Islamists Threaten British Shop Owners with 40 Lashes for Selling Alcohol

Breitbart's Big Peace ^ | December 14, 2013 | Mary Chastain

[2ndDivisionVet]

Whitechapel is on the outskirts of London, but it is an area where Muslims enforce Sharia law without any interference from British officials. On Saturday, they took it a step further and told shop owners in the area they will face 40 lashes if they continue to sell alcohol.

The protesters, including Anjem Choudary, the former leader of the Al-Muhajiroun group which was banned under terrorism laws, delivered warning letters to Muslim-owned businesses.

“The shops are run by Muslims and they know they are selling alcohol and they know the sale and consumption of alcohol is completely prohibited,” he said. “We cannot live among the non-Muslims and see this evil take place.”

Mizanur Rahman, organiser of the protest, said it had urged business owners to stop selling alcohol in breach of Muslim laws.

Mr Rahman said: “We want Sharia law to be enforced in Britain,” before adding that many of the Muslim owners had been “embarrassed and ashamed” when confronted about their alcohol sales, but had argued that it was an economic necessity.

In 2011, The Daily Mail did an exposé on these "Muslim patrols" and how the English government has not done anything to stop. Women are targeted if they do not wear a headscarf....

[SkyDancer]

It had to do with another matter, but, no matter.

[Anton.Rutter]

Only happens in the UK. It’s against the law to defend yourself. You go to jail not the perp. It would happen once, just once in the US.

No, it isn’t. How many times do I and the other British freepers have to keep posting and correcting this myth?

#1. It isn't "other British Freepers", it's just you. Otherwise I'm psychic for predicting your arrival. You invest quite a bit of time "squashing rumors".

#2 Farmer arrested after burglars shot UK

Father arrested for murder of burglar UK

Man arrested for defending family from burglars UK

Couple arrested for using legally owned gun to defend home UK

Briton arrested for defending home against raiding youths UK

[SkyDancer]

I just finished doing a search on: Muslim attacks in the UK and people jailed for protecting their family/property. Scary how the law is on the perp’s and Mussies side.

[the scotsman]

I squash the ones that aren’t true.

And you are lying about it being just me(in a thread where Winniesboy has also posted, the irony). In previous threads on UK self defence, Winnie, Vanders9 and even our Anglo-Aussie friend Naturalman1975 have all posted about it. Either to back me or I post to back them.

As to your newspaper links, this has been explained a million times, and I am tired of doing it, but I will do it again for you.

When there is an incident in the UK where a suspected burglar has been killed or badly injured, the procedure here is to ‘arrest’ everyone, in order to take them to the police station, question everyone and then release the homeowner if the police are satisfied, as they are in 99.99% of cases, that the self defence was within the law (which I will come on to in a moment).

Yes, we Brit freepers all agree that to Americans that sounds backward and even unfair, but that’s the way we do it. Arrest, question, sort out, release. I fully understand that its seems weird to Americans.

As to self-defence, contrary to myth, it is perfectly legal to defend yourself and home/family, yes even to the point of killing an attacker or burglar (as a Manchester man did last year to a burglar and was found to be perfectly within his rights to do so). The law since 2000 has in fact been strengthened not once but twice towards the VICTIM.

For all the headlines, there are and have been only a tiny, tiny amount of cases of where the homeowner has been found to have acted outside reasonable force. One was Tony Martin (which imo was a bad decision, and most Brits think that), another for example was an Asian family who tracked a burglar a mile from the home and then used a car to run him over again and again, and almost killed him)

It is a complete myth that the British are not allowed to defend body or home, and its also a myth that people in the UK go to jail to even defending body and home/family.

[the scotsman]

Btw, I myself was the victim of a burglary-assault in Sept 2008, and defended myself with violence (punches, kicks and neck restraint), and I never even went to the police station. My statement was taken, and I was left to lock my door and clean up my cut hand (I was slashed across the hand with a small screwdriver). In fact I was told by the police that I could have used MORE violence to defend myself if necessary!.

