Guest pelmetman Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4998092/Jihadis-returning-Syria-not-prosecuted.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Sounds like a good idea ... What could go wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Typical limp wristed approach to enforcing the law. Why bother passing a law if the judiciary etc are not going to enforce it? Still the poor little misguided diddums will be able to integrate in the society they never joined in the first place. Maybe we should offer them PTSD treatment on the NHS or spend some charity money on the terrorist bas7ards............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 RogerC - 2017-10-19 8:54 PMTypical limp wristed approach to enforcing the law. Why bother passing a law if the judiciary etc are not going to enforce it?Still the poor little misguided diddums will be able to integrate in the society they never joined in the first place. Maybe we should offer them PTSD treatment on the NHS or spend some charity money on the terrorist bas7ards...............I found this earlier article on Max Hill QC, who is not a Judge it seems. It gives a run down on his career at the criminal bar prosecuting terrorists among the other things he has been involved in. I can understand why people are angry, alarmed and fearful but it seems to me that he is likely to be a man who has a better knowledge than most of us about the particular individuals that he recommends are not prosecuted.Nevertheless one could argue that his expertise alone is not good enough to inspire public confidence and that they all should be prosecuted so that the public would know exactly what they had done and be able to understand more about what sentence should be imposed rather than keep them out of the court system. The DM article doesn't deal with what alternatives to prosecution are being applied, if any, and whether there are any measures taken to protect the public. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/interview-britains-new-terror-watchdog-max-hill-getting-justice/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 12:11 PM The DM article doesn't deal with what alternatives to prosecution are being applied, if any, and whether there are any measures taken to protect the public. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/interview-britains-new-terror-watchdog-max-hill-getting-justice/ A short stretch on a bit Chatham hemp would solve the problem with what to do with them :-| ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-10-20 2:13 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 12:11 PM The DM article doesn't deal with what alternatives to prosecution are being applied, if any, and whether there are any measures taken to protect the public. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/interview-britains-new-terror-watchdog-max-hill-getting-justice/ A short stretch on a bit Chatham hemp would solve the problem with what to do with them :-| ....... No decent country executes minors Dave. You should be one of the last people to adopt crazy fundamentalist values of the regimes in places like Iran,Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc etc *-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Juvenile_offenders Mind you if you read the link it seems that the USA also doesn't cover itself in glory on this front. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 3:52 PM pelmetman - 2017-10-20 2:13 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 12:11 PM The DM article doesn't deal with what alternatives to prosecution are being applied, if any, and whether there are any measures taken to protect the public. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/interview-britains-new-terror-watchdog-max-hill-getting-justice/ A short stretch on a bit Chatham hemp would solve the problem with what to do with them :-| ....... No decent country executes minors Dave. You should be one of the last people to adopt crazy fundamentalist values of the regimes in places like Iran,Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc etc *-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Juvenile_offenders Mind you if you read the link it seems that the USA also doesn't cover itself in glory on this front. :-( Minors?.........What minors? ........Are 20 year olds now minors? *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-10-20 6:19 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 3:52 PM pelmetman - 2017-10-20 2:13 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 12:11 PM The DM article doesn't deal with what alternatives to prosecution are being applied, if any, and whether there are any measures taken to protect the public. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/interview-britains-new-terror-watchdog-max-hill-getting-justice/ From my reading the article referred to teenagers who had gone to Syria and |Iraq. The term "minors" in the legal sense relates to under 18s but as we all know there is no bright line that separates the gullibility of some either side of the age of the majority. Veronica A short stretch on a bit Chatham hemp would solve the problem with what to do with them :-| ....... No decent country executes minors Dave. You should be one of the last people to adopt crazy fundamentalist values of the regimes in places like Iran,Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc etc *-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Juvenile_offenders Mind you if you read the link it seems that the USA also doesn't cover itself in glory on this front. :-( Minors?.........What minors? ........Are 20 year olds now minors? *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 6:52 PM pelmetman - 2017-10-20 6:19 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 3:52 PM pelmetman - 2017-10-20 2:13 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 12:11 PM The DM article doesn't deal with what alternatives to prosecution are being applied, if any, and whether there are any measures taken to protect the public. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/interview-britains-new-terror-watchdog-max-hill-getting-justice/ From my reading the article referred to teenagers who had gone to Syria and |Iraq. The term "minors" in the legal sense relates to under 18s but as we all know there is no bright line that separates the gullibility of some either side of the age of the majority. Veronica A short stretch on a bit Chatham hemp would solve the problem with what to do with them :-| ....... No decent country executes minors Dave. You should be one of the last people to adopt crazy fundamentalist values of the regimes in places like Iran,Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc etc *-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Juvenile_offenders Mind you if you read the link it seems that the USA also doesn't cover itself in glory on this front. :-( Minors?.........What minors? ........Are 20 year olds now minors? *-) ........ The article refers to teenagers who went to Iraq and Syria. Whilst the legal definition of a minor in the UK is someone under the age of 18 we all know there is no bright line between the gullibility of an 18 year old and a 20 year old. Where did you get the idea he was speaking of 20 year olds anyway? Read the article again and you will also discover that he relied on the investigations of MI5 into the people that had returned. Seems to me those that MI5 identified as people not warranting a prosecution were most likely to be gullible eejits who probably saw how stupid they had been the moment they landed and found out what ISIL were truly about. