Tuesday, 24 January 2012

Mohammed Younas


A 43-year-old paedophile policeman was sacked from Thames Valley Police after being disciplined for repeatedly threatening witnesses who had lodged complaints against him.

Mohammed Younas was subsequently jailed for 18 years after a jury found him guilty of 15 counts of rape and sexual assault. The girl he raped was just 7 years old.

He continued to abuse and rape her for another 8 years.

His only excuse? His wife wouldn't have sex with him!

No mention of whether the Pakistani paedophile policeman was a muslim or a member of the religion of peace. Shame - because if he was, I'm sure the Sharia Law brigade would have executed a more appropriate sentence than 18 years in jail.

So, just out of interest, I had a quick flick through the OK Koran and came across the statutory punishment for a kiddy fiddling copper which stated : "Cut off his cock, run it through a mincer, bung it into a Todger Tikka Masala, force feed it to the infidel, wait for the arsehole to shit it onto a plate and then force feed it to the filthy fucker again."

Ah well, maybe Big Bubba and his buddies will be able to take things into their own hands, eh. After which, I suggest they sweep up what's left of the filthy paedophile policeman and then deport him.

Straight down the nearest toilet. Jobby done!

Nominated by  : Max Farquar

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Remember most of the media is a cover up or exaggeration. Limited truth unlimited lies. Truth is murdered by silence. The media amplifies the lies until they become fact. Its about what sells..

KenS said...

"No mention of whether the Pakistani paedophile policeman was a muslim"

It has never occurred to me that someone named Mohammed could be anything other than Muslim. A bit like finding a Buddhist called Jesus?

Ybawife said...

You may have a Muslim name you jerk but just like 'your, christrian name, obviously does not make you one . Such jerk off information here. A place where ignorance reins .

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Charlotte Pearce said...

Hello Nick,
I appreciate your condemning of these criminals. Is there anyway I can contact you regarding a highly important matter please? Like an email perhaps.
Thankyou ever so much
I await your response.

Old Nick said...

To send an e-mail either click my picture or the big red button!

Old Nick said...

Comment by 'anonymous' dated 8th February, 2012 has been deleted in compliance with a police request as it contained personal information of a slanderous nature.

Anonymous said...

He is innocent, his ex wife framed him for the compensation money, hence the reason he WON the 1st court case then she appealed. And this article has been ridiculously edited. "His only excuse? His wife wouldn't have sex with him!"? This isn't stated any where else so no need to add bullshit to your articles.

Old Nick said...

Found guilty of 15 counts of rape? Of course he's innocent...

Anonymous said...

Yes 15 COUNTS OF RAPE, a sick twisted woman would do anything for money, she framed him because he kicked her out and he was a millionaire and she had no money so she framed him for the compensation money. Guess how much money her and her daughters got? 40k EACH. She told her daughters to lie so they get money. And guess what? her son wanted money to so he got involved and said oh Mr Younas beat me LOL!!!! Bless him, its a shame he wasn't a girl otherwise he could have cried rape to. You deleted my previous comment because it had the names of the people involved, and one of those people contacted you to have it deleted LOL, how pathetic, innocent men are in prison, i'm sure if it was one of your family members you wouldn't be writing sick blog posts about them, adding bullshit, making up lies just to get hits on your stupid racist website. Get a real job.

Old Nick said...

There is nothing racist about this site. We put forward people of any race for judgement by the general public.

Your previous comment was deleted because it was slanderous to people that you specifically named.

Clearly you feel strongly about this case and I am happy to publish your view however insulting they are to me personally - as long as they remain within the law