It is a given that the 'race relations industry', laws and enactments are designed to protect racial minorities, especially black and brown people from abuse and violence from white people. If there were no black or brown people in the Uk, there would not be a whole plethora of institutes, charities, movements, lawyers, politicians, etc etc all making a nice living from the fact that there will be tensions between peoples of different ethnicity and culture. There comes a point however when too much ramming of ostensibly well intentioned legislation down the throats of the majority will reach choking point. As has been outlined on here, violent attacks on white people by black people, asian pimps targetting young white girls for prostitution and gang rape, muggings perpetrated by black youth on white people, seemingly any crime by black or brown on white is rarely deemed to contain a racist element if and when it comes to criminal proceedings, whereas a white on black attack or for example a situation where white gangsters were pimping and procuring asian girls for prostitution would raise the spectre of 'slavery' and racism, sensationalism and outraged comments from 'ethnic minority' spoksepersons.
There is a need for far more honesty from politicians, 'community leaders' the media and the 'general public' on outstanding racial issues. The majority of us get along as well as we can with our neighbours and workmates irrespective of colour or creed. This togetherness can only be maintained if the law is seen to act totally impartially. If muslims are in the streets hurling abuse at white soldiers, they should be arrested and jailed just like a misguided drunk with a twitter axe to grind. The worst thing to do is bottle up and cork the problems. A few good shakes and the bottle could well burst irreperably.
One last opinion, the publicity given to the Muamba illness was right over the top. Did we really need seemingly minute by minute bulletins on his condition ?
....The majority of us get along as well as we can with our neighbours and workmates irrespective of colour or creed. This togetherness can only be maintained if the law is seen to act totally impartially. ...
This is where your argument contradicts itself. If there is the problem with the law that you state, then people would not be getting along in a state of togetherness. Either that or (contrary to your position) the attitude the law takes has no real bearing on how ordinary people live their lives.
... whereas a white on black attack or for example a situation where white gangsters were pimping and procuring asian girls for prostitution would raise the spectre of 'slavery' and racism, sensationalism and outraged comments from 'ethnic minority' spoksepersons.
... whereas a white on black attack or for example a situation where white gangsters were pimping and procuring asian girls for prostitution would raise the spectre of 'slavery' and racism, sensationalism and outraged comments from 'ethnic minority' spoksepersons.
This is just speculation. Where is the evidence?
There is a definite school of thought that only white people can be racist:
so 3 somali girls beat a white woman senseless screaming "kill the white bitch" and get suspened bird as they were drunk !!
That's certainly how the Daily Mail reported it. I didn't read any genuine, bone fide evidence that race played a part in the incident, although that doesn't stop the subs from writing the headlines accordingly...
erm the white victim reported it. or do we not believe white people anymore?
Not sure if you're being ironic... but if not... that's not incontrovertible evidence. LegalAddick or someone more up on this stuff could probably clarify, but my guess is that the CPS didn't have enough evidence to pursue a race-related charge, or it wasn't raised during the trial or something. It's more likely than... whatever it is that's being insinuated here...
so 3 somali girls beat a white woman senseless screaming "kill the white bitch" and get suspened bird as they were drunk !!
That's certainly how the Daily Mail reported it. I didn't read any genuine, bone fide evidence that race played a part in the incident, although that doesn't stop the subs from writing the headlines accordingly...
so 3 somali girls beat a white woman senseless screaming "kill the white bitch" and get suspened bird as they were drunk !!
That's certainly how the Daily Mail reported it. I didn't read any genuine, bone fide evidence that race played a part in the incident, although that doesn't stop the subs from writing the headlines accordingly...
We wasn't there. The victims have said what happened. Baffles me to why you wouldn't believe them!?.
Although I'm struggling to tell whether you're on a big wind up or your just a complete c##t.
Either way, The threads going off topic and I'll probably get banned or something so my last post.
You being baffled is of no shock to me.
You believe whole-heartedly in something that you have seen very little evidence of. That in itself is no surprise, particularly given this subject matter.
The girl getting beaten up was dreadful, but that doesn't mean she's the last bastion of truth, does it? Is it possible that she may have further motivation for raising the race angle? Is it feasible that the angle came up during interviews with a newspaper already interested in raising it? The judge makes no reference to the race angle, nor do the charges.
