Jack Straw drives a bus

Manchester Evening News:

A MUSLIM woman was prevented from getting on a bus in Greater Manchester because she would not remove her veil.

The 22-year-old Manchester University student from Oldham says other passengers laughed when the driver refused to let her on because he could not check her identity with her bus pass.

The Asian News:

AN EIGHT-year old-boy was left terrified by racist thugs who punched him in the face and pulled off his mosque cap.

Mohammed Tamazul was attacked whilst on his way to his uncle’s home on Stockport Road Levenshulme, Manchester where friends and family gathered for special evening Ramadan prayers.

As he made his way Mohammed noticed three teenage boys following him on mountain bikes.

One of them got off and asked if he was Muslim.

When he didn't reply the lout pulled his cap and started throwing kicks and punches at him before riding off again.

Mohammed's dad Tamazul Miah said he believed the attack was a result of the negative media coverage of the Muslim community.

Father of four, Mr Miah said: "My son was targeted because he is a Muslim, I can’t see any other reason.

"This has never happened to him or any of my other children before.

"My son was left shaking after the incident. He told me that whilst they were attacking him, the other two thugs were laughing and encouraging their friend to carry on. They were also saying to their friend "get the Muslim".

Mohammed was left with bruises around his eyes and is now frightened to go out.

Comments

[DrM]

Now we know where Marty, Naveen and David Daft were...........3 against 1, BNP style odds. All in all a good night eh lads?

[Yusuf Smith]

As-Salaamu 'alaikum,

Down here in London they did away with photo IDs for most bus and rail passes years ago - I think they realised it made no sense if most checks were done by machine, which of course cannot check the ID against the face. So it's no issue here whether the holder has a veil or not. Perhaps Manchester should do the same.

By the way, I submitted a comment to this effect last night to the MEN page you linked, and it's not been published.

[Shavez]

Either that Dr M, or Jack Straw rides a bike as well!

[Martin]

DrM

What makes you think I support the BNP? I loathe the BNP. The BNP are 'racial nationalists'. They think membership of nations depends on skin tone, completely forgetting the vastly more important roles played by shared language, shared history and shared culture.

The BNP are the mirror image of those who would impose the Sharia.

Don't ever equate me with them.

And I'm a solicitor by training and I also have your e-mail address, so don't ever imply that I support violence against children ever again.

[Mustafa Arif]

The photo ID issue is a leigitmate one that needs a sensible, sensitive and creative solution. Even in London where routine photo ID checks are no longer used it is the case the ticket inspectors will require photo ID, on demand, for the more expensive tickets (e.g. annuals) and this is, in my view a legitimate use of photo ID to prevent fraud. The issue is to find a practical way of verifying ID in a confined, yet public, setting which is also time-critical. I would not envy the position the bus driver was placed in.

[DrM]

Methinks Marty doth protest a bit too much. You obviously know nothing of Sharia to compare it to your mates in the BNP. Its a natural progression for those emboldened by a continuous stream of hate propaganda and dehumanization to take it to the next level...which is now attacking mooslim kiddies(too bad this one lived to talk eh?) in the streets. You have my email address?! Let me go hold something cause I'm shaking in my boots....brrr!

[joe90]

roles - mirror images - equations etc

- I can never work out what you are on about - could you tone down these academic mixed metaphors a bit

don't ever imply that I support violence against children ever again.
I think you'll find, mr psuedo-solicitor, 'violence' against children is perfectly legal, depending on circumstances (just like everything to do with ethics-law) -
- the fact that you make global assertions, on just about every topic you ever let off gas about, makes me think you aren't a solicitor at all -
- most legal types I know couch everything they say in about a gazillion conditional clauses and a quantillion qualifications -

What's your speciality by the way?

I have never heard of any solicitor threatening anyone on the internet with the fact they're a solicitor - its like a policeman, or somesuch, doing it, it doesn't make sense - isn't that professionally unethical, goading potential clients into going for professional legal advice - unlawfully soliciting custom ?

Let me know soon would you Martin,
as I have your email address

Its a good job we have laws against this sort of thing - something you wouldn't know about yourself Martin - impersonating a solicitor is illegal!

