Muslim is spared a ban so he can drive between his wives
Discussion
I have to chime in here.. I think ATG and TheWurzel have it right.
Some of you guys just can’t get over he’s a Muslim. Your saying that this guy pulled the race card and when you’re shown to be idiotic changed it to the ‘religion card’. What?!?! How can you devise that from the information given?
Could it be Mr Anwar was asked why he was going at such a pace? He just told the truth. He was probably asked why in his opinion he should not be banned. He probably just responded in an honest factual way. The Judge didn’t judge him on his Race or Religion (Unlike the majority on here) or the fact Mr Anwar’s choice in marriage situation were in contradiction of this countries laws. He judged him on the case in hand and probably felt Mr Anwar deserved his fine and a slap on the wrist, nothing more.
We don’t know the case in its entirety; the judge does and made his call and probably feels satisfied with how he delt with it. Mr Anwar is lucky and probably learnt a lesson.
Maybe if Mr Anwar said he was visiting his girlfriend the judge would have let him off. Maybe if had said he was Christian, white, middle class, gay, dog lover or any of the above he would have been allowed with just a fine. Why? Because the judge thought; this guy genuinely made a mistake and the punishment dealt out is just. *by the way chaps this is what makes him a judge. - Ok no more tips.
However you can't bring your petty minds to that conclusion as you have to nail this guy because he's not one of 'us' and I am not talking PH'r.
I put it to you that its YOU that cannot get over his race or religion and are on the; ‘we the poor white/Christian majority of this country.’ tip. Blah blah blah.
Do you guys moan when Tiff Needell was done doing the ton and hired that famous traffic lawyer and got off? Or any other celebrity?
For the record Black and Asian including Muslims are far more likely to be stopped and searched then Whites. The courts are banging up more many Black and Asian (including Muslims) than ever before. Do a google search its simple.
So the idea that somehow the courts are lenient because of someone’s race or faith is ridiculous. Although suits your purposes.
You guys need to stop your obvious prejudices and check yourselves. I just because you once sat in the back of Taxi with and 'Asian' driver doesn’t make it ok for you to be this way. You’re pathetic.
‘Im not racist but...’
‘Have loads of black/Asian/Muslim mates but...’
and the cracker..
'I sat in the back of this cab once and this bloke was one of them there Asians!'
These statements don’t give you a licence to be a LOSER.
Some of you guys just can’t get over he’s a Muslim. Your saying that this guy pulled the race card and when you’re shown to be idiotic changed it to the ‘religion card’. What?!?! How can you devise that from the information given?
Could it be Mr Anwar was asked why he was going at such a pace? He just told the truth. He was probably asked why in his opinion he should not be banned. He probably just responded in an honest factual way. The Judge didn’t judge him on his Race or Religion (Unlike the majority on here) or the fact Mr Anwar’s choice in marriage situation were in contradiction of this countries laws. He judged him on the case in hand and probably felt Mr Anwar deserved his fine and a slap on the wrist, nothing more.
We don’t know the case in its entirety; the judge does and made his call and probably feels satisfied with how he delt with it. Mr Anwar is lucky and probably learnt a lesson.
Maybe if Mr Anwar said he was visiting his girlfriend the judge would have let him off. Maybe if had said he was Christian, white, middle class, gay, dog lover or any of the above he would have been allowed with just a fine. Why? Because the judge thought; this guy genuinely made a mistake and the punishment dealt out is just. *by the way chaps this is what makes him a judge. - Ok no more tips.
However you can't bring your petty minds to that conclusion as you have to nail this guy because he's not one of 'us' and I am not talking PH'r.
I put it to you that its YOU that cannot get over his race or religion and are on the; ‘we the poor white/Christian majority of this country.’ tip. Blah blah blah.
Do you guys moan when Tiff Needell was done doing the ton and hired that famous traffic lawyer and got off? Or any other celebrity?
For the record Black and Asian including Muslims are far more likely to be stopped and searched then Whites. The courts are banging up more many Black and Asian (including Muslims) than ever before. Do a google search its simple.
So the idea that somehow the courts are lenient because of someone’s race or faith is ridiculous. Although suits your purposes.
