Law might be absurd, but all must be equal before it

Austin Barry

"Why was there a compromise?"

Because looming large over our weedy, attentuated, limp-wristed establishment is an ugly face consumed with dangerous stupidity repeating forever the warning "Don't mees wiv de mooslims".

And we submit.

Sir Graphus

I've come to the conclusion that so much of the last 10 years overzealousness, officiousness, PC absurdity, and now this, is because the law enforcers don't really know or understand the law.

I recently argued for a while with an airport security man because he wanted to relieve me of my litre of duty free gin, because it was more than the 100ml that I'm allowed to make a liquid bomb with. The absurdity of being allowed to buy something at 1 part of the airport, then have it confiscated at another part was, in his eyes, less important than his uncertainty over the rule his was supposed to administer. He told me to talk to his superior, which I didn't, and as a result I still have my gin.

Here we have uncertainty from the courts over to what extent they have to accommodate the vaguely understood human rights of the Muslims; would their right to religious freedom be compromised by making them stand for a woman; oh well, better do something absurd, just to be sure.

Raffles

Truly sickening to hear. When will we say enough is enough?

Rory the Deplorable

Well done Judicial System!

There goes another 100,000 votes to the BNP.

Jez

This will probably have the same conclusion as the NF 'march' that never happened in Bradford, 2001 or more recently, the 1st Harrow demo by the SOIE... except it won't be the Muslim's who show on this one but the British working class.

Someone in the Times commented;

"I have no objection to this man's march on one condition - the Government uses the same police and tactics as they did for the G20 protests. That means they can herd the demonstrators into some cul de sac or courtyard and then baton them for showing contempt for the Government."

I predict there will be- for the EDL/Casuals or any unconnected football firm 'bods' that'll most probably flood the area if this outrage goes ahead.... with a media hugging, touchy-feely attitude toward the 'anti-fascist' fascist UAF that will try to silence any resistence toward Islam4UK.

6 days into 2010 and it's already looking horrible.

Dixon

Yes and yes.

Whatever you think of the daft law, expressing the view that "soldier = xyz" is not incitement to racial hatred anyhow. I mean, what race is "soldier".

One almost wonders if they were only charged BECAUSE it was anticipated that they must be acquitted. A kind of "here we are, they did nothing wrong" process.

Then, as you say, changing court procedures just to suit these geezers is beyond the pale.

Its the latter that suggests outright dhimmitude.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Defendants often play silly buggers in court. A skilful judge will simply sidestep them, which I suspect is what Cazza has done. The so-called 'compromise' is simply journalists' spin.

EyeSee

Maybe we could break with convention by hanging them as well. Excessive, doesn't fit the 'crime' etc etc etc. But is going to focus attention and well, it's 'edgy' justice innit? I bet when arrested they probably said 'why aren't you over there helping our boys?'

Noa Zrk

Rod's point on the equality of all before the law is unarguable.

However I oppose charging anyone, even these burqa bullies, with New Labour thought crime ‘pseudo’ offences like 'incitement to religious or racial hatred'. If they have committed offences against public order, and there is clearly a case to answer they could and should have been prosecuted under the pre existing laws in the Public Order Act, which did not covertly politicise crimes and in doing so attack our hard won rights of freedom of thought, speech and assembly.

They will probably raise a defence of their human rights under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which grants them rights of (peaceful) assembly and freedom of association. This of course muddies the waters for the essentially fair-minded and will give them and their cause even more publicity and sympathy from the usual suspects in an inherently biased MSM.

However, as detention for contempt of court can be indefinite, unless the person in contempt apologises, an underlying reason for the compromise was probably to avoid the ludicrous creation of Islamic 'martyrs'. One can easily imagine the scenario of ‘Free the Luton 7’ loons camping, Greenham Common like, outside the relevant nick whilst the ‘martyrs’ are on hunger strike or some such nonsense inside.
Far better from Slimy Jack’s point of view to see that they receive some noddy sentence under the insidious hate laws, given the appearance of them being fairly applied to all to justify their existence on the statute book, resulting in their early release, with a minimum of adverse publicity and minority voter offence being given.

Our justice system has been systematically changed and distorted for ideological reasons. The Judges compromise simply highlights the absurdity of these changes.

Baron

The only objection should be to the law of ‘excitement to religious and racial hatred.’ How does it square with the other pompous ‘Uman Rights pap anyway?

The more these bearded fruitcakes shout the better. One would be hard put to find a better alarm call for the indigenous unwashed, provided that the MSM apologists don’t ignore the followers of the anointed one.

On the shortages and stuff: how long before our leader, and the saviour of the world and beyond claims that Britain is the best prepared country in the Universe to whether the global warming freeze. Any bets?

Woodbine Willy

Apologies for having been a bit remiss on the blogging front
"Remiss" ... that's a bit of a Stephen Fryism, Rod - you hoping to become a national Treasure?

David Ossitt

This case; is just one more example of how the human rights act has wrecked our traditional English laws, laws that have taken many years to perfect, and if not universally loved, were, at the very least, regarded by most people as right and proper and in most cases were seen to be based on plain common sense.

In am of the opinion that those; who by their own actions, put themselves outside of the law, the thug, the mugger, the burglar, the murderer, the paedophile the terrorist etcetera, should have far less rights than the law abiding.