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-10-20 7:00 PM The article refers to teenagers who went to Iraq and Syria. Whilst the legal definition of a minor in the UK is someone under the age of 18 we all know there is no bright line between the gullibility of an 18 year old and a 20 year old. Where did you get the idea he was speaking of 20 year olds anyway? Read the article again and you will also discover that he relied on the investigations of MI5 into the people that had returned. Seems to me those that MI5 identified as people not warranting a prosecution were most likely to be gullible eejits who probably saw how stupid they had been the moment they landed and found out what ISIL were truly about. Veronica You call them gullible.......I call them brain washed.......either way they have proved themselves more than capable of murdering innocent people......... They should be locked up .......Not put in some "hug a terrorist" program *-) ....... Sadly our legal excuse merchants polishing their halo's will result in more innocent folk murdered :-| ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiesgrandad Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Barristers are not in business to ensure that justice is served. They are there to win the case for their client, regardless of which side they are on. Their only concern is that they win, and they will destroy any witness, twist and pervert any response, say things which they know to be untrue or say and do anything that will further their cause. They are part of The Establishment and like all the other members of The Establishment they believe that our society's main function is to provide them with the living that they want. It's not a perfect arrangement but for the most part they act reasonably responsibly, and in an imperfect world it is probably as good as it gets. Just don't trust them without question, and don't expect too much. AGD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Blimey a minister who speaks sense 8-) .......... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5006613/Only-way-dealing-UK-jihadis-killing-them.html#newcomment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-10-23 3:49 PM Blimey a minister who speaks sense 8-) .......... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5006613/Only-way-dealing-UK-jihadis-killing-them.html#newcomment Sounds good to me ... Those wets won't like it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Talking of muppets ... Heres yet another Twitter Labour MP muppet ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-41724540 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-10-23 3:49 PM Blimey a minister who speaks sense 8-) .......... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5006613/Only-way-dealing-UK-jihadis-killing-them.html#newcomment I don’t think he could possibly mean killing all the people who had returned to the UK. He referred to “fighters”. We’ve never sanctioned the killing/execution of people who have surrendered except those that were convicted of war crimes at a time when the death penalty could be applied. If there are ISIS fighters who haven’t surrendered in the war zones then by all means pursue them and if they don’t surrender then they can’t complain if they are killed. MI5 had a hand in deciding which if any of the returnees should be prosecuted. I’m all in favour of any prosecution they recommend. I am equally content that their intelligence is the best measure we have of what action is necessary and proportionate, though I don't think even they would claim to be infallible. Your willingness to think you know better than MI5 is a tad disconcerting. I don’t claim to have any better knowledge than you do about the risks posed by these people who have returned but c’mon neither of us can claim to have the full picture. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-10-23 7:42 PM pelmetman - 2017-10-23 3:49 PM Blimey a minister who speaks sense 8-) .......... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5006613/Only-way-dealing-UK-jihadis-killing-them.html#newcomment I don’t think he could possibly mean killing all the people who had returned to the UK. He referred to “fighters”. We’ve never sanctioned the killing/execution of people who have surrendered except those that were convicted of war crimes at a time when the death penalty could be applied. If there are ISIS fighters who haven’t surrendered in the war zones then by all means pursue them and if they don’t surrender then they can’t complain if they are killed. MI5 had a hand in deciding which if any of the returnees should be prosecuted. I’m all in favour of any prosecution they recommend. I am equally content that their intelligence is the best measure we have of what action is necessary and proportionate, though I don't think even they would claim to be infallible. Your willingness to think you know better than MI5 is a tad disconcerting. I don’t claim to have any better knowledge than you do about the risks posed by these people who have returned but c’mon neither of us can claim to have the full picture. Veronica Unfortunately the MI5 has proved fallible :-| ........ If all those 1000's who are on their radar were locked up we know there would be innocent people who would still be alive today *-) ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-10-23 9:01 PM Violet1956 - 2017-10-23 7:42 PM pelmetman - 2017-10-23 3:49 PM Blimey a minister who speaks sense 8-) .......... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5006613/Only-way-dealing-UK-jihadis-killing-them.html#newcomment I don’t think he could possibly mean killing all the people who had returned to the UK. He referred to “fighters”. We’ve never sanctioned the killing/execution of people who have surrendered except those that were convicted of war crimes at a time when the death penalty could be applied. If there are ISIS fighters who haven’t surrendered in the war zones then by all means pursue them and if they don’t surrender then they can’t complain if they are killed. MI5 had a hand in deciding which if any of the returnees should be prosecuted. I’m all in favour of any prosecution they recommend. I am equally content that their intelligence is the best measure we have of what action is necessary and proportionate, though I don't think even they would claim to be infallible. Your willingness to think you know better than MI5 is a tad disconcerting. I don’t claim to have any better knowledge than you do about the risks posed by these people who have returned but c’mon neither of us can claim to have the full picture. Veronica Unfortunately the MI5 has proved fallible :-| ........ If all those 1000's who are on their radar were locked up we know there would be innocent people who would still be alive today *-) ...... Not sure you can be confident that more would not be killed if we locked 3000+ without trial Dave. It's a tricky one. Saving lives has to be the paramount consideration I grant you. How best to do that is a complex issue. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.