Rev your car by a muslim and your racist?!

Charlie Bravo · 19 Sep 2006 at 09:54

ethos said:
No wonder some people are racist...

Exactly.

zenith10 · 19 Sep 2006 at 09:55

i seen a muslim rev his car the other day as i was passing. omg he was racist to me

panthro · 19 Sep 2006 at 09:59

I just run them over instead.

-Ad- · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:04

Well this isn't the place to put down my solution that would fix all of this.

I hate this country now..... I remember it was ok when i was growing up, but the last few years have been ridiculous. Bring back the old days of posh suits, class segregation and ENGLISHNESS (as even that is a racist crime now).

-Ad- · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:04

double post

wassap · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:04

Yet more more crap reporting from our favorite paper tbh.

[DOD]Asprilla · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:10

It's such a non-story and it stirs up yet more anti-muslim hatred. Anyone who falls for it is an idiot.

wassap · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:12

Iw disregard the headline, the bloke didnt really spend 2 nights in jail for his racist revving more for this imo.

The police kept me in custody over the weekend because I made the mistake of swearing at a senior officer

Damn straight, i would expect to be treated harshy for disrespecting the law, this is the the problem with this country aswell, lack of respect for authority, and they wonder why kids are screwed when 50 odd year old men behave this way, and judging by the report it wasnt only the couple who reported him, witnesses were present aswell.

Wicksta · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:12

Has anyone read the article? He wasn't kept inside for 2 nights for being racist:

"The police kept me in custody over the weekend because I made the mistake of swearing at a senior officer."

Typical Mail on Sunday...

EDIT: doh! beaten too it, some people can read here after all

Noxis · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:18

wohoo said:
Iw disregard the headline, the bloke didnt really spend 2 nights in jail for his racist revving more for this imo.

Damn straight, i would expect to be treated harshy for disrespecting the law, this is the the problem with this country aswell, lack of respect for authority, and they wonder why kids are screwed when 50 odd year old men behave this way, and judging by the report it wasnt only the couple who reported him, witnesses were present aswell.

Did you miss the part where the senior officer was off duty? I dont think he realised he was saying **** off to a copper.

PikeyPriest · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:25

Noxis said:
Did you miss the part where the senior officer was off duty? I dont think he realised he was saying **** off to a copper.

Isnt technically swearing at an officer the same as swearing at any other member of the public? (though of course their word is gospel and their friends at the station will do everything to make your life hard).

Slinwagh · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:32

Section 5 of the 1986 Public order act covers it.

5 Harassment, alarm or distress
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a) he engages in offensive conduct which [a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b) he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
(5) In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

J1nxy · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:35

wohoo said:
Iw disregard the headline, the bloke didnt really spend 2 nights in jail for his racist revving more for this imo.

Damn straight, i would expect to be treated harshy for disrespecting the law, this is the the problem with this country aswell, lack of respect for authority, and they wonder why kids are screwed when 50 odd year old men behave this way, and judging by the report it wasnt only the couple who reported him, witnesses were present aswell.

He was off duty so I'd guess not in uniform, telling so random bloke to "go away" was quite a fair response. If he was in uniform then would expect the response to have been a little different.

Steve

Violent-J · 19 Sep 2006 at 10:40

TBH right I wouldn't care if it might be an off duty copper or not, if someone told me to stop revving my engine which as far as I know is what you're supposed to do in a car and how they work, yet in no way illegal, they would get a big ********************** *** from me too.

Ring Peace · 19 Sep 2006 at 11:06

Violent-J said:
TBH right I wouldn't care if it might be an off duty copper or not, if someone told me to stop revving my engine which as far as I know is what you're supposed to do in a car and how they work, yet in no way illegal, they would get a big ********************** *** from me too.

They wouldn't notice your car revving over background noise

unclelonghair · 19 Sep 2006 at 11:15

Zuma said:
bear in mind is it a mail on sunday story, and so is massively biased.

No it's not, it's the Sunday Mail which is a completely different paper.

JRS · 19 Sep 2006 at 12:25

The Mail said:
(he) also plans to sell the Lotus. He said: "It has been nothing but trouble."

I thought that was what Lotus stood for - Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious?

Heofz · 19 Sep 2006 at 12:27

Was talking to my sister in law who works in a nursery.

They are not allowed to sing "baa baa black sheep" without singing "baa baa white sheep".

I **** you not. It's a nursery rhyme ffs! Do you know what that tells me? Some PC-brigade parent officially complained about that once... about a sodding NURSERY RHYME!

Seriously, and I mean SERIOUSLY, what is our country coming to

Firestar_3x · 19 Sep 2006 at 12:29

Heofz said:
I **** you not. It's a nursery rhyme ffs! Do you know what that tells me? Some PC-brigade parent officially complained about that once!

Yep i was told that one by a girl i know who works in a nursery, i mean come on wtf is that about!

Heofz · 19 Sep 2006 at 12:54

I think we should take a stand. Every time someone in some kind of minority plays the minority card, we should take as much "offence" by their accusations as they take "offence" from our alleged "act of predudice".

It makes me laugh how people say they are "offended" about something which if they just took one step back would realise how irrationally lame they are being. This doesn't just count for minorities, take the below example:

Person A: <makes joke about epilepsy>
Person B: "That's not funny, I know someone who has epilepsy, therefore I have an excuse to take the moral high-ground. I take offence." *rings alarm*
Person A: "Err no, the joke wasn't aimed at your friend, it was a JOKE. Not aimed at any specific person or to degrade anybody; no predudice or malice intended whatsoever."
Person B: "Still. Despite the fact that technically the joke is funny, I refuse to laugh, because otherwise I cannot take the moral high-ground"

Another example:

"Yes you got fired, NO it wasn't because of your race/religion. Why do you even suggest it in the first place? Did you WANT it to be that way? Are you sure it isn't deep-down wishful thinking on your part?"