I don't care what joebloggs says as for him offering apologies, i have seen many of his posts throghout the years not just on here and he has never apologised just ridicules you. He forces new members away when they first sighn up they see him and think mmm not for me sorry. I do not make up storys for clickbait like certain members if i saw it i would post it but i could not locate it end of. As for British justice a Pakistani was released after his sentance and placed back into the community wher he comitted his rapes in, and some of his victims have to witness him walking the streets is this acceptable if we complain about it or report him we get threatened from the Police for racial intimidation.

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

If you had any videos - it would help the discussion.

They have already been posted on here Richard but i will post this for you.

Just now, BarraMarra said:

They have already been posted on here Richard but i will post this for you.

the second video is better but its not allowed but its on U-tube.

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

To me it sounds made up - not by Barra, but by somebody whose intention is to foment further distrust and hatred of Muslims. Lots of people have that agenda and all they have to do is start a rumour and it gets pounced on - see the Southport riots for a perfect example.

@josephbloggs - These videos are rather damning.

The second video in particular is difficult to interpret any other way.

The speaker begins by stressing the importance of remaining peaceful during the protest and acknowledges public anger over the alleged police misconduct. Up to that point, perfectly legitimate.

However, he then follows it with: “If we don't get justice, they are gonna get it if we let them get away with what they've done today.”

In context, that statement carries an obvious implied threat. When someone explicitly says they are choosing non-violence “today”, but immediately warns that others “are gonna get it” if the desired outcome is not achieved, the implication is fairly clear: comply with our demands, or there may be unrest or retaliation.

At the very least, that can reasonably be interpreted as intimidation rhetoric directed toward authorities and the legal process.

Arguably, it edges into incitement, or an attempt to pressure public institutions through the implied threat of disorder or violence.

People are free to protest. People are free to be angry. But there is a line between lawful protest and language that appears to condition public peace on getting a preferred outcome - IMO this man should have been arrested.

IMO - IF this had been a 'White British Guy' protesting in the same manner - he'd be charged.

Edited May 23May 23 by richard_smith237

On 5/22/2026 at 2:02 AM, SAFETY FIRST said:

Spoken like a true leftist, Woke.

Your type are very hostile, rarely debate or discuss without hate, always with nasty, angry replies.

You people are not educated, have very little knowledge, you guys get so frustrated with yourself, that you reply like a child, an adolescent.

I feel sorry for you low IQ people, your existence must be a miserable life.

And I feel sorry for you, and others who have to post such stuff, true or not, about members who you and your ilk think are not as good as you.

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

@josephbloggs - These videos are rather damning.

The second video in particular is difficult to interpret any other way.

The speaker begins by stressing the importance of remaining peaceful during the protest and acknowledges public anger over the alleged police misconduct. Up to that point, perfectly legitimate.

However, he then follows it with: “If we don't get justice, they are gonna get it if we let them get away with what they've done today.”

In context, that statement carries an obvious implied threat. When someone explicitly says they are choosing non-violence “today”, but immediately warns that others “are gonna get it” if the desired outcome is not achieved, the implication is fairly clear: comply with our demands, or there may be unrest or retaliation.

At the very least, that can reasonably be interpreted as intimidation rhetoric directed toward authorities and the legal process.

Arguably, it edges into incitement, or an attempt to pressure public institutions through the implied threat of disorder or violence.

People are free to protest. People are free to be angry. But there is a line between lawful protest and language that appears to condition public peace on getting a preferred outcome - IMO this man should have been arrested.

IMO - IF this had been a 'White British Guy' protesting in the same manner - he'd be charged.

Hold on, we are now talking about two completely different, completely unrelated, things.

When the Manchester airport thing broke there was only footage of a policeman kicking and stamping on the Muslim guy's head when he was face down on the floor. It looked like a clear case of heavy handed and unjustified police brutality. That's what the protests were about. I agree they were over the top and they should be condemned for the threats, absolutely - no arguments there, but they were protesting perceived police brutality against a minority. Everyone was shocked when it came out. He has his face down on the floor and was restrained and then was booted in the head.

