortunately, a lot of people on here are somewhat overlooking. Shit like this happens every single weekend up and down the country, a lot of us will have even witnessed attacks like this, in towns and cities on Friday and Saturday nights. It's a little more shocking when you actually have to watch it back on CCTV, I admit, and I imagine it's perhaps a little more unusual to some to watch women giving it a go but the colour of their skin is, and should be, irrelevant. At the end of the day the girl's not sustained lasting damage, hasn't spent six weeks in intensive care, the attack wasn't premeditated, she wasn't stabbed or shot or beaten with anything heavy it was just a horrible, drunken beating. Not saying that that's "alright" or should go unpunished but it's a lot more common than people on here, and elsewhere, are letting on.
Head Honcho Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 How pathetic can one Judge be? They'll be having a party at BNPHQ until well after the New Year with this one!
Finnegan Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Good point. We should definitely give harsher penalties to people from ethnic minorities so that the BNP have nothing to campaign with and thus can't get in power to make people from ethnic minorities get harsher pun-... wait a minute!
Guest MattP Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Also important to differentiate between a group attack and and a drunken brawl. A drunken brawl is usually 2 groups of lads going at each other in similar numbers after far too much drink. This is an unprovoked attack of 4 on 1 where the 1 is sober and minding their own business and the four are drunk and looking for a white girl to kick the shit out of. To even call it a drunken brawl is quite insulting to the victim.
Head Honcho Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Good point. We should definitely give harsher penalties to people from ethnic minorities so that the BNP have nothing to campaign with and thus can't get in power to make people from ethnic minorities get harsher pun-... wait a minute! No one's asking for harsher penalties you sanctimonious pr!ck...................just some parity!
Finnegan Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Also important to differentiate between a group attack and and a drunken brawl. A drunken brawl is usually 2 groups of lads going at each other in similar numbers after far too much drink. This is an unprovoked attack of 4 on 1 where the 1 is sober and minding their own business and the four are drunk and looking for a white girl to kick the shit out of. To even call it a drunken brawl is quite insulting to the victim. Uhmmm... alright, where's your evidence for the following: 1. It was entirely unprovoked. 2. It was 4 v 1 3. "Drunken brawls" are always fair and honest afairs between two evenly matched groups of civilized males. 4. These four girls were "looking for a white girl to kick the shit out of." I can point out why you're going to struggle in a few places, before you waste your time, if you want? You might want to actually read the story before answering number two, for example. No one's asking for harsher penalties you sanctimonious pr!ck...................just some parity! And, again, go back and read Lisa's article before assuming there ISN'T parity.
Babylon Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 No one's asking for harsher penalties you sanctimonious pr!ck...................just some parity! Parity in what? Their suspended sentences are the norm compared to most cases containing similar assaults. Their sentences had nothing to do with the headline "because their not used to drinking" crap, that was just part of their defences case.
Finnegan Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Parity in what? Their suspended sentences are the norm compared to most cases containing similar assaults. Their sentences had nothing to do with the headline "because their not used to drinking" crap, that was just part of their defences case. Exactly.... you sanctimonious prick.
Babylon Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 This is an unprovoked attack of 4 on 1 where the 1 is sober and minding their own business and the four are drunk and looking for a white girl to kick the shit out of Whilst I won't pick up your other points, how do you know if the one was drunk or not. If you had watched the video I would say the male clearly is, because only someone pissed out of their head would throw a punch, miss and fall over. If they are out together, then I would say there was a good chance the female was also intoxicated.
James. Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Not convinced at all this goes on all the time up and down the country. Like MattP says there's a difference between a traditional drunken brawl which definitely does go on a lot and a 4 on 1 attack. It may not be pre-meditated but it certainly appears to be completely unprovoked, which again would make it very different to a typical weekend punch up. No interest in the racist element of this, that's not the point. I think the fundamental issue is whether an attack like this should be met with time in prison and in this case I think it should have been. Obviously the judge can only follow guidelines but if something like this can be met with just a suspended sentence then those guidelines need to be changed.
Guest MattP Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Uhmmm... alright, where's your evidence for the following: 1. It was entirely unprovoked. 2. It was 4 v 1 3. "Drunken brawls" are always fair and honest afairs between two evenly matched groups of civilized males. 4. These four girls were "looking for a white girl to kick the shit out of." I can point out why you're going to struggle in a few places, before you waste your time, if you want? You might want to actually read the story before answering number two, for example. And, again, go back and read Lisa's article before assuming there ISN'T parity. 1. They are walking down high street in the opposite direction and are charged at and attacked. Unless I'm missing something that should be classed as unprovoked until proven otherwise. 2. They attacked the girl. If me and 3 lads attacked a girl walking with her boyfriend it's still a attack on one person, intervention from others doesn't change that. 3. Not always, I said what constitutes a drunken brawl in my eyes, if 8 lads attack a single bloke it's not a drunken brawl at all, it's simply at attack on someone. 4. Its four drunk Somalians charging at a white girl with various reports of racist language used, If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks, it's most probably a duck. Never fails to amaze me how some leftists will try and use anything to justify or defend clear racist behaviour from some minority groups, absolutely fcuking bizarre.
Guest MattP Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Whilst I won't pick up your other points, how do you know if the one was drunk or not. If you had watched the video I would say the male clearly is, because only someone pissed out of their head would throw a punch, miss and fall over. If they are out together, then I would say there was a good chance the female was also intoxicated. That's nonsense, boxers throw punches off balance and fall over 1-2 times a fight and that's what they spend their life training to do.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.