My case even made the local papers (the story is on the net), as my offender did eight more break-ins and got 44 months jail. He is now back in prison for attempted murder.

[the scotsman]

No, it isn’t. That’s what we are discussing and have done in numerous UK self-defence threads.

[Anton.Rutter]

And you are lying about it being just me(in a thread where Winniesboy has also posted, the irony). In previous threads on UK self defence, Winnie, Vanders9 and even our Anglo-Aussie friend Naturalman1975 have all posted about it.

Never met one of them.

See YOU all the time.

I squash the ones that aren’t true.

Which, so far, seems to be every article on this subject.

You're basically saying you're the arbiter of truth and every other report out of the UK is a lie. Call me suspicious.

[Anton.Rutter]

My case even made the local papers (the story is on the net), as my offender did eight more break-ins and got 44 months jail. He is now back in prison for attempted murder.

Please, do provide us that link.

[BenLurkin]

scotch guard?

[the scotsman]

Really? They post every day.

Yep. I like this site and enjoy the banter/arguments. Also someone has stand up for the UK. I don’t mind fair criticism of the UK (there are times I hate my own country), but I wont stand for lies, myths and attacks on the UK. I stand up for the country I love and I wont be apologising for it.

I have explained the laws and rights in the UK pretty clearly. If you wish to ignore that and stick to what the newspapers say, that’s your prerogative. All I am doing to trying to explain what actually happens in the UK as opposed to what people think happens because they read FR threads.

Have I ever said I am the arbiter of truth?. Never. Honestly, son, any more strawmen and you could burn half a dozen Edward Woodwards.

[the scotsman]

I will provide to you via PM. As the articles contain my real name, I wont post openly here.

[Anton.Rutter]

Btw, I myself was the victim of a burglary-assault in Sept 2008, and defended myself with violence (punches, kicks and neck restraint)

None of those heroic details appeared in the article you sent me. The article you sent me was of a perp running from a crime scene id'd by DNA because he lost his hat. Is that what you meant to send?

[the scotsman]

I am the first person named in that article, no it dosent have all the details, but that’s the only article on the case I can find online, short of sending you my personal letters from the police, courts and victim support.

[Winniesboy]

Never met one of them.

See YOU all the time.

Well, here's one of them, and good-day to you. The good Scotsman can speak for himself: but the reason for our (relatively) infrequent appearances may well be that we lack his remarkable stamina and more easily weary of the continual need to correct the frequent, often grotesque misrepresentation here of this and other British matters. But relative taciturnity doesn't mean disagreement: I'm glad to say I endorse everything he has said on this subject.

[Anton.Rutter]

Then every time I read one of these concernig reports from Britain I will take into account that two anonymous posters are more than likely to say everything is BS and give that all the due consideration it deserves.

[Winniesboy]

Anonymous posters? Rather a surprising adjective to use, implicitly with a pejorative connotation, when anonymity is the near-universal convention not only on this but most other internet forums: the more so since one of those so described, as we learn from posts 51 and 53, has apparently chosen to forgo that anonymity in a private communication to you.

[Anton.Rutter]

Some people here use their names, some people don’t. People who don’t hsve chosen to post here anonymously.

And I’m still not swallowing your agenda. It’s like if I were to show up here regularly and announce that reports of the knockout game in the US were all bullshyt. My assumed omniscience of everything that occurs in this country alone would warrant suspicion.

I guess I just can’t give you the mindless acceptance of your statements that you’re looking for, bro.

[Winniesboy]

I think it would be a somewhat perverse interpretation of my occasional contributions here over the last dozen years either that I assume omniscience about everything that happens in this country, or still less that I expect mindless acceptance of my statements. I do, of course, respect the choice of those who choose to use their real names as screen names - very much a minority, though I couldn’t begin to estimate the percentage. The fact that some do can’t reasonably be used as a negative reflection on the majority who don’t, when all they’re doing in most cases, I would suggest, is no more than politely observing of the customs of their hosts.