Have a look at it here - looks pretty bad, no? This is why we shouldn't jump to conclusions without knowing the full story of anything. See Southport riots for another example again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7259wpl1x9o

That's why those protests erupted outside the police station. And I condemn them as they were threatening and violent. Peaceful protests? Absolutely, knock yourselves out. Violent protests? Not acceptable. And there's the difference, Barra and the right never condemned the Southport riots - they made excuses for them.

It was days later until the investigation was complete and the full story emerged. Then the policeman was completely exonerated, the brothers were arrested and charged and have been in custody since. Mohammed Fahir Amaaz has already been found guilty of assaulting the guy in Starbucks and the two female police officers so that ship has sailed. The collapsed trial is for an additional charge of assault on the male policeman (PC Zachary Marsden) and whether the other brother assaulted one of the female officers.

This thread is about the jury failing to reach a verdict for the second charge. Barra's claim is that there's a video of secret Muslims meeting secretly to put pressure on the CPS to, erm, influence the jury to make them fail to reach a verdict (?). This is what I am casting aspersions about - videos of the protests after it seemed a clear cut police brutality case have nothing to do with it.

Rumour's are circulating of pressure on the CPS and police of a mis -carriege of justice on the grounds of causing racial tensions in the Areas of high Muslim Communities

A video circulating shows a meeting of Muslims i believe in Rochdale where the speaker said if these 2 brothers are sentanced there will be severe consequencies from the Muslim community. I have tried to locate the Vid but its likely on the dark web somewhere and not on main MSM channels.

Again, this is his claim after the jury didn't reach a verdict. This is the video we want to see.

20 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Hold on, we are now talking about two completely different, completely unrelated, things.

When the Manchester airport thing broke there was only footage of a policeman kicking and stamping on the Muslim guy's head when he was face down on the floor. It looked like a clear case of heavy handed and unjustified police brutality. That's what the protests were about. I agree they were over the top and they should be condemned for the threats, absolutely - no arguments there, but they were protesting perceived police brutality against a minority. Everyone was shocked when it came out. He has his face down on the floor and was restrained and then was booted in the head.

Have a look at it here - looks pretty bad, no? This is why we shouldn't jump to conclusions without knowing the full story of anything. See Southport riots for another example again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7259wpl1x9o

That's why those protests erupted outside the police station. And I condemn them as they were threatening and violent. Peaceful protests? Absolutely, knock yourselves out. Violent protests? Not acceptable. And there's the difference, Barra and the right never condemned the Southport riots - they made excuses for them.

It was days later until the investigation was complete and the full story emerged. Then the policeman was completely exonerated, the brothers were arrested and charged and have been in custody since. Mohammed Fahir Amaaz has already been found guilty of assaulting the guy in Starbucks and the two female police officers so that ship has sailed. The collapsed trial is for an additional charge of assault on the male policeman (PC Zachary Marsden) and whether the other brother assaulted one of the female officers.

This thread is about the jury failing to reach a verdict for the second charge. Barra's claim is that there's a video of secret Muslims meeting secretly to put pressure on the CPS to, erm, influence the jury to make them fail to reach a verdict (?). This is what I am casting aspersions about - videos of the protests after it seemed a clear cut police brutality case have nothing to do with it.

Oh, I saw both events, both brutal - both highly divisive

I haven't seen a video which incites violence If the two Manchester attackers receive a light sentence.

I have seen a video which incites violence if the Policeman at the centre of this brutality receives a light reprimand.

The Southport riots also existed in a void of information and such behavior again - has to be condemned.

& fair point the discussion has evolved and there is a primary discussion at hand.

20 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Again, this is his claim after the jury didn't reach a verdict. This is the video we want to see.

I'm astounded a decision could not be reached. And yes, if such a video exists 'after the jury didn't reach a verdict' I want to see it too - although thats not the manner in which I understood Barra's claim - just that "inciting violence video' exists - which we have seen.

