Tram Woman vs. The Somalian 4

[Rincewind]

Pleading guilty normally helps the case I think. The judge also has to take into account the amount of time served on remand. Without knowing all the guidelines for sentancing it is difficult for the ordinary person on the street to pass an unbiassed opinion. There are many factors the judge has to weigh up and not all that he sees about the case is released to the press. Some judges may well be dodgery old fools but they have years of experience. They are also human like the rest of us and may be swayed occasionly by their own opinions. How many on here could pass a honest judgement without being influenced by their own opinions and experience?

I doubt there is favourtism when it comes to the cases mentioned. It is some are highlighted more than others and just picking one or two as examples out of the thousands each week is not represensitive of the truth.

There may be a lot of flaws in our judicial system but it is hell of a lot fairer than many other countries.

[Babylon]

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.

If you say so... anyway, could you please provide evidence of them not being intoxicated?

[Guest MattP]

If you say so... anyway, could you please provide evidence of them not being intoxicated?

I didn't realise it was a requirement of victims in court to have to prove they were sober.

[Babylon]

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.

3) So being drunk has absolutely nothing to do with it then, it's all about numbers?

4) There are also claims of racist abuse from the defendant. Were you there? Can you see if there was any interaction between then further down the road? Can you prove conclusively one way or the other who or what actually started the event?

No body is making excuses, but it seems to me there are people very quickly jumping to conclusions.

[Babylon]

I didn't realise it was a requirement of victims in court to have to prove they were sober.

It's got sod all to do with court, you're claiming she was sober and minding her own business. You can't actually back up either of those points with facts. You don't know whether they were intoxicated, and you don't know if there was interaction further down the road before the cameras start picking it up.

With that in mind, you make a judgement on what you do know. They are scum, and they got a sentence in line with that of someone else committing a similar crime.

[Guest MattP]

3) So being drunk has absolutely nothing to do with it then, it's all about numbers?

4) There are also claims of racist abuse from the defendant. Were you there? Can you see if there was any interaction between then further down the road? Can you prove conclusively one way or the other who or what actually started the event?

No body is making excuses, but it seems to me there are people very quickly jumping to conclusions.

3. Drunken brawl is different to a drunken attack. If the numbers are fairly even its a drunken brawl, if the numbers are weighted to one side I'd call if an attack.

4. Virtually every time I have read a case where a white person has been attacked by a group of non whites the accused always make a seemingly baseless claim of how they were provoked by a racist remark. Standard response now probably used as they know they can garner some support from some white middle class leftists who can fall over themselves to defend them.

[James.]

No body is making excuses, but it seems to me there are people very quickly jumping to conclusions.

I think people are guilty of that from both sides. The lefties naturally feel inclined to justify the judges decision while the righties naturally want to argue for a tougher sentence.

I like to think I am neither left or right, I just try to assess things separately on their merits. In this case, while I fully acknowledge I don't know all the facts, from what I have seen and read I am inclined to think the sentence should have been tougher (yes I know it was at the top end - so what I'm saying is sentencing guidelines should be reviewed, etc).

Just because no one knows absolutely everything I don't see anything wrong with offering a view on the available evidence. If we only had opinions on stuff we knew 100% of the information about this place would be dead (whether that''d be a good thing or not is another question!).

[Guest MattP]

It's got sod all to do with court, you're claiming she was sober and minding her own business. You can't actually back up either of those points with facts. You don't know whether they were intoxicated, and you don't know if there was interaction further down the road before the cameras start picking it up.

With that in mind, you make a judgement on what you do know. They are scum, and they got a sentence in line with that of someone else committing a similar crime.

You can't read or judge every case on the basis the victim might be pissed.

[Finnegan]

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.

1. But you don't know, do you? All you have to go on is a CCTV clip and that's exactly my point. You weren't there, the judge has heard all the evidence with a sound knowledge of the legal system and has made a decision. By contrast, you've read the Mail and seen a brief video and made up your mind.

2. wat? There's most certainly two versus four going on here. That they, like every predatory animal on the planet, targeted the weakest doesn't really change the video-recorded facts. And it's not like the bloke immediately stepped back and went "okay, this isn't my fight!" he responded with violence of his own - it was a brawl.

3. I'm not going to start an argument over what ratio constitutes a "brawl" and what's simply an assault but I stand by my initial point. This shit happens all the time up and down the country in city centres and estates, a pissed up group of four laying into a couple of people and a fight ensuing just isn't an extraordinary occurance.

4. That doesn't mean they were on the fucking prowl looking for little white girls to kick in, does it? If four pissed up, thuggish chavs see me looking at them somewhat cautiously on my way home and decide I'm giving them dodgy looks, proceed to kick the shit out of me and leave on the floor it means they're an aggressive and unreasonable collection of wankers. It doesn't mean they were on the prowl for nerds to beat on.

[Finnegan]

I didn't realise it was a requirement of victims in court to have to prove they were sober.

Uhm, excuse me, why are you picking this point to get all defensive and snarky about? To the extent of even trying to drag it into the other thread?

It was you that brought up the relevance of the victims being sober or not - Babs simply pointed out you had no idea that was the case.

[Babylon]

I think people are guilty of that from both sides. The lefties naturally feel inclined to justify the judges decision while the righties naturally want to argue for a tougher sentence.

I like to think I am neither left or right, I just try to assess things separately on their merits. In this case, while I fully acknowledge I don't know all the facts, from what I have seen and read I am inclined to think the sentence should have been tougher (yes I know it was at the top end - so what I'm saying is sentencing guidelines should be reviewed, etc).

Just because no one knows absolutely everything I don't see anything wrong with offering a view on the available evidence. If we only had opinions on stuff we knew 100% of the information about this place would be dead (whether that''d be a good thing or not is another question!).

I don't think anyone has justified the judges decision, all they have said is the sentence given is inline with other sentences of similar acts. The judge doesn't set the guidelines he just follows them, and I already said about 3 pages ago the problem here is the fact you pretty much need to kill someone now days.

Have I said you can't have an opinion? All I've said is if you don't know someone is sober, and if you don't know there were minding their own business, don't say categorically that they were.

[Guest MattP]

Uhm, excuse me, why are you picking this point to get all defensive and snarky about? To the extent of even trying to drag it into the other thread?

It was you that brought up the relevance of the victims being sober or not - Babs simply pointed out you had no idea that was the case.

Fair enough. It wasn't intended to sound sarky.

[Rincewind]

I have never served on a jury and I do not really want to. I would be afraid of my personal feelings about the case overiding the facts. I also wonder how many on here would be able to make unbiassed decisions based on evidence. Maybe some of you have served on a jury but I am just going on some of the replies. A lot of what has been said would have been advised to ignore. If there is no evidence of what has been said then ignore it.Saying that racial abuse is always one sided so these have to be guilty to address the balance' is not evidence and nothing to do with the case being heard. Detatch yourself from those thoughts.

When newspapers like the Mail publish stories they are not written by experienced lawyers but everyday normal journalists who want their report to be headlines. They cannot put down every single detail of the case. That would cover the whole of the edition. The story is edited to cover one or mabe a two page story. For Sun readers it would probably contain more pictures and a bigger outragious headline.

For these reasons I try not to judge and leave it for those that have seen all the transcripts and evidence of cases.

[James.]

I don't think anyone has justified the judges decision, all they have said is the sentence given is inline with other sentences of similar acts. The judge doesn't set the guidelines he just follows them, and I already said about 3 pages ago the problem here is the fact you pretty much need to kill someone now days.

Have I said you can't have an opinion? All I've said is if you don't know someone is sober, and if you don't know there were minding their own business, don't say categorically that they were.

I didn't say you did say I couldn't have an opinion. I was just saying there was nothing wrong with offering a view on something that we don't know everything about.

And I'm not having a go at the judge specifically. Just saying that in the ideal world that my tiny little mind is capable of imagining an attack such as that should be dealt with by actual time in prison. I can't imagine the perpetrators feel rehabilitated or punished for what they've done. That bothers me.

[Kitchandro]

3) So being drunk has absolutely nothing to do with it then, it's all about numbers?

4) There are also claims of racist abuse from the defendant. Were you there? Can you see if there was any interaction between then further down the road? Can you prove conclusively one way or the other who or what actually started the event?

No body is making excuses, but it seems to me there are people very quickly jumping to conclusions.

Well it's not a brawl if you are the victim and don't punch back, is it?

I'm not getting into this racial issue but for christ's sake lets not make out it was anything other than a vicious attack on someone, drunk or not.

[Koke]

Even if you believe it was a light sentence, why do you think its favouritism? Many people have gotten away scott-free time & time again. Some of you make it sound like this is the first time in mankind that a group of people got away with assault. Or received a light sentence.

[hairy]

You may find this of interest. Different paper, different story. The Tram woman however was filmed so the evidence is there for all to see and not dependant on a paper's spin on things.

RHEA Page, 22, was beaten up by an all-girl gang of three sisters and their cousin in Leicester city centre. As the women kicked and punched Page they allegedly yelled “Kill the white slag”.

The Daily Mail states this as a fact:

The four girls had screamed ‘kill the white slag’ as they kicked her.

The four Somalian girls are Muslim.

Page was with her boyfriend, Lewis Moore, 23, waiting for a taxi when she was attacked by Ambaro Maxamed, 24, Ayan Maxamed, 28, Hibo Maxamed, 24, and Ifrah Nur, 28.

Says Page:

“We were just minding our own business but they kept shouting ‘white bitch’ and ‘white slag’ at me. When I turned around one of them grabbed my hair then threw me on the ground. They were taking turns to kick me over and over. I thought they were going to kill me… Even after the police came and they all ran away, one of them came running back to kick me in the head one last time. I honestly think they attacked me just because I am white. I can’t think of any other reason.”

In court, each of the women admitted actual bodily harm.

The criminals were not jailed. They were handed suspended sentences, each sentenced to six-month jail terms, suspended for 12 months, at Leicester Crown Court last month. Hibo Maxamed also received a four-month curfew between 9pm and 6am, while the others were ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.

The Mail says:

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.

The Mail sees the Muslim angle as a key element to this story. Its headline runs:

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’

What the court heard was Gary Short, mitigating for Ambaro Maxamed, saying:

“Although Miss Page’s partner used violence, it doesn’t justify their behaviour. They’re Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn’t something they’re used to.”

None of the defendants was charged with racial aggravation. The court did not believe race to be a factor.

The Mail writes:

Nur claimed Mr Moore, a fence builder, had been racially abusive, but this was not accepted by the prosecution.

So. Both sides alleged racial abuse. And both sides’ arguments were dismissed. But the Mail has its story. It needs to push the Muslim angle. The opening line of the Mail’s story reports:

A gang of Muslim women who attacked a passer-by in a city centre walked free from court after a judge heard they were ‘not used to being drunk’ because of their religion.

Are they a gang because they are Muslims? No. Did the judge pay any heed to the defence’s argument about religion affecting their tolerance to booze? There is no sign that he did.

Compare that to the Telegraph’s opening line:

Rhea Page, 22, had been walking home with her boyfriend after a night out when the drunken women attacked her, knocking her to the ground and taking turns to kick her in the head.

The Telegraph story does not mention the word “Muslim” once.

The Sun, however, agrees with the Mail. Its headline goes:

Muslim girl gang who kicked woman in head freed after court hears they were ‘not used to drinking’

The paper than connives to produce this line:

But the judge handed the girls suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.

We do not know that the judge paid any heed to defence’s argument. But the Sun makes a direct link. This smacks of dishonest reporting.

It smacks of this on the Gates Of Vienna blog:

The judge let Ms. Page’s assailants off with suspended sentences. He said that they were not used to the effects of alcohol, due to their religious and cultural background.No. He did not.

On this forum, readers are told:

Racist gang go free – because they ‘weren’t used to drinking’

Only, race was not a proven issue in the crime.

But the story builds, and the Telegraph then produces a second report that notes:

Muslim women not used to drinking walk free after attack on woman… However, the judge handed the women suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.

The lie gathers momentum.

The attack on Miss Page, though frightening, was not life threatening. Perhaps this influenced the judge? The Mail writes:

Miss Page was treated for bruises and grazes after the attack in June last year…

Our intention is not to play down Miss Page’s suffering, rather to ask why this story made it to page 5 of the Daily Mail and is worthy of a Sun editorial that says the girl gang “screamed racist abuse… The poor dears were Muslims and not used to drinking, you see“. This was not about Broken Britain, the Sun’s pet cause. Why not? Why isn’t this presented as just another grim case of mindless, drink-fueled violence? Why is this about Muslims attacking a white woman?

The Mail then recall the words of Judge Brown, who said that “those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside”:

But he said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore as he tried to defend his girlfriend, and handed the defendants a suspended sentence.

Says Hibo Maxamed: “I’m not proud of it, it’s not something I want to talk about. I just want to get on with my life.”

As a Muslim…

[purpleronnie]

Even if you believe it was a light sentence, why do you think its favouritism? Many people have gotten away scott-free time & time again. Some of you make it sound like this is the first time in mankind that a group of people got away with assault. Or received a light sentence.

I posted a story about a white youth convicted of a racist assault, he didnt go to jail, no response to that, people are so closed minded that they stand by their view even if its deluded, they want to believe muslims have it easy or like you said have favouritism, its not worth your time argueing with them because they will never open their minds.

[Babylon]

I didn't say you did say I couldn't have an opinion. I was just saying there was nothing wrong with offering a view on something that we don't know everything about.

Have a view, just don't make stuff up to strengthen your view point.

I didn't say you did say I couldn't have an opinion. I was just saying there was nothing wrong with offering a view on something that we don't know everything about.

Already said the same myself.

[Koke]

I posted a story about a white youth convicted of a racist assault, he didnt go to jail, no response to that, people are so closed minded that they stand by their view even if its deluded, they want to believe muslims have it easy or like you said have favouritism, its not worth your time argueing with them because they will never open their minds.

With the link hairy provided [thanks hairy], I was reminded of this in the comment sections

Actually the *I was drunk m’lod* defence has been used many times, most notably it came into the media spotlight when a Link was made between between drunken violence and wife-beater (in 2007) the particular crime which the media focused on was when a white man glassed his ex-girlfriends new boyfriend, and beat him up. The man was also charged with harassment. Sentence? 120 hours of community service as the defendant was remanded in custody while awaiting trial.

People getting suspended sentences or community service is not something new. Happens a lot. I'm not being biased here. I don't even like these particular girls, they have had drink related incidents in the past [noteably in 2007 when 2 of them + friends arrived drunk at a wedding party and started an unnecessary brawl with other guests.] . So I'd never stand up for them.

[Babylon]

People getting suspended sentences or community service is not something new. Happens a lot. I'm not being biased here. I don't even like these particular girls, they have had drink related incidents in the past [noteably in 2007 when 2 of them + friends arrived drunk at a wedding party and started an unnecessary brawl with other guests.] . So I'd never stand up for them.

I order a retrial and I call Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as a witness for the prosecution.

[BoneDog]

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.

Just going on the 40 odd cases I know of in a small area from 1998 'ish onwards where lads I personally used to knock around with have got off for serious assault or attempted murder by declaring the born again Christian thing. There are also other dodgy reasons why some of them got off lightly but I won't bother saying why. You can pretend it doesn't happen if you like, but you're wrong.

And the point still stands that these girls are not Muslims, so no need to get your knickers in a twist. The media like to play it up, even though they know it's not true. You can say there is no agenda but you're wrong again. Thought you'd know by now that the media are shit-stirring wankers, but apparantly not.

[Babylon]

Just going on the 40 odd cases I know of in a small area from 1998 'ish onwards where lads I personally used to knock around with have got off for serious assault or attempted murder by declaring the born again Christian thing. There are also other dodgy reasons why some of them got off lightly but I won't bother saying why. You can pretend it doesn't happen if you like, but you're wrong.

I really would love you to post some actual cases rather than "someone I know". Especially the attempted murder case, would very mush like to see the judges summing up to see whether that was a factor in his decision, or whether it was just part of the defences case.

In this case, it formed part of the defence and from what I read was not a factor in the sentences.

And the point still stands that these girls are not Muslims, so no need to get your knickers in a twist. The media like to play it up, even though they know it's not true. You can say there is no agenda but you're wrong again. Thought you'd know by now that the media are shit-stirring wankers, but apparantly not.

If you aren't a muslim, don't say you are a muslim as part of your defence. Your point that it's like calling every white person christian was not correct. It's like calling a white person who claims to be christian, a christian. Two very different things.

[BoneDog]

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.

Totally agree. Anyone who attacks people like this should be inside for at least four years. Or better still, sent somewhere for hard labour with only water, hot tea and bread to sustain them. Maybe a bit of lettuce or cabbage for greens.

[BoneDog]

I really would love you to post some actual cases rather than "someone I know". Especially the attempted murder case, would very mush like to see the judges summing up to see whether that was a factor in his decision, or whether it was just part of the defences case.

In this case, it formed part of the defence and from what I read was not a factor in the sentences.

Well, I haven't searched the internet, but I am not bullshitting about the people I used to know who got away with serious assaults by using that method. They had to carry it on for a while afterwards and go to 'meetings' and such, but it was better for them than prison obviously. Surely alot of people have heard of this going on?

If you aren't a muslim, don't say you are a muslim as part of your defence. Your point that it's like calling every white person christian was not correct. It's like calling a white person who claims to be christian, a christian. Two very different things.

I see your point, but what I'm trying to say is the media keep on playing up the Muslim thing, even though they know that these girls are not Muslims. There's no need to mention it, just treat them like the assholes they are without trying to stir up hate against real Muslims. I just don't think it's an accident that the word Muslim is overused to describe anyone from certain countries who do bad things, when they are clearly not Muslims.