What has someone's religion got to do with acid attacks? Guardian article.

keep your knows out chopper bouy

Your original question is

What has someone's religion got to do with acid attacks?

The answer is : In most cases nothing at all . The great majority are of gangs of criminals spraying/ throwing it at other gang members without any thought about religion at all . A minority of cases individuals throwing it at a person they have a grudge against , again without any correlation with what religion they are.

In the particular case of the 2 cousins apparently it was the motive. So it was mentioned as it stands out from the others.

I still cant believe he uses google for news.

ps  oy oy   posts being removed?

I SLICE- I do not CHOP. Slicing is skilful; chopping is brute force and ignorance. I hope this clarifies the matter.

I wonder how many attacks on people belonging to the wrong religion have been religiously reported by the freedom loving guardian.

You see, when you have an agenda, you have to assign victim status to emphasise your slant on news.

Use whatever news source you want and see if it backs up the notion that men throwing acid at women in britain is predominantly carried out by muslims

As a brute force and ignorant sort of guy I take a fence at that chopper bouy.

Jul 7, 2017 -- 8:24PM, moisok wrote:

I wonder how many attacks on people belonging to the wrong religion have been religiously reported by the freedom loving guardian.You see, when you have an agenda, you have to assign victim status to emphasise your slant on news.

Surely they'd have been reported somewhere though.

tober  - no I don't

hope this helps

it is all about the agenda

victim status established

you really need to realise what is happening  in england

on many fronts

is that a question or a statement ?

Well in that case Mr ok, I don't think I will bother to communicate with you in future. This is the second time you have disrespected me, and there won't be a third.

I don't disagree with you that The Guardian will flag up 'Islamophobic Hate Crime' more than the number or severity of cases merits.

I just don't see that has happened with this article as the case mentioned is very severe and unusual , so noteworthy . And i don't think acid attacks are usually carried out with some religious motivation.

You must not take these things to heart. Sometimes you may make ereers.    It is nothing personnell but use have to be told.

to slicer
^

So you do not think that acid attacks are prevalent in certain religions ?

Or Mandoline man.

I need murray to hit 1.5

layed him for 8k at 1.05 (£400 my bet) after the fake injury.

Jul 7, 2017 -- 8:36PM, Ibrahima Sonko wrote:

So you do not think that acid attacks are prevalent in certain religions ?

Not really . Happens a lot in Pakistan/Bangladesh , but even more in India among Hindus predominantly . Other places where it is especially common seem to be Vietnam ,Cambodia .The common factor with the frequency of sulphuric acid attacks is how easy it is to get hold of in a country.

wd with Murray

Pakistan-Islam (96.0%)
Bangladesh- Islam (90.2%)




I still respect your football stuff though.

The one with the 2 cousins has no known connection between them and the perpertrator . So they assume he attacked them because 'they looked like muslims'

This is the problem though. This has simply been assumed for no other reason than they were muslims. There doesn't appear to be any motive and the attack seems to random at the moment but because they are muslim it must be religiously motivated.

tobes you need to come back and explain that acid attacks are common outside religion ?

the tactic is to minimise the impact of the fred or anything which is anti muslim


like smacking someone in the gob whilst shouting 'look it was him over there'

get it?

Jul 7, 2017 -- 10:06PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

The one with the 2 cousins has no known connection between them and the perpertrator . So they assume he attacked them because 'they looked like muslims'This is the problem though. This has simply been assumed for no other reason than they were muslims. There doesn't appear to be any motive and the attack seems to random at the moment but because they are muslim it must be religiously motivated.

A completely random , motiveless , acid attack would seem highly unlikely . So , if the only thing the attacker knew about the victims was what they looked like , then a racist motive would seem very probable . The alternative maybe that he was hired by someone with a grudge, but presumably that's been looked into ( though the Met screw up a lot of cases tbf)

Jul 7, 2017 -- 10:19PM, Ibrahima Sonko wrote:

tobes you need to come back and explain that acid attacks are common outside religion ?