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

Oh, I saw both events, both brutal - both highly divisive

I haven't seen a video which incites violence If the two Manchester attackers receive a light sentence.

I have seen a video which incites violence if the Policeman at the centre of this brutality receives a light reprimand.

The Southport riots also existed in a void of information and such behavior again - has to be condemned.

& fair point the discussion has evolved and there is a primary discussion at hand.

I'm astounded a decision could not be reached. And yes, if such a video exists 'after the jury didn't reach a verdict' I want to see it too - although thats not the manner in which I understood Barra's claim - just that "inciting violence video' exists - which we have seen.

Ok, well I understand him to mean a video after the collapse of the trial which - let's not forget - is for the lesser charge of assault on the male policemen. I mean that's when he started the thread with the title "something's wrong". So his inference is clear to me. The initing violence videos after it looked like police brutality are hardly secret, everyone has seen them - they were on the BBC.

Mohammed Fahir Amaaz has already been convicted for assaulting the two female officers and the Starbucks guy.

Once the full story came out I don't believe there were any more protests against the police.

Edited May 23May 23 by josephbloggs

The amount of Islamophobia in the UK is stunning.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

@josephbloggs - These videos are rather damning.

The second video in particular is difficult to interpret any other way.

The speaker begins by stressing the importance of remaining peaceful during the protest and acknowledges public anger over the alleged police misconduct. Up to that point, perfectly legitimate.

However, he then follows it with: “If we don't get justice, they are gonna get it if we let them get away with what they've done today.”

In context, that statement carries an obvious implied threat. When someone explicitly says they are choosing non-violence “today”, but immediately warns that others “are gonna get it” if the desired outcome is not achieved, the implication is fairly clear: comply with our demands, or there may be unrest or retaliation.

At the very least, that can reasonably be interpreted as intimidation rhetoric directed toward authorities and the legal process.

Arguably, it edges into incitement, or an attempt to pressure public institutions through the implied threat of disorder or violence.

People are free to protest. People are free to be angry. But there is a line between lawful protest and language that appears to condition public peace on getting a preferred outcome - IMO this man should have been arrested.

IMO - IF this had been a 'White British Guy' protesting in the same manner - he'd be charged.

In the other video you can clearly hear them shouting Allah Akbar a clear threat.

51 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Hold on, we are now talking about two completely different, completely unrelated, things.

When the Manchester airport thing broke there was only footage of a policeman kicking and stamping on the Muslim guy's head when he was face down on the floor. It looked like a clear case of heavy handed and unjustified police brutality. That's what the protests were about. I agree they were over the top and they should be condemned for the threats, absolutely - no arguments there, but they were protesting perceived police brutality against a minority. Everyone was shocked when it came out. He has his face down on the floor and was restrained and then was booted in the head.

Have a look at it here - looks pretty bad, no? This is why we shouldn't jump to conclusions without knowing the full story of anything. See Southport riots for another example again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7259wpl1x9o

That's why those protests erupted outside the police station. And I condemn them as they were threatening and violent. Peaceful protests? Absolutely, knock yourselves out. Violent protests? Not acceptable. And there's the difference, Barra and the right never condemned the Southport riots - they made excuses for them.

It was days later until the investigation was complete and the full story emerged. Then the policeman was completely exonerated, the brothers were arrested and charged and have been in custody since. Mohammed Fahir Amaaz has already been found guilty of assaulting the guy in Starbucks and the two female police officers so that ship has sailed. The collapsed trial is for an additional charge of assault on the male policeman (PC Zachary Marsden) and whether the other brother assaulted one of the female officers.

This thread is about the jury failing to reach a verdict for the second charge. Barra's claim is that there's a video of secret Muslims meeting secretly to put pressure on the CPS to, erm, influence the jury to make them fail to reach a verdict (?). This is what I am casting aspersions about - videos of the protests after it seemed a clear cut police brutality case have nothing to do with it.

