Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #61
    The Unstoppable Force Super Kami Dende's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Lookout
    Posts
    20,979
    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    Citation needed.
    Muslim Migrant that recently arrived in Australia sexually Assaulted 8 different Women at a Beach, and avoided having to serve Jailtime because he said that Women in Bikinis was new to him so he thought he could just grab them.

    Judge agreed and he was set free.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    They're human garbage. THey've got nothing to their name. They're rejects. Failures. So they take up a cause so they can act like they're not complete trash.


    But that would also describe a feminist.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Dracula View Post
    Muslim Migrant that recently arrived in Australia sexually Assaulted 8 different Women at a Beach, and avoided having to serve Jailtime because he said that Women in Bikinis was new to him so he thought he could just grab them.

    Judge agreed and he was set free.
    Is this the case that was debated on here a few weeks ago? In which case it was his age not his nationality or faith that spared him from jail time.

  4. #64
    I am Murloc! Ravenblade's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany - Thuringia
    Posts
    5,056
    You know when even the Daily Mail is called mainstream and dishonest then you know the guy is really "attempting journalism" with extreme confirmation bias.
    WoW: Crowcloak (Druid) & Neesheya (Paladin) @ Sylvanas EU (/ˈkaZHo͞oəl/) | GW2: Siqqa (Asura Engineer) @ Piken Square EU
    If builders built houses the way programmers built programs,the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. - Weinberg's 2nd law

    He seeks them here, he seeks them there, he seeks those lupins everywhere!


  5. #65
    The Unstoppable Force Super Kami Dende's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Lookout
    Posts
    20,979
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Is this the case that was debated on here a few weeks ago? In which case it was his age not his nationality or faith that spared him from jail time.
    Considering the Judge explicitly said it was because of his Culture.. Yeah. totally just his age It's not like we don't have juvenile detention here...oh wait

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    How the Australians deal with immigrants in their penal system is their call and has no reflection on how the UK deals with similar issues.
    I didn't say it did, I said I agreed with his sentiment.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Dracula View Post
    Considering the Judge explicitly said it was because of his Culture.. Yeah. totally just his age It's not like we don't have juvenile detention here...oh wait
    Did he? This what I found on the subject "... said while his immersion in a new culture partially explained his actions, it didn’t absolve him." Quite clearly he saying that is not an excuse. Do you have proof that he was treated differently because of his nationality and/or faith? Because on the face of it, it looks as if you are indulging in exactly the same kind of rhetoric that Mr Robinson is known for.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Gadion View Post
    It appears that he was arrested after he illegally filmed material outside of an UK courthouse, however his arrest is on a charge of contempt for the court. If this is in accordance to UK laws, then I suppose that's the way it is and he's been legally detained. However, I consider it a somewhat outrageous law that imprisons people for simply being present and reporting what they have witnessed. As long as he reports truthfully on the events and don't give away unnecessary details that include security information or something, arresting someone for it seems counter to a few personal freedoms. For instance, in my country (and I live in friggin' Africa) it is legal to report on court proceedings and even in some of our more high profile cases filming has been allowed during court proceedings. This particular case being in the UK however, I suppose he should drink his medicine for not following stipulated procedure. I am somewhat puzzled by the charge of contempt of the court since reporting on the case outside the court's steps doesn't seem to be willfully challenging the rule of law. And according to Caolan Robertson an associate from the website they were reporting for he didn't do anything unusual as far as reporting goes, didn't film anyone other than himself and even cooperated when asked to move from the court's steps.



    From what I can gather on him, this sounds like a reasonable representation of the guy. My impression of the guy gleaned from an article on him by Jamie Bartlett in The Telegraph is that he is somewhat aggressive in his ideals and somewhat stereotypical in his views of followers of Islam. Statements attributed to him on Wikiquotes reinforce this image of him as Anti-Islamic.