You guys need to stop your obvious prejudices and check yourselves. I just because you once sat in the back of Taxi with and 'Asian' driver doesn’t make it ok for you to be this way. You’re pathetic.
‘Im not racist but...’
‘Have loads of black/Asian/Muslim mates but...’
and the cracker..
'I sat in the back of this cab once and this bloke was one of them there Asians!'
These statements don’t give you a licence to be a LOSER.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...
Blatant pro-coloured i.e. anti-white racism/religionism yet again!
And since when is a muslim allowd more than 1 wife under UK law??? They're NOT!! He should be prosecuted under the bigamy laws!
Blatant pro-coloured i.e. anti-white racism/religionism yet again!
And since when is a muslim allowd more than 1 wife under UK law??? They're NOT!! He should be prosecuted under the bigamy laws!
Edited by JMGS4 on Monday 7th April 12:55
JMGS4 said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...
Blatant pro-coloured i.e. anti-white racism/religionism yet again!
And since when is a muslim allowd more than 1 wife under UK law??? They're NOT!! He should be prosecuted under the bigamy laws!
You can have more than one wife if you marry them in a country where it is legal.Blatant pro-coloured i.e. anti-white racism/religionism yet again!
And since when is a muslim allowd more than 1 wife under UK law??? They're NOT!! He should be prosecuted under the bigamy laws!
Edited by JMGS4 on Monday 7th April 12:55
NineOneSeven said:
I have to chime in here.. I think ATG and TheWurzel have it right.
Some of you guys just can’t get over he’s a Muslim. Your saying that this guy pulled the race card and when you’re shown to be idiotic changed it to the ‘religion card’. What?!?! How can you devise that from the information given?
Could it be Mr Anwar was asked why he was going at such a pace? He just told the truth. He was probably asked why in his opinion he should not be banned. He probably just responded in an honest factual way. The Judge didn’t judge him on his Race or Religion (Unlike the majority on here) or the fact Mr Anwar’s choice in marriage situation were in contradiction of this countries laws. He judged him on the case in hand and probably felt Mr Anwar deserved his fine and a slap on the wrist, nothing more.
We don’t know the case in its entirety; the judge does and made his call and probably feels satisfied with how he delt with it. Mr Anwar is lucky and probably learnt a lesson.
Maybe if Mr Anwar said he was visiting his girlfriend the judge would have let him off. Maybe if had said he was Christian, white, middle class, gay, dog lover or any of the above he would have been allowed with just a fine. Why? Because the judge thought; this guy genuinely made a mistake and the punishment dealt out is just. *by the way chaps this is what makes him a judge. - Ok no more tips.
However you can't bring your petty minds to that conclusion as you have to nail this guy because he's not one of 'us' and I am not talking PH'r.
I put it to you that its YOU that cannot get over his race or religion and are on the; ‘we the poor white/Christian majority of this country.’ tip. Blah blah blah.
Do you guys moan when Tiff Needell was done doing the ton and hired that famous traffic lawyer and got off? Or any other celebrity?
For the record Black and Asian including Muslims are far more likely to be stopped and searched then Whites. The courts are banging up more many Black and Asian (including Muslims) than ever before. Do a google search its simple.
So the idea that somehow the courts are lenient because of someone’s race or faith is ridiculous. Although suits your purposes.
You guys need to stop your obvious prejudices and check yourselves. I just because you once sat in the back of Taxi with and 'Asian' driver doesn’t make it ok for you to be this way. You’re pathetic.
‘Im not racist but...’
‘Have loads of black/Asian/Muslim mates but...’
and the cracker..
'I sat in the back of this cab once and this bloke was one of them there Asians!'
These statements don’t give you a licence to be a LOSER.
I wonder how many people have been spared a ban for doing more than double the limit?...no matter what colour race religion they are I would suspect it's very,very few.....be interesting to see if anyone else uses the same mitigating factor and what the outcome is....Some of you guys just can’t get over he’s a Muslim. Your saying that this guy pulled the race card and when you’re shown to be idiotic changed it to the ‘religion card’. What?!?! How can you devise that from the information given?
Could it be Mr Anwar was asked why he was going at such a pace? He just told the truth. He was probably asked why in his opinion he should not be banned. He probably just responded in an honest factual way. The Judge didn’t judge him on his Race or Religion (Unlike the majority on here) or the fact Mr Anwar’s choice in marriage situation were in contradiction of this countries laws. He judged him on the case in hand and probably felt Mr Anwar deserved his fine and a slap on the wrist, nothing more.
