JPP feministas invited to comment

You might be onto something there, Jerry.
I'm drinking THEIR milkshake.

Daniel-Day-Lewis-There-Will-Be-Blood-2007-I-drink-your-milkshake.jpg
 
View: https://x.com/IfindRetards/status/2083530293563257246?s=20

@christiefan915



The core claims in the post are accurate, based on contemporaneous 2012 court reporting and official Parole Board documents plus mainstream UK coverage from 1 August 2026.


Key facts that check out​


  • Sunny (Nazrul) Islam was convicted in 2011/sentenced in January 2012 at Woolwich Crown Court of seven counts of rape, one of sexual assault, and one of kidnap. He targeted four victims (including a 15-year-old girl) over roughly three months in 2010 in east London (Barking/Forest Gate area). He used a knife and plastic cable ties, dragged victims into a car, bound them, beat them, and raped them.
  • He told victims (including the 15-year-old) variations of intending to “teach them a lesson” for being out at night. The sentencing judge (Patricia Lees) highlighted this language and described him as an “extreme and continuing danger to women, particularly those out at night.” He received an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of 11 years (tariff expired around October 2021 after accounting for time served). Police believed there may have been additional unreported victims.
  • He faces an upcoming Parole Board oral hearing (referenced in coverage as potentially next month / September 2026). Release is possible if the Board finds his risk can be safely managed in the community; it is not automatic.
  • One victim applied for the hearing to be held in public. The application was refused. Islam’s legal representatives argued that news of the public-hearing application caused him a “dramatic increase in his anxiety, including sleep disturbance,” which could affect his ability to give his best evidence. No medical evidence was provided at the time. Judicial member His Honour Jeremy Roberts KC (deciding for the Board Chair) accepted there was no reason to doubt the reported anxiety increase, noted the offences were of a “particularly repugnant type” and a public hearing would likely be hostile, and also cited potential distress to the other three victims (whose views were unknown). The hearing will therefore be private. The decision document is publicly available.

 
Back
Top