Fop 1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Being innocent is not the same as not being found guilty. Or indeed guilty of something related in this case (well two cases). They clearly did go for the reasonable doubt defence though, which was sensible, and Fop bets they weren't on legal aid solicitors and barristers either. How much btw? Because I bet they did get legal aid. They'll have one of those crack muslim "we didn't do it" legal teams. Are you on about the 7/7 trial btw? Because I was. They'll definitely have been receiving legal aid, at a guess. The 21/7 attempted bombers and the Scottish Airport bombers had a massive legal fund behind them (along with their crack team of muslim "we didn't do it" lawyers that seem to be parachuted in for these cases), so I assume these guy would have too, although maybe you can claim legal aid on top of that (ask the property conveubermancer ). That's not 7/7 in any case but do you have a link to confirm that? Never said it was , Fop said "Fop bets". There have been several funds set up in the UK that are similar to the MLFA only more directly dedicated to those brought up on terror charges in the UK (MLFA is more about the general muslim legal domination in the USA although it too comes from the 9/11 issue). Do you think there haven't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Two jailed for terror camp plansBy Dominic Casciani BBC News, Kingston Crown Court Two former friends of the 2005 London suicide bombers have been jailed for plotting to attend a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Waheed Ali, 25, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, of Leeds, were both sentenced to seven years in prison. The two men and a third defendant were acquitted on Tuesday of helping the London bombers to scout for targets. Mr Justice Gross said there was no doubt the pair had planned to train at a camp for Taleban fighters. The camp provided fighters for the war against British and other forces in Afghanistan. The judge told Kingston Crown Court that a signal had to be sent that attending these camps was unacceptable - and that they had betrayed the country that had given their families a home. The pair were arrested along with a third man in 2007 as part of the massive investigation into the 7 July suicide bombings. After a retrial, the trio were cleared on Tuesday of helping the bombers at an early stage of their planning. But in the weeks leading up to their March 2007 arrest, the security services watched Ali and Shakil preparing to attend a militant camp. They bought camping equipment and took steps to conceal their plans. In court, they accepted they might have been thinking about joining up with a mujihadeen group - something they had both done before - but said the primary aim of their trip was a holiday. But jailing the men, Mr Justice Gross said that he had no doubt that they had they not been arrested, they would have trained at a militant camp providing fighters for the Taleban's war against the British and coalition forces in Afghanistan. The judge said there could be no "a la carte" approach to citizenship in the UK where men like Shakil and Ali pick and choose which elements of belonging suited them best. "It's not up to you to take the benefits of living in Beeston in a decent and tolerant society when you choose, and then to consort with those that kill our armed forces where you see fit. "The plain reality is that by seeking to attend such a camp, you betray the country that has given your families a home. You were not born here, you chose to live here. Your loyalty is sadly lacking." He said that on current estimates some 1,000 young British Muslim men had attended mujihadeen camps between 1998 and 2003. Some of these men were determined militants and others were naive. "This was not a one-off naive frolic by a pair of dupes - you knew what you were doing. You knew what you intended to do. Your intention was to attend a real camp and use real guns. This was not play-acting. You were determined players." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8025325.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17784 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Being innocent is not the same as not being found guilty. Or indeed guilty of something related in this case (well two cases). They clearly did go for the reasonable doubt defence though, which was sensible, and Fop bets they weren't on legal aid solicitors and barristers either. How much btw? Because I bet they did get legal aid. They'll have one of those crack muslim "we didn't do it" legal teams. Are you on about the 7/7 trial btw? Because I was. They'll definitely have been receiving legal aid, at a guess. The 21/7 attempted bombers and the Scottish Airport bombers had a massive legal fund behind them (along with their crack team of muslim "we didn't do it" lawyers that seem to be parachuted in for these cases), so I assume these guy would have too, although maybe you can claim legal aid on top of that (ask the property conveubermancer ). That's not 7/7 in any case but do you have a link to confirm that? Never said it was , Fop said "Fop bets". There have been several funds set up in the UK that are similar to the MLFA only more directly dedicated to those brought up on terror charges in the UK (MLFA is more about the general muslim legal domination in the USA although it too comes from the 9/11 issue). Do you think there haven't? Is that the best your googling could do? As for the bit in bold, that's the most pathetic cop out I've ever heard. It's really not worth discussing this further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Being innocent is not the same as not being found guilty. Or indeed guilty of something related in this case (well two cases). They clearly did go for the reasonable doubt defence though, which