Just came back from work and stumbled, by pure chance, on the news of the horrific terrorist attack in east London.
This is madness. I'm absolutely disgusted at this attack, and shocked at the fact that it took me this long to find out about it.
Where is John Tomlin? This man needs to be hunted down and neutralised right now!
Acid attack on two Muslim cousins in London being treated as hate crime
Metropolitan police say new evidence has come to light about attack in which Jameel Muhktar and Resham Khan suffered severe burns
An unprovoked acid attack on two Muslim cousins in east London is now being treated by police as a hate crime.
Jameel Muhktar and Resham Khan were attacked while sitting in a car at traffic lights in Beckton on the morning of 21 June while out celebrating Khan’s 21st birthday.
Both suffered severe burns to the face and body and Muhktar was initially placed in an induced coma.
The Metropolitan police named the suspected attacker as John Tomlin, 24, but initially ruled out a religious or racial motive for the crime.
However, the Met said on Friday night that new evidence had come to light, prompting them to investigate the assault as a hate crime.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Acting DS Neil Matthews said police were treating the incident “very seriously”, adding: “
This investigation continues to move at great pace and my team continues to act on a number of leads to find Tomlin.
I would also appeal directly to Tomlin to make contact with police and hand himself in and would urge anyone who knows of his whereabouts to contact police.”
Both victims have been left with life-changing injuries. Speaking before police launched their hate crime investigation,
Mukhtar said he and his cousin had been targeted because of their religion. “It’s definitely a hate crime,” he told Channel 4 News.
“I believe it’s something to do with Islamophobia. Maybe he’s got it in for Muslims because of the things that have been going on lately.
“I don’t know if people are trying to retaliate. We’re innocent people. We didn’t deserve that. I’ve never seen this guy in my life.
I don’t have any problems with anybody. My cousin is 21. She’s a business student. Why would anyone do that to us?”
Mukhtar, 37, said that if the roles had been reversed and an Asian man had attacked an English couple with acid,
“the whole country knows it would be classed as a terror attack”. He described the constant pain he was experiencing as
like “somebody’s ironing me 24/7” and said he was an emotional wreck.
Mukhtar said that when a man knocked on the car window, at around 9.15am on 21 June, and sprayed the substance,
he thought it was a practical joke. But he then noticed that his cousin was burning, and started to feel his clothes and trainers melting on to his body.
In terror, he tried to drive off, but, temporarily blinded and in pain, he crashed. Screaming,
the pair stripped off and pleaded with local residents for water before being driven to a local hospital.
“When I went to the hospital, they had to jet-wash me with water to get the acid off,” said Mukhtar.
“It was excruciating pain. I was screaming like a baby. I’m petrified. I don’t know what’s going to happen.
I’m going to be scarred for life. I’m emotionally wrecked. I’m in continuous pain.”
I saw an interview done with him. This is barbaric, and whomever did it needs to rot in a prison. Why does there need to be such hate towards innocents?
Wait, did we really just have a terrorist apologist come in here and say its okay to scar two innocent people physically and mentally for life, for the sole reason that they belong to one specific creed?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Gentlemen, why are you feeding the troll? Catbugs posts and threads have been nothing but trolling across the board.
Ignore it.
Careful, the mods gave me a warning for being "impolite" (if you can imagine such a thing, especially reading some of this guy's posts), for calling this guy out for his troll behaviour.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Gentlemen, why are you feeding the troll? Catbugs posts and threads have been nothing but trolling across the board. Ignore it.
(Frazzled-suddenly possessed by Malfred) Gideon has the way of it. Back to topic guys. Lets leave off attacks on an entire religion and inversely responding to discussions of same. Whether or not people believe such, that is not appropriate for this forum.
Honestly, I think it's very relevant to this topic. These people were disfigured for life because some donkey-cave didn't like their religion, and that's the kind of attitude that did it. We shouldn't sweep it under the rug, we should see it for what it is.
Spinner wrote: Honestly, I think it's very relevant to this topic. These people were disfigured for life because some donkey-cave didn't like their religion, and that's the kind of attitude that did it. We shouldn't sweep it under the rug, we should see it for what it is.
I agree, hate is hate, and it shouldn't be tolerated here or anywhere else. Bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance come to mind immediately when BCB opens his mouth.
Its a fair point but I think a Mod will have to opine, as its going to inflame quickly.
But lets step back even further. Even child molesters would not subject to extralegal punishment in the form of acid attack, and I would proffer the UK is not a fan of vigilante justice.
Acid seems to be a weapon of choice in towns these days.
When did maiming with no comeback become an option?
It's not as though acid has been hard to get hold of until recently.
Whatever happened to 'taking it outside'?
Skinnereal wrote: Acid seems to be a weapon of choice in towns these days.
When did maiming with no comeback become an option?
It's not as though acid has been hard to get hold of until recently.