I thought i had done . As said you have countries with little or no muslims high up in the top 10 of countries where this happens (Vietnam, Cambodia , etc )

A completely random , motiveless , acid attack would seem highly unlikely . So , if the only thing the attacker knew about the victims was what they looked like , then a racist motive would seem very probable . The alternative maybe that he was hired by someone with a grudge, but presumably that's been looked into ( though the Met screw up a lot of cases tbf)

Sorry but what utter tosh. A random, motiveless, acid attack is unlikely so when they are muslim the motive must be because they are muslim? You are basically agreeing with the OP that there is no other reason to mention their religion other than to suggest no motive means it must be because their religion.

If they had no interaction with the person at all then what other motive is there going to be

So when there is no motive it must be because they "look muslim"? Is that what you are saying?

Well yeah clearly.

Either he just randomly picked them and they just happened to be asian or it was a racist thing.

Because they are the only 2 options if there was no enmity between attacker and victim.

As completely random acid attacks are almost unheard of it makes sense to say racism is the most likely motive unless some evidence points elsewhere.

Surely there's a bit more info behind the alleged attacker that leads police to believe it was racially motivated. Are we just assuming the police are treating it as a racist crime purely because of the difference in skin colours? Not all information will have been publicly released, though we do know he shared a far-right type post on Facebook a couple of days before the attack about the English rising up and fighting back.








I see that lovely Tommy Robinson bloke initially tweeted a report of this insinuating it was a muzzie on muzzie attack because "she must have been expressing freedom which is not allowed etc etc". I'll have to rely on one of his fanboys to inform me if he retracted it and apologised.

While they're at it can they tell me if he clarified his tweet about Portland a while back? The one where he made the snide comment about "the religion of peace". The one on the back of the white supremacist abusing two muslim women and then murdering two fellas who went to intervene. That one. Did he clarify if he was actually defending islam and criticising white racists? Or did he just delete it and try to pretend it didn't happen?

I can wait.

Why do people perpetrate acid attacks.............that's the burning question

Actually shouldn't be making a joke about this.....anyone who does this to another person is one sad cu nt ! They basically are inflicting a life sentence so if caught should receive the same imo

The attack on the two muslims that has recieved wide spread coverage was racially motivated.......it had an element of randomness about it and the guy had far right stuff posted allover his social media.....lets call a spade a spade lads and call it out for what it was.....a racsist attack. The guy should be removed from society forever imo. Hopefully the two victimc will be able to make a great recovery and not let this incident overshadow their lives.

The Guardian ofcourse is really pushing this one though, it's what they do...push the pro Islam narrative constantly......its all the main stream media do along with the celebs and politicians. Its sickening and we will get knowhere in tackling the scurge that is Islam unless we can start having the honest conversations without being called racist.

Someone mentioned Tommy Robinson. Its ridicoulous the amount of scorn the man has to put up with. I dont particularly like the bloke because i dont know him but ffs, the points he is raising are very very valid and he is voicing the legitimate concerns of millions of British people up and down the country, if you disagree then debate him......dont label him as a Nazi or white supremecist because he clearly isnt one.

As for the acid attacks, its a thing that is common in many different Asian countries, not just Islamic dominated ones either......unfortunetly it appears to have found its way over here and Newham is top of the league table because it is a melting pot of all these different cultures and is generally a hellhole (although our politicians lie to themselves trying spouting its an example of glorious diversity). Brits (white and Black) seem to have adopted it is an acceptable form of retribution for some slight against them. We need to mandate 25 year sentences for its use behind a wall of publicity to start to deter it.

Jimmy - you say the points Robinson makes are very valid. I pointed out two recent tweets he made which - to my eyes at least (I don't follow him so I'm getting it second hand) - appear to be completely invalid. Just wondering what you think.

You were warned how it would be, will things become worse? Yes it`s inevitable.

This isn't the brexit thread lfc.

Brexit of course will solve nothing.

The Guardian don't like common denominators, so they attack them as waycist figments of our imagination.

lets have a look what's happened in Europe over the last few years

big rise in terrorism attacks - check
big rise in rapes and sexual assaults - check
big rise in sex gangs/grooming - check
big rise in acid attacks - check


Hmm, can you guess what else there's been a big rise in during that time ?

Well yeah clearly.

Either he just randomly picked them and they just happened to be asian or it was a racist thing.

Because they are the only 2 options if there was no enmity between attacker and victim.

As completely random acid attacks are almost unheard of it makes sense to say racism is the most likely motive unless some evidence points elsewhere.

Okay thanks for clarifying then. I think you've answered the OP's question. The persons religion is mentioned because any crime committed against a muslim must be a hate crime until another motive becomes apparent. A ridiculous position but you have at least clarified it.

Shrewdie - do you really think the police are calling it a hate crime solely because the victims were muslim???


What do you say to the possibility that they have a bit more information on the perp that isn't yet in the public domain?

No I think they are treating it as a hate crime because the male victim came out and said I think we were attacked because we are muslims. That's the way it works. It is all that is required for it to be treated as a hate crime. But even before that the papers still mentioned there religion.

And you think that's it. The victim said it was a hate crime so the police go "Well that's good enough for us. We've identified the guy but we no longer need to investigate his history as we've got our motive tied up. I mean we could go and find actual evidence but there's simply no need now."


Do you genuinely, honestly believe that?

Obviously they are still investigating it. Including the

"Police are also aware of an altercation immediately prior to the assault that may have involved the male victim and two men." Which suggests there may be other motives.

What I am stating as a fact though is that if he says I think it is because I am a muslim then the police treat it as a hate crime regardless.

Porcupineorpineapple

The first tweet where Robinson made an error yes he did tweet an apology and a retraction. Im not sure about the other that you mention.

Because he made a hash of a tweet and (wrongly) jumped to a conclusion......it doesnt mean that the points he is making are invalid. He is sometimes rash and whips up hysteria.......but you cant argue he has got legitimate concerns.

But shrewdie - that's not a fact. That's just an opinion that suits your pre-conceived prejudices. That's all that is.


Fair enough Jimmy. Kudos for coming back with a straight answer. Much more than most on here would do.

It's true that - since the Macpherson Report - the police are obliged to 'treat as racist' any crime that someone (don't even have to be the victim or a witness! ) says is racist.

This has always been total nonsense . It's hard to believe though the police will be looking for racism leads when the evidence they have for a crime points elsewhere .

Though they do have to make the announcement that 'it is being treated as a racist crime' .

Here though with this case it does appear a lot of evidence is pointing that way .

yes correct, but when they are the perpetrators they seek any avenue they can to not mention the M word

oxford, high wycombe, slough, norwich, rotherham, rochdale etc etc

Here though with this case it does appear a lot of evidence is pointing that way .

What evidence are you referring to?

That the guy is liking far right stuff about 'fighting back' against Muslims ?

They aren't though are they . Gangs squirting ammonia at each other appears to be the overwhelming majority .



   well said tobers, although you shouldnt let the facts get in the way of a good story. !

That the guy is liking far right stuff about 'fighting back' against Muslims ?

"A lot of evidence" is that the suspect has previously posted some vague things on facebook at some point prior to it about a country fighting back?

How 'vague' is a slogan about fighting back above an image of a Crusader Knight ?

Who do you suppose they are thinking of fighting ..... North Korea

Can you post what you are referring to then please?

It's very vague in terms of I''m planning on going out soon and throwing acid in someones face because I dislike muslims. Whenever someone commits an assault and at one time posted about fighting back with an image of a crusader night that's "a lot of evidence" that the offence they committed is a Muslim related hate crime ?

I'm really glad that this thread was posted so we can ascertain what people think is a hate crime.

https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/06/29/john-tomlin-who-threw-acid-on-two-muslims-followed-anti-muslim-facebook-pages/


"A sleeping lion can only be provoked so much before it wakes up an attacks...and so will us British.

"We will stand & we will fight. We will reclaim what is rightfully ours. We will not surrender. Out of ordinary Brits, heroes will arise, champions will be made & we will make Britain great again."

I'm really glad that this thread was posted so we can ascertain what people think is a hate crime.


You really find it puzzling that the police can have a working assumption of an anti muslim motive when a guy that follows facebook pages that are dedicated to anti muslim stuff attacks 2 muslims that are strangers to him ?

"A sleeping lion can only be provoked so much before it wakes up an attacks...and so will us British.

"We will stand & we will fight. We will reclaim what is rightfully ours. We will not surrender. Out of ordinary Brits, heroes will arise, champions will be made & we will make Britain great again."


Is that what you are referring to? That is your "lot of evidence'?

I strongly suggest you go and check out what the definition of evidence is.

I suggest you do !

Of course the guy's opinions about Muslims are evidence of his attitude towards them .

Muslims are evidence of his attitude towards them .

Attitude towards them yes. Evidence of why he assaulted one two years later, no. 

Although I'd still like you to quote this non vague post you refer to.

I find it interesting that when they are the perpetrators, the press, police, politicians etc etc, seek any avenue they can to not mention the M word

oxford, high wycombe, slough, norwich, rotherham, rochdale etc etc

Jul 10, 2017 -- 9:21AM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

Muslims are evidence of his attitude towards them .Attitude towards them yes. Evidence of why he assaulted one two years later, no.  Although I'd still like you to quote this non vague post you refer to.

Clearly it is evidence for a motive . You can't still be saying the thing he liked was 'vague' in what is being referred to ? A Facebook group full of hatred against Muslims talks about Britons fighting back next to an image of a Crusader Knight . Doesn't seem very ambiguous to me.

Toby is their a reason you are not posting what you are referring to?

? It's been posted.

I can't see any link to what you are referring to but posts do seem to appear and disappear on the forum.

they only seem to get mentioned to maintain victim status

What happened about the 17 year old Immigrant  (looked 35 when pictures were Shown) who was standing at a bus stop outside a pub at 11.50 pm and was attacked by Racists from the said Pub ,a Pub that Appears to have been ran by an African Gentlemen ,whos clientele
Were Black and White Racist Types ,That one seemed to go a Bit quite  after the Pictures of the innocent Mite were published ,any updates on that One ? I must have missed them .  Were big big Headlines in the Mirror and the Guardian a few months back
even the Beeb don't appear to have Updates ,The one where Miss Abbot was in Uproar then suddenly went Quite when the involvement of Black youths became apparent ..

you have a very good memory

I think they arrested quite a lot of whiteys  but the two black persons faded into the background

I won't mention the 250 unruly mob who tried to get into that rave the other week - usual suspects - check out the evening standard's pics

very revealing

but don't mention it

What I struggle with is how such a minority seem to be involved in so much out of all proportion to their actual numbers.  I open the evening standard this evening and there are several more representatives who have been horribly naughty AGAIN.  Would the newspaper be racist or islamaphobic or something??

Jul 10, 2017 -- 6:34PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

I can't see any link to what you are referring to but posts do seem to appear and disappear on the forum.

Well i posted it , didn't appear , then was there later and then some other posts went and reappeared so it's hard to follow stuff here for sure.

Jul 10, 2017 -- 9:54PM, casemoney wrote:

What happened about the 17 year old Immigrant  (looked 35 when pictures were Shown) who was standing at a bus stop outside a pub at 11.50 pm and was attacked by Racists from the said Pub ,a Pub that Appears to have been ran by an African Gentlemen ,whos clientele Were Black and White Racist Types ,That one seemed to go a Bit quite  after the Pictures of the innocent Mite were published ,any updates on that One ? I must have missed them .  Were big big Headlines in the Mirror and the Guardian a few months back even the Beeb don't appear to have Updates ,The one where Miss Abbot was in Uproar then suddenly went Quite when the involvement of Black youths became apparent ..

Not gonna be any updates between charging people and start of trial.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/11/man-charged-with-gbh-after-east-london-acid-attack

So, not a racist or islamaphobic incident.  Good old guardian and the rest were whipping up into an anti muslim/islamaphobic crime.
Will there be an apology for misrepresentation?

It's relentless

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/trial-set-for-scooter-driver-accused-of-knocking-down-and-killing-fashion-journalist-marie-scott-a3585311.html

just to remind you of the headlines of the so called 'hate crime' even the evening standard was at it

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/newham-acid-attack-police-release-fresh-images-of-suspect-after-hate-crime-on-muslims-a3582836.html

What are you talking about now ?

Who has said it is not a hate crime

You would have thought if they had evidence of a hate crime he would have been charged with a religiously or racially aggravated GBH with intent. Particularly if their was lots of evidence.

They have months to prepare charges.

