SubJeff on 4/2/2010 at 13:13
So some dude had an argument with another dude about who was in line first at the bank. The one guy hit the other. The guy who was hit followed the attacker outside to ask why he had been punched. The attacker (Miah) hit him again, this time breaking his jaw.
Cherie Blair was the judge in the following case, and gave Miah a suspended sentence saying: "
I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour."
Now the National Secular Society has made a complaint on the grounds that if the man had not been religious it appears he would have got a harsher sentence, and that this is unjust and discriminatory and that it suggests that a non-religious man would not know that this is unacceptable behaviour.
(
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7014701.ece)
I agree with them and I'm pretty amazed she could get away with crap like this. And wtf is a "mild" fracture? What an idiot she is. Figures though, look at the numbskull she married. :rolleyes:
I hope she receives a serious reprimand/is fired for this. ffs.
june gloom on 4/2/2010 at 13:22
So I could declare myself a devout Priapist ("Now partake of this hot dog, for it is my..."), move to England, nutkick someone, and get a suspended sentence because I'm religious? Or does that only count for certain religions?
Chimpy Chompy on 4/2/2010 at 13:47
I think she mentioned him being religious as part of the general "decent citizen\not in trouble before this incident" point. Still not a great way of making the point tho.
Thirith on 4/2/2010 at 14:50
Exactly. It's abysmal communications skills, to say the least - you might just as well argue that as a religious person, Miah should know better and therefore deserves a harsher sentence (which would be just as imbecilic). Dumb, dumb, dumb.
We had an event last April with young community activists, and Cherie Blair spent an evening discussing the issues they're passionate about with them. She was pretty good then. This, though, is really just idiotic.
AR Master on 4/2/2010 at 15:49
It's England. Nothing that happens in their courts is applicable anywhere in the civilized world or outside of Bizarro Land.
The guy who got hit is lucky he didn't get charged with failing to yield to an attacker and given 20 years plus having to issue an apology and $500,00 0for having a hard jaw that injured the man's hand
Namdrol on 4/2/2010 at 17:13
Sounds like you'd fit in just fine with the armchair generals of Worthing and the cor blimey it's all gone to the dogs it wouldn't have happened in my day all those lesbian one legged darkies eating our children it's health and safety gone mad merchants
And on Cherie and her buffoon of a husband, he converted to catholicism, I mean, this guy was Prime Minister and he's so dumb that he believes in childrens fairy tales?
june gloom on 4/2/2010 at 17:17
AR Master is secretly the entire staff of the Daily Mail?
demagogue on 4/2/2010 at 18:20
I'm with Chimpy, I think what she (or the logic of her point) was *trying* to say is that he's a generally decent, ethical guy without a violent history, which can perfectly well apply just as well to an ethical secular person. The critical line at issue, functionally speaking, isn't religious vs secular but non-violent ethos vs socio-pathic, which cuts across both. That's what the logic of what she's saying means... But I grant that's not what she actually said, and she should have worded it like the logic of the point actually is. (This is another situation of something I like to think in terms of "Look at what they mean & take that, not what they say & throw that out.")
Namdrol on 4/2/2010 at 18:57
I'm not so sure. She is on record as being a deeply committed Catholic (despite public reservations with Church policy on contraception) and has said many times that her faith is one of the most important things in her life. And if that is the (very odd imo) filter through which you view life then I can't see how it can fail to influence your decisions.
SubJeff on 4/2/2010 at 18:57
Yes dema, one could argue that. But its such a large component of that particular statement - the religious bit - that I can't help but feel its positive discrimination. And if you look at the facts of the case this guy was a total, total cock. Pretty sociopathic behaviour if you ask me.