[Infidel & Kafir Watch]

Would it be advisable to encourage Asians and Muslims to attack any non-Asians and non-Muslims who are wearing short skirts, intoxicated senseless with alcohol or anyone just being a nuisance?

How would the non-Asian and non-Muslims like that (can we give it a try)?

(note: I totally condemn innocent people being oppressed in any shape, form or way, whether it is Muslim or non-Muslims) Just to give some food for thought

[DrM]

Joe90, you had me rolling with that last post. That was hilarious, mate.
I can imagine Marty smashing down my door with his plastic sheriff's badge and a pair of specially trained pirated-DVD sniffing dogs(I opt for the Austin Powers defence : "its not mine baby!"). Yeah man, I'm positively petrified lest the solicitor set me straight. Oh God, I cant stop laughing......

[Martin]

DrM,

My opposition to the BNP is a matter of public record - here are links to three articles I have written in different fora, all critical of the BNP -

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/printer_7108.shtml

http://devilskitchen.blogspot.com/2006/04/losing-working-class.html

http://martinkelly.blogspot.com/2006/09/blood-and-soil-brown.html

Gee, DrM, seeing as you're such a committed opponent of bigotry, I presume that you have your own hate page on 'Stormfront'? You know, the world's biggest white nationalist website?

You don't? I do -

http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-167488irritating_to_find_out_that_one_of_my_articles_had_been_linked_to_%91Stormfront%92..html

I got it for writing this -

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/printer_10555.shtml

Now, DrM, at this point your wee clockwork brain will probably be ticking over into its next cycle and coming up with the words 'Zionist stooge'. If that's the case, try this for size -

http://moonbatcentral.com/wordpress/?p=1034#comments

Joe90,

Apart from the fact that I need a lecture from you on the laws of Scotland in the same way I might need a new rectum, I would suggest learning to read before arguing with people who are solicitors by training.

I wrote,

"...don't ever imply that I support violence against children ever again"

You wrote,

"'violence' against children is perfectly legal, depending on circumstances"

The legality of violence against children dependent upon circumstances is not in dispute - however, that was not my point. I was criticising its very practice.

I wrote,

"I'm a solicitor by training"

You wrote,

"...impersonating a solicitor is illegal!"

This, of course, I know - better than you do. However, (and this is where I might become lawyerly) for the avoidance of doubt could you explain how you made the logical hyperleap from reading the words 'solicitor by training' to concluding that I am impersonating a solicitor? I haven't held a practicing certificate from the Law Society of Scotland since 1999, having required to leave practice aged 28 for health reasons (I suffer from Tourette Syndrome, and wearily await the inevitable cheap shots).

What I wrote was perfectly true - you, however, made an assumption. Not very clever, not very lawyerly.

If you want some more evidence, try reading this -

http://martinkelly.blogspot.com/2006/10/great-freedland-legal-aid-fisk.html

or this -

http://martinkelly.blogspot.com/2006/07/llb-confidential.html

I even mentioned it not so long ago in these pages - and Osama hasn't answered my question -

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/10/delaying_trials.html#comment-24568336

I mentioned my background because I don't like DrM telling lies about me, maliciously or otherwise - although if someone repeats a lie without thinking then they are either stupid, a redneck or a stupid redneck.

For your interest, I was a litigator - mainly family work, small amount of crime, small amount of personal injury work.

And as far as the current Solicitors' code of ethics is concerned, all I can do is quote Boycie's famous words to Del Boy - I couldn't give a toss.

Gpoing back to DrM for a moment, you wrote "You obviously know nothing of Sharia to compare it to your mates in the BNP." Well, hopefully we've established that on the balance of probabilities (Joe, that's the evidential test in civil law - OK?) that I'm no mate of the BNP, let's talk about the Sharia.

Sharia law needs some good PR, don't you think? Ask the man on the Clapham omnibus(Joe - McQuire v. Western Morning News [1903] 2 KB 100 - OK?) what they think of Sharia law and they'll tell you - amputations of hands for theft. Injunctions to 'holy war'. 16 year old homosexuals being hanged from cranes in Tehran. The brutal suppression of religious pluralism throughout the Muslim world.

That's what we know about it.

So give us some good spin, DrM!

