Top Menu

Daily Mail’s Bigoted and Inaccurate Reporting Provokes More Right-wing anti-Muslim Hysteria

Right Wing British National Party

The recent case of an assault on a white woman by Somalis in Britain is being fully exploited by loons on both sides of the Atlantic. Islamophobia Watch investigated and exposed the distorted coverage, though as usual, the truth cannot wash away the residue such sensationalism invariably creates.

Daily Mail’s bigoted and inaccurate reporting provokes more right-wing anti-Muslim hysteria

Over the past week we have seen a wave of right-wing hysteria over the case of Rhea Page, a white woman from Leicester who was assaulted by four women of Somali heritage – or a “Muslim gang”, as they are invariably described.

The version of events that has gained currency on the racist right is that the women subjected Page to a “savage beating” while screaming “kill the white slag” but escaped a prison sentence because the judge accepted the defence’s argument in mitigation that the accused were Muslims who weren’t used to drinking alcohol. The case has been presented as an example of double standards in the British legal system, which supposedly discriminates against the white majority population and in favour of Muslims and other minorities.

Daily Express columnist Leo McKinstry produced a characteristically frothing-at-the-mouth comment piece on the case. Being a bit of a traditionalist, McKinstry couldn’t help adding a large dollop of good old-fashioned racism to his article (“Too many Somalians have become a burden on the British taxpayer, thanks to their welfare dependency…. Somalian gangs, most of them peddling drugs, have helped to create a climate of fear in parts of our cities through their enthusiasm for violence and contempt for the law”). But the main thrust of his argument was viciously Islamophobic:

The dogma of political correctness is dangerously weakening Britain’s traditional concept of justice. Our ruling elite are so deluded by the ideology of cultural diversity that they have lost the ability to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the outrageous leniency shown by a court this week towards a gang of Somalian Muslim women who savagely beat up a white woman in Leicster city centre. In a brutal, unprovoked assault, the thugs knocked Rhea Page to the ground, then repeatedly kicked in the head while calling her a “white bitch” and “white slag”….

Incredibly, despite the ferocity of the attack, the judge gave the girls only suspended sentences, even though he could have jailed them for up to five years. His bizarre decision came after the defence told him that the Muslim assailants had been drinking and were “not used to being drunk” because of their religion.

As a cause for mitigation, this is absurd. Why on earth should Muslims be treated any differently to other offenders, simply on the grounds of their faith? … The disgraceful message of this episode is that Muslims can get drunk and maim almost with impunity because the state is so craven about their creed….

The reluctance to imprison Ms Page’s attackers is so indicative of the supine, guilt-ridden mindset of our modern ruling class, where cowardice is dressed up as cultural sensitivity and self-loathing masquerades as tolerance. This mentality, which is tearing apart the moral bonds of our civilisation, can be seen all around us. This mentality, which is tearing apart the moral bonds of our civilisation, can be seen all around us….

Tremendous double standards are at work over race crime. Racial killings of whites are frequently downplayed or forgotten…. The British establishment is guilty of nothing less than reverse racism. Their members, from judges to politicians, think they are enlightened and compassionate. But in truth they are filled with prejudice. For often they refuse to expect the same standards of civilised behaviour from certain minorities that they demand of the indigenous population.

Forces further to the right have of course seized on the case. The British National Party reported it under the headline “‘Enough is enough’ – Rising anger over court bias as Muslim racists swagger free from Leicester court” and boasted that they were recruiting members off the back of the controversy. Paul Weston, the leader of the English Defence League’s new political ally the British Freedom Party, posted an article (“One rule for them, one rule for us”) on Ned May’s Gates of Vienna blog, one of the “counterjihadist” websites that provided the inspiration for Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. The EDL itself organised a protest in Leicester yesterday and has announced that it will be holding a national demonstration there in February to oppose “anti-white racism and the 2 tier justice system”.

This entire furore derives from a report published in the Daily Mail last week, under the headline “Muslim gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling ‘kill the white slag’ FREED” (subsequently amended to “Girl gang who kicked woman in the head while yelling ‘kill the white slag’ freed after judge hears ‘they weren’t used to drinking because they’re Muslims'”). In the print edition the article was headlined “Somali girls thugs go free after judge is told ‘they were not used to being drunk'”, but the Mail evidently thought it necessary to beef up the shock-horror anti-Muslim message for the benefit its online readership.