Again, this is his claim after the jury didn't reach a verdict. This is the video we want to see.

Again not accepting the truth Joebloggs why do you think they turned up at the Police station was a night get together or inciting trouble because the police arrested these two thugs involved in the Manchester attack so theres no " Hold on these are seperate things " there the same the turned up demanding justice from the Police.

1 minute ago, BarraMarra said:

In the other video you can clearly hear them shouting Allah Akbar a clear threat.

This comment will almost immediately be “reinterpreted” - that Allāhu akbar simply means “God is great”, and in a literal religious sense, yes, it does.

But words do not exist in a vacuum. Context matters. History matters. Repetition matters.

When someone shouts Allāhu akbar aggressively in a crowded public setting, people do not experience it as a peaceful spiritual declaration. They experience it as a threat. That reaction was not created out of thin air.

If someone shouts “praise be to Jesus”, most people barely react - they assume it’s an overzealous Christian, maybe eccentric, maybe unhinged, but not an imminent danger.

Same concept: devotion to God. Completely different public response.

Why? Because over the last few decades, Allāhu akbar has repeatedly accompanied acts of terror and extremist violence carried out in the name of Islam.

ISIS and their so-called caliphate. Al-Qaeda and 9/11. Boko Haram. Al-Shabaab. The Taliban. Jemaah Islamiyah. Abu Sayyaf. Lashkar-e-Taiba. Hamas. Hezbollah. The Houthis - all shouted "Allāhu akbar"....

Different ideologies, different agendas, different political goals - yet the phrase repeatedly appears alongside intimidation, violence, executions, suicide bombings, hostage videos, and attacks on civilians.

That does not mean all Muslims are violent - far from it.

But I just want to get out ahead of the next defense which will undoubtedly pretend the phrase has no modern association with extremism and violence, because over time, across the world, including the muslim world, when shouted out in public like this the 'phrase' has evolved from a religious declaration into something that many people now instinctively hear as a war cry.

That may seem unfair to ordinary Muslims - but it is also the unavoidable consequence of decades of very real events.

Islam is a religion of peace!!!

22 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ok, well I understand him to mean a video after the collapse of the trial which - let's not forget - is for the lesser charge of assault on the male policemen. I mean that's when he started the thread with the title "something's wrong". So his inference is clear to me. The initing violence videos after it looked like police brutality are hardly secret, everyone has seen them - they were on the BBC.

Mohammed Fahir Amaaz has already been convicted for assaulting the two female officers.

Once the full story came out I don't believe there were any more protests against the police.

My god the younger brother served prison for assaulting 2 female police officers he is also charged with the assault of PC Zachery Marsden with his brother this was the latest trial that collapsed not the 1st when the younger was sent down. This is a second assault charge.

5 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Again not accepting the truth Joebloggs why do you think they turned up at the Police station was a night get together or inciting trouble because the police arrested these two thugs involved in the Manchester attack so theres no " Hold on these are seperate things " there the same the turned up demanding justice from the Police.

Eh?

So you started this thread just after the jury failed to deliver a verdict, saying "something's wrong", and saying there is talk of a secret video of Muslims putting pressure on the CPS, but actually you were referring to the police brutality protest from over a year ago??

It is two different things. I accept the Rochdale protest happened as it was reported at the time. It happened. It became ugly. I also condemned the threats of violence. So why are you saying that I "don't accept the truth"?

Ok, never mind, I think I'll just move on. Unless you want to share this dark web video of the Muslim conspiracy to pervert the course of justice that allegedly secretly happened, maybe, not sure, but could have, that collapsed the trial.

4 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

My god the younger brother served prison for assaulting 2 female police officers he is also charged with the assault of PC Zachery Marsden with his brother this was the latest trial that collapsed not the 1st when the younger was sent down. This is a second assault charge.

Yes, that is what I said.

