Jump to content


Photo

Careful what you wish for

Nice

  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#31 CityView

CityView

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:56 PM

<p>

<br />
For gods sake&nbsp;&nbsp; It was reporting what was said in court. The mail is a crap newspaper but they were quoting from the court. You cannot deny the videos on the link. I suppose you think the riots were the old bills fault too. Thanks for saying you weren&#39;t condemning me cityview but I&#39;m quite glad you didn&#39;t come to Patrick&#39;s last week<br />
<br />
Ps. Thanks gillw and sl<br />

</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>

<br />
It was only a matter of time until someone like you piped up. So it appeared in the mail. So what. Are you saying you agree with the verdict ?&nbsp;&nbsp;The Croydon woman was wrong as I have said. Your post astounds me it really does.<br />
<br />
The fact that they were Muslim WAS used in mitigation. Would they get let off if they were driving a car as they weren&#39;t used to alcohol<br />

</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<ol>
<li>What is someone like me? please elaborate.&nbsp; Piping up I&#39;m entitled to,&nbsp;as I keep reminding&nbsp;you VN isn&#39;t your own little soap box in your own little&nbsp;world.&nbsp; I&#39;ll tell you if I don&#39;t agree with your misguided views and make it clear&nbsp;you&#39;re &nbsp;quoting&nbsp;some <strong>mispreported</strong> (thats the point here) viewpoint in some crap paper&nbsp;like its fact.</li>
<li>Agreeing with the verdict????...the answers there in my previous post - to help you out.. I think they were too lenient on the Muslim girls.</li>
<li>I&#39;ll help you out a little bit more, Janet and John&nbsp;style, as you&#39;re obviously still rather blinkered to the Daily Mail being the bible of truth.&nbsp;The Daily Mail &#39;REPORTED&#39; that the judge &#39;HEARD&#39; from the DEFENCE LAWYER, that the girls weren&#39;t used to drugs and alcohol, which were mitigating circumstances to their behaviour.&nbsp; That&#39;s his job as a defence lawyer to defend his clients actions wth whatever he can find...that&#39;s why the general population don&#39;t have much love for defence lawyers.&nbsp; The way the Daily Friggin Mail spins this reporting is to make the reader believe that the Judge agreed with every word he said and decided to give the girls the lowest possible sentence <strong>just because</strong> they are muslim girls and can&#39;t handle half a shandy. <strong>WRONG.</strong>&nbsp; Read a little further and we get to the truth of why the sentence was not so harsh &quot;
<p><font size="2" style="font-size: 1.2em;">Judge Brown said that ‘those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside’.</font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" style="font-size: 1.2em;">But he said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore as he tried to defend his girlfriend, and handed the defendants a suspended sentence. </font></strong><font size="2" style="font-size: 1.2em;">This is the reason for his sentence he passed (rightly or wrongly), it wasn&#39;t to do with the alternative defence argument that became the focus of the article. They focused the article on what their readers wanted to read..something that wets the appetite of people who think all Muslims are terrorists and poppy burners! Hope thats made things clearer.</font></p>
</li>
</ol>


#32 St. Lukes Railings

St. Lukes Railings

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,771 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:58 PM

...But you appear to read it anyway? Anything that's reported in the Daily Heil should be regarded with utter contempt. I'd hesitate to even credit it with the title of 'newspaper', such are the depths of its hateful, cretinous, one-sided, racist idiocies.

People from all backgrounds do things wrong and should be held to account when they do. However quoting a story about Muslims from the Daily Heil is a bit like quoting a story about buses by Jeremy ClarUkson. If someone is a massively prejudiced idiot, their opinion is immediately worthless.


Please tell me you're having a bubble. I do not read the mail and never have done. The article quotes court transcripts and the videos are quite evident of what went on. Jeremy Clarkson has no relevance to this. How you can say it is one sided without obviously seeing the video is utterly mental.

I really hate this site sometimes.

#33 CityView

CityView

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:05 AM

It was only a matter of time until someone like you piped up. So it appeared in the mail. So what. Are you saying you agree with the verdict ? The Croydon woman was wrong as I have said. Your post astounds me it really does. The fact that they were Muslim WAS used in mitigation. Would they get let off if they were driving a car as they weren't used to alcohol


What is someone like me? please elaborate? Piping up I'm entitled to, as I keep reminding you, VN isn't your own little soap box in your own little world. I'll tell you if I don't agree with your misguided views and make it clear, you’re quoting some mispreported (thats the point here) viewpoint in some crap paper like its fact.

