There is a lot of talk in Britain about a pro-Islam double standard that is alleged to operate in both our policing and our justice systems. There have been multiple claims that police have ‘gone easy’ on matters such as Islamic Rape Gangs, claims that have a lot of facts to back them up. There is also the matter of speech crimes, where Muslims who engage in some pretty appalling demonisation of ‘kuffars’ i.e. non-Muslims, seem to get a free pass to do so from the police.
This permissive attitude to Islam-inspired hatred contrasts strongly with those who have legitimate criticisms of Islam and Islamic culture who are often hounded and prosecuted by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Now we have another case where there could be a pro-Islam double standard in operation, this time from Gloucestershire. Although we do not know definitively that the men at the centre of this story are Muslim, the nature of this crime, the illegal slaughter of stolen sheep in a private home, does have the whiff of Islam about it. It’s unlikely to be any other group that has done this as most other groups are more law abiding than Muslims and in particular there are religious festivals in Islam that require a sheep to be slaughtered, for example at Eid al-Adha. Although this festival is an analogue of the Jewish story of the Akedah, or the binding of Isaac, the slaughter of animals in remembrance of this Biblical event is virtually unknown. It’s also unlikely to be connected to either the Hindu or Sikh communities, this sort of thing is not their style but there is a slim possibility that the perpetrators could be either Travellers, who have a marked disregard for the civil law or some other ordinary non religious criminal out to make a quick profit. However, the nature of this crime and the number of people arrested for it does bring to the nose the distinct stench of Islam. On a balance of probabilities basis, this looks to me like a Muslim crime.
What is shocking about this case is not just the theft and illegal slaughter of sheep, but the fact that Gloucestershire Police have decided to drop all charges against the men arrested for it and are dropping the charges on what look like very flimsy grounds. Although I concede that there may not be enough evidence to charge these men for the actual theft, as they were caught in possession of the dead stolen sheep, there seems to be plenty of evidence to charge them for ‘Handling stolen goods’ an offence contrary to the Theft Act of 1968. Why then did the police decide to drop this case despite ample evidence that they were in possession of these dead sheep? It’s unlikely that the police would be unaware that the sheep were stolen nor unaware of the lawful owner of them as all sheep in Britain are, for biosecurity reasons, given ear tags and in some cases embedded electronic tags and tattoos. When you read the excerpt from the story from the Gloucestershire Live website, it does seem to me and may seem to you the reader, that the police seemed awfully keen on dropping this case. You may also wonder whether this case was dropped for ‘community cohesion’ reasons, which normally mean keeping the Muslims sweet and not rioting over being called to account for their behaviour.
Gloucestershire Live said (my comments in plain text):
A farmer has been left dumbstruck after police said they do not have enough evidence to prosecute five people alleged to have stolen and slaughtered his sheep in a city centre flat.
Police raided the basement flat in Midland Road after a neighbour raised the alarm when they saw men taking two live sheep from a car into the building.
In the flat police found both sheep dead, one in the kitchen, and one in the bathroom.
One of the sheep was found to be Upton St Leonard farmer Mike Long’s, and five people were arrested as a result of the raid in April.
But Mr Long was stunned when the police recently called him to say they could not prosecute those involved as they did not have enough evidence.
“I thought it was an open and shut case,” he said.
It is an open and shut case, at least for a handling charge, but possible police and CPS Islamopandering may well have stopped this case before it got anyway. The police and the CPS seem to have acted in an awful lot of haste with regarding this case. A month or less between arrest and the police dropping the case. Something really smells fishy about this case it really does.
“I was horrified when they told me what had happened. All our sheep are treated like pets. I was very distressed, I didn’t sleep at all that night. It’s so evil.
The investigating officer, special sergeant Helen Pritchard, said there was no CCTV, verbal or forensic evidence to link them to the two farms concerned or linking them to the animals’ deaths.
But it seems to me that there was sufficient evidence to bring a handling charge. Some explanation, an honest one please, should come from Sgt Pritchard as to why this course of action was not taken?
“This was a lengthy and complex investigation that was thoroughly conducted, and I informed both farmers that I was very disappointed not to be able prosecute,” she said.
I’m not sure that I believe this police sergeant. Very little time has gone by for a proper investigation to have occurred and I suspect that Gloucester Police are not so much disappointed as breathing a sigh of relief that they have disposed of what could have been a troublesome case for one of Britain’s ‘diversity’ obsessed police forces.
When you see cases like this where the police and prosecutors have taken a ‘can’t be arsed’ attitude to a case where there seems to be sufficient evidence to bring a handling charge, is it any wonder that the public are losing faith in these entities? If this is a crime allegedly committed by Muslims then it will further solidify the opinion of a growing number of Britons that the police are turning a blind eye to Muslim crime in order to both placate Muslims themselves and to stop the rest of us becoming aware of just how bad Islam-linked crime has become.