The Mail‘s account provided the basis for further coverage in the Sun, the Telegraph and the Metro. The Sun added an editorial comment, headed “Return Left”:

How Britain cheered when judges doled out proper jail sentences to the looters who briefly ran amok in our cities. Four months on, the Left has regrouped to concoct its perverse excuses for evil. And courts have resumed their liberal agenda too. So while in the summer yobs were handed two years apiece, yesterday a girl gang who screamed racist abuse while kicking a care worker’s head in got six months. Suspended. The poor dears were Muslims and not used to drinking, you see.

Since then the Sun has kept the issue on the boil by running an interview with Rhea Page (“I daren’t go out since race attack”), which in turn provided the Mail with an opportunity to run the story a second time (“Muslim girl gang ‘sentence sends wrong message about street violence'”). Not to be outdone, the Express, apparently feeling that McKinstry’s extended rant was an inadequate response to the scandal, published another op ed by Nick Ferrari (“Whatever happened to the idea of everyone being equal in the eyes of the law? Are we really suggesting that Muslims can be seen to be beyond the law by virtue of being unused to drink? … If this wasn’t a race crime, what the hell is?”)

Where did the Mail get the information for the report that provoked such a frenzy? As is often the case, the paper lifted the basic facts from a local newspaper and then distorted them in order to support its own anti-Muslim agenda. (For another recent example, see the Mail‘s concocted story of “church leaders” expressing “fury” over a branch of McDonald’s opening on Christmas Day.) In this instance the Mail‘s piece was essentially a rewrite of a report published in the Leicester Mercury back on 24 November, combined with quotes from an interview with Rhea Page, who of course held her assailants entirely responsible for the violent confrontation and claimed that she and her partner Lewis Moore were blameless.

If you examine the Leicester Mercury report you can see how it has been manipulated by the Mail. It was the lawyer for just one of the defendants, Ambaro Maxamed, who raised the issue of their faith. He said: “Although Miss Page’s partner used violence, it doesn’t justify their behaviour. They’re Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn’t something they’re used to.” But there is no suggestion in the Mercury report that the religious affiliation of the accused had anything to do with the judge’s decision not to jail them:

Sentencing, Judge Robert Brown said: “This was ugly and reflects very badly on all four of you. Those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside, but I’m going to suspend the sentence.” He said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from the victim’s partner.

A researcher from Full Fact contacted the Judicial Office, who referred her to the Mercury report as accurately reflecting the facts of the case and pointed out that “the role of the victim’s boyfriend was the one which impacted on the judgement”. This was no doubt reinforced by the fact that the main object of Lewis Moore’s violence was Ifrah Nur, who it appears had initially intervened to try and stop the fight, only to be punched in the face by Moore.

The Mail was clearly aware of this hole in its story. Hence the weasel-worded sentence that opened its report: “A gang of Muslim women who attacked a passer-by in a city centre walked free from court after a judge heard they were ‘not used to being drunk’ because of their religion” (emphasis added). Chronologically speaking, this is of course strictly true. The Mail‘s objective, however, was to mislead its readers into concluding that the judge decided against jailing the women because they were Muslims.

The actual cause of the violent clash is itself obscure. The Mail quoted Page as saying:”I honestly think they attacked me just because I am white. I can’t think of any other reason.” She added: “We were just minding our own business but they kept shouting ‘white bitch’ and ‘white slag’ at me. When I turned around one of them grabbed my hair then threw me on the ground.” Page repeated this accusation in her Sun interview: “they all came from behind me shouting, ‘White bitch’ and ‘White slag’. I had done absolutely nothing to them, I hadn’t even looked at them.”

But the Mercury report states that the assault on Page followed a verbal altercation: “after words were exchanged, Ambaro Maxamed had grabbed Miss Page’s hair, causing her to fall on the ground” (emphasis added). Which obviously conflicts with Page’s account. The Mail has posted CCTV footage of the incident on its website, but this has been edited so that the events leading up to the attack have been omitted. Even on the basis of this truncated version, however, it looks as though Page was involved in a verbal exchange with two of the four women before they attacked her. Exactly what was said, and why it provoked a violent reaction, the Mail obviously had no interest in establishing. They preferred to whip up the anger and indignation of their readers with a tale of Muslim thugs attacking a random stranger solely because she was white.