was sensible, and Fop bets they weren't on legal aid solicitors and barristers either. How much btw? Because I bet they did get legal aid. They'll have one of those crack muslim "we didn't do it" legal teams. Are you on about the 7/7 trial btw? Because I was. They'll definitely have been receiving legal aid, at a guess. The 21/7 attempted bombers and the Scottish Airport bombers had a massive legal fund behind them (along with their crack team of muslim "we didn't do it" lawyers that seem to be parachuted in for these cases), so I assume these guy would have too, although maybe you can claim legal aid on top of that (ask the property conveubermancer ). That's not 7/7 in any case but do you have a link to confirm that? Never said it was , Fop said "Fop bets". There have been several funds set up in the UK that are similar to the MLFA only more directly dedicated to those brought up on terror charges in the UK (MLFA is more about the general muslim legal domination in the USA although it too comes from the 9/11 issue). Do you think there haven't? Is that the best your googling could do? As for the bit in bold, that's the most pathetic cop out I've ever heard. It's really not worth discussing this further. It's a pretty damn good good "cop out" considering it occurred before anyone said anything at all. Now like Fop said do you believe there aren't such funds set up in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17784 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Being innocent is not the same as not being found guilty. Or indeed guilty of something related in this case (well two cases). They clearly did go for the reasonable doubt defence though, which was sensible, and Fop bets they weren't on legal aid solicitors and barristers either. How much btw? Because I bet they did get legal aid. They'll have one of those crack muslim "we didn't do it" legal teams. Are you on about the 7/7 trial btw? Because I was. They'll definitely have been receiving legal aid, at a guess. The 21/7 attempted bombers and the Scottish Airport bombers had a massive legal fund behind them (along with their crack team of muslim "we didn't do it" lawyers that seem to be parachuted in for these cases), so I assume these guy would have too, although maybe you can claim legal aid on top of that (ask the property conveubermancer ). That's not 7/7 in any case but do you have a link to confirm that? Never said it was , Fop said "Fop bets". There have been several funds set up in the UK that are similar to the MLFA only more directly dedicated to those brought up on terror charges in the UK (MLFA is more about the general muslim legal domination in the USA although it too comes from the 9/11 issue). Do you think there haven't? Is that the best your googling could do? As for the bit in bold, that's the most pathetic cop out I've ever heard. It's really not worth discussing this further. It's a pretty damn good good "cop out" considering it occurred before anyone said anything at all. Now like Fop said do you believe there aren't such funds set up in the UK? How would I know? The point is you clearly don't either, and it has no relevance to your original 'bet' any way. Fop, as I've said already, it's really not worth discussing this further. Time for your customary last word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 the main "evidence" was that they'd used their mobile phones close to Kings Cross, Paddington and Liverpool Street Stations............ 50% of the SE of England could be arrested on that basis "Hello Dear - I'm on the train!" What was odd was the one who was quite cheerful about admitting he'd fight British soldiers in Afghanistan but didn't hold with suicide bombing - which I think is much closer to the words in the Koran where fighting the good fight is one thing but murdering innocents is out of order The Police are sure the bombers weren't on their own - but that may (note MAY) just be another conspoiracy theory - after all the Gunpowder Plot was only 6-7 lunatics............. clueless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Being innocent is not the same as not being found guilty. Or indeed guilty of something related in this case (well two cases). They clearly did go for the reasonable doubt defence though, which was sensible, and Fop bets they weren't on legal aid solicitors and barristers either. How much btw? Because I bet they did get legal aid. They'll have one of those crack muslim "we didn't do it" legal teams. Are you on about the 7/7 trial btw? Because I was. They'll definitely have been receiving legal aid, at a guess. The 21/7 attempted bombers and the Scottish Airport bombers had a massive legal fund behind them (along with their crack team of muslim "we didn't do it" lawyers that seem to be parachuted in for these cases), so I assume these guy would have too, although maybe you can claim legal aid on top of that (ask the property conveubermancer ). That's not 7/7 in any case but do you have a link to confirm that? Never said it was , Fop said "Fop bets". *cringe* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Author Share Posted April 30, 2009 the main "evidence" was that they'd used their mobile phones close to Kings Cross, Paddington and Liverpool Street Stations............ 50% of the SE of England could be arrested on that basis "Hello Dear - I'm on the train!" What was odd was the one who was quite cheerful about admitting he'd fight British soldiers in Afghanistan but didn't hold with suicide bombing - which I think is much closer to the words in the Koran where fighting the good fight is one thing but murdering innocents is out of order The Police are sure the bombers weren't on their own - but that may (note MAY) just be another conspoiracy theory - after all the Gunpowder Plot was only 6-7 lunatics............. clueless that's exactly the point - the police had bugger all in the way of evidence or clues.............. TWO juries wouldn't convict man........