    Now as for the guy himself being a scumbag... Even if it is (or were) true, what does it matter? If you can believe what he suggests, then there are irregularities that are being ignored and these should be investigated. Even if it were the devil himself, his argument stands outside of himself. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Ignoring his argument based on his character is an ad hominem fallacy. I look at the picture like this: It doesn't matter who it is that is making the accusation, there may be something to their argument and there may yet be some good that can come from it. So, instead of lambasting the guy for his argument, could we get some information on his claims? It appears as though he is suggesting that there are some irregularities in the justice system that pertain to the prosecution of Muslim men that are suspected of child sexual abuse. He claims that these cases aren't always properly investigated or that the perpetrators of crimes are let-off with lesser sentences. Incidents such as the Rochdale child sex abuse ring case and accusations that police in London did not properly investigate violence in an area of the city or covered up a "violent campaign to turn [a] London area 'Islamic' " are held to suggest that there is a widespread phenomenon of turning a blind eye against crimes perpetrated by Muslims in the UK. There appears to be a belief by some that there are systematic cover-ups in UK society regarding child sexual abuse:

    The BBC reported in 2014 that those that are charged with protecting children from a ring of sexual abusers in Rotherham failed to do so despite three reports on their abuse from 2002 to 2006. It is claimed that senior officers didn't accept the data from these reports or suggested that the claims were exaggerated. A Commissioner for the Victims commented that "It's deeply distressing how the authorities failed to protect these young people and their voices were not heard."
    A group of researchers into the response of the public and authorities to child sexual abuse claim that historically policies have failed to protect children, calling for "firm leadership and transparent management". They report that historically children making allegations of sexual abuse were not believed and even those campaigning against perpetrators of child abuse could often not believe who the perpetrators of these crimes were. Further they stipulate that "[d]espite strong pressures for change, institutions may not easily learn from their mistakes."
    Referring to malpractice in a paper for the Adam Smith Institute, Tim Ambler notes that "The inclination of those in charge, however, is to conceal it." He further suggests that misconduct can be hard to prove since those inside the bodies guilty of misconducting themselves aren't likely to volunteer information, often deliberately conceal it and even consider their conduct to be in the best interest of society since they are attempting to uphold public confidence.

    It is within this context that one should understand the perspective of someone of the viewpoint that institutions aren't fully living up to their obligations and consequently views their conduct with suspicion. These examples suggest to us that their viewpoints may be founded on at least some goodwill even if exaggerated or paranoid. Other agendas outside of these are of little consequence when attempting to view the issue that they claim to be focusing on objectively.

    That said... what little coverage I could find of cases involving sexual abuse by Muslim perpetrators, does not indicate any significant abnormalities (at least in my uneducated view). According to Wikipedia most of the direct perpetrators of the Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal who crimes could be pinned on were given sentences that appear to be proportionate to their crime spanning from 5 to 35 years, depending on the charge. I could also find not suggestion that the media refuse to cover crimes by Muslims in the UK as there appears to be an abundance of articles on such crimes, when uncovered.

    My take-away from it all is this:
    Irrelevant of the source of information, its validity must be investigated seriously.
    Despite no clear evidence of authorities systemically ignoring crimes by Muslims, care should be taken that ideology and ignorance does not lead to either a cover-up or exaggeration of their crimes in order to protect the rights of any individual.
    I'm not ignoring his argument, but any time someone says something, I always ask myself why they are saying it. It's clear he comes in with a very strong agenda, and while his intentions may be genuine much of the time, his bias is still relevant to the overall picture. Is he really trying to make things better, or his he pushing self promotion, or even worse, hatred and distrust? I definitely do not disagree with everything he says, and I am the first to cheer on any push for more responsible and efficient government. However, I'm not sure that's what he's selling.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by mariovsgoku View Post
    Honestly who doesn't have contempt for many aspects of Islam? We are having an entire war against radical Islam in the Middle East. See how "accepting" they are of white people in the Middle East or elsewhere and you would be proud of what our western countries do.
    I think the issue is what people want to do about those aspects of Islam, and how far we are willing to go to stop it. I have no problem killing people who harm innocent people. I won't shed a tear for ISIS assholes, parents who beat or mutilate their kids, or even despotic regimes. However, I am very hesitant to take away the freedoms of innocent people in order to achieve those gains.

    If there has been one thing we have learned over the past 16 years, is that we cannot bomb or oppress people into freedom. It creates more problems than it attempts to solve. I believe we should take utmost care in avoiding limiting the freedoms of innocent people. One stray bomb can undo everything in a war against a dictator. A crackdown on innocent people can turn many of them against your cause.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    Citation needed.
    So this is going to be a slightly different goalpost than what @Darth Dracula set, but the handling of the Rotherham child abuse scandal was to all appearances driven at least in part by authorities being concerned that they'd be perceived as racist if they went around investigating the matter. Amazingly, despite this being a real thing that happened, we still have people in this thread (link) that think the only reason some people bring it up is to disguise their racism.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    At the time we had a lame duck as Home Secretary, the same lame duck who is now our PM.
    Apologies for my lack of familiarity with the systems involved, but does this mitigate the charge that authorities were slow to act because of fear of "racism"?