[DrM]

Actually Marty, I see a lot of you in Stormfront's style of fear mongering and racist generalizing(particularly your mindless rants about Sharia). So a couple of tossers from that hate site don't fancy you, and I'm supposed to be convinced of your impeccable anti-bigotry credentials, is that how it works? BTW nice link to the racist mexican hunting vigilantes of Vdare you got on your blog.
Nice try but no cigar, bud. I've read enough of your droppings to determine you're a man of tremendous prejudice and ignorance. You're just selective in your racism, unlike your less subtle soul mates in the BNP. I bet you couldn't wait to hit the moonshine when you heard about this 8 year old kid being beaten up. You probably cursed out loud when you heard about that bullet missing the Muslim family it was intended for.
Keep typing. Maybe, someday, you'll randomly type something semi-intelligent or convincing.

[DrM]

Actually Marty, I see a lot of you in Stormfront's style of fear mongering and racist generalizing(particularly your mindless rants about Sharia). So a couple of tossers from that hate site don't fancy you, and I'm supposed to be convinced of your impeccable anti-bigotry credentials, is that how it works? BTW nice link to the racist mexican hunting vigilantes of Vdare you got on your blog.
Nice try but no cigar, bud. I've read enough of your droppings to determine you're a man of tremendous prejudice and ignorance. You're just selective in your racism, unlike your less subtle soul mates in the BNP. I bet you couldn't wait to hit the moonshine when you heard about this 8 year old kid being beaten up. You probably cursed out loud when you heard about that bullet missing the Muslim family it was intended for.
Keep typing. Maybe, someday, you'll randomly type something semi-intelligent or convincing.

[Martin]

DrM,

You are a truly disgusting person. You continue with your prejudice even when presented with evidence of your error.

I also link to this blog - what does that make Osama?

VDare is not a white nationalist website (BTW, you'll see a link there to an article of mine they publlished as well - as well as five on 'Antiwar').

Answer my questions on Sharia - or put up and shut up.

Am I a bigot? Yes. What am I a bigot in favour of? The survival of the United Kingdom, its civic traditions and the rule of law.

Aren't you? Isn't that the type of bigotry you could live with?

[Anonymous]

"The photo ID issue is a leigitmate one that needs a sensible, sensitive and creative solution. Even in London where routine photo ID checks are no longer used it is the case the ticket inspectors will require photo ID, on demand, for the more expensive tickets (e.g. annuals) and this is, in my view a legitimate use of photo ID to prevent fraud. The issue is to find a practical way of verifying ID in a confined, yet public, setting which is also time-critical. I would not envy the position the bus driver was placed in."

London "Oyster cards" can be cancelled electronically so they no longer work if they are lost or stolen. I doubt if that is true of Manchester buses- that would be why people have to show photographic I.D. with them.

[DrM]

You're not going to distract anyone by trying to change the subject to Sharia, Marty. Vdare is most definitely white supremacist, so are the reactionary Minuteman you link too. I take it that linking to Osama somehow makes you "fair and balanced" yes? Attacking woman and children is NOT a civic tradition of the UK. Atleast you do admit to being a bigot, too bad the level of discourse in your little world is on the level of violent soccer fan with delusions of being a solicitor. In future, wake up the dozy peglegged BNP hamster operating that wheel-powered brain of yours before you start typing.

[Usayd]

Machester rally needs to catch up :-|

[Martin]

DRM,

Youre a joke - a very sad, very sick joke.

If VDare were 'white supremacist', why would they publish African-Americans?-

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_122305.htm

or publish theses specifically attackking white/racial nationalism -

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051008_round2.htm

Why would they do this?

By the way, your description of the Minutemen as being racial nationalists is also wrong. You might care to read the following report of an incident at Columbia University when students adamantly opposed to free speech and political pluralism prevented two Minutemen from speaking -

http://www.nysun.com/article/41020

I do hope you noticed that the report made clear that one of them, Marvin Stewart, is black.

Weird bunch of white nationalists.

Where have I said that attacking women and children is part of the British civic tradition? Where? You accused me of supporting it. I have denied it. You keep accusing me of it. You are a headcase.

