Babylon Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 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. Agree with you in that they are twisting things to get the Muslim headline, but I wouldn't say they are saying they are muslim when they aren't. In this case they are just repeating the defences argument. If they had never said they were muslim and the papers were saying it when they aren't, then that's different. I have heard of people in the states getting early release for good behaviour, finding god etc, but not getting off scott free by using the excuse. Not so much in this country as it's not particularly christian compared to america.
flowwolf Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 If the tram woman wasn't caught on film then she also wouldn't be in prison. Justice is shit and often gets it wrong and that's irrelevant to race, gender, religion, etc... For each case of 'foreigners' being let off I could show you 10 cases of white people being let off Oh really go on then " show" us the ten cases of white people being let off. Let off for what ? saying it was not their fault it was the drink, case dismissed ? you really talk some nonsense at times. And in this particular case religion most certainly was not an irrelevant factor was it , the bloody judge let them off because of their religion.
Rincewind Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 I don't think anyone is 'being let off' as stated. That would imply them being found not guilty The judge can only go on what is before him and the guidelines set out. I have also seen reports coming from America where defendants have the choice of going to jail or attending a church for a period. But this would be for the less serious crimes and in the most Pro-Christian states. I doubt someone gunning down a policeman in New York would be offered that option. I don't think this plea would be taken in so easily here. The defense would have to show evidence that the defendant was a reformed character. If they re-offended they would receive additional sentence. I doupt the judge would believe they were born again twice. For lesser crimes if a person shows remorse and they have got their life together then prison should be the final option. Why take two or three years off a young man who has a job and family only to come out of prison without a job, maybe no family and turned down for jobs because of his record. The only people offering help will be the dodgy buggers that he knew before going inside.
Captain... Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 WOW! There is whole load of misinformed bigotted crap on here. As previously mentioned they were not let free, there were found guilty and punished as seen fit. Maybe seen as a light sentence, but I think community service and a suspended sentence is probably right as no lasting harm was done. I think the thing here that most people seem to be missing is that a woman was sent to jail for words, whereas 4 people weren't for a physical attack, in my eyes tram woman as much as she is an ignorant biggoted racist **** was sentenced extremely harshly. I would much rather see Tram woman doing community service and repaying the community and perhaps understanding why she said was wrong by serving the communities that she abused. The only reason she ended up with jail time was because of the publicity surrounding the case and the need for her to be made an example. I am sure that if the Somalian 4 had been a much bigger national story then the sentence would probably be harsher.
Rincewind Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 True. Plus the train woman was filmed so the evidence was clearer. I would like to have her sent to a third world country to give some aid to starving ching then maybe she'd realise we are all human on one planet. Or put her and the other 4 in a room together for half hour and let them have a debate without resorting to fisty-cuffs.
somebum Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Dude, I know tone is difficult to read on the internet but are you fucking kidding me? fail
John Matrix Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 does anyone know any somalis? they are the one group of people in this country that i haven't had interaction with. congolese, nigerian, south african, kenyan, ghanaian etc but i've never spoken to a somali.
Koke Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 does anyone know any somalis? they are the one group of people in this country that i haven't had interaction with. congolese, nigerian, south african, kenyan, ghanaian etc but i've never spoken to a somali. Here I am. I'm half-Somali. Speak to moi. I think you've spoken to some without knowing it. Some look like full blooded Arabs. Others look like your average African dude.
Soar Fox Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Here I am. I'm half-Somali. Speak to moi. I think you've spoken to some without knowing it. Some look like full blooded Arabs. Others look like your average African dude. I thought you said you were Ethiopian.
Koke Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 I thought you said you were Ethiopian. My mum is. My dad is from Djibouti though. The terms "Ethiopians, Eritreans, Djiboutians, Somalis" didn't exist 150 years ago. We were all known as Habesha people and lived in what was known as Abyssinia . Its just as recently as the late 1800's that these "nations" was created and artificial borders were set. Ethnically & culturally, all 4 nations and its people are much of a muchness. Djibouti, for example, is a French creation. The term Djibouti is totally meaningless. That's also how you see black people living in countries like Algeria & Libya. The territory that the Tuareg people lived in were split into severeal nations, thus some ended up living in Arab countries, others ended up living in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso.