I don't exactly believe any of the above, I simply accept that it's possible, rather than jumping to the conclusion that suits my own agenda. You want to know why these girls where not charged with a racially-aggravated assault, yet offer no decent, logical or indeed proven theory. That is far more baffling than your failure to understand the intricacies of how the law works, for or against white people.
Just to try and clear up matters over the Somali girls. I am assuming that the Telegrapg account is accurate and if so it appears that they were charged with causing 'simple' actual bodily harm and not the racially aggravated offence. For that reason and as the girls pleaded guilty to that offence, the possible racial element of the offence was never before the court on sentencing.
The CPS lawyer has made a decision not to charge the aggravated form of the offence but nowhere does it appear that anyone has challenged that decision or sought an explanation from the CPS. There are a number of possibilities but it would be idle to speculate.
Whilst neither condoning or condemning his sentence, it has certainly raised awareness of the seriousness the courts take of this behaviour and MAY have the result that others will not air such views - after all one of the aims of sentencing is to deter others.
Moral/cultural relativism is a part of the political/legal landscape nowadays, sadly.
Since when did the struggle for equality turn into a campaign for preferential treatment and to be immune from (fair and non-abusive) criticism? I suppose that is what happens when you allow yourself to be ruled by politicians and a legal establishment that truly despises the indigenous people of this country and believes that we must be punished for the sins of our forefathers in the colonial era.
Remember, if you are English, the only culture worthy of celebration and respect is someone else's; if you think differently, then in their eyes you are not sufficiently ashamed of yourself, I'm afraid.
Jimmy 85 dont talk utter shit ------------ i have never read the daily mail in my life. It was all over the media re the 3 Somali women and stomping on the white woman. GBH and years in side if it had been 3 white girlss screaming "kill the black btch".
It was the CPS against the girl and her BFs wishes who dropped the racial aspect of this crime.
As for the knob who tweeted he is convicted ----------but 50 days !!! FFS !!
Both sets of crimes would appear to be racially motivated and both should attract some jail time, 56 days for Liam Stacey does though appear to be too long, but I've no idea what the precdent is for making racist comments via Twitter/FB and what sentences have been handed down in the past. The judge presumably based his decision on that perhaps adding in a bit extra for extenuating circumstances. Nevertheless that sentence can and I think is being appealed so it'll be interesting to see what the Court of Appeals says on that score.
And to correct one error in GH's post the three Somali women were charged/convicted with ABH not GBH.
it has certainly raised awareness of the seriousness the courts take of this behaviour and MAY have the result that others will not air such views - after all one of the aims of sentencing is to deter others.
This thread has meandered off into dangerous waters but the above was my main point really. In isolation jailing him for his obnoxious views seems harsh to some but deterent has to be factor
There was an interesting discussion on C4 news about this a couple of days ago. A couple of other people have been done for racially abusing people on twitter, but they've been done under different legislation, so the sentences involved have generally been community service rather than custodial. The interesting question is why the CPS charged him with the offence they did rather than a different one.
As for the somali ABH thing, it wouldn't surprise me if the CPS went for the charge they knew they could easily get a conviction on, rather than the more difficult to prove racially aggravated one. Not sure if they're allowed to have quiet words with defence solicitors along the lines of "if they plead guilty to the lesser charge, we won't go for the more serious one" though, but it has a whiff of that to me.
As for the somali ABH thing, it wouldn't surprise me if the CPS went for the charge they knew they could easily get a conviction on, rather than the more difficult to prove racially aggravated one. Not sure if they're allowed to have quiet words with defence solicitors along the lines of "if they plead guilty to the lesser charge, we won't go for the more serious one" though, but it has a whiff of that to me.
The three Somaian women admitted ABH and it may well have been because they were going to charged with GBH which depending on whether it's a s.18 or s.20 offence carries a longer tariff - life in the case of s.18. My guess is that they pleaded guilty to ABH rather than take their chances with a s.20 GBH which off the top of my head has no maximum tariff but is likely to be longer than the max five years allowed under s.47/ABH. All these offences are Offences Against the Person crimes.
So, the CPS secure a cheap conviction but they have zero influence over sentencing, that is down to the judge alone who in this case seems to have accepted the defence excuse that the three Somalian women were muslims and therefore unused to the effects of alcohol.
