Guest pelmetman Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5069669/Violent-Somali-criminal-wins-80-000-detention-payout.html#comments Justice my ar*e *-) ..............and some folk wonder why we want out of the human rights act >:-( ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 Gosh ... What a dump ... My home towns made the news with Muslim sex gangs in court again ... Surely coincidence they all share the same God .... Like all the other sex gangs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... Apparently he has served his sentence from the courts for being a 'violent scum bag' but then some anonymous person has exceeded their authority to add another 445 days. Would you set a precedent by allowing anyone to add another year or so if they think the sentence from the court isn't long enough *-) They might think you weren't punished enough for speeding and give you a spell in prison as well (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-11-10 6:35 PM Muslim sex gangs in court again If they are sex gangs they are not Muslims. They might call themselves Muslims - Like Sir Jimmy Savile OBE KCSG called himself C of E. Difference is he never got to court once, never mind 'in court again' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 John52 - 2017-11-12 8:43 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... Apparently he has served his sentence from the courts for being a 'violent scum bag' but then some anonymous person has exceeded their authority to add another 445 days. Would you set a precedent by allowing anyone to add another year or so if they think the sentence from the court isn't long enough *-) They might think you weren't punished enough for speeding and give you a spell in prison as well (lol) Who ever the anonymous person is deserves to be made a judge....... That's 445 extra days that the public were safe from him.........I wonder how long it'll be before he's locked up again?........Fancy a bet? ;-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-12 2:50 PM John52 - 2017-11-12 8:43 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... Apparently he has served his sentence from the courts for being a 'violent scum bag' but then some anonymous person has exceeded their authority to add another 445 days. Would you set a precedent by allowing anyone to add another year or so if they think the sentence from the court isn't long enough *-) They might think you weren't punished enough for speeding and give you a spell in prison as well (lol) Who ever the anonymous person is deserves to be made a judge....... That's 445 extra days that the public were safe from him.........I wonder how long it'll be before he's locked up again?........Fancy a bet? ;-) ........ Last time I looked Britain had a greater percentage of its population in prison than any other country in Europe. As for being locked up again probably not long since prison seems to make them worse. Only £36,000 a year to keep them inside - plus loss of taxes they would have been paying if they were working. Why not lock the rest of them up as well - after all the country can afford it *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 John52 - 2017-11-12 3:06 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-12 2:50 PM John52 - 2017-11-12 8:43 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... Apparently he has served his sentence from the courts for being a 'violent scum bag' but then some anonymous person has exceeded their authority to add another 445 days. Would you set a precedent by allowing anyone to add another year or so if they think the sentence from the court isn't long enough *-) They might think you weren't punished enough for speeding and give you a spell in prison as well (lol) Who ever the anonymous person is deserves to be made a judge....... That's 445 extra days that the public were safe from him.........I wonder how long it'll be before he's locked up again?........Fancy a bet? ;-) ........ Last time I looked Britain had a greater percentage of its population in prison than any other country in Europe. As for being locked up again probably not long since prison seems to make them worse. Only £36,000 a year to keep them inside - plus loss of taxes they would have been paying if they were working. Why not lock the rest of them up as well - after all the country can afford it *-) 36k a year........A absolute bargain B-) ....... How much does the average case cost to get one of these scroats sent to prison?......a dam sight more than 36k I would wager *-) ......... Lock them up for longer or better still throw away the key.......It'd save us all a fortune in insurance payouts, police & court time, not to mention the psychological damage they do to their victims :-| ...... This revolving prison door system is only of benefit to those in the lawyering trade and judiciary >:-) ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... I do sometimes wonder if you read news articles carefully enough Dave. Yes, it is a disgrace that the state has to pay out £78,000+ to a convicted criminal with such a terrible record. However, the government admitted that he was unlawfully detained i.e. they broke the law. The pay-outs for unlawful imprisonment or detention are calculated by reference to a set of rules in established case law. The Judge had no choice but to follow the law. Do you really think he enjoyed having to do that? The law is the law and he has to apply it whether he likes it or not. If the government wanted to legislate on the maximum that could be awarded then it is free to do so and Judges would have to follow that law. If you were detained unlawfully I expect you would want to be compensated. If there was no sanction then there would be no need for the government to exercise the necessary care. We are fortunate not to live one of those rogue states who lock people up and keep them locked up without due process or redress. And if this man’s victims did not receive enough compensation for the crimes he committed that is down to government policy regarding the limits on the amounts Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can award. The European Court of Human Rights decision, which effectively blocked this man’s deportation, was one which could have been made by that Court before the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 so repealing it will have no effect whatsoever on cases like this. Even if we withdrew from the 1950 Human Rights Convention we would have our own rules substituted and there is no guarantee that other Treaties to which we are a signatory such as the Treaty against Torture would not have prevented this man’s deportation. We simply don’t know enough from this article why it was that he could not be sent back to Somalia. So, whilst I understand your anger and disgust you have chosen the wrong targets for criticism. And I know it is often of concern to you that public funds are expended on such cases. You will note if you read the article carefully that the government admitted “at a late stage” that he had been unlawfully detained for 445 days. These cases are pretty run of the mill and the parties are encouraged to settle out of court because their lawyers are in a position to tell them what the likely outcome would be. It seems that the government have made the tax payer responsible for the legal costs involved in going to court on top of the £78K when it knew it was on a loser. Wonder why that was? Maybe it’s because the government can rely on readers of the Daily Mail to point their finger in the wrong direction by giving a job to a Judge when they should have been in a position to do this rather odious task themselves. Wise up Dave they have you eating out of their hand and what’s more they have the cheek to make you and the rest of us pay dearly for that by wasting more of our money by not stopping this going to the High Court in the first place. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 6:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... I do sometimes wonder if you read news articles carefully enough Dave. Yes, it is a disgrace that the state has to pay out £78,000+ to a convicted criminal with such a terrible record. However, the government admitted that he was unlawfully detained i.e. they broke the law. The pay-outs for unlawful imprisonment or detention are calculated by reference to a set of rules in established case law. The Judge had no choice but to follow the law. Do you really think he enjoyed having to do that? The law is the law and he has to apply it whether he likes it or not. If the government wanted to legislate on the maximum that could be awarded then it is free to do so and Judges would have to follow that law. If you were detained unlawfully I expect you would want to be compensated. If there was no sanction then there would be no need for the government to exercise the necessary care. We are fortunate not to live one of those rogue states who lock people up and keep them locked up without due process or redress. And if this man’s victims did not receive enough compensation for the crimes he committed that is down to government policy regarding the limits on the amounts Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can award. The European Court of Human Rights decision, which effectively blocked this man’s deportation, was one which could have been made by that Court before the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 so repealing it will have no effect whatsoever on cases like this. Even if we withdrew from the 1950 Human Rights Convention we would have our own rules substituted and there is no guarantee that other Treaties to which we are a signatory such as the Treaty against Torture would not have prevented this man’s deportation. We simply don’t know enough from this article why it was that he could not be sent back to Somalia. So, whilst I understand your anger and disgust you have chosen the wrong targets for criticism. And I know it is often of concern to you that public funds are expended on such cases. You will note if you read the article carefully that the government admitted “at a late stage” that he had been unlawfully detained for 445 days. These cases are pretty run of the mill and the parties are encouraged to settle out of court because their lawyers are in a position to tell them what the likely outcome would be. It seems that the government have made the tax payer responsible for the legal costs involved in going to court on top of the £78K when it knew it was on a loser. Wonder why that was? Maybe it’s because the government can rely on readers of the Daily Mail to point their finger in the wrong direction by giving a job to a Judge when they should have been in a position to do this rather odious task themselves. Wise up Dave they have you eating out of their hand and what’s more they have the cheek to make you and the rest of us pay dearly for that by wasting more of our money by not stopping this going to the High Court in the first place. Veronica Who drew up the human rights legislation?........Lawyers ;-) ....... Who benefits from such legislation?..........Lawyers *-) ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-12 7:16 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 6:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... I do sometimes wonder if you read news articles carefully enough Dave. Yes, it is a disgrace that the state has to pay out £78,000+ to a convicted criminal with such a terrible record. However, the government admitted that he was unlawfully detained i.e. they broke the law. The pay-outs for unlawful imprisonment or detention are calculated by reference to a set of rules in established case law. The Judge had no choice but to follow the law. Do you really think he enjoyed having to do that? The law is the law and he has to apply it whether he likes it or not. If the government wanted to legislate on the maximum that could be awarded then it is free to do so and Judges would have to follow that law. If you were detained unlawfully I expect you would want to be compensated. If there was no sanction then there would be no need for the government to exercise the necessary care. We are fortunate not to live one of those rogue states who lock people up and keep them locked up without due process or redress. And if this man’s victims did not receive enough compensation for the crimes he committed that is down to government policy regarding the limits on the amounts Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can award. The European Court of Human Rights decision, which effectively blocked this man’s deportation, was one which could have been made by that Court before the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 so repealing it will have no effect whatsoever on cases like this. Even if we withdrew from the 1950 Human Rights Convention we would have our own rules substituted and there is no guarantee that other Treaties to which we are a signatory such as the Treaty against Torture would not have prevented this man’s deportation. We simply don’t know enough from this article why it was that he could not be sent back to Somalia. So, whilst I understand your anger and disgust you have chosen the wrong targets for criticism. And I know it is often of concern to you that public funds are expended on such cases. You will note if you read the article carefully that the government admitted “at a late stage” that he had been unlawfully detained for 445 days. These cases are pretty run of the mill and the parties are encouraged to settle out of court because their lawyers are in a position to tell them what the likely outcome would be. It seems that the government have made the tax payer responsible for the legal costs involved in going to court on top of the £78K when it knew it was on a loser. Wonder why that was? Maybe it’s because the government can rely on readers of the Daily Mail to point their finger in the wrong direction by giving a job to a Judge when they should have been in a position to do this rather odious task themselves. Wise up Dave they have you eating out of their hand and what’s more they have the cheek to make you and the rest of us pay dearly for that by wasting more of our money by not stopping this going to the High Court in the first place. Veronica Who drew up the human rights legislation?........Lawyers ;-) ....... Who benefits from such legislation?..........Lawyers *-) ...... I'm guessing that Constitutional and Administrative law is not your strongest subject. It isn't mine either but at least I know the rudiments Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 6:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... I do sometimes wonder if you read news articles carefully enough Dave. Yes, it is a disgrace that the state has to pay out £78,000+ to a convicted criminal with such a terrible record. However, the government admitted that he was unlawfully detained i.e. they broke the law. The pay-outs for unlawful imprisonment or detention are calculated by reference to a set of rules in established case law. The Judge had no choice but to follow the law. Do you really think he enjoyed having to do that? The law is the law and he has to apply it whether he likes it or not. If the government wanted to legislate on the maximum that could be awarded then it is free to do so and Judges would have to follow that law. If you were detained unlawfully I expect you would want to be compensated. If there was no sanction then there would be no need for the government to exercise the necessary care. We are fortunate not to live one of those rogue states who lock people up and keep them locked up without due process or redress. And if this man’s victims did not receive enough compensation for the crimes he committed that is down to government policy regarding the limits on the amounts Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can award. The European Court of Human Rights decision, which effectively blocked this man’s deportation, was one which could have been made by that Court before the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 so repealing it will have no effect whatsoever on cases like this. Even if we withdrew from the 1950 Human Rights Convention we would have our own rules substituted and there is no guarantee that other Treaties to which we are a signatory such as the Treaty against Torture would not have prevented this man’s deportation. We simply don’t know enough from this article why it was that he could not be sent back to Somalia. So, whilst I understand your anger and disgust you have chosen the wrong targets for criticism. And I know it is often of concern to you that public funds are expended on such cases. You will note if you read the article carefully that the government admitted “at a late stage” that he had been unlawfully detained for 445 days. These cases are pretty run of the mill and the parties are encouraged to settle out of court because their lawyers are in a position to tell them what the likely outcome would be. It seems that the government have made the tax payer responsible for the legal costs involved in going to court on top of the £78K when it knew it was on a loser. Wonder why that was? Maybe it’s because the government can rely on readers of the Daily Mail to point their finger in the wrong direction by giving a job to a Judge when they should have been in a position to do this rather odious task themselves. Wise up Dave they have you eating out of their hand and what’s more they have the cheek to make you and the rest of us pay dearly for that by wasting more of our money by not stopping this going to the High Court in the first place. Excellent post Veronica. I don't know where you find the patience to keep knocking on dead wood though. Pelmet doesn't read articles.....he looks at screechy hyperbole headlines and that's enough fodder for him. If there's a few pretty pictures to look at as well, that's a bonus. If he ever gets banged up there won't be need to worry about 'compo' though......with luck they will forget where the key is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 8:14 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-12 7:16 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 6:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... I do sometimes wonder if you read news articles carefully enough Dave. Yes, it is a disgrace that the state has to pay out £78,000+ to a convicted criminal with such a terrible record. However, the government admitted that he was unlawfully detained i.e. they broke the law. The pay-outs for unlawful imprisonment or detention are calculated by reference to a set of rules in established case law. The Judge had no choice but to follow the law. Do you really think he enjoyed having to do that? The law is the law and he has to apply it whether he likes it or not. If the government wanted to legislate on the maximum that could be awarded then it is free to do so and Judges would have to follow that law. If you were detained unlawfully I expect you would want to be compensated. If there was no sanction then there would be no need for the government to exercise the necessary care. We are fortunate not to live one of those rogue states who lock people up and keep them locked up without due process or redress. And if this man’s victims did not receive enough compensation for the crimes he committed that is down to government policy regarding the limits on the amounts Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can award. The European Court of Human Rights decision, which effectively blocked this man’s deportation, was one which could have been made by that Court before the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 so repealing it will have no effect whatsoever on cases like this. Even if we withdrew from the 1950 Human Rights Convention we would have our own rules substituted and there is no guarantee that other Treaties to which we are a signatory such as the Treaty against Torture would not have prevented this man’s deportation. We simply don’t know enough from this article why it was that he could not be sent back to Somalia. So, whilst I understand your anger and disgust you have chosen the wrong targets for criticism. And I know it is often of concern to you that public funds are expended on such cases. You will note if you read the article carefully that the government admitted “at a late stage” that he had been unlawfully detained for 445 days. These cases are pretty run of the mill and the parties are encouraged to settle out of court because their lawyers are in a position to tell them what the likely outcome would be. It seems that the government have made the tax payer responsible for the legal costs involved in going to court on top of the £78K when it knew it was on a loser. Wonder why that was? Maybe it’s because the government can rely on readers of the Daily Mail to point their finger in the wrong direction by giving a job to a Judge when they should have been in a position to do this rather odious task themselves. Wise up Dave they have you eating out of their hand and what’s more they have the cheek to make you and the rest of us pay dearly for that by wasting more of our money by not stopping this going to the High Court in the first place. Veronica Who drew up the human rights legislation?........Lawyers ;-) ....... Who benefits from such legislation?..........Lawyers *-) ...... I'm guessing that Constitutional and Administrative law is not your strongest subject. It isn't mine either but at least I know the rudiments Dave. What's that got to do with anything? :-S ......... I know when something is plainly wrong......and to give 78k of taxpayer money to a violent thug that shouldn't even be in the country is WRONG on every level >:-( ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-11-12 9:29 PM Excellent post Veronica. I don't know where you find the patience to keep knocking on dead wood though. Pelmet doesn't read articles.....he looks at screechy hyperbole headlines and that's enough fodder for him. If there's a few pretty pictures to look at as well, that's a bonus. If he ever gets banged up there won't be need to worry about 'compo' though......with luck they will forget where the key is. Given that you appear to be unable to grasp a simple graph ;-) ........ I'll take your opinion with a large pinch of salt >:-) ........ BTW I have in the past needed to go to the civil court, I represented myself and won :D ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-13 8:11 AM I know when something is plainly wrong......and to give 78k of taxpayer money to a violent thug that shouldn't even be in the country is WRONG on every level >:-( ........ If the Government felt his sentence was too lenient they could apply to the court and have his sentence increased. Instead of keeping him in jail illegally, and refusing to settle out of court so they landed us with a big bill for legal costs as well. Can't you see the danger in allowing Government officials to hold people in jail without a fair trial? I gather you got fined for speeding. Imagine some official had an obsession against speeding motorists - maybe their child had been knocked down by one - and decided to give you a few years in jail without bothering with the formalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-13 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 8:14 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-12 7:16 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 6:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... I do sometimes wonder if you read news articles carefully enough Dave. Yes, it is a disgrace that the state has to pay out £78,000+ to a convicted criminal with such a terrible record. However, the government admitted that he was unlawfully detained i.e. they broke the law. The pay-outs for unlawful imprisonment or detention are calculated by reference to a set of rules in established case law. The Judge had no choice but to follow the law. Do you really think he enjoyed having to do that? The law is the law and he has to apply it whether he likes it or not. If the government wanted to legislate on the maximum that could be awarded then it is free to do so and Judges would have to follow that law. If you were detained unlawfully I expect you would want to be compensated. If there was no sanction then there would be no need for the government to exercise the necessary care. We are fortunate not to live one of those rogue states who lock people up and keep them locked up without due process or redress. And if this man’s victims did not receive enough compensation for the crimes he committed that is down to government policy regarding the limits on the amounts Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can award. The European Court of Human Rights decision, which effectively blocked this man’s deportation, was one which could have been made by that Court before the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 so repealing it will have no effect whatsoever on cases like this. Even if we withdrew from the 1950 Human Rights Convention we would have our own rules substituted and there is no guarantee that other Treaties to which we are a signatory such as the Treaty against Torture would not have prevented this man’s deportation. We simply don’t know enough from this article why it was that he could not be sent back to Somalia. So, whilst I understand your anger and disgust you have chosen the wrong targets for criticism. And I know it is often of concern to you that public funds are expended on such cases. You will note if you read the article carefully that the government admitted “at a late stage” that he had been unlawfully detained for 445 days. These cases are pretty run of the mill and the parties are encouraged to settle out of court because their lawyers are in a position to tell them what the likely outcome would be. It seems that the government have made the tax payer responsible for the legal costs involved in going to court on top of the £78K when it knew it was on a loser. Wonder why that was? Maybe it’s because the government can rely on readers of the Daily Mail to point their finger in the wrong direction by giving a job to a Judge when they should have been in a position to do this rather odious task themselves. Wise up Dave they have you eating out of their hand and what’s more they have the cheek to make you and the rest of us pay dearly for that by wasting more of our money by not stopping this going to the High Court in the first place. Veronica Who drew up the human rights legislation?........Lawyers ;-) ....... Who benefits from such legislation?..........Lawyers *-) ...... I'm guessing that Constitutional and Administrative law is not your strongest subject. It isn't mine either but at least I know the rudiments Dave. What's that got to do with anything? :-S ......... I know when something is plainly wrong......and to give 78k of taxpayer money to a violent thug that shouldn't even be in the country is WRONG on every level >:-( ........ If you had read what I had written carefully you would see that I agree with you on your last point Dave. On your first, your poor knowledge of the effect of Human Rights legislation led you to believe that this injustice would not have arisen if we got rid of the Human rights Act which as I pointed out was wrong. It is what I learned from reading Dominic Grieve's explanations on this subject. You know the Dominic Grieve QC who got dropped from the Cabinet- probably for being a bit of an expert. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teflon2 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 John52 - 2017-11-13 8:59 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-13 8:11 AM I know when something is plainly wrong......and to give 78k of taxpayer money to a violent thug that shouldn't even be in the country is WRONG on every level >:-( ........ If the Government felt his sentence was too lenient they could apply to the court and have his sentence increased. Instead of keeping him in jail illegally, and refusing to settle out of court so they landed us with a big bill for legal costs as well. Can't you see the danger in allowing Government officials to hold people in jail without a fair trial? I gather you got fined for speeding. Imagine some official had an obsession against speeding motorists - maybe their child had been knocked down by one - and decided to give you a few years in jail without bothering with the formalities. He was not kept in Jail he was in an immigration camp which from the pictures I saw looked like a block of comfortable flats (the picture could be false) perhaps they should deduct rent and council tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-13 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 8:14 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-12 7:16 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 6:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... I do sometimes wonder if you read news articles carefully enough Dave. Yes, it is a disgrace that the state has to pay out £78,000+ to a convicted criminal with such a terrible record. However, the government admitted that he was unlawfully detained i.e. they broke the law. The pay-outs for unlawful imprisonment or detention are calculated by reference to a set of rules in established case law. The Judge had no choice but to follow the law. Do you really think he enjoyed having to do that? The law is the law and he has to apply it whether he likes it or not. If the government wanted to legislate on the maximum that could be awarded then it is free to do so and Judges would have to follow that law. If you were detained unlawfully I expect you would want to be compensated. If there was no sanction then there would be no need for the government to exercise the necessary care. We are fortunate not to live one of those rogue states who lock people up and keep them locked up without due process or redress. And if this man’s victims did not receive enough compensation for the crimes he committed that is down to government policy regarding the limits on the amounts Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can award. The European Court of Human Rights decision, which effectively blocked this man’s deportation, was one which could have been made by that Court before the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 so repealing it will have no effect whatsoever on cases like this. Even if we withdrew from the 1950 Human Rights Convention we would have our own rules substituted and there is no guarantee that other Treaties to which we are a signatory such as the Treaty against Torture would not have prevented this man’s deportation. We simply don’t know enough from this article why it was that he could not be sent back to Somalia. So, whilst I understand your anger and disgust you have chosen the wrong targets for criticism. And I know it is often of concern to you that public funds are expended on such cases. You will note if you read the article carefully that the government admitted “at a late stage” that he had been unlawfully detained for 445 days. These cases are pretty run of the mill and the parties are encouraged to settle out of court because their lawyers are in a position to tell them what the likely outcome would be. It seems that the government have made the tax payer responsible for the legal costs involved in going to court on top of the £78K when it knew it was on a loser. Wonder why that was? Maybe it’s because the government can rely on readers of the Daily Mail to point their finger in the wrong direction by giving a job to a Judge when they should have been in a position to do this rather odious task themselves. Wise up Dave they have you eating out of their hand and what’s more they have the cheek to make you and the rest of us pay dearly for that by wasting more of our money by not stopping this going to the High Court in the first place. Veronica Who drew up the human rights legislation?........Lawyers ;-) ....... Who benefits from such legislation?..........Lawyers *-) ...... I'm guessing that Constitutional and Administrative law is not your strongest subject. It isn't mine either but at least I know the rudiments Dave. What's that got to do with anything? :-S ......... It's too complicated for you to comprehend. Stick to your Beano. pelmetman - 2017-11-13 8:13 AM Bulletguy - 2017-11-12 9:29 PM Excellent post Veronica. I don't know where you find the patience to keep knocking on dead wood though. Pelmet doesn't read articles.....he looks at screechy hyperbole headlines and that's enough fodder for him. If there's a few pretty pictures to look at as well, that's a bonus. If he ever gets banged up there won't be need to worry about 'compo' though......with luck they will forget where the key is. Given that you appear to be unable to grasp a simple graph ;-) ........ That's hilarious coming from someone who contradicts his own posts in the space of one day. BTW I have in the past needed to go to the civil court, I represented myself and won :D ......... Yeah i expect you bored them to death with stories of being a self proclaimed banana boat 'world traveler', some time bus conductor and garden shed pelmet maker to rock star royalty *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-13 10:23 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-13 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 8:14 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-12 7:16 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 6:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... I do sometimes wonder if you read news articles carefully enough Dave. Yes, it is a disgrace that the state has to pay out £78,000+ to a convicted criminal with such a terrible record. However, the government admitted that he was unlawfully detained i.e. they broke the law. The pay-outs for unlawful imprisonment or detention are calculated by reference to a set of rules in established case law. The Judge had no choice but to follow the law. Do you really think he enjoyed having to do that? The law is the law and he has to apply it whether he likes it or not. If the government wanted to legislate on the maximum that could be awarded then it is free to do so and Judges would have to follow that law. If you were detained unlawfully I expect you would want to be compensated. If there was no sanction then there would be no need for the government to exercise the necessary care. We are fortunate not to live one of those rogue states who lock people up and keep them locked up without due process or redress. And if this man’s victims did not receive enough compensation for the crimes he committed that is down to government policy regarding the limits on the amounts Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can award. The European Court of Human Rights decision, which effectively blocked this man’s deportation, was one which could have been made by that Court before the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 so repealing it will have no effect whatsoever on cases like this. Even if we withdrew from the 1950 Human Rights Convention we would have our own rules substituted and there is no guarantee that other Treaties to which we are a signatory such as the Treaty against Torture would not have prevented this man’s deportation. We simply don’t know enough from this article why it was that he could not be sent back to Somalia. So, whilst I understand your anger and disgust you have chosen the wrong targets for criticism. And I know it is often of concern to you that public funds are expended on such cases. You will note if you read the article carefully that the government admitted “at a late stage” that he had been unlawfully detained for 445 days. These cases are pretty run of the mill and the parties are encouraged to settle out of court because their lawyers are in a position to tell them what the likely outcome would be. It seems that the government have made the tax payer responsible for the legal costs involved in going to court on top of the £78K when it knew it was on a loser. Wonder why that was? Maybe it’s because the government can rely on readers of the Daily Mail to point their finger in the wrong direction by giving a job to a Judge when they should have been in a position to do this rather odious task themselves. Wise up Dave they have you eating out of their hand and what’s more they have the cheek to make you and the rest of us pay dearly for that by wasting more of our money by not stopping this going to the High Court in the first place. Veronica Who drew up the human rights legislation?........Lawyers ;-) ....... Who benefits from such legislation?..........Lawyers *-) ...... I'm guessing that Constitutional and Administrative law is not your strongest subject. It isn't mine either but at least I know the rudiments Dave. What's that got to do with anything? :-S ......... I know when something is plainly wrong......and to give 78k of taxpayer money to a violent thug that shouldn't even be in the country is WRONG on every level >:-( ........ If you had read what I had written carefully you would see that I agree with you on your last point Dave. On your first, your poor knowledge of the effect of Human Rights legislation led you to believe that this injustice would not have arisen if we got rid of the Human rights Act which as I pointed out was wrong. It is what I learned from reading Dominic Grieve's explanations on this subject. You know the Dominic Grieve QC who got dropped from the Cabinet- probably for being a bit of an expert. ;-) Well clearly your "expert lawyer"s who drew up the human rights act have got it wrong, or why else would we be allowing scumbags to stay in our country, and giving them 78k to boot *-) ..... BTW hows our wager going, have those Asian scumbags been kicked out yet?.....Or are they still using the human rights act to avoid deportation? >:-) ........ http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rochdale-grooming-gang-jail-deported-13057964 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-11-13 4:11 PM Yeah i expect you bored them to death with stories of being a self proclaimed banana boat 'world traveler', some time bus conductor and garden shed pelmet maker to rock star royalty *-) Cant say I'm surprised that your in favour of this scumbag getting 78K ;-) ........ As you've proved numerous times on here, your only prejudiced against Neo Nazi scumbags >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-14 8:24 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-13 10:23 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-13 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 8:14 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-12 7:16 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-12 6:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-11 7:23 PM John52 - 2017-11-11 6:36 PM So he has served the sentence for his crimes. But then an extra 445 days for what exactly? For being a violent scum bag...... I doubt many of his victims think he served anything like he should have :-| .......and he wont have done because any sentence handed down by our "So called justice system" is automatically halved......unless he's a very very very naughty boy in jail *-) ....... Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't actually be in this country >:-( ....... Any idea how much his victims got in compo?.......It wont be 78K that's for sure *-) ....... ......and another thing......Why don't they allow juries to decide whether he's due some compo, rather than some halo polishing jobsworth of a judge? >:-) ....... I do sometimes wonder if you read news articles carefully enough Dave. Yes, it is a disgrace that the state has to pay out £78,000+ to a convicted criminal with such a terrible record. However, the government admitted that he was unlawfully detained i.e. they broke the law. The pay-outs for unlawful imprisonment or detention are calculated by reference to a set of rules in established case law. The Judge had no choice but to follow the law. Do you really think he enjoyed having to do that? The law is the law and he has to apply it whether he likes it or not. If the government wanted to legislate on the maximum that could be awarded then it is free to do so and Judges would have to follow that law. If you were detained unlawfully I expect you would want to be compensated. If there was no sanction then there would be no need for the government to exercise the necessary care. We are fortunate not to live one of those rogue states who lock people up and keep them locked up without due process or redress. And if this man’s victims did not receive enough compensation for the crimes he committed that is down to government policy regarding the limits on the amounts Criminal Injuries Compensation Board can award. The European Court of Human Rights decision, which effectively blocked this man’s deportation, was one which could have been made by that Court before the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 so repealing it will have no effect whatsoever on cases like this. Even if we withdrew from the 1950 Human Rights Convention we would have our own rules substituted and there is no guarantee that other Treaties to which we are a signatory such as the Treaty against Torture would not have prevented this man’s deportation. We simply don’t know enough from this article why it was that he could not be sent back to Somalia. So, whilst I understand your anger and disgust you have chosen the wrong targets for criticism. And I know it is often of concern to you that public funds are expended on such cases. You will note if you read the article carefully that the government admitted “at a late stage” that he had been unlawfully detained for 445 days. These cases are pretty run of the mill and the parties are encouraged to settle out of court because their lawyers are in a position to tell them what the likely outcome would be. It seems that the government have made the tax payer responsible for the legal costs involved in going to court on top of the £78K when it knew it was on a loser. Wonder why that was? Maybe it’s because the government can rely on readers of the Daily Mail to point their finger in the wrong direction by giving a job to a Judge when they should have been in a position to do this rather odious task themselves. Wise up Dave they have you eating out of their hand and what’s more they have the cheek to make you and the rest of us pay dearly for that by wasting more of our money by not stopping this going to the High Court in the first place. Veronica Who drew up the human rights legislation?........Lawyers ;-) ....... Who benefits from such legislation?..........Lawyers *-) ...... I'm guessing that Constitutional and Administrative law is not your strongest subject. It isn't mine either but at least I know the rudiments Dave. What's that got to do with anything? :-S ......... I know when something is plainly wrong......and to give 78k of taxpayer money to a violent thug that shouldn't even be in the country is WRONG on every level >:-( ........ If you had read what I had written carefully you would see that I agree with you on your last point Dave. On your first, your poor knowledge of the effect of Human Rights legislation led you to believe that this injustice would not have arisen if we got rid of the Human rights Act which as I pointed out was wrong. It is what I learned from reading Dominic Grieve's explanations on this subject. You know the Dominic Grieve QC who got dropped from the Cabinet- probably for being a bit of an expert. ;-) Well clearly your "expert lawyer"s who drew up the human rights act have got it wrong, or why else would we be allowing scumbags to stay in our country, and giving them 78k to boot *-) ..... BTW hows our wager going, have those Asian scumbags been kicked out yet?.....Or are they still using the human rights act to avoid deportation? >:-) ........ http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rochdale-grooming-gang-jail-deported-13057964 I can’t make my mind up Dave whether you really don’t understand what I said about the Human Rights Act or just that you don’t want to understand. There is one further alternative which I must admit is possible and it is that I haven’t explained it very well. So perhaps a link to an article that explains that you are repeating common myths about the Act and its operation rather better and much more fully might help. https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/human-rights-act-mythbuster I do check from time to time whether the Court of Appeal has heard the case on Shabir Ahmed and others but no joy as yet. You may recall that he and three others failed in their original challenge to the decision to deprive them of their citizenship in the lower courts. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-14 8:27 AM Bulletguy - 2017-11-13 4:11 PM Yeah i expect you bored them to death with stories of being a self proclaimed banana boat 'world traveler', some time bus conductor and garden shed pelmet maker to rock star royalty *-) Cant say I'm surprised that your in favour of this scumbag getting 78K ;-) ........ So as you've been asked before, but typically sidestepped replying, if you were unlawfully detained in prison for 445 days, you'd be perfectly ok with that? Hhmmm. As you've proved numerous times on here, your only prejudiced against Neo Nazi scumbags >:-) ... What sort of lowlife twisted mindset could ever support such evil ideology as that? Only recently one 'came out' (in more ways than one) and publicly denounced the evil ideology he'd followed all his adult life. Being gay and having Jewish heritage enabled him to see the lie he'd been living. Time will tell how genuine he is about his 'conversion' though. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/neonazi-and-former-national-front-organiser-quits-far-right-after-revealing-he-is-gay-and-jewish-a3661436.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-11-14 3:42 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-14 8:27 AM Bulletguy - 2017-11-13 4:11 PM Yeah i expect you bored them to death with stories of being a self proclaimed banana boat 'world traveler', some time bus conductor and garden shed pelmet maker to rock star royalty *-) Cant say I'm surprised that your in favour of this scumbag getting 78K ;-) ........ So as you've been asked before, but typically sidestepped replying, if you were unlawfully detained in prison for 445 days, you'd be perfectly ok with that? Hhmmm. As you've proved numerous times on here, your only prejudiced against Neo Nazi scumbags >:-) ... What sort of lowlife twisted mindset could ever support such evil ideology as that? Only recently one 'came out' (in more ways than one) and publicly denounced the evil ideology he'd followed all his adult life. Being gay and having Jewish heritage enabled him to see the lie he'd been living. Time will tell how genuine he is about his 'conversion' though. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/neonazi-and-former-national-front-organiser-quits-far-right-after-revealing-he-is-gay-and-jewish-a3661436.html The far right as you put it don't persecute gays ... Far right heroes as you may want to describe them such as Anne Marie Waters and Milo Yiannopoulos are both openly gay and it doesn't affect the support they have for speaking out against the evils of Islam ... Does the Islamic faith allow open homosexuality ??? ... No it doesn't and you may find yourself thrown from a building as punishment but of course that doesn't seem to upset you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 antony1969 - 2017-11-14 5:00 PM Bulletguy - 2017-11-14 3:42 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-14 8:27 AM Bulletguy - 2017-11-13 4:11 PM Yeah i expect you bored them to death with stories of being a self proclaimed banana boat 'world traveler', some time bus conductor and garden shed pelmet maker to rock star royalty *-) Cant say I'm surprised that your in favour of this scumbag getting 78K ;-) ........ So as you've been asked before, but typically sidestepped replying, if you were unlawfully detained in prison for 445 days, you'd be perfectly ok with that? Hhmmm. As you've proved numerous times on here, your only prejudiced against Neo Nazi scumbags >:-) ... What sort of lowlife twisted mindset could ever support such evil ideology as that? Only recently one 'came out' (in more ways than one) and publicly denounced the evil ideology he'd followed all his adult life. Being gay and having Jewish heritage enabled him to see the lie he'd been living. Time will tell how genuine he is about his 'conversion' though. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/neonazi-and-former-national-front-organiser-quits-far-right-after-revealing-he-is-gay-and-jewish-a3661436.html The far right as you put it don't persecute gays ... Really?? Mr Wilshaw came under abuse from members of his own side when they suspected he was gay. I saw people being abused, shouted at, spat at in the street – it’s not until it’s directed at you that you suddenly realise that what you’re doing is wrong." He admitted it was a "contradiction" for a gay person to be part of the "homophobic" National Front. He also revealed he had written about his hatred of "the Jews" on his National Front application form, despite his mother being Jewish. Mr Wilshaw said he now recognised "that term ‘the Jews’ [as] the global faceless mass of people" is "the generalisation that leads to six million people being deliberately murdered". So not only homophobic but anti-semitic.....two aspects you are regularly keen to denounce when related to anything Islamic or left wing, but prefer ignoring and looking away when it concerns neo-Nazi alt right white supremacy. And whilst you choose to describe those pair as "heroes" to you, they are not to me....you do not speak for me. Because a faith doesn't agree with homosexuality does not mean none of it's followers are not gay. Both Anglican and RC faiths have a long history of disagreeing with it despite many priests and some vicars being gay and same sex marriage has only been legal since 2014. So in that respect it's not that much different for gay Muslims of which there are many...if only you took your blinkers off and quit with your ridiculous hyperbolic inflammatory statements of "throwing people off buildings" when no such thing has ever happened in any western country. Culturally we are all different....but not always in the way you would like it to be. It's not uncommon for men in Egypt to walk holding hands in the street. Gender segregation, which goes to extreme lengths in the more conservative Muslim countries, encourages homosocial behaviour, creating a situation where men are often more comfortable in the presence of other men and where placing a hand on another man’s knee is a sign of friendship, not an invitation to sex. They hug and kiss a lot too and according to a former head of Al-Azhar’s fatwa committee in Egypt, there’s nothing wrong with same-sex kissing so long as there is “no chance for any temptation”. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, men who had been persecuted for their sexuality in Europe often sought refuge in Morocco and, long before same-sex marriage was dreamed of in the west, male-on-male partnerships were recognised – and marked with a ceremony – in the remote Egyptian oasis of Siwa. In some Muslim countries, whole towns have become the butt of jokes about the supposed homosexuality of their inhabitants. Idlib in Syria is one of them; Qazvin in Iran is another. An old joke in Afghanistan is that birds fly over Kandahar with one wing held under their tail – as a precaution. Some bed time reading for you.....you might just learn something. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/21/gay-lgbt-muslim-countries-middle-east Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.