Whatever happened to 'taking it outside'?
Probably because the guy wanted to permanently damage someone with the least amount of effort on his end and without exposing himself to danger, i.e: He's a coward and a hater.
Skinnereal wrote: Acid seems to be a weapon of choice in towns these days.
When did maiming with no comeback become an option?
It's not as though acid has been hard to get hold of until recently.
Whatever happened to 'taking it outside'?
Acid attacks are fairly common in some parts of the world where 'honour' means they can do this even to their own family. But it can be done to anyone who has upset someone, common reason is when a woman has rejected a man. Answer? Disfigure her for life. Then no one will want her. There's a woman in a recent BBC article that's been subjected to five such attacks.
Ouze wrote: I know they are common in India and Pakistan.
They happen occasionally in areas of London with high Indian/Pakistani etc populations. They aren't common in London, but it happens.
It still boggles my mind that a human being could do that to someone else. I mean, I can understand shooting someone, but acid just seems beyond.
It's the same culture/attitude where you restore family 'honour' by murdering your own kids because they married the wrong person. There is no understanding it, its psychotic and cruel, and based on a need for total control, usually over women.
The families and communities involved in such barbaric behaviour close ranks and are uncooperative with authorities. Look at some other stats. How else is it that something like 20,000 girls a year at at risk of FGM in the UK and 130,000 in Britain are suffering from the operation, yet I don't believe any prosecution have ever been made in the UK?
n0t_u wrote: Or maybe because you have an Irish flag... thus would likely be an Irish citizen?...
Also someone needs to give Fraz back his mod powers, I'd like to see the dachshund legion fight for justice more openly again.
No one sees the Banhammer when its wielded by someone eight inches tall!
*So a tale to calm this place down. Pulled back Thursday either when attacked by by rampaging Klingons trying to steal ice cream from small children at a park or when getting out of car (I think it was the Klingons but the wife disagrees). Have to take dogs for walk whether I am walking wounded or not. Anyway fatty fatty likes to get picked up to be put in the car now. The wife helps leaving but going back there's a problem. I open the back car door because sometimes he'll still jump in there, but he just stood paws up in the door sill. The ancient mountain dog gets ticked off and tries to jump over him, but he's like 16 now and only partly makes it. His back legs are pinwheeling trying to get up (and I can't help like normally would) and he basically kicks the fat wiener dog right in the head and punts him for distance PUUGHH! I laughed so hard I had to take a vicodin when I got home.
Interestingly, there is an acid attack in a Sherlock Holmes short story from late Victorian era, so it isn't exactly a new idea in London.
They have been increasing in the UK recently, as we see in this example, not necessarily as Muslim on Muslim. All sorts of hate crime and racism have been increasing for some years.
IMO there are parallels between acid attacks on women and the attacks in which divorced white men murder their families, particularly their children. It's a hate/revenge crime.
Two men are the victim of horrible, senseless hate crime, and because they are Muslim some guy just has to come in with whackadoo talking points cribbed from the internet claiming Islam is terrible. The victims are largely forgotten around 5 posts in as the debate takes over. At least in this thread the attack against Islam was so absurd that the rest of dakka reacted appropriately to that one guy - I wish it was always that way, but it isn't. And I think this kind of thing is pretty representative of how a lot of people engage with Muslims, and that's a sad state of affairs.
I read a study recently that found, controlling for all other factors, that crimes with a Muslim victim are 4 to 5 times less reported than non-Muslim victims. There was a lot of subjectivity involved, of course, so people could probably spend forever debating the exact ratio, but it's impossible to argue against the overall conclusion.
I read a study recently that found, controlling for all other factors, that crimes with a Muslim victim are 4 to 5 times less reported than non-Muslim victims. There was a lot of subjectivity involved, of course, so people could probably spend forever debating the exact ratio, but it's impossible to argue against the overall conclusion.
That would jive with poor immigrant groups in the US as well - crimes are typically under-reported.
I really have nothing but awe for the kind of inner peace and strength she's clearly exhibiting. I can't imagine how I'd even begin to deal with something like that, and here she is making jokes about how the bastard destroyed her makeup.
I really have nothing but awe for the kind of inner peace and strength she's clearly exhibiting. I can't imagine how I'd even begin to deal with something like that, and here she is making jokes about how the bastard destroyed her makeup.
A gakky event with some positivist coming out of it. Sad it happened but the gakker who did it now has less of a fuzzy glow about them I reckon.
When I was still working on the border I had a man from Turkey threaten to throw acid on me. I hadn't heard of people doing that at the time so I thought it was odd.
Monsters. To think you can do that to someone should land you a long time in jail.
Honour sure... You van have your damned honour in a concrete cell for the next 30 years of tour life spent behind bars, watching your family move forward without you.
Frazzled wrote: That would jive with poor immigrant groups in the US as well - crimes are typically under-reported.