  10. #70
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    No, what you said was which is 100% bollocks.
    but if we have people keeping an eye on these sentences then we should know for sure.


    People are missing the point about this. It's not about the crimes being reported on but the way the court reacts to silence people that's the issue at hand.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    "Any filming and recording of courts and court precincts is illegal in the UK under section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and the Contempt of Court Act."
    London is arguably the most watched city in the world (certainly top 5) when it comes to CCTV coverage. Somehow I doubt that the courts and court precincts in London are completely free of CCTV coverage. If this is so, then the mayor of London should be arrested for the same.

    *Note: I'm not supporting or disparaging Tommy Robinson because I have no idea who he is or what he stands for other than what's posted here.

  12. #72
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Jyggalag View Post
    On the pavement, outside the court. Video doesn't show them coming out of or entering the court, just walking along the pavement when he confronts them.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Nor did I. It's not uncommon to see (what I thought until now was) footage on the news of people coming to and from court as the press take photos/videos and journalists try to probe for questions. Maybe I'm wrong?
    I agree that this rule is idiotic and was found as a stick to beat the guy with.

    Having said that, in a functioning democracy ignorance of the law isn't a valid reason to break it.
    If you think the law is unfair/ridiculous (I can see a good argument that is the case here, this barely protects anyone) go talk to your representatives to get it changed.

  13. #73
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    I don't see why this law is idiotic and he didn't get treated any differently than anyone else who behaved as he did.
    Well, what could be a good reason for this law to exist?

    With less than 15 seconds of googling I found a picture of the guardian of a court (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-terror-plot), give me an indication of how big the chances are that the guardian is going to get prosecuted for this as well?

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by hypermode View Post
    Well, what could be a good reason for this law to exist?

    With less than 15 seconds of googling I found a picture of the guardian of a court (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-terror-plot), give me an indication of how big the chances are that the guardian is going to get prosecuted for this as well?
    The law is, in part, to protect the identity and privacy of witnesses and members of the jury.

  15. #75
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    Citation needed.
    Rotheram Scandal.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    How the Australians deal with immigrants in their penal system is their call and has no reflection on how the UK deals with similar issues.
    The UK deals with them by not dealing with them; Muslims are treated as a protected class.

  16. #76
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    The law is, in part, to protect the identity and privacy of witnesses and members of the jury.
    Were the identities of either the withnesses or the members of the jury compromised in any way during this video?

    Nope

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Natureapex View Post
    Rotheram Scandal.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The UK deals with them by not dealing with them; Muslims are treated as a protected class.
    Doesn't the fact that those responsible for child sex trafficking in Rotherham are serving rather lengthy prison sentences disprove your claim?

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by hypermode View Post
    Were the identities of either the withnesses or the members of the jury compromised in any way during this video?

    Nope
    I have no idea I have not seen it nor would I be aware just who is or is not a witness or juror so I cannot see how I could make a comment one way or another about their identities being compromised. However that would not change the fact the law exists and like all laws it is not optional.

    It is also to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial and having watched the first few minutes of the video he most definitely jeopardises this right.
    Last edited by Pann; 2017-05-11 at 07:10 PM.

  19. #79
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Doesn't the fact that those responsible for child sex trafficking in Rotherham are serving rather lengthy prison sentences disprove your claim?
    Not really when the investigation was dragged out entirely due to racial tensions and inquiries into why have all but vanished. Muslims are a blight, but you're not allowed to say that.

  20. #80
    Pit Lord Beet's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Who me?
    Posts
    2,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Macaquerie View Post
    I don't like Islam either, but if you just go by the religious doctrine itself it is basically indistinguishable from Judaism or Christianity. And if it's really about countering Islam as a belief system rather than hating Muslims, then the goal should be to allow as many Muslims as possible to emigrate to the West where they can be raised on more modern value systems that will help them become more productive members of society, but I don't see many "non-racist anti-Islamists" making that argument.
    Probably because the vast majority don't assimilate and instead cling to their own culture above all while isolating themselves from natives. There's so much data on this subject now. I mean If only it were true that they'd come to the west and decide to be Western above all, but that just isn't how it is. Hispanics that come to the US however are different. At least the kids of illegal/legal immigrants. They end up assimilating easily and consider themselves American above everything else. The same can't be said for the majority of Muslims.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •