Is someone having a laugh??

[R1Geezer]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1 319373,00.html
They must have known that releasing this waste of air would enrage the public. So why do the authorities in this country seem determined to wind up the people that pay their wages?

[sp1814]

Ideally these two would have something really, really, really dodgy about them especially as their shooting and arrest was so close to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

That would be great for the police and the right wing press.

However, it turns out that there isn't anything that people can satisfactorarily pin on them.

So can't we just say that these were two normal people who were mistakenly identified and now have their due compensation paid to them?

Or do we have to think of all Muslims as being 'a bit dodgy'?

[Oneeyedvic]

Raggy Roman
More incorrect assumption from you. Just wondering if you had any suggestions how an illegal immigrant has �170,000 in cash?

Which illegal immigrant are you talking about? Because Abu Qatada is not an illegal immigrant.


R1 - do you trust the Jordian government to come to a fair trial?

[youngmafbog]

Makes a bit of a mockery of the 42 days or is it noce we know what they are up to then we can let them out at a cost of �1m a year to the tax payer

It may be the law but laws can be changed and interpreted in different ways. Even wacky baccy jaci dont agree on this one

[Quinlad]

You're right, Raggy. It didn't say "won't". It said "no evidence".

Is that basic principle of law no good all of a sudden?

Or are you still sticking to the "no smoke without fire" principle that served the Guildford 4 so well?

[R1Geezer]

vic, I couldn't care less about the Jordanian judiciary, I just think the we should use the opportunity to get rid of the lowlife.

Can someone tell me, is he remanded for something?

[Oneeyedvic]

No, he was an Asylum seeker and was granted Asylum in the UK.

Wonder why no mention has been made of him helping MI5 or his pleas in the case of Norman Kember?

[Gromit]

"I didn't realise they were also accused of verbally abusing and spitting at soldiers."

Did you just make that up?

or did someone on the radio say that he had a friend who once knew a soldier's sister say it?

[Oneeyedvic]

No, you made some of it up to exagerate your claim.

[Gromit]

Ah, so they were accused by someone but there was no evidence it ever happened (Presumably Army Barracks have lots of CCTV). The Daily Mail report says...

"The incident was reported to have happened outside Wellington Barracks on August 1. Scotland Yard confirmed yesterday that no charges would be brought over the incident."

Unsubstantiated accusations and arrest was how the KGB used to work things. Do you really want that here?

[Quinlad]

"No smoke without fire" it is then.

That's justice!

[Oneeyedvic]

Raggy Roman - I can accuse you of all these things.

Of course, you didn't do any of them, but since the accusation is there, by your own standard, you must be guilty.

It seems to be the easiest thing in the world to 'fit people up' these days.

Arrest someone, leak it to the press, then watch the mob mentality rule.

[Quinlad]

In this climate of daily terror attacks, maybe we do need to be less lenient though? Should we really be stopping at actual criminals?

Perhaps we should also imprison dodgy characters, shifty customers, rum 'uns, rogues, ne'er-do-wells, deliquents, knaves, oddballs, loners, wastrels, loafers, cads, scamps, rascals and - crucially - scallywags.

[andy-hughes]

I fear for our future when our media constantly ratchets up the tensions against an entire culture by its mix of propganda and half-truths with more spin than a cricket team?

What we have now is a media following the American tradition - scare-monger and frighten people in a way spookily similar to that against the Jews in pre-war Germany.

What we have is a 'democratic leader' who follows a super-power into an unjst and illegal war on the basis of 'freedom' and 'getting the job done'.

Let's not forget, the US and UJ are invaders in Muslim countries, it's not hard to see why their religious and cultural leaders kick against that, in much the same way as ours have done against perceived violations of their concept of 'freedom' in those very same Muslimcountries.

Laws are what make us civilised, and they are there to protect us - not to be tweaked and chacaned to suit rumour-mongering press pundits who probably know as much of the truth as we do - which is previous little.

I do not condone terrorism of any people - but the definition of 'terrorism' begins and ends with that nationality of the soldier who'se metaphorical gun barrel you are staring down.

[sp1214]

I think our judges are living in the land of nod. If your country is at war, even with terrorists, then the first duty is the rights of the native population. Criminals are different from those who wish to bomb you to kingdom come. The judges may have been trained to treat everyone equal in the face of the law. This may be OK after a criminal act but its no good after picking up the body parts blown apart by their bombs?