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Author Share Posted April 30, 2009 front eh Beeb Protesters paid £85,000 by police New Scotland Yard The Met said there would be no action against the officers involved Scotland Yard has agreed to pay five protesters £85,000 in damages for assault and false imprisonment. The group had been demonstrating outside the Mexican embassy in London in 2006 when they were held. The Metropolitan Police has written a letter of apology to the protesters and admitted any force used to arrest them was "assault and battery". A Met spokesman confirmed the force had settled the claim and the incident was due to a "breakdown in communication". 'Individual error' The spokesman said: "There was a breakdown in communication between two locally based officers leading to the unlawful arrest of five individuals. "As the MPS accepts that the arrests in these cases were unlawful, any force used to enact this arrest is classed as assault. "This is the reason for the acceptance of this further element of the claim." He added no action had been taken against the officers involved because it was an "individual error". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Being innocent is not the same as not being found guilty. Or indeed guilty of something related in this case (well two cases). They clearly did go for the reasonable doubt defence though, which was sensible, and Fop bets they weren't on legal aid solicitors and barristers either. How much btw? Because I bet they did get legal aid. They'll have one of those crack muslim "we didn't do it" legal teams. Are you on about the 7/7 trial btw? Because I was. They'll definitely have been receiving legal aid, at a guess. The 21/7 attempted bombers and the Scottish Airport bombers had a massive legal fund behind them (along with their crack team of muslim "we didn't do it" lawyers that seem to be parachuted in for these cases), so I assume these guy would have too, although maybe you can claim legal aid on top of that (ask the property conveubermancer ). That's not 7/7 in any case but do you have a link to confirm that? Never said it was , Fop said "Fop bets". There have been several funds set up in the UK that are similar to the MLFA only more directly dedicated to those brought up on terror charges in the UK (MLFA is more about the general muslim legal domination in the USA although it too comes from the 9/11 issue). Do you think there haven't? Is that the best your googling could do? As for the bit in bold, that's the most pathetic cop out I've ever heard. It's really not worth discussing this further. It's a pretty damn good good "cop out" considering it occurred before anyone said anything at all. Now like Fop said do you believe there aren't such funds set up in the UK? How would I know? The point is you clearly don't either, and it has no relevance to your original 'bet' any way. Fop, as I've said already, it's really not worth discussing this further. Time for your customary last word. So basically you're talking whilst looking for a (baseless) fight - as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 ]*cringe* Are you saying there aren't such funds in the UK too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 ]*cringe* Are you saying there aren't such funds in the UK too? The epitome of hollow laughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 ]*cringe* Are you saying there aren't such funds in the UK too? The epitome of hollow laughter. So that's an admission Fop right then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 front eh Beeb Protesters paid £85,000 by police New Scotland Yard The Met said there would be no action against the officers involved Scotland Yard has agreed to pay five protesters £85,000 in damages for assault and false imprisonment. The group had been demonstrating outside the Mexican embassy in London in 2006 when they were held. The Metropolitan Police has written a letter of apology to the protesters and admitted any force used to arrest them was "assault and battery". A Met spokesman confirmed the force had settled the claim and the incident was due to a "breakdown in communication". 'Individual error' The spokesman said: "There was a breakdown in communication between two locally based officers leading to the unlawful arrest of five individuals. "As the MPS accepts that the arrests in these cases were unlawful, any force used to enact this arrest is classed as assault. "This is the reason for the acceptance of this further element of the claim." He added no action had been taken against the officers involved because it was an "individual error". Total whitewash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 front eh Beeb Protesters paid £85,000 by police New Scotland Yard The Met said there would be no action against the officers involved Scotland Yard has agreed to pay five protesters £85,000 in damages for assault and false imprisonment. The group had been demonstrating outside the Mexican embassy in London in 2006 when they were held. The Metropolitan Police has written a letter of apology to the protesters and admitted any force used to arrest them was "assault and battery". A Met spokesman confirmed the force had settled the claim and the incident was due to a "breakdown in communication". 'Individual error' The spokesman said: "There was a breakdown in communication between two locally based officers leading to the unlawful arrest of five individuals. "As the MPS accepts that the arrests in these cases were unlawful, any force used to enact this arrest is classed as assault. "This is the reason for the acceptance of this further element of the claim." He added no action had been taken against the officers involved because it was an "individual error". Total whitewash. no one wanted to hear their message about the impending Doom of swine flu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 the main "evidence" was that they'd used their mobile phones close to Kings Cross, Paddington and Liverpool Street Stations............ 