Racist Wimps

#21
I hear the arguments and fully agree that the foul creatures should spend their lives in gaol (possibly some reservations about the brute who didnt carry out the critical act).

But if they'd scrambled someone's brain because they didn't like the colour of his hair, his eyes, his suit; or the sound of his voice, or the taste of his dress, or the ugliness of his girlfriend - should they have received half of that sentence?

This isn't justice. It's the sort of bullshit political 'justice' that the Nazis used to justify the bloated sentences they dealt out to opponents of their culture, and conversely, the freedom to continue being nasty for people who were part of their culture.

Justice, I seem to recall from college thirty years ago, is blind. Not now, it isn't; not in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I mourn.
 
#22
er I've been out and about with an ice axe but then I'm a climber had to return one to a mate once
things are completely lethal.
suprised nobody's demanding there being banned the new techincal climbing axe's just say bog off with extreme prejudice
 
#23
I agree, justice is NOT blind in the UK. These little scroats deserve everything they get, I hope they rot in prison. The thing that concerns me is this, recently to asians were convicted of murdering a white male in the grounds of a London Uni. They were heard boasting "We killed the white man". This was not treated as a racist murder, did not recieve the same media coverage and they were given 7 - 8 years each.

Why should this be the case? Is murder not murder? Or am I just being hopelessly idealistic?
 
#24
JediKnight said:
They were heard boasting "We killed the white man". This was not treated as a racist murder, did not recieve the same media coverage and they were given 7 - 8 years each.

Why should this be the case? Is murder not murder? Or am I just being hopelessly idealistic?
It did get a fair bit of media coverage at the time, and the judge did consider treating it as racially aggrevated. However, he decided not to because:
1) They also beat up a black man in the same evening, and verbally abused an "asian" curry house waiter - this was taken to indicate that they were having a go at everyone, not just white men.
2) There was no direct evidence it was racially motivated - they themselves are the only living witnesses to the murder close up, and the statement "we killed the white man" could also be taken to be descriptive. The standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is applied in criminal cases in the UK, and it would be hard to argue that we can be this certain that the crime was racially motivated.
3) The general impression given by the case is one of drink-fuelled thuggery, not premeditated racially motivated violence. They are clearly cnuts who should be locked up in a small concrete hole for a very long time indeed, but we can't say with any assurance that they wouldn't have killed anyone else who crossed their path in the same manner.

bobbyboozler said:
I am at that uni
On a punctuation course?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top