Dan Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Amazing that some people genuinely believe racism works both ways in this country. Not defending that scum woman on the tram for one second, she was an embarrassment, but the fact those Somalian's escaped and she's been done, more evidence.
Koke Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Amazing that some people genuinely believe racism works both ways in this country. Not defending that scum woman on the tram for one second, she was an embarrassment, but the fact those Somalian's escaped and she's been done, more evidence. The girls were found guilty btw.
I am Rod Hull Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 The girls were found guilty btw. Of racism ?
Rincewind Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Thought that had been dismissed because lack of evidence?
Babylon Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Not defending that scum woman on the tram for one second, she was an embarrassment, but the fact those Somalian's escaped and she's been done, more evidence. One was recorded on camera with sound, the other had no sound. It's fairly easy to prove racism when there is sound attached to pictures.
Guest MattP Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 One was recorded on camera with sound, the other had no sound. It's fairly easy to prove racism when there is sound attached to pictures. Did she actually use "racist language"? She made some outrageous comments but I don't remember her using "Pa*i" "Nig*er" "You black cnut" or anything like that. I think the worst thing I heard was a drunken "go back to Nigafrica" or something and I'm not sure that comment means you should be in jail over xmas away from your children.
Koke Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 That tram woman got wrongly screwed over. She didn't deserve that at all. I am for ultimate free spech, even if is bigoted, racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic etc. etc. On the other hand, people also have a right to be offended by such speech. .
Guest MattP Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 That tram woman got wrongly screwed over. She didn't deserve that at all. I am for ultimate free spech, even if is bigoted, racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic etc. etc. On the other hand, people also have a right to be offended by such speech. . Yeah I was thinking the same today, people should be allowed to say what they want, however they should also be prepared that if want to spout views that will offend on mass for the reaction that follows that from the people. Locking people up for the words they say goes against everything a Liberal society is supposed to stand for.
Lineker's Left Foot Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 The thing that amazed me the most was how they weren't charged with a race crime. I mean how can screaming "kill the white slag" be anything other than racist? Agree with you - I actually find the term 'Black Music Awards' as racist - as it encompasses Urban Styles... why not have 'White Music Awards' which would probably relate to Classica/Opera Awards??
I am Rod Hull Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Agree with you - I actually find the term 'Black Music Awards' as racist - as it encompasses Urban Styles... why not have 'White Music Awards' which would probably relate to Classica/Opera Awards?? Because that would be racist...
liamsm Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 I have not read all the replies as it sickens me that these 4 RACIST THUGS got off by saying they had been drinking, so i'm not sure if anybody has mentioned this but surely if you are on dialysis 3 times a week surely it is stupid to drink alcohol, and who has actually proved that it was the first time they have drunk alcohol, or even if they had drank enough to impair their thoughts. I bet the judgement would have been different if the person assaulted was from a well to do family. What next getting away with drunk driving.
I am Rod Hull Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 If they`d have lobbed a brick through a Poundland window and nicked some crap potato based snacks they`d have gone down for sure...
leicesterseddon Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 There's an episode in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisted when one of the principal characters, the aristocratic Lord Sebastian Flyte, gets drunk in a Soho night-club and then attempts to drive home. He crashes the car, nearly injuring nearby pedestrians, and is arrested. Eventually, however, the wealth, power and social connections of his family enable him only to escape with a fine. The official reason given by the judge for the reduced sentence is that Flyte (at the time a student, and a very boozy one at that) should not be reprimanded too severly for his actions, because he was 'not used to wine'. The intended effect, I'm sure you'll agree, is comic. And yet, here we have a British judge using the same reasoning to reduce the sentences of four women who have clearly committed assault. Whether or not is was 'racially motivated' (or motivated at all) is not certain (and certainly not from that Sun article), but there is no way of denying that that's what these girls have done. It's assault. I am I the only one that is completely dumbfounded by the fact that a British judge has actually REDUCED a criminal sentence for this type of crime because the defendants claim they were drunk at the time? (and, as others have pointed out, we have no evidence to actually prove that they were drunk, or if they were, to what exent they were drunk). This sets a very, very dangerous precedent - and what's more, I think the judge in this case has simply failed to interpret the law correctly. As others have said, very worrying in deed...
Rincewind Posted 8 December 2011 Posted 8 December 2011 Did the judge mention racism as one of the charges? And was there any audio evidence?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.