If you or I threatened to carry out a vehicular terror attack aimed at members of one particular group then we could probably expect at least some gaol time. Such a sentence might be immediate or suspended depending on the severity and credibility of the threat, but gaol time would be on the cards.
But yet again the courts have proven that Muslims can issue the most blood-curdling and credible threats to individuals and members of non Muslim groups and still walk free from the court with derisory non custodial sentences.
In a case that will no doubt anger many Britons an Afghan Muslim asylum seeker has been set free by a court despite the Islamic savage threatening random violence. The Muslim savage, Ruzykhan Sayadi aged 23, threatened to carry out a vehicular terror attack on ‘white people’ if his asylum status was not granted in a timely manner. Despite this appalling threat from a member of a community well known for such mass murders Sayadi walked free from Oxford Crown Court with a mere 18 month ‘community order’ and a requirement that this particular savage take a ‘rehabilitation’ course.
The Brietbart website said:
An Afghan who threatened to commit a vehicular terror attack which targeted “white people” because he was frustrated waiting for his refugee status has been spared jail.
Ruzykhan Sayadi, 23, was sentenced to a community order for 18 months, rehabilitation activity for 20 days, and a curfew on Thursday, after being found guilty in late January of racially aggravated intentional harassment and causing alarm or distress, the Oxford Mail reports.
Oxford Crown Court heard that the Afghan had gone to the Citizens Advice Bureau to ask for help because of debt he had accrued when he told an advisor on August 21st, 2017, that he had grown frustrated with waiting to be granted asylum and made threats to commit a vehicular and/or knife attack akin to the Westminster and London Bridge terror attacks.
I am utterly astonished that this savage did not get an immediate custodial sentence in this case. He certainly made credible threats and made them in the presence of a man who was only trying to help him with his asylum application. An order for immediate removal to custody should have been made by the judge in this case Judge Ian Pringle QC and I find it inexplicable that this was not done. The type and severity of the threat, the context in which the threat was made and the fact that this savage isn’t even a British citizen, should have meant that this savage was immediately gaoled and recommended for deportation. That he has not been treated in this way and has instead been treated with kid gloves shows that when it comes to dealing with Islam and Muslims, British courts have departed markedly from the path of Justice. This Muslim savage has proven himself by his own actions to be unsuitable to live in a civilised society like the United Kingdom yet it is likely that the Home Office will allow him to stay even though he has threatened violence to British citizens even before he has been granted leave to remain. This man is obviously not a genuine refugee, genuine refugees keep their heads down, contribute to the host society, are grateful for the shelter given to them and don’t threaten the sort of violence that Sayadi has threatened. Judge Pringle has endangered the lives and security of others by allowing this savage back onto the streets and it is correct that his decision to place the rights of this savage over and above our rights incites anger at yet another example of the pro-Islam bias in Britain’s criminal justice system.