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Mohammed Fahir Amaaz has already been found guilty of assaulting the guy in Starbucks and the two female police officers so that ship has sailed. The collapsed trial is for an additional charge of assault on the male policeman (PC Zachary Marsden) and whether the other brother assaulted one of the female officers.

Mohammed Fahir Amaaz has already been convicted for assaulting the two female officers and the Starbucks guy.

Edited May 23May 23 by josephbloggs

On 5/21/2026 at 2:45 AM, roo860 said:

That guy knocked the stuffing out of the female law enforcement officer.

Just now, Effective altruism said:

That guy knocked the stuffing out of the female law enforcement officer.

Yes, that is why the one who did it has been convicted of knocking the stuffing out of two female law enforcement officers.

Keep up.

Ok you accept police officers were assaulted correct ? why did it take so long to come to court and 2 years on it was still ongoing till last week. Why was the leeds driver that assaulted a police officer arrested charged sent down within six months ? don't come back with the old it was not a seriouse assault like the Manchester Attacks. An assault on a police officer is seriouse offence. Were the police police officers who came to the aid of the female officers who were left bleeding, given an award like this Muslim officer in leeds who had a sore shoulder after the assault.

Edited May 23May 23 by BarraMarra

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

Yes, that is why the one who did it has been convicted of knocking the stuffing out of two female law enforcement officers.

Keep up.

My comment was regarding the punch; I have never seen it before.

Stay focused.

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Yes, that is why the one who did it has been convicted of knocking the stuffing out of two female law enforcement officers.

Keep up.

He was also charged with assaulting another officer 2 seperate charges keep it up.

3 hours ago, simon43 said:

To correct you, it is social media 'outrage' by everyday, non-political citizens - the vast majority of the British population.

I really don't think that's true. Non-political citizens (on both sides) wouldn't be interested in making blatantly political posts on social media.

27 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Ok you accept police officers were assaulted correct ?

Of course I do! Why ever would I not? I've said it many many times - it was a disgusting attack and I hope they spend a long time in jail.

why did it take so long to come to court and 2 years on it was still ongoing till last week.

Because it is a serious criminal trial. Criminal trials aren't done overnight. There is a massive backlog of Crown Prosecution cases. In cases like these there is a huge amount of evidence (CCTV for example) to go through, conflicting accounts, lots of evidence to be examined and corroborated to make sure it is (theoretically) water tight before the CPS send it for trial. And then it needs to be scheduled, which often takes months. It is NORMAL. It is not because they are Muslims. It may look simple to you "you can see him punch her" but that's not how the justice system operates. Not for Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists.

They pleaded not guilty so it goes to criminal trial.

Why was the leeds driver that assaulted a police officer arrested charged sent down within six months ? don't come back with the old it was not a seriouse assault like the Manchester Attacks. An assault on a police officer is seriouse offence.

This was the case you posted earlier, right? He pleaded guilty which means there was no criminal trial by jury, no prolonged investigation and gathering of evidence needed, no schedule needing to be found in the criminal court system. He pleaded guilty and could therefore be sentenced immediately. Again, this is how it works. Had the brothers pleaded guilty the same process would have happened.

Has Frosdick pleaded not guilty then we would currently be awaiting a trial.

Were the police police officers who came to the aid of the female officers who were left bleeding, given an award like this Muslim officer in leeds who had a sore shoulder after the assault.

Honestly, I think you have become radicalised. If anything happens to a white man it is a conspiracy. The explanation is quite simple as I went through above. Now you have an issue because a police officer with a Muslim sounding name got a commendation whereas the Manchester officers did not. You are looking for things to be upset about everywhere - the signs of someone who has been radicalised, honestly.

I don't know the details of the professionalism or bravery in Leeds, I only read the same report you did. You put it down as a "hurt shoulder", what were the details of his injury exactly? The report says, "life changing injuries". You don't know do you, you just dismiss it because that's what you want to do - to belittle his actions

. Maybe tackling a violent offender by yourself when injured deserves a mention, maybe it doesn't - I wasn't there, I don't know. But you put it down to them being brown and not white based on absolutely no logic or reason.