Yeah, and a similar thing happens here with aboriginal groups. Crimes in which aboriginals are the perpetrators are regularly covered, crimes in which they are the victims are only occasionally make the mainstream media.
This is a horrible thing indeed. I don't care if you hate terrorists (I, for one, do), throwing acid on innocent people just because they share a religion with the terrorists is not any kind of solution. If nothing else, it amounts to stooping to the bad guys' level.
As for the acid attack thing, I've heard of them happening before, even in the US. The one or two I've heard about involved a recently broken-off relationship and the ex-boyfriend deciding he wants to scar his former girlfriend for life. Basically proving to the world what a worthless scumbag he is. I'm not sure there's a punishment harsh enough for doing this to another human being, honestly.
How did the acid thrower know the victims are Muslim? Some things are worn to show as much, but not everybody does.
One of these days, they're going to pick on the wrong victim. The woman in the OP is doing this all right. Not letting it show that she is affected, and moving on. I'm sure the scars are more than skin deep, but her posting jokes about it is helping everyone.
This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.
There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.
Just an observation to throw in.
As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.
Orlanth wrote: This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.
There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.
Just an observation to throw in.
As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.
Yeah. It should be life in jail min. Life as in 25-30 not this 12 year lower tariff life.
Or life in jail/deportation if not born here.
Either way. A severe punishment for a brutal and disgusting crime.
Orlanth wrote: This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.
There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.
Just an observation to throw in.
As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.
I mean
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Terrorism isn't "on race attacking another".
If it turns out to me anti-Muslim violence (which is most will turn out to me judging by the posters ans stuff the suspect shared on facebook) then I would be terrorism (the political aim being "muslims/forgiengers out"). It would be as much terrorism as thoset truck attacks you have had (the jihadi on the bridge and the islamphobe at the mosque).
Orlanth wrote: This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.
There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.
Is it a political aim to want to expel all non-white British from the country?
If the answer is yes, then that makes this attack terrorism.
Orlanth wrote: This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.
There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.
Is it a political aim to want to expel all non-white British from the country?
If the answer is yes, then that makes this attack terrorism.
It makes it hate crime.
And if you get an Asian gang who knifes non-Asians, is that not terrorism then by your argument? It isn't handled that way, and yes this happens quite a bit.
As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.
Interestingly, looking at acid attacks worldwide they are more "gender-neutral" then one might suspect.
Wikipedia wrote:
A 2007 literature review analyzed 24 studies in 13 countries over the past 40 years, covering 771 cases.[12] In the cases studied, men were more frequently victims in every country, with the exception of Bangladesh and Taiwan, with a male/female ratio ranging from 0.15:1 in Bangladesh to 6.14:1 in the UK. However, according to the London-based charity Acid Survivors Trust International 60 percent of acid attacks are on women, and acid assaults are grossly under-estimated.
Orlanth wrote: This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.
There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.
Wrong. Asian make up 7% of the population and 6% of the prison population.
Your greater point on it not being terrorism is also bit confused. You are right that inter-racial crime isn't automatically a hate crime or terrorism, but you then use that to conclude that this isn't a terror attack, as if no other factor could exist that would make it a hate crime. We have no such information right now, however given police originally ruled out any ethnic or religious motivation, but then reversed that it's pretty likely that they have some information that has not yet been revealed.
So yeah, if instead of saying 'this isn't a terrorist attack', you could have said 'we haven't yet been given proof that it's a terrorist attack', then you'd have made a good point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: And if you get an Asian gang who knifes non-Asians, is that not terrorism then by your argument? It isn't handled that way, and yes this happens quite a bit.
If the motivation is to cause fear in a population, then it is terrorism. If the motivation is out of hate for another ethnicity it is a hate crime. If the motive is anything else, then it isn't terrorism or a hate crime, even if the victim belongs to another group.
Asians take up 8% of the prison population. Also those identifying as Moslem make up 15%.
Also I am unconfused as to the nature of the attack, the default is not to make a claim of an crime being a terrorist incident, and it is correct t say that it is not if the police do not identify the attack as such. Such claims are normally made very quickly.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It's the same culture/attitude where you restore family 'honour' by murdering your own kids because they married the wrong person. There is no understanding it, its psychotic and cruel, and based on a need for total control, usually over women.
The families and communities involved in such barbaric behaviour close ranks and are uncooperative with authorities. Look at some other stats. How else is it that something like 20,000 girls a year at at risk of FGM in the UK and 130,000 in Britain are suffering from the operation, yet I don't believe any prosecution have ever been made in the UK?
Of course this was done by John Tomlin against Islams. So that's hardly anything unique to islam. Westerners are just as capable of doing it.
I had 6%, but this newer report says 8%. Fair play, so that means a group that is 7% of the population is 8% of the prison population. Now I've conceded I used an old figure and instead of Asians being 1% under-represented they're actually 1% over-represented. Now, are you going to concede that 7% of the population being 8% of the prison population is absolutely nothing at all like yout statement "Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population".