The claim that the attack was racially motivated is also dubious. The Mercury reports that only one of the defendants was accused of using such language: “During the hearing, James Bide-Thomas, prosecuting, said Ambaro Maxamed, who started the violence, had called Miss Page a ‘white bitch’ during the incident.” But Page’s account has all four of the women calling her a “white bitch” and “white slag” before attacking her. If that was indeed the case, it is difficult to understand why the Crown Prosecution Service failed to charge the accused with a racially aggravated offence. The Islamophobic right of course have a ready explanation for that. It wasn’t because the police and CPS were unconvinced that the assault was racially motivated or felt there was insufficient evidence to prove this (just as they refused to accept the allegation by Ifrah Nur that Page’s partner Lewis Moore had himself been racially abusive towards her). It was because the state systematically discriminates against white citizens in favour of ethno-religious minorities. And that, we are told, was also why the defendants were not sent to prison.

Indeed, as we have seen, the central claim of the racist right in relation to this case is that the sentencing of the four women was part of a general pattern, with the legal system systematically giving preferential treatment to non-white minority communities and Muslims in particular. To quote Leo McKinstry’s diatribe: “We can be pretty sure that if a Somalian Muslim girl had been kicked to the ground by a group of white brutes, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police would have taken a tougher approach.” This is the so-called “two-tier system” that the EDL endlessly bangs on about.

This myth was demolished in a recent Guardian report, based on an analysis of over a million court records, which found that:

black offenders were 44% more likely than white offenders to be sentenced to prison for driving offences, 38% more likely to be imprisoned for public disorder or possession of a weapon and 27% more likely for drugs possession. Asian offenders were 41% more likely to be sent to prison for drugs offences than their white counterparts and 19% more likely to go to jail for shoplifting.

One expert, who is working with the Magistrates’ Association on disparities in sentencing, told the Guardian that the “disproportionality appears to be getting worse”.

As for McKinstry’s views on the judicial system’s supposed bias in favour of Muslims and minorities, ENGAGE has posted an effective response:

His statement that had the race of the attacker and victim been reversed, the sentencing would have been harsher is highly dubious. Take, for example, the disproportionate effects of stop and search on ethnic minorities, or the harsh judgements handed down to young Muslims for public order offences committed during demonstrations against the Israeli offensive on Gaza in December 2009 – January 2010. Or to use examples more directly related to the question of inversing ethnic identities and comparing the judges’ decisions – take the case of the four men who were given suspended sentences for their drunken attack on a mosque in Scunthorpe last month, or the community service sentence given to a young white teenager who committed a religiously aggravated attack on a Muslim police officer. Did any of these cases merit a column from McKinstry on the justice system and its upholding equality under the law? The answer is, of course, no.

None of this justifies the violence to which Rhea Page was subjected, of course. It is even possible that Page was indeed attacked at random, purely because she was white, though that strikes me as unlikely. It might be argued that the assailants should have received heavier sentences. Or you could argue that Lewis Moore should have been charged with assault too, for that matter. But in order to make a judgement on these issues it would be neccessary to have much more reliable information about the case than we currently do. It is a shameful reflection on the state of journalism in the UK that the Mail, and the rest of the press that unquestioningly followed its lead, have shown not the slightest interest in uncovering that information and presenting us with an accurate account of the events.

In its analysis of the inaccurate press coverage of the case, Full Fact has suggested that “this handling of the story reflects inexperience in reporting legal issues on the part of the journalists concerned”. That is far too charitable. In reality, what we have here is the conscious manipulation and distortion of the facts by the Mail in order to produce a misleading story that has been uncritically repeated by other right-wing newspapers, with the aim of inciting their readers against Muslims.

This sort of irresponsible journalism has real consequences. Former Daily Star journalist Richard Peppiatt, who has explained to the Leveson inquiry how that paper takes its line directly from the Mailput it very well: “The lies of a newspaper in London can get a bloke’s head caved-in down an alley in Bradford.” Already we are seeing increasingly violent expressions of anti-Muslim bigotry in the UK – only last week an EDL member and his friend were convicted of trying to blow up a mosque in Stoke. Nor is it accidental that Anders Breivik was influenced by the Mail – numerous anti-Muslim reports from the paper are cited in his manifesto and he even reproduced an article by Melanie Philips in its entirety. If the Islamophobic propaganda put out by the Mail and the rest of the right-wing press continues at its present pitch the emergence of a British Breivik cannot be ruled out.