We don’t know the case in its entirety; the judge does and made his call and probably feels satisfied with how he delt with it. Mr Anwar is lucky and probably learnt a lesson.
Maybe if Mr Anwar said he was visiting his girlfriend the judge would have let him off. Maybe if had said he was Christian, white, middle class, gay, dog lover or any of the above he would have been allowed with just a fine. Why? Because the judge thought; this guy genuinely made a mistake and the punishment dealt out is just. *by the way chaps this is what makes him a judge. - Ok no more tips.
However you can't bring your petty minds to that conclusion as you have to nail this guy because he's not one of 'us' and I am not talking PH'r.
I put it to you that its YOU that cannot get over his race or religion and are on the; ‘we the poor white/Christian majority of this country.’ tip. Blah blah blah.
Do you guys moan when Tiff Needell was done doing the ton and hired that famous traffic lawyer and got off? Or any other celebrity?
For the record Black and Asian including Muslims are far more likely to be stopped and searched then Whites. The courts are banging up more many Black and Asian (including Muslims) than ever before. Do a google search its simple.
So the idea that somehow the courts are lenient because of someone’s race or faith is ridiculous. Although suits your purposes.
You guys need to stop your obvious prejudices and check yourselves. I just because you once sat in the back of Taxi with and 'Asian' driver doesn’t make it ok for you to be this way. You’re pathetic.
‘Im not racist but...’
‘Have loads of black/Asian/Muslim mates but...’
and the cracker..
'I sat in the back of this cab once and this bloke was one of them there Asians!'
These statements don’t give you a licence to be a LOSER.
streaky said:
The Scotsman said:
... his lawyer, Paul Nicolson, said: "He realises his licence is at risk, but this is an unusual case and he is very anxious to keep his driving licence as he has two wives.
"Under his religion he is allowed a maximum of four," said Mr Nicolson.
"He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next.
"Without his driving licence he would be unable to be able to do this on a regular basis.
'Nuff sed?"Under his religion he is allowed a maximum of four," said Mr Nicolson.
"He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next.
"Without his driving licence he would be unable to be able to do this on a regular basis.
Streaky
MoJo.
A little bit of digging shows that there is apparently no legislation in place to allow a Muslim to be married to more than one person in the UK. However, the CPS sentencing guidelines are suggesting that a prosecution for bigamy will likely only be pursued where the parties involved are deceived, injured, or the purpose of the bigamous marriage is to evade immigration.
Now, let's assume the case was reported by a slightly less emotive journalist and said: Mr Anwar's lawyer presented the case that he needed to be able to travel to his place of business, failure to be able to do this would endanger the livelihood of his family and those of his employees. In addition, he has a second dependent family to which he regularly travels - a ban would reduce the time he would be able to spend with this other family.
Or how about businessman Mr Smith's lawyer claimed that a ban for his client would endanger the livelihood of his family and those of his employees. In addition, Mr Smith, with full knowledge of his wife, is supporting the mother of two children born to his mistress and he wishes to continue to be involved with the upbringing of these children. Swap the second family for a deeply religious Christian man who attends Church 2 or 3 times a week if you're adamant it's the "religion card".
Now, let's assume the case was reported by a slightly less emotive journalist and said: Mr Anwar's lawyer presented the case that he needed to be able to travel to his place of business, failure to be able to do this would endanger the livelihood of his family and those of his employees. In addition, he has a second dependent family to which he regularly travels - a ban would reduce the time he would be able to spend with this other family.
Or how about businessman Mr Smith's lawyer claimed that a ban for his client would endanger the livelihood of his family and those of his employees. In addition, Mr Smith, with full knowledge of his wife, is supporting the mother of two children born to his mistress and he wishes to continue to be involved with the upbringing of these children. Swap the second family for a deeply religious Christian man who attends Church 2 or 3 times a week if you're adamant it's the "religion card".
LexSport said:
Swap the second family for a deeply religious Christian man who attends Church 2 or 3 times a week if you're adamant it's the "religion card".