Also I am unconfused as to the nature of the attack, the default is not to make a claim of an crime being a terrorist incident, and it is correct t say that it is not if the police do not identify the attack as such. Such claims are normally made very quickly.
Your confusion stems from your statement that this isn't being labelled a terror attack, and then going in to little chat about how inter-ethnic hate crime isn't automatically hate crime. Which is true, but pointless as police have stated this is being investigated as a hate crime based on the specific merits of the case and evidence they have of Tomlin's motive, and it's status as a hate crime is unrelated to any point on terrorism. Mixing up that last group of things is what left your thinking on this so confused.
Also I am unconfused as to the nature of the attack, the default is not to make a claim of an crime being a terrorist incident, and it is correct t say that it is not if the police do not identify the attack as such. Such claims are normally made very quickly.
Your confusion stems from your statement that this isn't being labelled a terror attack, and then going in to little chat about how inter-ethnic hate crime isn't automatically hate crime. Which is true, but pointless as police have stated this is being investigated as a hate crime based on the specific merits of the case and evidence they have of Tomlin's motive, and it's status as a hate crime is unrelated to any point on terrorism. Mixing up that last group of things is what left your thinking on this so confused.
I am not mixing anything up. The OP claimed this was a terror attack, I challenged that.
The thing about nasty stuff like acid being easy to get hold of is that if someone really wants to get hold of something "nasty" there usually is a way to do it. (See the success of the war on drugs, for example.)
The trick is how to prevent people from wanting to do nasty things in the first place.
A wide range of house hold chemicals will do nasty stuff to the skin.
And these are regular super market products, bleach, cleaners etc. Your average house will contain least one, and a good few other things toxic when swallowed.
Orlanth wrote: I am not mixing anything up. The OP claimed this was a terror attack, I challenged that.
Which could have been achieved by saying 'neither police or any other government agency has said this is a terror attack'. Instead you went in to a thing about hate crimes and asian knife attacks. Which is why I said you had a point, but buried it with in amidst a bunch of other really weird stuff.
And of course, you've just sidestepped the issue of you claiming "Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population" when the actual figures are 7% and 8%. No effort to admit your error. Come on, be honest, I admitted I used an old prison figure of 6%, now if you're an honest person you should be happy to stay that your claim was wrong, and the Asian prison population is almost completely proportionate with their prison population.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: It's a terrible thing, that if somebody wants to throw that gak in someone's face there's little you can do to stop them.
They were at least very fortunate that they had access to first world medical facilities to minimise the damage. These attacks are much more common in Pakistan, and with much poorer medical facilities the consequences are often a lot more severe, and any kind of reconstructive plastic surgery is near impossible, unless an NGO decides makes an individual their cause du jour.
Orlanth wrote: I am not mixing anything up. The OP claimed this was a terror attack, I challenged that.
Which could have been achieved by saying 'neither police or any other government agency has said this is a terror attack'. Instead you went in to a thing about hate crimes and asian knife attacks. Which is why I said you had a point, but buried it with in amidst a bunch of other really weird stuff.
Actually its relevant to the broader topic as seen in the UK media. There is a larger issue of what to do about extremism and non-integration and it repeatedly follows a pattern of underreporting, and a police reluctance to deal with ethnic crimes because it might disturb the multi cultural balance. We see the end result in Birmingham (Trojan Horse schools) and Rotherham (blind eye to large scale child sex crimes), and those are just the issues that hit the headlines, others are still buried under hearsay.
On the other hand when one unaffiliated crazy drives a van into Finsbury Park mosque there are immediate larger questions as to is enough done to challenge the 'far right', like as if there were neo-Nazis everywhere. I see this as an attempt to divert attention from more pressing social problems and to kick the can down the road.
And of course, you've just sidestepped the issue of you claiming "Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population" when the actual figures are 7% and 8%. No effort to admit your error. Come on, be honest, I admitted I used an old prison figure of 6%, now if you're an honest person you should be happy to stay that your claim was wrong, and the Asian prison population is almost completely proportionate with their prison population.
You should look at the link provided, it provides some interesting data. I didn't want to specifically single out Moslems as that is not the only integration issue, it is a lo wider than that and includes most cultural groups in he UK. This was as you pointed out an error, Moslem population in the UK is just over 5.4% (2016 Office for National Statistics data), the prison population is 15% moslem (see linked document). Ths might have been what my source implied. Oh andthanks for etting me to double check that.
So, I can't help but feel that disputing the "terror" part is just pointless pedantry and semantic nonsense.
