Parveen Akhtar, prosecuting, said Mr Wilkinson, a painter and decorator, had been travelling up Barkerhouse Road, Nelson, towards a mini roundabout, when Naveed’s taxi came out of Netherfield Road, causing him to slam on his brakes to avoid a crash.
The defendant stopped, got out, threw the bottle and opened Mr Wilkinson's door as the victim tried to close it. He kicked him, using the flat of his shoe, connecting with the side of his head and dragging his foot down the victim's ear, causing it to bleed.
The defendant then punched Mr Wilkinson a number of times with such force his head was knocked back. The victim’s son then tried to stop Naveed who later fled in his cab before police were called.And the penalty for this sort of utter savagery?
He was given 26 weeks in jail, suspended for two years, with 200 hours unpaid work and must pay £400 compensation and £100 costs.Wonderful! Mitigation must have been stunning...
Kamran Yousaf, for Naveed, said he had been a taxi driver since he was 17, had built up his business and had 14 employees. The incident last October 18 was isolated and the defendant felt enormous regret.
Naveed would say Mr Wilkinson made a gesture and he accepted he made a mistake in stopping his vehicle and retaliating.
Mr Yousaf continued :" He just saw red. He didn't realise what he was doing. He can't understand what went through his mind for him to go and do what he did. He accepts his actions were out of order."
The solicitor added Naveed was held in high esteem in the community.And has that changed, I wonder? Because it's amazing what you can do with the apparent blessing (or at least, not outright and vocal condemnation) of your 'community' as Baroness Warsi* pointed out last week...
*H/T: Kevin B via email
7 comments:
The Baroness has taken a brave and principled decision to accept that denial isn't working any more. Though she may be hoping it will tide her over any little unpleasantnesses arising from her expense claims. She is held in high esteem in the Westminster community, I believe.
Oh, I don't suppose it will have changed much. It's not as if he expected to stand next to his wife in the mosque, allowed his daughter to date a non-Muslim or didn't spit on a gay man. Beating a kaffir and getting let more or less off with it (a much harsher punishment than he would have received in a Shariah court, of course), is hardly condemnable.
In fact, you could see it as his little bit of jihad in this Dar al Harb of ours.
These days it's probably redundant to wonder what the result would have been if the situation had been reversed.
The effort to stamp out racism seems to be swinging too far the other way. Equality is supposed to work both ways.
And re Baroness Warsi - funny how that expense "irregularity" should come up now, given the alleged offence occurred four years ago... I guess that's just the game.
Surreptitiious Evil I disagree with you there. Under sharia he would have been praised for attacking a non muslim not punished. Remember there is a large proportion of the Koran dedicated to attacking those with other beliefs.
"She is held in high esteem in the Westminster community, I believe."
That says it all!
"And re Baroness Warsi - funny how that expense "irregularity" should come up now, given the alleged offence occurred four years ago... I guess that's just the game."
But you do have to wonder just what that £100 was for...
Thanks for the link!
I love the expenses scandal; it's the story that just keeps on giving...
Compare and contrast the sentence here for a deliberated assault with the 21 weeks immediate imprisonment for a drunken rant on the Tube, that so shocked and traumatised the effnick victims that they calmly remained in place, collecting the evidence on the cameras in their phones.
Post a Comment