Well he appeared today charged with two counts of GBH with intent. Whilst their is certainly nothing to prevent them from amending or adding charges later in the indictment I can't see any reason if their was lots of evidence that they wouldn't add in any racial or religious aggravations just now.

they don't like being wrong do they

I can feel the bitterness

They can start off charging with what they have nailed down already .They must have been pretty certain he did it as they had his mugshot (obviously known to them ) in the media within a day of it happening , so presumably have CCTV of that.

For anything else they can have a good look through his phone and anything else they got last night when he came in at their leisure.

I have to laugh how the media has whipped up a storm over  this and been wrong.

But when it has anything to do with Ms  as perpepetrators they want to hush it up

Like they did with the Ofsted inspection report of a certain school.

Kept it away from the media for a year because they didn't want a media storm(their words)

But happy to whip up one over this incident!!!

tobermory 12 Jul 17 00:58 Joined: 01 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 42,118 | Blogger: tobermory's blog
They can start off charging with what they have nailed down already .They must have been pretty certain he did it as they had his mugshot (obviously known to them ) in the media within a day of it happening , so presumably have CCTV of that.

For anything else they can have a good look through his phone and anything else they got last night when he came in at their leisure.

Yes they can. Other evidence may appear. But lets be frank the fact that they haven't charged him with it so far means their isn't evidence at the moment and there never was. This may change but as it stands their isn't and the only reason it was being classed as a hate crime was because the victim said "I think it's because I'm a muslim".

*There

You guys just don't get how this works.

You expect the entire case against the guy to be essentially finalized and ready for court within 2hrs of him walking into the police station . And assume if there is no formal charge of racist/religious motivation that such a motive must have been ruled out unless new info is forthcoming.

Even the White Man Van guy at the mosque has not been charged with racial/religious aggravation at this point , even with a dozen witnesses and acquaintances speaking to the media about he he'd been talking about hating muslims etc .

In both these cases the trials will not be happening for at least 6 months . All they need do to begin with is bring the evidence for a charge that will guarantee no bail.

they just don't like it when they are wrong

I would say the media is guilty of a hate crime by whipping up the anti M attack side of this story

BEFORE ANY TRIAL OR CHARGE HAD BEEN   MADE    BEFORE note!!!

It is the old 'we are victims' card

like they always are

but when the perps are them  it is largely ignored

the story was put out their in big headlines and it will stick even though there is no charge of hate crime it will remain out there and people will refer to it to defend their cult, as will their supporters

hope this helps

You guys just don't get how this works.

You expect the entire case against the guy to be essentially finalized and ready for court within 2hrs of him walking into the police station . And assume if there is no formal charge of racist/religious motivation that such a motive must have been ruled out unless new info is forthcoming.

Even the White Man Van guy at the mosque has not been charged with racial/religious aggravation at this point , even with a dozen witnesses and acquaintances speaking to the media about he he'd been talking about hating muslims etc .

In both these cases the trials will not be happening for at least 6 months . All they need do to begin with is bring the evidence for a charge that will guarantee no bail.

You don't get it Toby. Nobody expects the case to be finalised. I would expect that if there is evidence of an offence being committed then a person would be charged with it in court even if it's thin. The Crown would likely charge him with the most serious offence they have any evidence of.  Not least because it means that if the accused suggests an inclination that he intends to negotiate a guilty plea then the negotiations will begin from the level of the more serious charge. A racially or religiously aggravated GBH with intent is more serious than GBH with intent.

I'm not saying it's ruled out. I'm saying it certainly doesn't appear there is evidence at the moment that it was racially or religiously aggravated because otherwise he would have been charged with it. Before the guy was even in police custody you have continually said lots of evidence suggest it was because the victims were muslim and now you are saying wait a minute they need more time to work out if it is. It appears on the face of it at the moment that there is no evidence. That can and may change but as it stands on everything we know about at the moment these are not being considered as religiously motivated crimes.

Racially and religiously aggravated offences were brought in to categorise offences against the person, property damage or public order offences as more serious where a person was specifically targeted because of religion or race. Terrorism offences can't be religiously or racially aggravated because it goes without saying that acts of terrorism are committed to advance an ideological, political, racial or religious cause. The "hating muslims" comments has already been taken in to account by charging the van man with terrorism rather than murder and attempted murder.