Terror has been used as a pretty generic label for politically motivated crime and is broadly applied by Western nations. Sure, it is somewhat distinguishable from racial/hate crimes in that hate crimes are more likely to be the actions of individuals without political goals, but the methods are largely similar and there is overlap when certain ethnic groups are associated with particular politics. So it's not entirely false to label anti-Muslim crimes as terror attacks, especially if we accept the label for lone wolf terror attacks committed by brown people not associated with any terror group. Critiquing right-wing extremist violence seems particularly disingenuous in this context as racial violence is a firm political component of right wing racial identity groups.
From a broader perspective, it's the problem of trying to punish crimes harder because of motives instead of focusing on the fact that the acts themselves are already inherently horrible. Maiming someone is reprehensible whether it's because of race, and argument, or a stranger picked at random- none of these motives make it any better!
Orlanth wrote: This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.
There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.
Just an observation to throw in.
As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.
I mean
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Terrorism isn't "on race attacking another".
If it turns out to me anti-Muslim violence (which is most will turn out to me judging by the posters ans stuff the suspect shared on facebook) then I would be terrorism (the political aim being "muslims/forgiengers out"). It would be as much terrorism as thoset truck attacks you have had (the jihadi on the bridge and the islamphobe at the mosque).
Did you learn the difference between connotative and denotative meanings in highschool? I sure remember that.
Orlanth wrote: This isn't a terrorist attack, and we don actually know the motive.
There is a move to dilute the threat of radical Islam by labelling any attack on a moslem 'terrorism' which is one sided. Much of the crime in the UK is ethnic based, Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population. Asian knife and gun crime is very common yet this violence is not considered terroristic or hate crime even if other ethnicities are targeted.
Just an observation to throw in.
As for acid attacks, they are rare but do happen in the UK. The common factor is that most victims are pretty and female, and most are targeted at the face. It can be very disfiguring and often ends in blindness.
I mean
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Terrorism isn't "on race attacking another".
If it turns out to me anti-Muslim violence (which is most will turn out to me judging by the posters ans stuff the suspect shared on facebook) then I would be terrorism (the political aim being "muslims/forgiengers out"). It would be as much terrorism as thoset truck attacks you have had (the jihadi on the bridge and the islamphobe at the mosque).
Did you learn the difference between connotative and denotative meanings in highschool? I sure remember that.
The reasoning behind the hate crime laws is that everyone is at X% risk of violent crime, and members of "hated" minorities are at risk of X+y% risk of violent crime.
There's also an element that hate crimes are deliberately more horrible -- no ordinary criminal decides to pour acid on you "just because", although they might attack you with a hammer or something.
From these two angles, the policy of defining and punishing certain types of crimes by their motive is perfectly reasonable.
If it goes through I expect an apology from the mods on the front page due to being accused of being an American because my VPN is in Pennsylvania atm.
It still boggles my mind that a human being could do that to someone else. I mean, I can understand shooting someone, but acid just seems beyond.
Wait until you see someone strapped to their dead husband and set on fire if you think acid is mind blowing.
You guys really never seem to grasp just how vile humanity in general can be. And I find it hilarious that a bullet is OK but acid is not. A bullet can, in fact, leave you just as messed up assuming you live.
If it goes through I expect an apology from the mods on the front page due to being accused of being an American because my VPN is in Pennsylvania atm.
It still boggles my mind that a human being could do that to someone else. I mean, I can understand shooting someone, but acid just seems beyond.
Wait until you see someone strapped to their dead husband and set on fire if you think acid is mind blowing.
You guys really never seem to grasp just how vile humanity in general can be. And I find it hilarious that a bullet is OK but acid is not. A bullet can, in fact, leave you just as messed up assuming you live.
And I find it hilarious that you willfully misinterpreted statements that acid is worse than bullets as meaning bullets are totally OK, only to fail at proving a point even then. But hey, to each their own
NinthMusketeer wrote: [And I find it hilarious that you willfully misinterpreted statements that acid is worse than bullets as meaning bullets are totally OK, only to fail at proving a point even then. But hey, to each their own
And if he had claimed that acid was worse than bullets, you might have a point. But what he said was that he could 'understand shooting someone'. That would, in fact, imply that shooting someone was understandable and possibly even reasonable, whereas throwing acid in their face was not.
And, further, trying to troll me with THAT pathetic attempt is the only real failure here. Welcome to my block list. Goodbye.
Orlanth wrote: Actually its relevant to the broader topic as seen in the UK media.
"relevant to the broader topic' is a way of saying it is not actually related to this issue, but it is something you'd rather talk about.
You should look at the link provided, it provides some interesting data. I didn't want to specifically single out Moslems as that is not the only integration issue, it is a lo wider than that and includes most cultural groups in he UK. This was as you pointed out an error, Moslem population in the UK is just over 5.4% (2016 Office for National Statistics data), the prison population is 15% moslem (see linked document). Ths might have been what my source implied. Oh andthanks for etting me to double check that.