Postscript:  This analysis has concentrated on the right-wing response to the case in the UK. However, it has also been taken up by US right, with predictably ignorant and bigoted coverage from the likes of Jihad Watch, Bare Naked Islam, Pamela Geller and FrontPage Magazine.

, , , , , , , ,

  • Well, law is like that sadly Matt… and as laymen we have never read the whole facts of the case. I like you am somewhat disturbed by the fact there was no jail time but I trust the Judge’s decision.

    Take for example these two cases, they were both in the same court on the same day:

    Raymond Scott, a 53-year-old antiques dealer, received six years for handling a stolen rare book and an additional two years for then trying to take it out of the country.

    Michel Ridley, a 22 year-old, got 6 years up for the killing of Staff Sgt Chris Chacksfield during an unprovoked attack in Newcastle.

    Seems blatantly unfair right? A guy handling stolen property gets more than a man who killed someone! But that’s how law works, the sentence is proportional to more than just the crime itself, it takes into account the circumstances.

    Scott’s crime was premeditated, he knew exactly what he was doing in handling an extremely valuable stolen book (worth at least a million pounds) and trying to leave the country with it. He also had other convictions, mostly for dishonesty, and didn’t plead guilty.

    Ridley punched St Srg Chacksfield once in the face after Chacksfield bumped into him late one night. Chacksfield died of his injury 3 days later. However, while what Ridley did was wrong his attack was not premeditated and at the same time he never meant to murder. He also pleaded guilty and, had Chacksfield not have died, we must see that he would have not got such a harsh sentence.

    When you disassemble these two cases in light of each other, it makes sense of what seemed ‘unfair’. Clearly a dodgy art dealer trying to make a million off stolen property is far more worthy of a high sentence than a man who, while he did wrong, did it by ‘mistake’ and probably regrets what he did.

    In the UK we should consider ourselves lucky that we don’t have the US system of ‘mandatory sentencing’ for so many crimes. Judges have the ability, within guidelines, to pick an appropriate sentence based on their knowledge and experience. The US has a crippling justice system that locks away so many people needlessly. In some states there is a ‘three strikes rule’; if you commit three crimes, no matter what they were, you go to jail. This is clearly not going to help anyone…

    While I’d argue that the UK has probably gone to far in the opposite direction to the US, and that you get cases like this one where we feel justice hasn’t been done, we don’t have a system that just seeks to punish like the US. Yes, the UK tries to rehabilitate far to many, some criminals are criminals, but its better than locking up a citizen who has strayed temporarily.

    It’s not often I defend the justice system, but this time I thin it is doing more right than wrong for once 😉


  • Matt

    Whatever it was that influenced the judges decision, I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that deliberately injuring someone with kicks to the head can result in the offender not going to jail.

    The victim has a right to be angry and scared, and we should all be outraged whether it was a racist attack, the result of drinking, a gang attack, verbally provoked, or none of the above. The gender of those involved should not be a factor either.

    It is the remit of newspapers to be sensational, and of course interested parties will sieze any advantage, be they religious minorities, political minorities or whatever. Why is anyone surprised?

  • Express Indian

    Where can I hear & see the whole tape as opposed to the conjecture? All I have seen is just images not sound.

    Strange that those that usually attack any man lifting his hand against a woman (e.g. accusations of stereotypical Muslim male misogyny) are somersaulting & condoning such an assault on the fair sex?

    Aren’t some also saying that it was the white female who initiated the confrontation by a racist outburst?

    Anyway, it is not the race that is important i.e. taking sides, but that all the guilty are punished.

    I have seen & heard the tram tape & it is cut & dried, she is guilty of a racist outburst & subject to the full force of the law, despite the blank faces of the racists.

  • CSD

    I am not English, Muslim or an expert on English law. I spent a good bit of time in England and for some of that time I was a Barman in London. I witnessed alcohol fueled violence on numerous occasions and was just stating that it is a fairly common occurrence. Most English would concede minimum drink pricing, domestic football matches during daylight hours on the weekends and early pub closures among other things are a result of alcohol affects and perceived affects in English society.

  • I am British thank you very much Johnny, I studied the English Legal System for many years, both in the UK and abroad. I keep a eye on developments since what happens in English Law is normally copied in the Commonwealth where I live. I am also a Muslim and thus do not drink, I never drunk before I became a Muslim either. Might I also add I am not in the least bit ‘left wing’. Thus you don’t know my ‘type’.

