The headline in the Independent says the judge made remarks about the potential impact of their behaviour on court proceedings concerning rape but where's the charges for that?
Pretty unpleasant agreed. But would it be any less upsetting if it was for reasons other than religious ones?
It's not 'pretty' anything. It's fucking awful. Regardless of the reasons. These fuckwits targeted innocent people and then put them at further risk of abuse/violence by uploading videos in which they claimed to be the heroes. Unpleasant? Don't mean to be rude mate but that is a understatement and doesn't suggest you've much sympathy for those they targeted at all. Too much like 'but other people are targeted for other reasons' kind of whataboutery. Granted you may not mean in that way.
Predictably your ducking the issue.
Taking away the political element, similar offences likely wouldn't have received similar sentences.For someone throwing this kind of accusation around you are pretty backwards in coming fowards about exactly why you are upset.
Spell it out or fuck off with this mealy mouthed, wordy, nonsense.
Politically inspired virtue signalling? You seem to be doing a lot of that yourself with this attempt at opaque whataboutery.
They were rightly found guilty of committing crimes. What problem do you actually have with that?
How very 1978.I heard rumours from two unrelated people that BF demos are characterised by amphetamine.
Yeh they can't afford cokeI heard rumours from two unrelated people that BF demos are characterised by amphetamine.
Predictably your ducking the issue.
How much more or less would they have got if the religious motivation was factored out was the question? (And would you also be applauding with the same vigor if the roles were reversed?)
The point I'm making is that politically inspired virtue signalling by the judiciary rarely ends well. Basically because any perception of imbalance is likely to be counter productive in the long run.
Liberals have urged the playing of the race/Islamaphobic card across much of Europe for over a quarter of a century .
And look how well that's turned out.
They were rightly found guilty of committing crimes. What problem do you actually have with that?
and found guilty
Britain First leaders found guilty of anti-Muslim hate crime
although not sure if its for the same thing, pretty sweet tho, depending on the sentence
Predictably your ducking the issue.
How much more or less would they have got if the religious motivation was factored out was the question? (And would you also be applauding with the same vigor if the roles were reversed?)
The point I'm making is that politically inspired virtue signalling by the judiciary rarely ends well. Basically because any perception of imbalance is likely to be counter productive in the long run.
Liberals have urged the playing of the race/Islamaphobic card across much of Europe for over a quarter of a century .
And look how well that's turned out.
So your position is 1. The state has found them guilty of committing crimes 2. The state has punished them as it saw fit 3. It is 'mealy mouthed whataboutery' or being 'upset' (eh?) to question the motives of the state or to raise concerns about a similar approach being employed by the state against anti-fascists or anyone engaged in activity that the state wants to make an example of?
So your position is 1. The state has found them guilty of committing crimes 2. The state has punished them as it saw fit 3. It is 'mealy mouthed whataboutery' or being 'upset' (eh?) to question the motives of the state or to raise concerns about a similar approach being employed by the state against anti-fascists or anyone engaged in activity that the state wants to make an example of?
wrongly targeted and abused? like there's right targeting and abuse by fascist groups?The ethnicity and religious beliefs of those BF wrongly targeted and abused in this case is pivotal to it being a hate crime...what upsets you about this?
That is odd. I'd have thought it was a clear case of contempt of court.
it might have been but are rather special friends avoided contempt of court by harassing random Muslims that had nothing to do with the trial.
the fuckwit defence much like you cant be done for bank robbery if you rob hairdressers by mistake
wrongly targeted and abused? like there's right targeting and abuse by fascist groups?
Oh, what a shame. I liked those two.
The ethnicity and religious beliefs of those BF wrongly targeted and abused in this case is pivotal to it being a hate crime...what upsets you about this?
the people who were targeted were NOT sex offendersSo you wouldn’t have a problem if the sex offender had been white/Christian?
the people who were targeted were NOT sex offenders
did you miss that in your desperation?
that's not mentioned in the post you quotedI was responding to Rutita’s post where she mentions white/Christian sex offenders.
Did you miss that in your desperation?
Desperate. What the fuck has happened to you? It was clearly a point about the very particular nature of BF and how they are fucking racist hypocrites.So you wouldn’t have a problem if the sex offender had been white/Christian?
that's not mentioned in the post you quoted