Speaking of thAT "sad, sad day is on the horizon."

"4 WIFES" why would a man do that to himself?

I'm sorry but WHAT? The US goes to the conservative stupid extreme and the UK goes to the liberal stupid extreme.

The key here is "stupid extreme".

Yeah people who are middle ground inhabit the atlantic ocean

What an obviously bogus excuse. Anyone can see from looking at the picture of him that he would be unable to 'fulfill his marital duties' even if he had made it there in a timely fashion.

Ok if someone NEEDS their car then fine, let them keep their license. He did commit a crime though, and should at least be punished in some other method (ie: a 5,000 quid fine). Seems like he got off with what someone going 40 would have gotten.

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do!

Now wasn't there a lesson from the thirties about appeasement? Something about Chamberlain? LOL I can't seem to remember! Kinda like the UK government!

So polygamy's legal in Scotland?!

I guess the Mormons really dropped the ball on choosing that promised land in the middle of conservative America.

My question is why the title points out he is a Muslim.

Does it even matter? It seems to me that with all the anti-muslim sentiment in the west that the title was used just to stir up dislike against the man.

Yes, he broke the law and got off easy. I think it's ridiculous. I just don't understand why the title has to be so racist/religion-ist.

Did you even read the article? It seems not:

His religion is why he got off easy. It greatly contributed to the reason at the very least.

This is another example of Muslims being given special treatment.

I don't suppose it's occurred to him to just move one of the wives closer to the other?

I did, and I read it before I posted. I think it's very irresponsible to say "Muslim is spared speeding ban." Why not "Polygamist is spared speeding ban" or "Restaurant owner is spared speeding ban so he can drive between his wives."?

It's because there was a message trying to be conveyed here.

His religion may be the reason, but the article itself was written in a biased tone against Muslims, regardless of how often they receive special treatment.

That last comment sounds a bit bitter and bigoted to me personally.

Who's to say that the reason the judge was lenient isn't because the guys got a clean record apart from this offense and the fact that he needs transport for work.

My brother in law (who isn't muslim, just an a*****e) got 9 points added to his license a few mths ago. He already had 9 points on there, bringing him up to 18 points, 6 points over the amount where you should automatically get a ban.

He's just been to court and been allowed to keep his license because he gave the judge a sob story about work, needing to drive to see his estranged son and various other crap.

The reason he avoided a ban was because his lawyer knew the information here, How to avoid a driving ban

To say "This is another example of Muslims being given special treatment." is being as sensationalist as the article is.

The media latch on to certain stories and phrases that tap into to certain area of public attitude and try and stir up feelings in people just to get a good headline and sell papers.

I've heard a hundred stories like this in my local newspaper and through friends and acquaintances where people they know or they themselves have been let off lightly for driving offenses, it just so happens that the papers latch on to stories like this to tap into anti-Muslim sentiment.

You seem like a bright guy 2many, surely you can see beyond sensational newspaper headlines like this one?

Don't believe the hype.

I would like a bit more info - he has had the restaurant for over thirty years so how old is he, where did he marry these women and how old are they?

UK laws don't allow for polgmany, it's bigamy, so how come he was allowed to bring two wives into the country as I presume he married them abroad.

bigoted: utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

I am really tired of you thinking everything is bigotry or prejudice.

Be that as it may, it seems to me part of the reason was his religion. Perhaps I am wrong on this one single instance. I can accept that possibility.

That doesn't change the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of other news articles that are not so ambivalent. There are tons of stories where the distinction is quite clear that someone or some group received special treatment because he was muslim. This is true here in the US and it is much more so in the UK.

Perhaps this particular article is sensationalized a bit. That doesn't make me a bigot, nor does it mean that there isn't massive amount of appeasement being done to appease the muslim population.

I don't know about appeasement of "the Muslim population" as I haven't really looked into it. I don't really understand, why would people want to appease the Muslim population as a whole?

I can only presume you mean because of terrorism. If that is what you mean I still don't understand why Muslims as a whole would need appeasing. I mean, surely the terrorism problem is down to terrorists not Muslims?

There are millions of Muslims the world over from all races and walks of life. I'm sure that 99.9% of them aren't about to fly a plane into a building. I agree that religion causes a lot of problems but I don't think that Muslim should be a dirty word or an excuse to be biased or bigoted toward another race.

When you said "This is another example of Muslims being given special treatment." it sounded like you were being quite biased against Muslims when, if there is in fact mass appeasement of the Muslim population then surely it's the fault of those doing the appeasing as opposed to the Muslims who are being treated differently.

I'm not sure why you said "I am really tired of you thinking everything is bigotry or prejudice." maybe you could explain what I've said that has caused you to be tired of my opinion.

As for other instances of appeasement, I wasn't commenting on other cases, I was merely commenting on this particular case, not using it to generalize my opinions on other news stories.

When I used the word bigoted I was thinking of this definition taken from The Webster's Dictionary

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with intolerance

again, nothing I said was bigoted in the least. Nothing was intolerant or prejudicial.

No one said Muslim should be a dirty word. Certainly no one said it should be an excuse to biased or bigoted.

All I said is that there are many cases where the Muslim population is given preferential treatment. Why? Perhaps it is fear. The fear may or may not be deserved, but it may exist to some degree. It may be a fear of riots more than to "fly a plane into a building." Perhaps it is due to sheer numbers. The Muslim population is extremely fast growing. Perhaps some of the appeasement is because of the power that a large voting bloc can utilize. Perhaps it is because of campaign donations, perhaps it is because of a sympathetic feeling, perhaps it is because someone feels that any comment against Muslims is bigoted and therefor we need to make up for such biases.

I don't know. Perhaps it is all or none of those reasons. However the simple fact is that all too often the Muslim population and individuals as well are given special treatment because of their religion. That is a fact, it isn't a bias or prejudice.

If I said pretty women get preferential treatment in many parts of life such as traffic tickets that doesn't mean I am a misogynist. It is a simple fact of life.

I can pretty much guarantee that for every instance of "appeasement" there are a hundred of prejudice.

Anyway back on track. Since my first comment about this case in particular you've widened the discussion to include other cases of appeasement that I've never read or heard about so I can't comment on those.

I'm merely commenting on this particular case and sharing my opinions (which seem to tire you) and in this case there is no evidence that he was given preferential treatment based on the fact that he's Muslim. All there is a is a newspaper article trying to grab attention.

I wonder how many other biased, sensational headlines and stories have lead you and others to believe there is a massive amount appeasement of Muslims being carried out.

This is, once again, the DM slant.

It even says in the article that he kept his licence because of business needs - something that is remarkably common, and is the real scandal here.

But he isn't white, and the Daily Racist have their agenda of hatred to keep up.

Looks like it's working.

I don't see it working in the least. Stories like this and the 100's of others of appeasement doesn't make me get upset at muslims. It makes me upset at the government officials that do the appeasement.

The muslims aren't at fault for people bending over backwards to give them special treatment.