So are you finally conceding your claim about Asian over-representation in crime was in error? Is that what the sentence in the middle is kind of saying?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The reasoning behind the hate crime laws is that everyone is at X% risk of violent crime, and members of "hated" minorities are at risk of X+y% risk of violent crime.
There's also an element that hate crimes are deliberately more horrible -- no ordinary criminal decides to pour acid on you "just because", although they might attack you with a hammer or something.
From these two angles, the policy of defining and punishing certain types of crimes by their motive is perfectly reasonable.
A large part of the reasoning for hate crimes comes from the impact beyond the impact on the victim. If a synagogue has a penis spray painted on its side then the church group will have some cleaning costs. If that synagogue has a swastika spray painted on its side, then the local jewish community is likely feel threatened, maybe even intimidated. The impact of the crime changes when there is racial hate behind it.
I think there are plenty of issues with hate crime laws, but it isn't wrong to recognise that some acts can impact whole communities and attempt to write laws to address that.
It also helps direct efforts to reduce the crime rate.
If a given area's violent crime is seen to be significantly motivated by race, that's a different thing to tackle than 'regular' violent crime.
If there's racial tensions, and a fear the victims aren't reporting, Police recruitment/deployment could be changed to put non-white officers on the beat to present a less threatening face to the victims.
Let it be said even the laziest gaklord will find a way to cause damage to a person.
I hope they get caught and made examples of. But it's just the escalation of everything tough.
First, it was a punch up. Weaker people then carried knives to even the score. Then the weaker ones get guns because they are too weak to use knives. Then it's acid because knives and guns are harder to get and the punishments worse.
It's just the never ending slide of getting one over that is destroying lives and ruining communities, over stupid things such as demanded respect, honour and all sorts of questionable justifications to give credit to your violence.
You should look at the link provided, it provides some interesting data. I didn't want to specifically single out Moslems as that is not the only integration issue, it is a lo wider than that and includes most cultural groups in he UK. This was as you pointed out an error, Moslem population in the UK is just over 5.4% (2016 Office for National Statistics data), the prison population is 15% moslem (see linked document). Ths might have been what my source implied. Oh andthanks for etting me to double check that.
So are you finally conceding your claim about Asian over-representation in crime was in error? Is that what the sentence in the middle is kind of saying?
I was right both technically and in the spirit of what I was saying. Asians do present a higher percentage of the prison population than their proportional percentage in the population, and the data backs this up. Moslems also do, but considerably more so.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reasoning behind the hate crime laws is that everyone is at X% risk of violent crime, and members of "hated" minorities are at risk of X+y% risk of violent crime.
There's also an element that hate crimes are deliberately more horrible -- no ordinary criminal decides to pour acid on you "just because", although they might attack you with a hammer or something.
From these two angles, the policy of defining and punishing certain types of crimes by their motive is perfectly reasonable.
A large part of the reasoning for hate crimes comes from the impact beyond the impact on the victim. If a synagogue has a penis spray painted on its side then the church group will have some cleaning costs. If that synagogue has a swastika spray painted on its side, then the local jewish community is likely feel threatened, maybe even intimidated. The impact of the crime changes when there is racial hate behind it.
I think there are plenty of issues with hate crime laws, but it isn't wrong to recognise that some acts can impact whole communities and attempt to write laws to address that.
I disagree on both counts.
Killkrazy is incorrect in that there is no +y% because ethnic violence is omni-directional, but is only considered relevant as a statistic unidirectionally. White on black violence (for instance) is first looked at as hate crime, unless indicated otherwise, the opposite is street crime unless proven otherwise and even then is often swept under the carpet.
The police reluctance to challenge ethnic violence is now well established as fact, Rotherham comes to mind again, as so the Trojan horse schooling in Birmingham. Moslem's in particular must be seen the the victim even in areas where subsections of their society they are the ones doing most of the bullying, and in some circumstances have got a free pass even when acting in a transparently and despicably evil manner, not excluding acts that violate our one remaining societal taboo - child sex..
Now Asian people will feel less safe because they are Moslem, or appear to be Moslem, after a jihadist attack, and reasonably so, but you have to measure than against the attacks to begin with, and the rounds of ethnic violence that are continuously perpetuated.
Sebster is incorrect in his analogy, first anyone spray painting a penis on a synagogue will be accused of a hate crime, especially if they knew the building was a synagogue, a swastika is worse but the alienation is already there. More to the point synagogues can an do complain about these sorts of things and it is taken seriously. Vandalise a church however and the police response is more muted, the former archbishop didn't help but then e was in this instance continuing his job as a Blairite mouthpiece:
This comment is indicative of the lobsided response to discrimination inherent in todays society.
The problem with William's dogma, is that is requires a lobsided response to discrimination against Christians. You only need to use one insensitive term, (for example: the N-word) to be a bigot and to be criminally responsible, and this usage applies to social groups similar term against any other group religious or otherwise, and Williams and New Labour as supportive if that. yet discrimination against Christians is not in his opinion actionable. In this was the CoE was a placeholder for the white majority.