Yes, I have admitted to being a bigot in favour of 'The survival of the United Kingdom, its civic traditions and the rule of law'. Osama Saeed's a Muslim bigot - he thinks non-Muslims don't love their children -

"Yes Martin, because if Sajad wasn't a Muslim, he wouldn't care about his daughter."

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/molly_campbell.html#comment-22399034

If you want to criticise anyone criticise him, not me.

And I have hee-haw delusions about being a solicitor. I was the real deal.

[DrM]

Marty, you're falling apart like a cheap deck of cards. What possessed you to think that you were capable of being entertaining or interesting to read? Which Afican Americans are members of Vdare, mate? A handful of extremists like Alan Keyes who are widely despised in their community. Or that right wing telebimbo Michelle Malkin rants. Nothing more then token colored mascots. Nice try but no cigar.
Calling you dull is a gross underestimation of just how tedious you are. You have the personality of a damp sponge and the appeal of a moldy sweat sock. Is there anything I need to know about you other than your a grungy social outcast?

[Osama]

Martin, if you were a solicitor you were of the stereotypical slimy lying variety given the way you mendaciously twisted what I said on that thread.

I have had no respect for your views till now, and have absolutely none at all for you as a person after that astoundingly cheap shot. You come across as a childish school boy.

[Ted]

What do veiled women do for passports?

[Martin]

Oz, son, I don't respect your views either- we have at least that much in common.

You write,

"if you were a solicitor you were of the stereotypical slimy lying variety given the way you mendaciously twisted what I said on that thread."

Who is flaunting their prejudices now?

Who is engaging in mass stereotyping now?

Who is the bigot now?

I'm sure that those of my former professional brethren to whom you spoke but haven't named (http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/10/delaying_trials.html#comment-24568336) who confirmed that delaying trials for Eid is no big deal would just love to know that the cherubic and media friendly face of Islamic extremism in Scotland thinks that they might be sliming liars.

Who were those guys, by the way? I want to verify that those conversations took place, so that I can prove to my satisfaction that you're not spreading lies for your own purposes - so names, dates and telephone numbers, please, posted as a comment.

All of them.

Your apparently titanic bigotry notwithstanding, you also seem to have some problems with the English language. You wrote that I had 'mendaciously twisted' your comment that '"Yes Martin, because if Sajad wasn't a Muslim, he wouldn't care about his daughter."

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/molly_campbell.html#comment-22399034

To be mendacious, Oz, means to lie - to tell untruths. Your comment was reproduced in full, without any editing from me. The only reasonable construction which that comment can sustain is that you think kufr don't love their children.

How is that twisting anything?

How can any reasonable reader viewing that that comment reach any conclusion other than that you are a Muslim bigot? You damned yourself out of your own mouth in a moment of frustration at the keyboard, and your words are now there for all to see for as long as people read this blog.

Do not try to slur me on account of your own carelessness and indiscretion.

Oz, you link to Antiwar. As I reminded DrM, I used to write for Antiwar. Justin Raimondo, Antiwar's editorial director, coined one of the wisest phrases to have come from Internet journalism thus far - 'on the Internet, your sins live forever'.

So it will be with you, Osama, and your comment that 'if Sajad wasn't a Muslim, he wouldn't care about his daughter."

You have been nailed good and proper, sunshine. Get over it.

Now - the names, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of the solicitors who advised you that delaying trials for Eid was no big deal, and the dates on which you spoke to them, if you please.

Posted as a comment.

You should by now have realised that you are not dealing wih a schoolboy.

[ainelivia]

Martin wrote quoting Osama "if Sajad wasn't a Muslim, he wouldn't care about his daughter."

That's a fairly gob-smacking statement.

[Sohaib]

Martin, how stupid can you be? You provided the link to Osama's comment, which I just read, and it is patently obviously that he was being sarcastic.

He said in his comment directly preceding the one in question:
"A father is capable of loving his daughter regardless of religion."

Then you wrote: "Why are you complaining that I 'bring religion into everything'? Religion seems to be critical to this case."

It was to this that Osama replied:
"Yes Martin, because if Sajad wasn't a Muslim, he wouldn't care about his daughter."

To me that is very obviously a sarcastic retort. He could have made it clearer with punctuation [e.g. "his daughter (!)"]

But in the context of your conversation, it is ridiculous to consider that a serious statement of his opinion. He was saying "Duh, it's not a religious issue, as Sajad would care for his daughter even if not a Muslim" - as he said explicitly just before, as I have now quoted above.

[Sohaib]

What amuses me is that you could actually think that Osama went from disagreeing with you to nodding at your reiterated claim that religion is critical to the Rana case.

"Yes Martin"... No Martin, he didn't agree with you, and neither do I. You said: "The only reasonable construction which that comment can sustain is that you think kufr don't love their children."

Kuffar, Martin. And your statement here only demonstrates the limit of your reading comprehension. Every utterance has a context.

Lest you accuse me too of having problems with English (as I am aggrieved to notice a typo in my above comment), I might just mention that I study Linguistics and Philosophy of Language.

[Martin]

Sohaib -

Close - but no cigar.

On the principle that every utterance has a context, Ozzie's generous concession that 'A father is capable of loving his daughter regardless of religion' must then be read in the context of what he wrote immediately afterwards -

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/molly_campbell.html

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/molly_campbell.html#comment-22398089

"My point is that fathers in this country have been beating their heads against a wall for a long time because of the denial of their rights. Sajad had a recourse most don't.

Ainelivia, I'm presuming you don't know Louise Campbell. Don't take Sajad's comments personally against yourself. Take it from me, a life with Louise would be nothing."

Well, the legal recourse that Sajad, the pious and humble devotee of Tablighi Jamaat, had was to enter process in Scotland; however the practical recourse that he took was to kidnapping - so that's the 'Fathers4Justice' analogy blown out of the water straight away.

Kidnapping? Absolutely. Misbah Rana's legal domicile is Scotland. A Scottish decree regulating her residence is in force. By either failing or refusing to return his daughter to Scotland, Sajad Ahmed Rana is guilty not only of kidnapping but also of the most gross contempt of court.

Legally, that is the beginning and end of the whole business.

However, what Sajad had that other kidnappers don't always have is either witting or unwitting backup. For example, he had Osama Saeed saying 'a life with Louise would be nothing'.

Unless The Ozster has mysteriously planted hidden cameras in the Campbells' council house in Stornoway, there is absolutely no way in which he would be able to make an impartial judgment as to which of the child's parents would be better able to serve her best interests, the relevant test for residence under Scots law - none at all.

That's even if he had the training and experience required to make such a judgment, of course.

Why, then, would Oz say such a thing?

Let me guess..I know! He's a Muslim bigot!

By the way, Sajad has had the benefit of a barrel-load of other back up. Not every kidnapper has Bashir Maan, a former Glasgow Labour councillor, going on television to complain of the 'Islamophobia' in the reporting of his case.

Not every kidnapper has Mohammed Sarwar, a Labour MP, flying out to Pakistan to check to see if the victim's OK - Osama later tried to explain away Sarwar's visit to the kidnapper's lair as just a pit stop on a previously scheduled trip to Kashmir

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/molly_campbell.html#comment-22399034

But the very next day after Sarwar's visit, when the kidnapper had said that Misbah was free to return to Scotland if she wished, what did Rana do? He applied for custody in Pakistan on the basis that she was being brought up unIslamically!

It was at this point that Mohammed Sarwar, Bashir Maan and, to the best of my recollection, Osama Saeed stopped commenting on the case.

Trying to spin that move seemed too tough even for our boy Ozzie.

The only Muslim public figure to have emerged from this affair with any credit has been Hanzala Malik, for his reiteration that the law of Scotland must be obeyed.

So Osama Saeed remains, in my eyes, a Muslim bigot. Sohaib, your valiant attempt to defend the indefensible has done nothing to alter my view that his remark that 'if Sajad wasn't a Muslim, he wouldn't care about his daughter' was an expression of Muslim bigotry.

And if he doesn't produce the names and contact details of the lawyers who confirmed to him that postponing trials for Eid was no big deal, he'll be a discredited Muslim bigot and apologist for kidnapping.

Sohaib, son, what you study is of no interest to me whatsoever. What do you want - a medal?

And where did DrM and Joe90 go? It's not like them to have nothing to say for themselves...