to think eight months in prison is a bit excessive for throwing bacon

[CondyLisa]

www.thesun.co.uk/news/2095440/two-polish-men-bombarded-london-mosque-with-tesco-bacon-after-oktoberfest-booze-binge/

"Blackfriars Crown Court heard that the pair had bought a packet of bacon at a Tesco after drinking heavily at the festival but could not remember going to the mosque on Sunday night, October 2.

Prosecutor Carol Summers said the mosque’s caretaker had at first thought the Polish pair were worshippers but was stunned when meat was thrown at him.

The men threw several rashers of bacon, also placing a third piece in the shoe of a worshipper."

They appear to have no prior offending history.

Obviously whether you are at a church, mosque or community centre, you shouldn't be hassled by drunken yobs and it is right that they should be punished, but this seems to be a de facto blasphemy sentence more than anything else.

I don't see that throwing bacon is more serious than, say, yobs ripping up flower beds that people have worked on, and which provide at least as much social utility as a place of worship - but the latter attracts a sentence of community service, whereas we have eight month prison sentence for some bacon.

One very important thing that many are misunderstanding is that the bacon thing and the Lewis Smith thing are not racist because islam is not a race ; it's a cultural choice. - This and all the other people saying that Islam is not a race, under the Race Relations Act 1976 Sikhism was protected as it was determined in Mandla vs Dowell Lee [1983] that for the purposes of the act that Sikhism was to be considered an ethnic group. Although the Act has been repealed and replaced with the Equality Act 2010 there is no doubt that cultural/religious groups are afforded the same protections in law as racial groups. So whilst not racist per se that doesn't mean that their actions are any more acceptable, both morally or legally and of course they should be afforded the same protections.

"This and all the other people saying that Islam is not a race, under the Race Relations Act 1976 Sikhism was protected as it was determined in Mandla vs Dowell Lee [1983] that for the purposes of the act that Sikhism was to be considered an ethnic group. "

That's because Sikhs ARE an ethnic group given that they don't proselytise or try to convert people, they are of ONE Indian race.

Muslims consist of dozens of races of many different hues.

Of course they should have been jailed

It is racist done to cause people harm and distress it was a hate crime

@ConyLisa - CPS guidance

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

EleanorRigby, the Sentencing Council do sentencing guidelines, not the CPS...

The right wing rhetoric and racism displayed here is both frightening and disgusting.

Would they have got 8 months for chucking bacon at a bunch of athiest vegans? If not then they were given extra time because religion was a factor and I think that is totally wrong.

That is of courde true. But if you actually look at the CPS guidance on this whole theme which you requested and I kindly attached you will see there is a whole section on sentencing with recommendations.

It's a racist attack and they got what they deserved.
however, I agree with the double standards, burning poppies gets a slap on the wrist. It's one rule for one race and one rule for another.

@ whataload

You may think this is wrong but the concept of religiously aggravated crime is part of English law so if you want to change it you need to engage with your MP.

CondyLisa - but Sikhism was not classed as a race in the definitions of the Race Relations Act 1976, which is why the case had to be heard in a Court of Appeal, the judge then interpreted the Act to include groups of people who fit certain criteria - Muslims would fall under that criteria. My point being that if this incident were to be tried under the Race Relations Act 1976 then Muslims would have been given the same protections regardless of not being classed as a 'race'. Whether the difference is based on race or culture the discrimination is still unacceptable, bleating on that they aren't a race doesn't make any more acceptable one bit!

I agree with you op. Recently, near where I stay a woman was using her phone whilst driving and going above the speed limit and she hit an old woman crossing the road. The lady died :( she didn't even get a custodial sentence! The justice system is a joke.

Would they have got 8 months for chucking bacon at a bunch of athiest vegans? If not then they were given extra time because religion was a factor and I think that is totally wrong.

Er, I am an atheist vegan, and I'm actually okay with this pair of gits getting stricter penalties for religious persecution.

However, that said, if anyone wants to introduce custodial sentencing for people posting that it's only fair for vegans to provide meat fare for non-vegan guests, I'm totally down with that. It's just so repetitive.

Why do people.always insist on derailing these discussions by going about what does and doesn't consitute 'race'. It happened on the 'irish twins' thread as well.

What does it matter - people are still being discriminated against.

I don't understand why any Muslim would burn poppies....many Nuslims fought and died in the wars...the poppy is a sign of remembrance for them too.
Obviously you can be Muslim, Christian or any other religion and still be an arsehole with no understanding of history.

As PP say, it's not the act, it's the intention.

Do you honestly not understand that?

8 months is a long time for a young offender to be in jail. A young offender is someone who is under twenty one. The law generally more lienent to young offenders than older criminals. It is well recognised that 18 year olds do stupid things.

I wonder what punishment these idiots would be given in Norway where re offending rates are far lower.

The prosecutor made some bizarre statements:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/men-pelt-worshippers-mosque-bacon-8984499

"This is an unusual and unique case ." - no, it's actually quite common

"This is hate crime at the very top level. " - no, that would be murdering people for their religion

" They entered a mosque, which they are prohibited from doing while drunk." - that doesn't seem to be the main issue here

They actually spent a month in prison on remand, because

"It is a genuine concern that, were they to be released, they would become the subject attacks or reprisals."

What in the actual fuck? How exactly does locking them up protect them from reprisals when they are going to be released in a few months anyway?

YABVU.

'I don't see that throwing bacon is more serious than, say, yobs ripping up flower beds that people have worked on'

If they had ripped up flower beds it would have been much harder to see it as a hate crime. What they did couldn't have been more clear.

You don't find bacon offensive, most people don't, but Muslims do. These men deliberately went and bought something that religion believes to be forbidden to throw it at a place of worship. They didn't throw cream buns or avacados. They didn't put baked beans in a worshipper's shoe.

If they'd thrown it at my house I'd have been puzzled and the dogs would have been overjoyed. They targeted a place because it was a house of worship and chose to use something because it is offensive to those worshippers.

It couldn't be a more obvious act of hate.

I have done some pretty stupid things when drunk. At no point did I ever think hang on let's go to Tesco and get some bacon to throw at a mosque.

They must have religious hatred because why not pick eggs or chicken ect to throw.

Its not for throwing bacon, it's a hate crime.

Oh come the fuck on on OP.

EleanorRigby he got eight months for racially aggravated criminal damage. I am not clear what the amount of the damage was in this occasion, but for 'widespread graffiti', the normal sentence is a community order. www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/criminal-damage-other-than-by-fire-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-criminal-damage/

As a religiously aggravated offence, this is different, however to compare with another drunk:

" Mark Simmons got into a taxi outside the Turks Head pub in Bondgate on April 26 but was so drunk that the driver Adrian Nistor could not understand him when he gave his address.

Simmons demanded to know where Mr Nistor was from and after hearing that he was Romanian he kicked the dashboard and told Mr Nistor that he would not be getting paid his £7 fare.

Mr Nistor stopped the car and phoned the police, while Simmons vandalised the vehicle by pulling back the passenger door, tugging at the wing mirror and jumping up and down on the bonnet.

Prosecutor Lynne Dalton said: “He (Mr Nistor) was unable to finish his shift because of the incident; he feared for his personal safety.”

In a statement summarised in court, Mr Nistor said: “This was a normal journey, however, when he found out my nationality he clearly changed; I believe he had a problem with this.”

When a police officer arrived at the scene, Simmons asked him whether he was foreign before kicking him in the leg."

The offender on that occasion was given '12-month community order including supervision and completion of a thinking skills programme.'

Why the difference in approach? Why do you get off with being a violently drunken racist with some reeducation at the government's expense, but when it's drunken religious hatred and arguably less threatening (the mosque would have been full of men, the taxi driver was alone) you are sent to prison for eight months.

it doesn't bear any comparison.

insanity.

No, alcohol wont make you turn prejudiced.