    If you have an issue with the Stephen Lawrence case, may I suggest you talk it out with the Judge? I find that Judges are generally fair and just, they are not idiots and I trust the appropriate sentence will be given. I doubt that racism will even come into it.

    I have also the court papers of this current ‘Somali Girl Case’ on my way to me as I will be writing an article on it. I suspect the video you saw was the edited CCTV footage from the Mail? You’ll note that it does not include any of the events leading up to the fight, including the girl coming forward to try and stop any violence only to be hit by the boyfriend.

    The Judge, unlike you or me, had all of this. He also had the police statements, the wittiness statements and all other such records and came to that conclusion. You don’t, nor do I right now but will do soon. You prove nothing of what you say and merely elude to having seen the evidence and then put in some hearsay about how Judges act.

    I think you are unfair on judges as I find that they are nothing like people like you say. Yes they make mistakes and they are far to aloof from society, but they are not idiots. Oh and of course they get swayed by false pity, don’t we all, but in my experience its just if not more often ‘white’ people who end up doing that. The ‘chav’ subculture is doing far more damage to the UK than anyone or anything else. Why do you think all these immigrants come for work? Because we don’t want to do it…

    And I agree with the system about vigilantes, we have a perfectly efficient Police force in the UK. Unfortunately it’s cracking these days thanks to stuff like PACE and Administrative Detections but it still works for now. There is no need to take the law into your own hands. And yes, I think the system needs fixing, but it is not as broken as you like to make out.

    Finally, thank you for correcting my spellchecker which hates me…


  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony

    Jonney Be good
    Seems you know a lot about the Stephen Lawerence case one does wonder how?
    Lets see what happens in court shall we . Looks like you think them guilty but blame not the persons who carried out the murder but the victims and the system. Typical NF/ BNP propaganda
    Have you actually read the above article ? from your post it looks like you have not . Lets not appear foolish in public shall we and adress what is said not what you would like it to say. The world looks on 🙂

    Fact Jack is not american but then neither am I. We are both british 🙂

  • johnny be good

    Jack, so let me get this straight, when Stephen Lawrence’s case reaches the final verdict, will the judge state on the record that unfortunately he cannot sentence the 2 defendants because there was no evidence of racial abuse and the friend with Lawrence punched one of the defendants? (Which happened)
    Or will this case, because it is white on black, end with a guilty verdict on the flimsiest of evidence and secret recordings of “racism” and contaminated evidence?

    The Somali gang launched a racist assault on the female white girl, look at the video. The boyfriend defended her against this gang. He had every right to.
    Should her boyfriend have just stood back and let her die?

    Why this was not treated as a racist assault is typical of the legal system today, a system in which I work in. Sorry Jack, you “studied” UK law as an American student for 3 months 15-20 years ago but spent most of your time drinking in the Oxford pubs or the pubs around Lincoln Inn Fields, I know your type, I deal with them daily.

    I also don’t base my cases around Daily Mail articles. Helps when you view the evidence ie video, witness statements etc. unfortunately most judges are political and are easily swayed by false pity and “i’ll never do it again your honour”, the UK judicial system also hates vigilantes, “never take the law into your own hands” is a phrase I hear on a daily basis by far left solicitors and senile old judges.

    And it’s “Barrack” not “barack..

  • Rocky Lore

    What would LoonWatch have said if it had been four white English girls wailing on a Somalian woman? LoonWatch would be demanding hate crime charges and whining about “Islamophobia.” In this case, they are blaming the victim.

  • Isa

    I love the fact that J.K. Rowling had the character of Uncle Vernon reading the Daily Mail in one of the Harry Potter books. It speaks worlds as to the lack of its integrity as a newspaper. This is one of the most despicable newspapers in the world, along with the Sun. These bigots are just looking for confirmations of their prejudices. Their minds are made up, and whenever a story looks like it will go their way, they seize upon it and quote it like it’s God’s Honest Truth.

    This whole idea of the oppression of white people in countries that are mostly run by white people, is nauseating. What they really mean to say is that they are angry that the country isn’t ONLY made up by white people. Decrying “special treatment of minorities” really means, “there shouldn’t be any minorities in the first place. It should just be us.” It’s all code-word, esoteric crap.