Contradiction of terms as a deeply religious Christian would not have a second family. The issue is that we all know that a defence by a Christian would not be met by judges with the same result. No - I don't have proof of that, however just the fact that it has been reported as "unusual" is a fact of that by itself, otherwise it would not have been news worthy.
LexSport said:
A little bit of digging shows that there is apparently no legislation in place to allow a Muslim to be married to more than one person in the UK. However, the CPS sentencing guidelines are suggesting that a prosecution for bigamy will likely only be pursued where the parties involved are deceived, injured, or the purpose of the bigamous marriage is to evade immigration.
Now, let's assume the case was reported by a slightly less emotive journalist and said: Mr Anwar's lawyer presented the case that he needed to be able to travel to his place of business, failure to be able to do this would endanger the livelihood of his family and those of his employees. In addition, he has a second dependent family to which he regularly travels - a ban would reduce the time he would be able to spend with this other family.
Or how about businessman Mr Smith's lawyer claimed that a ban for his client would endanger the livelihood of his family and those of his employees. In addition, Mr Smith, with full knowledge of his wife, is supporting the mother of two children born to his mistress and he wishes to continue to be involved with the upbringing of these children. Swap the second family for a deeply religious Christian man who attends Church 2 or 3 times a week if you're adamant it's the "religion card".
I'd still be confused as to why Mr Anwar or Mr Smith couldn't use a taxi....Now, let's assume the case was reported by a slightly less emotive journalist and said: Mr Anwar's lawyer presented the case that he needed to be able to travel to his place of business, failure to be able to do this would endanger the livelihood of his family and those of his employees. In addition, he has a second dependent family to which he regularly travels - a ban would reduce the time he would be able to spend with this other family.
Or how about businessman Mr Smith's lawyer claimed that a ban for his client would endanger the livelihood of his family and those of his employees. In addition, Mr Smith, with full knowledge of his wife, is supporting the mother of two children born to his mistress and he wishes to continue to be involved with the upbringing of these children. Swap the second family for a deeply religious Christian man who attends Church 2 or 3 times a week if you're adamant it's the "religion card".
EU_Foreigner said:
LexSport said:
Swap the second family for a deeply religious Christian man who attends Church 2 or 3 times a week if you're adamant it's the "religion card".
Contradiction of terms as a deeply religious Christian would not have a second family.>So, my question remains, why is bigamy legal
>and can be used as a mitigating fact in a
>court of law, even if it is illegal in the
>country and this part of the world, but gun
>ownership is illegal full stop?
"Polygamous marriages
A polygamous marriage is when a man or woman is entitled to marry more than one wife or husband. A polygamous marriage which takes place in the UK is not valid. Marriages in other countries where polygamy is allowed may be recognised as valid in Britain, provided that none of the spouses were domiciled in the UK at the time of the marriage.
The concept of ‘domicile’ is very complex and does not necessarily mean living in a country. For more information you should consult an experienced adviser for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau. To search for details of your nearest CAB, including those that can give advice by email, click on nearest CAB."
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/family_pare...
>and can be used as a mitigating fact in a
>court of law, even if it is illegal in the
>country and this part of the world, but gun
>ownership is illegal full stop?
"Polygamous marriages
A polygamous marriage is when a man or woman is entitled to marry more than one wife or husband. A polygamous marriage which takes place in the UK is not valid. Marriages in other countries where polygamy is allowed may be recognised as valid in Britain, provided that none of the spouses were domiciled in the UK at the time of the marriage.
The concept of ‘domicile’ is very complex and does not necessarily mean living in a country. For more information you should consult an experienced adviser for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau. To search for details of your nearest CAB, including those that can give advice by email, click on nearest CAB."
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/family_pare...
esselte said:
I'd still be confused as to why Mr Anwar or Mr Smith couldn't use a taxi....
So no-one should be able to give mitigation to avoid a ban as they could all just use a taxi?My general position is that the media as a whole is pandering to a feeling amongst some parts of the population that it's all the Muslim's/immigrant's fault. It wasn't that long ago that people were told to "go home" because of the colour of their skin. Now that's no longer acceptable, but telling Muslims or Eastern Europeans is okay as far as the red tops are concerned.
I know it's considered an automatic fail in many debates, but I cannot help but draw parallels to 1930's Germany.
