|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Aug 4, 2023 19:55:29 GMT
Or played into it. A horrific public beating of his daughter with a metal bar along with the abuse for a couple of years and spared jail. Yet in the UK you can be jailed for saying something offensive. Not sure I'd put too much stock in her asking for mercy for her father. She's terrified of him. He accepts the way he dealt with his daughter was wrong, but there is a degree of adapting to this new cultural behaviour for him.www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12372633/Father-battered-daughter-metal-bar-school-meet-boy-GCSE-exam-jail-mercy-plea.htmlA father who beat his daughter outside her school during a row over a boy has been spared jail after she gave an emotional courtroom plea for mercy. Delivery driver Hussein Alinzi, 59, battered the 15-year-old with a metal bar on the morning of her English GCSE exam when he dropped her off early at the gates of the Whalley Range High School to find them still locked. During the assault Alinzi accused his daughter of secretly planning to a meet a boy ahead of the exam and berated her for wearing makeup. But it later emerged the real reason she did so was to cover up the bruises he had inflicted on her. She briefly lost consciousness but came around and subsequently tried to sit the test. However she complained of feeling dizzy and nauseous and was taken out of the exam hall before being admitted to A&E. The father of seven was spared jail at Manchester Crown Court as he was handed an eight month prison sentence suspended for 18 months when his daughter said she still loves him. Following the brutal attack, the youngster was found to have suffered 14 different sites of injury including facial bruising and was also treated for a bite mark to her left temple. She later filed a report to her teachers and then police telling how her father had previously maltreated and bullied her over a two-year period issuing threats including: 'I will run you over,' and 'I will kill you,' and 'I hope you die.' She also said he had prevented her from going to the park and was only allowed to have female family friends. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 4, 2023 21:30:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Aug 4, 2023 22:42:16 GMT
 That was an attempted honour killing. He should be in prison. Religion should not be a factor when it comes to meting out justice against a heinous crime!!!!! I'm looking at it and thinking attempted murder. Metal pipe to the head until she's unconscious? All because she is acting Western. Maybe that could be seen as a hate crime. Even if the sentence wasn't suspended all he got was 8 months. He'd be out in half that. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 4, 2023 22:52:57 GMT
That was an attempted honour killing. He should be in prison. Religion should not be a factor when it comes to meting out justice against a heinous crime!!!!! I'm looking at it and thinking attempted murder. Metal pipe to the head until she's unconscious? All because she is acting Western. Maybe that could be seen as a hate crime. Even if the sentence wasn't suspended all he got was 8 months. He'd be out in half that. Yes. Attempted murder = Honour killing. You know, England is supposed to be an Anglican Christian country. Not a Muslim one. Yet, even if some religious fanatic from the Christian faith were to try to commit murder, then he/she would (rightly) end up in prison. Muslims (& other non-christians in the UK) must learn to respect & obey the Law!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 5, 2023 10:46:35 GMT
in the UK you can be jailed for saying something offensive. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended in the UK. IF all speech that offends some others was banned, we would in effect have to restrict speech that offends the sensitive and the eccentric, as well as speech that offends more widely. Offence is in the eye of the beholder, and any attempt to make offensive speech unlawful would place everybody’s freedom of expression at the mercy of others. It would undermine the right to freedom of expression. Thus section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. "Offensive" is conspicuous by its absence and even "insulting" was removed during the progress of the law through parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Aug 5, 2023 15:23:03 GMT
in the UK you can be jailed for saying something offensive. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended in the UK. IF all speech that offends some others was banned, we would in effect have to restrict speech that offends the sensitive and the eccentric, as well as speech that offends more widely. Offence is in the eye of the beholder, and any attempt to make offensive speech unlawful would place everybody’s freedom of expression at the mercy of others. It would undermine the right to freedom of expression. Thus section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. "Offensive" is conspicuous by its absence and even "insulting" was removed during the progress of the law through parliament. They could have got him just on that. If 'I will run you over,' and 'I will kill you,' and 'I hope you die' counts. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 5, 2023 21:21:06 GMT
There is no such thing as a right not to be offended in the UK. IF all speech that offends some others was banned, we would in effect have to restrict speech that offends the sensitive and the eccentric, as well as speech that offends more widely. Offence is in the eye of the beholder, and any attempt to make offensive speech unlawful would place everybody’s freedom of expression at the mercy of others. It would undermine the right to freedom of expression. Thus section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5 makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” or to display “any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive” within the hearing or sight of a person “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. "Offensive" is conspicuous by its absence and even "insulting" was removed during the progress of the law through parliament. They could have got him just on that. If 'I will run you over,' and 'I will kill you,' and 'I hope you die' counts. Maybe; but being offensive itself, in most cases is not actionable, I was just correcting a factual error in your post. |
|
|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Aug 6, 2023 1:29:31 GMT
They could have got him just on that. If 'I will run you over,' and 'I will kill you,' and 'I hope you die' counts. Maybe; but being offensive itself, in most cases is not actionable, I was just correcting a factual error in your post. I think it's all a bunch of baloney and the laws they have are for punishing people for saying things that people are offended by or pretend to be offended by. Instead of saying they're offended or just don't like what you said they say they feel threatened. Makes it sound serious. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 6, 2023 22:03:26 GMT
From what I can see, the judge dismissed the argument from the defence for leniency on the grounds of adapting to a new culture but was lenient because the perpetrator's shown signs of trying to atone in the last 14 months and he is the sole carer for the family as the mother is infirm. The victim asked the judge to be merciful for these reasons. The judge was apparently concerned she'd blame herself if her father went to jail.
Regardless, it's an incredibly light sentence given this appears to be the culmination of two years of physical and emotional abuse to his family. While I can see where the judge is coming from that it might hurt the victims more by sending him to jail, it's sickening that he can get off so lightly.
|
|