Blair chose Williams well, when he was appointed Blair rejected every candidate elected by the synod until hey got round to presenting him.
All this comes around in a circle. Violence against ethnic minorities s highlighter more than violence by ethnic minorities because it is simple to fix a single label on societies troubles: it must be the far right's fault, deal with them and we can have our multicultural dream come to fruition. As if it was all that stood in the way
Its easier than recognising wider problems or dealing with the issues.
According to the BBC, a lot of these attacks are gang related. People are carrying acid rather than knives or guns. A surprisingly high proportion happened in a small area of London.
Kilkrazy wrote: According to the BBC, a lot of these attacks are gang related. People are carrying acid rather than knives or guns. A surprisingly high proportion happened in a small area of London.
Scum bags. And if mistake. Someone's blinded or scarred for life who enevr had anything to do with gang.
Lock em up tight n make em regret ever deciding yi take up gang life as there bored in a jail cell for the next 30 years, no tv, no games consoles or that stuff.
A book and maybe a note book.
You do the crime. You pay the price.
Probably already asked, but when is the UK going to enact sensible Acid control? What about the US? Maybe a prohibition on sales and distribution except those personally licensed?
The worst part about this, is that even if the suspect is caught, because no death has occurred, at least none that I know of, the suspect with get a decade or so in jail and then eventually released, with the victims having to suffer from their injuries for the rest of their lives. This is where I support eye-for-an-eye, although if I could get my hands on someone who did this to a person I care about, I would just soak them in the acid until they dissolved. No apologies ever from me on that view.
However, get used to this. Its only going to get worse. You can't inject as many people as have been injected into an economy that can't support them and not expect bad things to happen. While others will bring up religion and culture and all that, the dividing lines will be money, those who have it and dont want to give it up, those who dont have it, and those who have lost it to the other. Wait till the next generation is born into this environment. You will see crap happening from all sides in all parts of Europe unfortunately, and yes, history does have a way of repeating itself. And wait till global warming makes parts of the middle east uninhabitable. You think you are seeing migration now? And then wait when the warming brings about unpredictable weather which makes growing food more difficult. Might as well start putting the fences up now because it will not be pretty.
Its why I support restricting the immigration of all these refugees to the US. I think Trump is a moron, however I am 100% on board with being careful about who we let in here, and to do so gradually.
Lord of Deeds wrote: Probably already asked, but when is the UK going to enact sensible Acid control? What about the US? Maybe a prohibition on sales and distribution except those personally licensed?
Even if we did. Many regular household regular every day chemicals can do nasty damage.
Kilkrazy wrote: According to the BBC, a lot of these attacks are gang related. People are carrying acid rather than knives or guns. A surprisingly high proportion happened in a small area of London.
Lord of Deeds wrote: Probably already asked, but when is the UK going to enact sensible Acid control? What about the US? Maybe a prohibition on sales and distribution except those personally licensed?
You're British. Come on! Send them to the White Tower to be dealt with Henry VIII fashion.
Lord of Deeds wrote: Probably already asked, but when is the UK going to enact sensible Acid control? What about the US? Maybe a prohibition on sales and distribution except those personally licensed?
Even if we did. Many regular household regular every day chemicals can do nasty damage.
So identify those too and restrict sale or mandate that they be made less harmful. I am sure it would have the added benefit of reducing accidents in the home and injuries to childeren, animanls and the enviorment by having less toxic chemicals in wide circulation and everyday use.
The goal should be to raise the level of effort needed to acquire and use acid or any other chemcial (or anything that could conceviable be used as a weapon) to minimize its potential for being used in a violent act. In parallel raise the minimum punishments for those convicted of such attacks including the reinstitution of part of the Hammurabi code of laws to discourage such acts.
If your government or soceity cannot prevent these types of attacks, then you need take steps to protect yourself from these types of attacks. Might I suggest the following which would minimize the effects of an explosive, ballistic, or chemical attack;
Lord of Deeds wrote: Probably already asked, but when is the UK going to enact sensible Acid control? What about the US? Maybe a prohibition on sales and distribution except those personally licensed?
The House of Commons are talking about this now. Laws are going to change, but that happens slowly.
They'll make it illegal to sell acid products to minors, or something. It is what they did with knives, and that might have had a minimal effect.
But, a kid goes to his Gran's, who doesn't have a lock in the kitchen cupboard like his Mum put on at home, and cleans her out of cleaning products.
Lord of Deeds wrote: Probably already asked, but when is the UK going to enact sensible Acid control? What about the US? Maybe a prohibition on sales and distribution except those personally licensed?
