From The Daily Hatemail:
The Muslim woman was staying at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, which is run by the Vogelenzangs, when a conversation arose between the hoteliers and their guest about her faith.
It is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as Christianity teaches. Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.
Guess which of the parties is now "charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act – causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted [could face a fine] of £2,500 ... and a criminal record."
No clues!
Monday, 21 September 2009
Victimhood Poker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
what's the prize for guessing?
A common shop harassment is for an African person/family to set off the security tag alarm at the front of store deliberately with a device in the pocket. Then when stopped by staff/security to create a fuss. Only stopped for being black, racist behaviour of the store etc.
The aim is to get the goods for free at that point. If that fails letters to the customer services dept declaring breach of human rights,racism, court action for defamation of character.
Many get vouchers for £100 ish just to get rid of them.
Had once that claimed she was a princess X and demanded £25,000 as photographers had photographed the incident and it was in the papers.
The prize is a dog-eared copy of today's Daily Hatemail.
The muslim dress business is a matter of opinion, but if a muslim denies that Mo was a warlord then he or she is surely guilty of denying the truth of the Koran and therefore liable to Allah-knows-what penalty.
One of the things that pisses me off a bit with cases like this is that a lot of muslims just don't behave like this.
I worked in an office with quite a strict muslim guy. Went off to the stationery cupboard for prayers, wouldn't come down the pub with us. That sort of thing.
But other than that, he wouldn't get involved in telling me that I shouldn't go to the pub, or eat ham and he didn't mind Xmas decorations going up either.
And he would sit and have theological discussions with a co-worker where he frequently corrected what the other guy said was in the Koran, or was prepared to rationally debate the meanings of things.
I've since worked with 2 other muslim guys who I had no trouble working with. Quite observant guys who were hard-working and pleasant to deal with.
What hacks me off is these offended people going to the police and then being given the time of day. If I was Home Secretary I'd have the police tell them to come back to the station with their mummies.
I read this at lunchtime and 'victimhood poker' leapt into my mind.
You've got me brainwashed, MW. ;-)
I can't work out this story - specifically, whether the inept moron who should be sacked for failing to do their job is the CPS person who brought charges (if the facts are anything like those stated in the Telegraph and Mail stories, there is no chance whatsoever of achieving a conviction), or the Mail and Telegraph reporters who've subscribed wholeheartedly to the defence's version of events at the expense of whatever the CPS believe happened.
I guess we'll find out when the charges are dropped or at trial, respectively...
I guess muslim dress is a better option then any other..
Nice article..i loved it..thanks for the blog.
Post a Comment