In fact these rights should be reduced proportionately the greater the severity of the crime.

The ultimate loss of rights; would of course be losing their right to live.

smog

Some Muslims will do their utmost to get preferential treatment where they are given the option or they can spot a weakness.

Mellanby has made a serious error.

Johnny the ex red

The Daily Mail is right. We are running out of money, food, energy etc. The sooner we realise that the better. No underconsumptionist arguments here please. It's a crisis of Statism caused by a declining rate of national intelligence!

workie ticket

Rod, it's simple, she's a Dhimmi and so is the establishment's theosophy notwithstanding bringing them in front of the court for, at worst, the limpest of limpest slaps (more like stroke) of the wrists.

Once again Islam laughs and laughs and laughs.

anne allan

I nearly put my foot through the telly when I heard about the 'compromise'.
For God's sake - when WILL this country show some spine!

Coeur de Seacole Lion

We only give Muslims any slack because they tend to blow people up - otherwise we wouldn't be too bothered by all this

Pramston

Er, weren't they charged under the Public Order Act? Harassment, Alarm or Distress? Legislation that is not linked to race or religion and ws (rightly) enacted under the Conservatives? I don't mind slagging the Nu labour idiots at every opportunity, but let's get it right these are public order offences properly charged and to which these idiots are answerable in law - nothng to do with the more recent flawed legislation.

Cur de Lyin Dixon

"Coeur de Seacole Lion
January 6th, 2010 5:31pm
We only give Muslims any slack because they tend to blow people up - otherwise we wouldn't be too bothered by all this"

No comment
If others can play name games, so can I.

BTW, what was that French monastery where the monks who farted always followed through?

rod seacole liddle

Woodbine Willy - yes, huge apologies, you are right. The use of the word remiss was remiss. It is a word used only by wankers. You are right, unreservedly.

The Masked Marvel

Gosh, Rod, what's wrong with a little Shariah in the British Court system? Only BNP-style racist fearmongers worry about that kind of encroachment. I thought you had purged racism from your system.

Didn't you hear BBC DG Mark Thompson tell everyone that Muslims are an oppressed minority and so their religious sensibilities must at times supersede everything else?

You must still be a racist. Perhaps you'll have to replace 'Seacole' with 'Mohammed'.

Simon Denis

I loved the description of these men as "fat, bearded imbeciles" - rather like seven islamic dwarves. In the days when comedy existed and satire was not the preserve of sneering, pedantic lefties, you can imagine the fun which might have been generated from these goings on. The fat beared imbeciles, otherwise known as the F.B.I, running into each other as they try to ignite each other's gelignite laden jock straps; tripping over placards as they troop glumly into court. They could be given the full Benny Hill treatment, zooming around some desert in a chain of comical mishaps involving explosives, prayer mats and virgins... The full resources of genuine laughter might be deployed to make any young chap think twice before joining them - but not in the joyless, finger wagging and unnatural Britain of today. Ah, well - it was just a thought.

Dixon

I know.....Chartres.....Do I win a prize?

Lyin Cur de Dixon

No, silly, you cant win a prize by answering a question set by yourself under another name can you!

Verity

Trumpeter Lanfried - Long time no read! Welcome back!

Roger Dodger

"Why was there a compromise?"

Because of people you have helped and supported most of your life being at the wheel.

phil

Why should the "fat bearded imbeciles " be even referred to as Muslims -They are impersonators of most law abiding Muslims ,who no doubt would reject them out of hand .If they do not stand up before our representative of OUR law they should be sent back to their cells and let the case proceed without them .Compromise is a disgrace to us all ,a nation known for its religious tolerance .

Yisrael Medad

No, that wasn't a compromise but a kowtowing born of multicultural defeatism, no?

Bill bogg

the law may very well be an ass. What cannot be doubted today is that lawyers are asses.It is no use knowing the law when you do not uphold the principles on which it is based . They are of course a fiction but if you do not stick to that the law will be viewed with contempt -especially by those who are less familiar with its concepts.Give the people what they know and expect.The law is not an intellectual exercise.

skydog

Rory the Deplorable
Rory The Absurd:

''Well done Judicial System!

There goes another 100,000 votes to the BNP.''

100,001. ;o)

Herbert Thornton

Anybody who imagines that to publicly insult returning British soldiers is a "Human Right" is an example of the most disgusting sort of political correctness.

The best way to deal with the evil, foreign origin provocateurs like those Rod mentions would be to have a large contingent of commandos armed with fixed bayonets march with their returning comrades - or with the funeral processions as the case may be.

The officers in charge should have clear orders that, in the interests of public order and decency, the bayonets must be immediately used on the provocateurs.

The law should moreover also provide that any provocateur who survives the bayonets must be immediately deported.

And when such people add further insult to us by showing deliberate disrespect for our judges, they demonstrate that there is clear reason to re-introduce the salutary remedy of the cat-o-ninetails - preferably made from pig skin leather - to be applied immediately before their deportations.

Peterg22

In my opinion, this woman has done this country a vast disservice by handing out a non-sentence. Is there any way I can register an official complaint about her? Is there an OfJudge body?