[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8939276/Mercy-for-the-drunk-Muslim-girl-gang-who-attacked-woman.html"Kill the white slag"[/url

Could someone shine a light on M'Learned Friend's opinion as to why this isn't a racist attack?

Come on, admit it, whose put something in the water?

Because if you are white you can't be the victim of any sort of racism or discrimination whatsoever

The judge is an out of touch fool.

And such a short report won't give the full facts either

Are you fu*king kidding me? After the uproar last week about the racist white idiot on the tube in London... hahaha, what a joke

So what we're saying is that any one of us can beat up a black man, shouting "Kill the black b@@tard" and get away with it?

No, thought not.

Those girls must feel like they've won the lottery. Anyone else would have gone down for that.

Crazy. 4 onto 1 and they don't get jailed??? Hopefully they'll be deported but I'm not holding my breath.

Who is stating that it isn't ?

The relevant facts are all contained in that report including the reason why the judge didn't apply a jail sentence, the culprits were convicted and were given a sentence with a full explanation.

watched the cctv footage earlier and it was 4 on 2 - the victim's boyfriend was with her and got in some decent retaliation, as well as missing and falling over a couple of times. He was either hammered of concussed, I assume. Very odd attack/fight - they all just stop and have a rest at one point. The boyfriend picks some tactically naive moments to switch between protecting and comforting the victim, as well.

Where would they be deported to?

Once again alcohol is used (wrongly) as a mitigating factor not and aggravating one.

According to the report, the judge accepted that it wasn't racially motivated.

Though, conversely, Allah is going to be well pi[iss[/ied off.

Then he, having heard ALL of the evidence must be believed.

Report says they are Somalians, so I'd presume Somalia.

If I could read a report with all the relevant facts in it, I'd express an opinion.
As it stands, I can't.

That's an odd one. Do judges never make mistakes? I'm not saying that the attack [iwas[/i racially motivated, and I accept that the judge had access to a lot more information than you or I, but to say the judge [imust[/i be believed is just wrong. Perhaps if he had stated explicitly why he thought it wasn't (maybe he did and it wasn't reported), we could be a bit more confident either way.

Oh, and, I was only answering your question as to who said the attack wasn't racially motivated.

Out of curiosity, what [iwas[/i the reason for the attack?

They were offended by Christmas.

Well quite.

There wasn't enough room in the Telegraph report for details, what with the indignation that needs to be put in too.

The judge[i must[/i be believed because thats all we have, he/she has heard [iall[/i of the evidence, will certainly have years worth of experience in the law (decades worth probably), and is appointed as worthy to judge such things.

If he/she has made a mistake then there is also a procedure to re-judge what he/she has done or said and reach the same, or a different conclusion, nothing that they state is set in stone - its the system that we have and generally speaking its a bloody good one.

I certainly wouldn't hand over the justice system to newspaper editors.

I think you need to have a look at the UN's convention on refugees.