Agreeing with the verdict????...the answers there in my previous post - to help you out.. I think they were too lenient on the Muslim girls.

Daily Mail – I’ll help you out a little bit more, Janet and John style, as you’re obviously still rather blinkered to the Daily Mail being the bible of truth. The Daily Mail REPORTED that the judge HEARD from the DEFENCE LAWYER, that the girls weren’t used to drugs and alcohol, which were mitigating circumstances to their behaviour. That’s his job as a defence lawyer to defend his clients actions with whatever he can find...that’s why the general population don’t have much love for defence lawyers. The way the Daily Friggin Mail spins this reporting is to make the reader believe that the Judge agreed with every word he said and decided to give the girls the lowest possible sentence just because they are muslim girls and can’t handle half a shandy.

WRONG. Read a little further and we get to the truth of why the sentence was not so harsh

“Judge Brown said that ‘those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside’. But he said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore as he tried to defend his girlfriend, and handed the defendants a suspended sentence”

This is the reason for his sentence he passed (rightly or wrongly), it wasn’t to do with the alternative defence argument that became the focus of the article. They focused the article on what their readers wanted to read..something that wets the appetite of people who think all Muslims are terrorists and poppy burners! Hope that’s made things clearer.

#34 RetiredMember1

RetiredMember1

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,066 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:07 AM

If the Mail offends you, CityView (as it does me, and SLR, he says, too), maybe you'll take the time to watch the video of the five-minute sustained attack (including the bit in the middle where the bloke is felled twice trying to defend his girlfriend and the bit near the end where one of the girls, told to stand back, aims one more kick at the victim's head as two police officers crouch over her) and read the verbatim quotes from the judge on sentencing the gang as to the apparently mitigating circumstances in the Telegraph? http://www.telegraph...-Leicester.html

#35 Chris Palace

Chris Palace

    Member

  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:10 AM

Please tell me you're having a bubble.


I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, Not sure what the cockernee rhyming slang for that is.

I do not read the mail and never have done.


So why are you quoting from it? If you want to bring up some cretinous example from a racist rag, at least have the decency to admit what you did.

The article quotes court transcripts and the videos are quite evident of what went on.


We get it you love the Daily Heil. It reinforces your blinkered, narrow minded views.


Jeremy Clarkson has no relevance to this. How you can say it is one sided without obviously seeing the video is utterly mental.


It was a simple analogy. Would you like me to draw you a picture explaining what an analogy is?

I really hate this site sometimes.


And yet here you are, posting away. .

#36 St. Lukes Railings

St. Lukes Railings

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,771 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:36 AM

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, Not sure what the cockernee rhyming slang for that is.



So why are you quoting from it? If you want to bring up some cretinous example from a racist rag, at least have the decency to admit what you did.



We get it you love the Daily Heil. It reinforces your blinkered, narrow minded views.




It was a simple analogy. Would you like me to draw you a picture explaining what an analogy is?



And yet here you are, posting away. .



Belittling me as a londoner, on a london site? You'll keep sunshine.

Read GillW's post. It quotes from a respected broadsheet. Not the Daily Heil only (ho ho ho, that's so funny). As for racist rag, i still reiterate what i and others have said....watch the video and see what 'racist' activity was going on. And how people can have a go at the fella protecting his girlfriend from an attack. What was he supposed to do? Take notes? If anyone touched my kid or family they would get my wrath. Would you stand by and take that? That would make you a proper melt in my book if you stood by and let that happen.



Cityview. You dont have to read the mail to have access to a link.

I really despair

#37 CityView

CityView

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 01:13 AM

If the Mail offends you, CityView (as it does me, and SLR, he says, too), maybe you'll take the time to watch the video of the five-minute sustained attack (including the bit in the middle where the bloke is felled twice trying to defend his girlfriend and the bit near the end where one of the girls, told to stand back, aims one more kick at the victim's head as two police officers crouch over her) and read the verbatim quotes from the judge on sentencing the gang as to the apparently mitigating circumstances in the Telegraph? http://www.telegraph...-Leicester.html



I watched it before I made my first post, why do you think I hadn't watched it? It's a disgrace, they should have got a greater punshment, I've also said that. Why are you suggesting I think it's all OK? a very odd assumption to arrive at.