The Manchester police were armed and in a trio and they lost control of the situation if you ask me. It is terrible that she suffered such a nasty injury and - AGAIN - I hope the offenders see long jail sentences. She deserves sympathy. Does she deserve a medal? I don't know.

Edited May 23May 23 by josephbloggs

Well if you don't live here in the UK you will not see what we have to put up daily,from migrants arriving in there hundreds wvery day when the weather is good in the channel, to two tier policing, Rapes on kids since the illegals starting arriving , to having god knows moving next to you bringing there culture with them, and theres nothing we can do about it. Complain on social media and you get a knock on the door at 4 am from the Police. Our once great UK has been brought to its kneese by Successive governments to the extent of our old age pensioners having there heating allowence cancelled leaving them cold in there own homes.

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Of course I do! Why ever would I not? I've said it many many times - it was a disgusting attack and I hope they spend a long time in jail.

Because it is a serious criminal trial. Criminal trials aren't done overnight. There is a massive backlog of Crown Prosecution cases. In cases like these there is a huge amount of evidence (CCTV for example) to go through, conflicting accounts, lots of evidence to be examined and corroborated to make sure it is (theoretically) water tight before the CPS send it for trial. And then it needs to be scheduled, which often takes months. It is NORMAL. It is not because they are Muslims. It may look simple to you "you can see him punch her" but that's not how the justice system operates. Not for Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists.

They pleaded not guilty so it goes to criminal trial.

This was the case you posted earlier, right? He pleaded guilty which means there was no criminal trial by jury, no prolonged investigation and gathering of evidence needed, no schedule needing to be found in the criminal court system. He pleaded guilty and could therefore be sentenced immediately. Again, this is how it works. Had the brothers pleaded guilty the same process would have happened.

Has Frosdick pleaded not guilty then we would currently be awaiting a trial.

Honestly, I think you have become radicalised. If anything happens to a white man it is a conspiracy. The explanation is quite simple as I went through above. Now you have an issue because a police officer with a Muslim sounding name got a commendation whereas the Manchester officers did not. You are looking for things to be upset about everywhere - the signs of someone who has been radicalised, honestly.

I don't know the details of the professionalism or bravery in Leeds, I only read the same report you did. You put it down as a "hurt shoulder", what were the details of his injury exactly? You don't know do you. Maybe tackling a violent offender by yourself when injured deserves a mention, maybe it doesn't - I wasn't there, I don't know. But you put it down to them being brown and not white based on absolutely no logic or reason.

The Manchester police were armed and in a trio and they lost control of the situation if you ask me. It is terrible that she suffered such a nasty injury and - AGAIN - I hope the offenders see long jail sentences. She deserves sympathy. Does she deserve a medal? I don't know.

Don't patronise me. I don't give a toss what you think you believe what you want. Most memberson here see it the same as me only you will never tow the line you have to argue the point and patronise members thats why there p ed off with you but you cant see it.

Edited May 23May 23 by BarraMarra

3 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Don't patronise me.

Jeez. You asked why the Leeds guy was sentenced quickly and the Muslims are taking a long time. I explained it in as much detail as I could.

Apologies if it offended you.

This what most of us saw outside Rochdale Police Station.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Islam is a religion of peace!!!

Said... ISIS and their so-called caliphate… Al-Qaeda and the September 11 attacks… Boko Haram with kidnappings and mass killings… Al-Shabaab in East Africa… the Taliban… Jemaah Islamiyah behind Bali… Abu Sayyaf… Lashkar-e-Taiba and Mumbai…

2 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

This what most of us saw outside Rochdale Police Station.

Every appearance he looks like he’s dropped a viagra while simultaneously furious, constipated, and five seconds from nutting.....

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Every appearance he looks like he’s dropped a viagra while simultaneously furious, constipated, and five seconds from nutting.....

That's because he's coked off his face - it is so obvious.