The House of Commons are talking about this now. Laws are going to change, but that happens slowly. They'll make it illegal to sell acid products to minors, or something. It is what they did with knives, and that might have had a minimal effect. But, a kid goes to his Gran's, who doesn't have a lock in the kitchen cupboard like his Mum put on at home, and cleans her out of cleaning products.
Again, you're British. Put some heads on pikes outside of Whitehall as a warning to others, that acid attacks are not cricket. If that doesn't work, failsafe Plan B is to invade France. I know it has nothing to do with it, but its what you guys do.
You can licence "industrial" acids like sulphuric acids, which have no household application. You can't licence bleach and drain unblocker, though, every house in the country needs them for normal cleaning purposes.
There already is a law against carrying acid with intent to cause harm. Probably the penalty for acid attacks should be made a lot heavier. As was pointed out above, it's almost impossible to kill someone by throwing acid on them, so GBH is the applicable offence, which has a relatively low penalty.
djones520 wrote: What kills me here is how Lord of Deeds is trolling, and the British posters don't seem to be catching it.
The bomb suit was definitely trollish (though technical accurate as it would provide protection from those types of events), but the rest of my questions/comments are legitimate points of interest and commentary, as where do you draw the line between security, liberty, and convenience?
If you are following the thought process ascribed to the left/social progressivism, i.e. the government has an obligation to do something for those who ostensibly cannot (or will not) do for themselves, then increased regulation and control of the instruments of violence is the answer while on the right, they would offer the answer is increased accountability and punishment.
Orlanth wrote: Trouble with banning acids is that many common solvents for kitchen or the motor trade are adequate as a weapon either heated or mixed.
That and batteries become illegal.
Yeah. You can get acid easily. Car battery... Cleaning products. Its rather hard to ban such regularly used things.
And extreme alkaline can be just as bad.
Kilkrazy wrote: Last night there were five linked acid attacks by a moped-borne pair of men on various victims in London.
Rule one does not permit to list the punishment these gak holes deserve.
How about a little..."Eye for an Eye" Biblical justice?
Well, its not like there not donkey-caves.
But inmean does not fev make super mutants. We have ernough problems without adding them into the inner cities!
They should look at increasing sentencing, and making sure that life sentences, already available, are applied. This isn't like an accidental killing, these attackers purposefully acquire chemicals to maim people. Very dangerous individuals.
They should look at increasing sentencing, and making sure that life sentences, already available, are applied. This isn't like an accidental killing, these attackers purposefully acquire chemicals to maim people. Very dangerous individuals.
Damage done can last a lifetime.
So should the penalty.
Lifetime in jail, for a lifetimes scars and disability.
No doubt some judge wants to give a second chance or something soft.
Its cruel but someone has to go down hard, for life. No parole. 46 when out. 30 years wasted for nothing. No gain, no fame, just a sad sad life.
Only then might others think against it.
One person gets 30 years, +, people may relise, that it ain't worth spending 30 years, nearly half your life in a concrete cell.
And that could save the victims a lifetime trauma.
Orlanth wrote: I was right both technically and in the spirit of what I was saying. Asians do present a higher percentage of the prison population than their proportional percentage in the population, and the data backs this up.
You claim the spirit of what you said was correct, but then you restate your claim to something very different to your original statement.
Here's your original statement;
"Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population"
And here's your claim now;
" Asians do present a higher percentage of the prison population than their proportional percentage in the population"
For your original statement to be but true, we would have to believe that 7% is a minority, but 8% is a significant proportion. Nobody is silly enough to claim that. But because ego you can't admit that your claim was wrong. So instead you just change from the first statement to the second and pretend you were claiming the latter all along.
Please don't do this, it wastes everyone's time, including your own. Just admit you made a mistake, you went with what you believed to be true, not what was actually true. Start admitting errors like this. Go looking for similar errors in all the other things you believe. You will find the quality of your arguments improve incredibly.
Sebster is incorrect in his analogy, first anyone spray painting a penis on a synagogue will be accused of a hate crime, especially if they knew the building was a synagogue, a swastika is worse but the alienation is already there. More to the point synagogues can an do complain about these sorts of things and it is taken seriously. Vandalise a church however and the police response is more muted, the former archbishop didn't help but then e was in this instance continuing his job as a Blairite mouthpiece
You don't understand the point I made at all. Go back and read it again. Notice that your argument was based entirely on hate crime laws as they are applied, while I made no comment at all on hate crime legislation in the real world. This is because I only wanted to point out the logical basis that sets out why two crimes can be the same in act, but different in effect because of a hate based motivation.
I didn't enter in to any discussion of how hate crimes legislation operates in practice, because it's a complex subject and in my experience any attempt to discuss the issue on the internet is a waste of time. This is because the debate is filled with lots of people who think because racism is wrong there could't possibly be anything wrong with hate crime laws in practice on one side, and white/Christian persecution fantasists on the other side who still say things like Blairite in 2017 on the other side.