LexSport said:
esselte said:
I'd still be confused as to why Mr Anwar or Mr Smith couldn't use a taxi....
So no-one should be able to give mitigation to avoid a ban as they could all just use a taxi?My general position is that the media as a whole is pandering to a feeling amongst some parts of the population that it's all the Muslim's/immigrant's fault. It wasn't that long ago that people were told to "go home" because of the colour of their skin. Now that's no longer acceptable, but telling Muslims or Eastern Europeans is okay as far as the red tops are concerned.
I know it's considered an automatic fail in many debates, but I cannot help but draw parallels to 1930's Germany.
Bing o said:
JMGS4 said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...
Blatant pro-coloured i.e. anti-white racism/religionism yet again!
And since when is a muslim allowd more than 1 wife under UK law??? They're NOT!! He should be prosecuted under the bigamy laws!
You can have more than one wife if you marry them in a country where it is legal.Blatant pro-coloured i.e. anti-white racism/religionism yet again!
And since when is a muslim allowd more than 1 wife under UK law??? They're NOT!! He should be prosecuted under the bigamy laws!
Edited by JMGS4 on Monday 7th April 12:55
LexSport said:
esselte said:
I'd still be confused as to why Mr Anwar or Mr Smith couldn't use a taxi....
So no-one should be able to give mitigation to avoid a ban as they could all just use a taxi?My general position is that the media as a whole is pandering to a feeling amongst some parts of the population that it's all the Muslim's/immigrant's fault. It wasn't that long ago that people were told to "go home" because of the colour of their skin. Now that's no longer acceptable, but telling Muslims or Eastern Europeans is okay as far as the red tops are concerned.
I know it's considered an automatic fail in many debates, but I cannot help but draw parallels to 1930's Germany.
Bing o said:
JMGS4 said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...
Blatant pro-coloured i.e. anti-white racism/religionism yet again!
And since when is a muslim allowd more than 1 wife under UK law??? They're NOT!! He should be prosecuted under the bigamy laws!
You can have more than one wife if you marry them in a country where it is legal.Blatant pro-coloured i.e. anti-white racism/religionism yet again!
And since when is a muslim allowd more than 1 wife under UK law??? They're NOT!! He should be prosecuted under the bigamy laws!
Edited by JMGS4 on Monday 7th April 12:55
This should be perfectly fine, according to above statement!?
Finlandia, the following is law in the UK. The law is the law :-)
"Polygamous marriages
A polygamous marriage is when a man or woman is entitled to marry more than one wife or husband. A polygamous marriage which takes place in the UK is not valid. Marriages in other countries where polygamy is allowed may be recognised as valid in Britain, provided that none of the spouses were domiciled in the UK at the time of the marriage.
The concept of ‘domicile’ is very complex and does not necessarily mean living in a country. For more information you should consult an experienced adviser for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau. To search for details of your nearest CAB, including those that can give advice by email, click on nearest CAB."
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/family_pare...
"Polygamous marriages
A polygamous marriage is when a man or woman is entitled to marry more than one wife or husband. A polygamous marriage which takes place in the UK is not valid. Marriages in other countries where polygamy is allowed may be recognised as valid in Britain, provided that none of the spouses were domiciled in the UK at the time of the marriage.
The concept of ‘domicile’ is very complex and does not necessarily mean living in a country. For more information you should consult an experienced adviser for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau. To search for details of your nearest CAB, including those that can give advice by email, click on nearest CAB."
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/family_pare...
neelyp said:
The road he was caught on is dual carriage way with a fifty limit either side, it goes to thirty through a set of traffic lights, very, very easy to get caught here, an ex colleague got done here north of seventy but got off with mitigating circumstances.
If this is true, one could infer that the magistrate knows it's a crock and is applying common sense to the sentencing. That in itself is news worthy! 
LexSport said:
neelyp said:
The road he was caught on is dual carriage way with a fifty limit either side, it goes to thirty through a set of traffic lights, very, very easy to get caught here, an ex colleague got done here north of seventy but got off with mitigating circumstances.
If this is true, one could infer that the magistrate knows it's a crock and is applying common sense to the sentencing. That in itself is news worthy! 
te.Why noy just £60 and 3 points?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff