Witty and pertinent observations on matters of great significance
OR
Incoherent jottings on total irrelevancies
OR
Something else altogether
OR
All of the aboveBombing + beheading = breach of the peace
With the "war on terror" in which we are all supposed to believe, it will come as no surprise that a Muslim extremist who threatened to bomb Glasgow's main synagogue and behead one Jew a week until all Scottish synagogues were closed would attract the attention of the counter-terrorist agencies. So of course when a member of the National Front telephoned the police with a threat to bomb the Glasgow Central Mosque and to behead a Muslim a week until all Scotland's mosques were closed, he was charged with...er.... breach of the peace. WTF?
Update: sentencing has been deferred for a fourth time for reasons which are unclear but probably connected with desperate attempts to find a loophole by which the government can avoid the embarassment of having to lock up a white man (not even a Brazilian for God's sake) just for wanting to murder a few uppity Scottish Muslims. It would never have happened when Charles Clarke was Home Secretary, let me tell you (or Jack Straw, or David Blunkett....)
posted by Rob @ 00:01
3 Comments:
Can't a home grown white guy be a terrorst too?
Hi Rob
You know that I know a fair bit about the law. This guy can actually get a year in jail for breach of the peace (I don't think for a moment he will but the court has the power) and if the case had been brought on indictment he could have got life. There's a lot more to breach of the peace than singing in the street at three in the morning! I'll be happy to enlighten you over a dram or three sometime.
I'm afraid I don't buy your conspiracy theory about the deferred sentence tongue in cheek as it undoubtedly is. The boring truth is that chronic inability to take a decision is actually part of the job description for most Scottish Sheriffs of my acquaintance. I wouldn't credit the UK government with the wit to try to interfere in something like this.
Happy blogging.
Cousin-in-Law
Hi there CiL (I'll respect your anonymity!). You correctly spotted my encheeked tongue, and I'm sure you're right about indecisive Sheriffs. It's not really a question of what he could get as a sentence if the court were so minded, more the fact (which I'm sure you wouldn't contest) that a Muslim making similar threats to Christians, Jews or indeed Hindus would be automatically tagged as a suspected terrorist and charged accordingly. My point remains even if that would have attracted a lower sentence: why the double standard? (OK, rhetorical question there.)
I look forward to the dram. If you don't fancy blogging yourself, maybe you should drop by on Facebook, that is if my comments about its time-wasting propensities haven't put you off.
Regards to Mrs CiL.
Post a Comment
<< Home