50% of the SE of England could be arrested on that basis "Hello Dear - I'm on the train!" What was odd was the one who was quite cheerful about admitting he'd fight British soldiers in Afghanistan but didn't hold with suicide bombing - which I think is much closer to the words in the Koran where fighting the good fight is one thing but murdering innocents is out of order The Police are sure the bombers weren't on their own - but that may (note MAY) just be another conspoiracy theory - after all the Gunpowder Plot was only 6-7 lunatics............. clueless that's exactly the point - the police had bugger all in the way of evidence or clues.............. TWO juries wouldn't convict man........................ no, this constant anti west rubbish from you..........is clueless You're not a muslim are you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 the main "evidence" was that they'd used their mobile phones close to Kings Cross, Paddington and Liverpool Street Stations............ 50% of the SE of England could be arrested on that basis "Hello Dear - I'm on the train!" What was odd was the one who was quite cheerful about admitting he'd fight British soldiers in Afghanistan but didn't hold with suicide bombing - which I think is much closer to the words in the Koran where fighting the good fight is one thing but murdering innocents is out of order The Police are sure the bombers weren't on their own - but that may (note MAY) just be another conspoiracy theory - after all the Gunpowder Plot was only 6-7 lunatics............. clueless that's exactly the point - the police had bugger all in the way of evidence or clues.............. TWO juries wouldn't convict man........................ no, this constant anti west rubbish from you..........is clueless You're not a muslim are you ? I think he's just hedging his bets re: Heaven/Paradise/Whitley Bay. Either way two of the three have been convicted on lesser terrorism charges, so clearly the trial was worthwhile (beyond reasonable doubt in the other charge was always going to be a bear to get a conviction on, but it probably was the right things to do on balance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 the main "evidence" was that they'd used their mobile phones close to Kings Cross, Paddington and Liverpool Street Stations............ 50% of the SE of England could be arrested on that basis "Hello Dear - I'm on the train!" What was odd was the one who was quite cheerful about admitting he'd fight British soldiers in Afghanistan but didn't hold with suicide bombing - which I think is much closer to the words in the Koran where fighting the good fight is one thing but murdering innocents is out of order The Police are sure the bombers weren't on their own - but that may (note MAY) just be another conspoiracy theory - after all the Gunpowder Plot was only 6-7 lunatics............. clueless that's exactly the point - the police had bugger all in the way of evidence or clues.............. TWO juries wouldn't convict man........................ no, this constant anti west rubbish from you..........is clueless You're not a muslim are you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Blame Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Blame Iran. I always stop reading at "America says...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 the main "evidence" was that they'd used their mobile phones close to Kings Cross, Paddington and Liverpool Street Stations............ 50% of the SE of England could be arrested on that basis "Hello Dear - I'm on the train!" What was odd was the one who was quite cheerful about admitting he'd fight British soldiers in Afghanistan but didn't hold with suicide bombing - which I think is much closer to the words in the Koran where fighting the good fight is one thing but murdering innocents is out of order The Police are sure the bombers weren't on their own - but that may (note MAY) just be another conspoiracy theory - after all the Gunpowder Plot was only 6-7 lunatics............. clueless that's exactly the point - the police had bugger all in the way of evidence or clues.............. TWO juries wouldn't convict man........................ no, this constant anti west rubbish from you..........is clueless You're not a muslim are you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Blame Iran. I always stop reading at "America says...." Iran execution provokes outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Blame Iran. I always stop reading at "America says...." Iran execution provokes outrage. America has the death penalty Fopper. Dozens are exucuted in the South every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Blame Iran. I always stop reading at "America says...." Iran execution provokes outrage. America has the death penalty Fopper. Dozens are exucuted in the South every year. Aye but she almost certainly didn't do it, and they executed her despite a stay of execution order by the judiciary (because she was politically inconvenient and they wanted rid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 Blame Iran. I always stop reading at "America says...." Iran execution provokes outrage. America has the death penalty Fopper. Dozens are exucuted in the South every year. Aye but she almost certainly didn't do it, and they executed her despite a stay of execution order by the judiciary (because she was politically inconvenient and they wanted rid). Te ex-Mrs P worked on death row in South Carolina for a year if you want to trade miscarriages of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now