Motive is something that only needs to be brought into the case at the trial itself .

And it will be.

And we will see what they thought his motive was and what evidence they have for it.

No it doesn't. The Crown don't need to bring in any motive. They don't have to prove why he did it if they can prove he committed the offence. If they have evidence he targetted them because they were muslims or thought they were then they have to charge him with that on the indictment because it's a separate offence. 

What you are saying is a bit like saying there is a lot of evidence he threw acid at them because he was attempting to murder them but they haven't charged him with attempted murder because they will just bring that up at trial.

Once again they may charge him with the aggravated offence at a later time but there is no logical reason why they wouldn't at the moment even if there was the barest evidence that it may have been never mind lots of evidence.

But the point is that the media whipped up a storm over this and SAID it was not only a hate crime but it was islamaphobic

NO RETRACTION OF COURSE

and it is out there and in the public's psyche. 

I guarantee that it will be used by the defenders of the faith, even though it was not islamaphobic.

You know, the old anecdotally use of it    - 'remember that islamaphobic attack by that white guy who sprayed' etc etc................

It was the exact same after Brexit Moisok. Hate crime up 50% after Brexit etc. etc. No subsequent follow up since from the papers on how many of these 'reports' of hate crime actually resulted in someone being charged, prosecuted or convicted of a hate crime.

^
I agree that happens .

It would be very unusual in a trial if the prosecution does not introduce any evidence of motive , would only happen if it really was inexplicable.

^
I agree that happens .

It would be very unusual in a trial if the prosecution does not introduce any evidence of motive , would only happen if it really was inexplicable.

Happens all the time in terms of violent attacks. It's not an episode of murder she wrote. People who commit murders, rapes and GBH are often just violent evil people who have an urge to or because they enjoy it.  You seem to be unable to the possibility that people who commit violent acts against people sometimes choose their targets randomly and if they haven't formed some king of grudge against the victim then it must be because of their membership of a particular minority. It's very worrying that that is the first conclusion you jump to when the person is a muslim even when there appears to be no evidence.

*accept the possibility.

After trying to make the previous a hate crime, which it was not, will we get a similar reaction over  this one.

http://news.sky.com/story/man-charged-over-acid-attack-in-east-london-10965954

Had forgotten that the guy was sentenced a couple of weeks back...........


A man who hurled acid through a car window at an aspiring model and her cousin has been jailed for 16 years.

Resham Khan and Jameel Muhktar suffered life-changing injuries to their faces and bodies in the unprovoked attack on Khan’s 21st birthday in Beckton, east London.

John Tomlin, 25, was sentenced at Snaresbrook crown court on Friday to 16 years imprisonment with a four-year extended licence.

The cousins did not know their attacker; the judge, Sheelagh Canavan, had previously described the assault as “somewhat random”.

Canavan said: “No sentence I impose can ever give back to the victims what you took from them on 21 June. The court can only hope that in time and with help they can begin to put the consequences of your unprovoked attack behind them. It is undoubtedly a life’s work.”

Tomlin hurled acid through both front windows of the Renault Clio as it was pulled up on Tollgate Road at 9.13am on 21 June 2017.

He was seen on CCTV chasing after the car and emptying the bottle of acid over Muhktar as he sped away.

Witnesses described seeing the victims “jumping around as if they were on fire” in the road as their clothing “literally melted off them on to the ground”.

Canavan described their injuries as dreadful and life-changing. She added: “It is becoming all too common an occurrence on our streets that members of the public are pouring water over people who have had acid thrown over them, as if this is some sort of fashionable assault that is being carried out.”

Tomlin, of Canning Town, east London, was arrested after handing himself in to the police a month later and said in an interview he was “hearing voices in my head”. He pleaded guilty to two counts of intending to cause grievous bodily harm on the first day of his trial in November 2017.

Tomlin has been diagnosed as emotionally unstable with a personality disorder and has a number of previous convictions, including violent offences, robbery, burglaries and theft, the court heard.

Woman was done on a Bus central london yesterday ..

3 people were attacked outside a gay bar at the weekend, news is very quiet on that story thou.