There should be few things more reprehensible and easily condemnable for the citizens or subjects of a civilised society than the act of threatening the lives of innocent children. A person who telephones a school and threatens to ‘blow it up’ is a direct threat of violence and one that causes both staff and children at the school significant to fear for their lives. This sort of activity, if carried out by a member of the public should be punished to the fullest extent that the law allows.
However a case has emerged from Croydon in Surrey that illustrates that Britain’s judicial system has become bent towards the interests of the followers of Islam when an unemployed and probably unemployable Muslim man threatened in a voice mail message to ‘blow up’ a primary school in the area. Staff at the school were horrified to discover last June a voice mail message that said ‘don’t cry when you get blown up’. The school immediately called the police and officers traced the phone number to its owner one Mohammed Farooq who was later arrested.
Now if you or I or any other British non Muslim did such a disgusting and depraved thing as to threaten the lives of primary school children we would probably be looking at a custodial sentence, I would reckon of at least 3 months at least, because of the gravity of such an offence. But in Farooq’s case this didn’t happen. The magistrates presiding over Farooq’s sentencing hearing at Croydon Magistrates Court following his guilty plea for malicious communications offences, treated this dangerous and burdensome Muslim with a leniency that the magistrates would probably not be so forthcoming with, had this defendant not been a Muslim.
Despite Farooq instigating a genuine and well founded fear in the staff of the school who heard his threat message and despite Farooq having a criminal record that includes car theft and ‘religiously inspired hatred’ convictions, the magistrates gave Farooq a four month prison sentence suspended for 12 months and a supervision order. He was also ordered to forfeit £175 of his welfare benefits presumably to cover court costs.
This looks to me and will do to a number of others that this is another example of the Islamic double standard at work in our courts. This double standard sees Muslims get ridiculously and markedly lenient sentences for crimes that would see members of either the majority population or other religious groups imprisoned or given much harsher non custodial sentences that Farooq has got.
This is not the only case of its type. For example in 2014 a sex abusing Islamic teacher was set free by the courts on the grounds that he was a carer for his wife who didn’t speak English. Can you imagine any of us non Muslims being able to get away with an excuse like that? Of course we would not. Another Islamic double standard case was the 2016 one of Zameer Ahmed a teenage Islamic savage who beat and tortured his girlfriend. This particular savage got 12 months custody for an attack, which involved waterboarding his girlfriend and beating her with a metal vacuum cleaner pipe. I have little doubt that if a non Muslim teenager had behaved in the despicably brutal way that Ahmed behaved to his girlfriend then they would be looking at at least two years or more in custody. The reason given by the court for Ahmed’s ludicrously light sentence was that he had had a ‘difficult life’. Well lots of people have difficult lives but we don’t beat our girlfriends with hoses or waterboard them like this savage did. For those in doubt, I can assure you that these are not isolated incidents, just the first couple of cases that came up following a web search.
When you read the story of this crime in the local newspaper The Croydon Advertiser you may well be struck by the fact that not this savage has brought nothing but grief to the British national table. He doesn’t work, he’s got a criminal record and has a penchant for issuing violent threats.
The Croydon Advertiser said:
A man has been spared jail after threatening “to blow up” a Croydon primary school attended by children as young as four.
He told staff not to “cry” as he left the sick voice mail last year just weeks after being convicted of a religiously aggravated offence.The Crescent Primary School, in Selhurst, received a terrifying voice message on the evening of June 8.
Staff at the school discovered the message on which a man’s voice could be heard threatening “Yo Cres, don’t cry when you get blown up”.
The age of the children who go to the school ranges from four to 11.
Police traced the call back to a 44-year-old father who was swiftly arrested and questioned over the call.
Mohammed Farooq, who lives on Whitehorse Road, just minutes from the school, refused to comment on why he threatened to “blow the school up”.
Maybe the reason, unstated by Farooq, that he issued this threat to the school lies in the disgusting and violent ideology that he and those like him are steeped in? I’d be utterly livid if this savage had issued this threat to my child’s school and I’d been even more angry if I’d then seen this savage walk free from court for an offence that must surely have deserved gaol time?
Can anybody honestly and truthfully, after reading the Croydon Advertiser story, put their hands on their hearts and say that the ordinary British citizen has any benefit from this savage being here? We don’t need any more dole bludging violent threat making Muslims like Farooq, we have enough of them already sadly.
This case is yet another one that highlights how the British judicial system is becoming far too lenient to the likes of Farooq and the other Islamic savages featured above. This is a highly dangerous road to go down for the Government to have such an obvious double standard like this where the dispensing of justice is concerned.
For a start it goes against the Biblical principles that justice should be honest and dispensed without bias, a standard that Western judicial systems have had as a guiding principle even though sometimes these judicial systems haven’t always lived up to it. The second reason for calling this double standard dangerous is that it destroys utterly the public’s faith in the judicial system if they see appalling criminals like Farooq and others getting ridiculously lenient sentences because they are Muslims. This disillusionment on the part of the general public is especially pronounced when Muslims get sentences that would be much harsher if it was a non Muslim committing a crime or even issuing a threat against a Muslim.
Civilised nations need a judicial and criminal justice system that the public can not only know to be honest and unbiased but is seen to be such. Sentences like this feed the perception that the criminal justice system is no longer honest or impartial where Muslim defendants are concerned. This perception of bias may even help to create a vengeance culture among the general population, a population who may in future see little point in reporting Muslim criminals to the police, because the Muslim criminals will not be properly punished and who will therefore take the law into their own hands. As I have said so often before, this sort of vengeance culture that arises when the law is no longer respected, is not something we should either hope or wish for as it is a symptom of societal breakdown. However, extra judicial vengeance might become a phenomenon that we may start to see more of if the judicial system doesn’t stop pandering to Muslims and giving them far too much leniency and leeway.
We urgently need a rebuilt confidence that our judicial system is treating everyone equally. But, cases like Farooq’s do nothing to build such confidence and instead contribute to a disgust from members of the public about the courts that no longer protect them but instead protect worthless savages like Farooq.