  • Did you even read the article Johnny? It clearly said the reasons *why* the Judge gave the sentence he did. The woman’s boyfreind punched one of the gang in the face when she intervened to try and stop the fight. Hence the Judge ruled this a mitigating factor and thus the sentence was reduced.

    And on the topic of ‘racial attack’, unlike the case of the woman shouting abuse, there was no evidence that ‘kill the white slag’ or any such thing was shouted.

    Again, if you had read the article you wouldn’t have made a bit of a fool of yourself.

    The law of the UK, which I have studied at length during my time as a legal student years ago, has no such concept as one law for one, another for another. I hate it when people such as yourself charge on in here and tell me how the system works, having not opened a single law book! Do that and get back to me, even a basic GCSE Law book will do. Bloody Barack Room lawyers!


  • johnny be good

    CSD, no it was the language used by the Somalian gang not their actions, they were saying “kill the white slag”. Clearly a racist attack yet the judge thought it reasonable to let them go.
    If this were an all girl white gang attacking a Somalian scraming “kill the black slag” you could bet that the white gang would be locked away for a few years.
    Or if you are white and shout abuse then the British government can lock you away, as they have done with the white tram woman, and take away her kids.

  • johnny be good

    No no no, the problem is, white woman on tram shouts racist abuse and is locked up, her kids taken away. Yet a gang of Muslims brutally kick the living s##t out of a girl causing brain injuries, calling her a “white slag” (clearly a racist attack), and the judge let them gang scott free.

    Tell me, how do you not see the absurdity of this obviously one sided one law for Muslims and one for the white British?

  • What’s funny is that these Somali muslim girls would never in a million years be called Muslim by anyone on the streets in the uk. Somali muslims have it easy in the uk, unlike Pak/Bangladesh/India muslims, who fit the national stereotype of a “muslim”. Despite this, it will be your typical Asian muslim who will bear the brunt of the actions of a few black somali muslim girls, who ironically were unislamically drunk.

    If it were anything racial, it would be black on white violence, not “muslim” on white violence. Remember how they beat the drum of “Islam is not a race” 😉

  • Sam Seed

    The paper that loves to hate Muslims. The anti-Muslim rant is present on a dail basis, you should check out the comments by mainly racist and Islamophobic low-lives whining about being treated as second class citizens.Grow up I say and quit whining folks it’s not all black and white what you read in the Mail. And any Muslim preacher in the Mail’s eyes is a ‘hate preacher’ without a shred of evidence. If you critisize Israel you’re a hate preacher, even our own Zakir Naik was labelled as a hate preacher and banned from entering the Uk because he critizised Israel. Welcome to the double standards that is Democracy in the UK and USA.

  • mindy1

    *Sigh* 🙁

  • Ha, and I just wrote a very similar article for another magazine. Seems we all saw this one was fishy… if you read the article you can see how cleverly worded it is. For instance, all it says is that the defense used the claim ‘they are Muslim and can’t take their drink’ very high up in the article, while a single line right at the bottom of the article (in other words, after the reader has made up their mind) says the Judge dismissed this.

    I’m getting the court documents and will write a full dissection of this mess sometime this month. Better late than never 😉


  • CSD

    “District Judge Alan Berg said young women, in particular, who were intent on getting ‘senselessly drunk,’ were behind a dramatic escalation of mindless violence on the nation’s streets.

    He said people who had nothing better to do but drink to fill their ’empty lives’ were routinely putting innocent members of the public at risk.”

  • CSD

    Drunks in England beat the crap out of each other all the time. I guess it only makes the papers if the media can put a twist on it. The young white guys beating each other up is considered fairly typical behavior so no one cares anymore.

  • Glorfindel

    The Daily Wail is a insufferable paper that uneducated plebs read and ignoramuses choose to believe in.

    The Express group is even worse as the group is no longer under the regulation of the PCC (Press Complaints Commission), the right wing press is looking more and more like Der Stürmer as the days go by.

  • Sham

    Assalaamu alaikum,

    Looks like the loons are trying to connect Islam with the grenade attacks.

    The truth:

    14:54 Several sources are being quoted, including the mayor of Liege, Willy Demeyer, claiming the violence was down to an attempted escape from the nearby courthouse. Andre Meekes tweeted:

    Twitter Apparently it was an escape from the court in Liege, is this the world we live in.

Powered by Loon Watchers