I've looked at the Daily Telegraph link. Help me out, where does it quote the judge saying, the muslim girls were let off lightly because they're Muslim and can't handle a drink? Where? quote it...word of word please. It reads pretty much like the DM to me.

If you can't find i,t I suggest re thinking your next post before you write it?

#38 Summit Lover

Summit Lover

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 5,019 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:13 AM



mod's note
I want to keep this thread open, so while I go back and review the barrage of tit for tat responses) a bit later, please desist from personal insults and stick to the topic in hand.

Thanks.

Edited by Summit Lover, 07 December 2011 - 07:15 AM.


#39 kibitzer

kibitzer

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:16 AM

Does anyone remember a television sit com called Hot Metal? Geoffrey Palmer starred (if that is the word) It was about a tabloid called the Daily Crucible and had an awful hack called Greg Kettle who was finding ill in everyone and printing it - it seems that this made up rag lives! Oh well I thought I would bring some closure to this matter - it was a good programme as it overemphasised what went on in the press - dreadful pig like reporters, editorial staff accommodated in the lift and "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" as a mission statement. That was set in the 1980s - prophetic it would seem now.

#40 Dazza

Dazza

    Council Boy

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:22 AM

I would have torn into those filthy animals regardless if it was my girlfriend or not !

The lady on the tram should get off with a slap on the wrist if the equivalent punishment is dished out anyway she was probably on her period !

Dazza

PS Whats wrong with the Daily Mail ? Proud to be a Londoner & Englishman
Your obviously mistaken me with someone who gives a fig

#41 Axean

Axean

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 895 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:56 AM

A bit disturbed by the attacks on the Daily Mail, especially when I'd guess the attacks come from people that read the Guardian. These papers are two sides of the same coin, and it's a fairly entertaining little coin.
But I'd consider many Gaurdian readers, often with their totalitarian beliefs, for more worrying.

#42 Chris Palace

Chris Palace

    Member

  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:09 AM



#43 CityView

CityView

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:35 AM

A bit disturbed by the attacks on the Daily Mail, especially when I'd guess the attacks come from people that read the Guardian. These papers are two sides of the same coin, and it's a fairly entertaining little coin.
But I'd consider many Gaurdian readers, often with their totalitarian beliefs, for more worrying.


Axean, I don't read one paper solely. I form opinions based on many sources of information. Might be the BBC one day, local forum debate the next, Evening Standard I picked up on the train, a book, Daily Mail link someone has posted, Local Guardian newspaper, Newsnight....the list goes on. In fact I haven't bought a paper in months. It's a modern world we live in (well at leasrt some of us anyway) and we have access to may channels of opinion.

And that most important thing is that I don't sit their and regurgetate one article I read as FACT. I use my brain to form my own opinion, something most of our population appear scared to do.

#44 CityView

CityView

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:59 AM

But I do love the opinion that every person who posts an educated counter argument must be a "Tree hugger", or a Guardian Reader...and if they don't comply with the view, ooh they'd better watch out in case they bump into the 'boys of the palace' who might have to dish out some fistycuffs, to get the liberals in line. Makes me LMFAO.

Dazza, nice summary of your opinions, you're shining. I'm trying to resist taking the bait but the reason that this thread has gone down this road is because 'people like me' are very worried about the genearal state of the media, politics, and on what basis people form and spout their opinions.

Just put a search into "Rhea Page" court case and see how many search results are for far right forums have picked up one Daily Mail link believing it all to be true and that all Muslims should be chucked out an our borders locked down. A bunch of ill educated morons who I'm sure are very proud to be 'Englishmen', who form their opinions on a far right rag.

#45 RetiredMember1

RetiredMember1

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,066 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:00 AM

First, I apologise, CityView, that, in my tiredness, I posted a link that was simply intended to encourage you and others to, look beyond SLR's link being from the Mailonline, to at least view the video (which I mistakenly thought you hadn't, because its being on the Daily Mail site had put you off), but actually undermined my own efforts - you're right, I shouldn't post so late at night. Could I, in turn, ask you, perhaps when you're tired too, not to post when you're feeling so short-tempered? I'm not sure my post warranted such a brusque response.