It's not utter shit, GH. I probably didn't make the point as succinctly as some have since, but what I'm trying to question is the reasoning behind the lack of a racial charge. At no point have I said i believe it WASN'T racially motivated. Not once. The CPS going for a winnable charge is the best explanation, but until that was said the implication was the basic "if it were the other way round" argument, but with no attempt to explain why it might have happened, like we should all be offended by the simple fact.
agree both are crimes but how in the hell is it right 4 someone to get 50 days for words and naff all time for ABH /GBH etc.
It was the CPS who went for the lesser charge the police wanted the "racial element" left in.
It's not right. IMO It's down to the fact that the Muamba situation was known worldwide. If he'd said it about one of his fellow Uni students, I doubt he would have been jailed. It's because he said it about someone who had become "famous".
Comments
There is a need for far more honesty from politicians, 'community leaders' the media and the 'general public' on outstanding racial issues. The majority of us get along as well as we can with our neighbours and workmates irrespective of colour or creed. This togetherness can only be maintained if the law is seen to act totally impartially. If muslims are in the streets hurling abuse at white soldiers, they should be arrested and jailed just like a misguided drunk with a twitter axe to grind. The worst thing to do is bottle up and cork the problems. A few good shakes and the bottle could well burst irreperably.
One last opinion, the publicity given to the Muamba illness was right over the top. Did we really need seemingly minute by minute bulletins on his condition ?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100013521/jo-brand-you-cant-be-racist-towards-white-people/
FFS. 4 SOMALIANS attacked 1 WHITE girl shouting racist abuse at here as they kicked her.
Although I'm struggling to tell whether you're on a big wind up or your just a complete c##t.
Either way, The threads going off topic and I'll probably get banned or something so my last post.
I know that The Guardian is the only source some people will believe on this site.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/21/somali-community-britain-finds-voice
You believe whole-heartedly in something that you have seen very little evidence of. That in itself is no surprise, particularly given this subject matter.
The girl getting beaten up was dreadful, but that doesn't mean she's the last bastion of truth, does it? Is it possible that she may have further motivation for raising the race angle? Is it feasible that the angle came up during interviews with a newspaper already interested in raising it? The judge makes no reference to the race angle, nor do the charges.
I don't exactly believe any of the above, I simply accept that it's possible, rather than jumping to the conclusion that suits my own agenda. You want to know why these girls where not charged with a racially-aggravated assault, yet offer no decent, logical or indeed proven theory. That is far more baffling than your failure to understand the intricacies of how the law works, for or against white people.
The CPS lawyer has made a decision not to charge the aggravated form of the offence but nowhere does it appear that anyone has challenged that decision or sought an explanation from the CPS. There are a number of possibilities but it would be idle to speculate.
Whilst neither condoning or condemning his sentence, it has certainly raised awareness of the seriousness the courts take of this behaviour and MAY have the result that others will not air such views - after all one of the aims of sentencing is to deter others.
Since when did the struggle for equality turn into a campaign for preferential treatment and to be immune from (fair and non-abusive) criticism? I suppose that is what happens when you allow yourself to be ruled by politicians and a legal establishment that truly despises the indigenous people of this country and believes that we must be punished for the sins of our forefathers in the colonial era.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
Remember, if you are English, the only culture worthy of celebration and respect is someone else's; if you think differently, then in their eyes you are not sufficiently ashamed of yourself, I'm afraid.
It was the CPS against the girl and her BFs wishes who dropped the racial aspect of this crime.
As for the knob who tweeted he is convicted ----------but 50 days !!! FFS !!
And to correct one error in GH's post the three Somali women were charged/convicted with ABH not GBH.
As for the somali ABH thing, it wouldn't surprise me if the CPS went for the charge they knew they could easily get a conviction on, rather than the more difficult to prove racially aggravated one. Not sure if they're allowed to have quiet words with defence solicitors along the lines of "if they plead guilty to the lesser charge, we won't go for the more serious one" though, but it has a whiff of that to me.
So, the CPS secure a cheap conviction but they have zero influence over sentencing, that is down to the judge alone who in this case seems to have accepted the defence excuse that the three Somalian women were muslims and therefore unused to the effects of alcohol.
It was the CPS who went for the lesser charge the police wanted the "racial element" left in.