The Year Of The Fox Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19706404 Won't say anything else, I'll only get my wrist slapped by the forum cops.
Guest Bilo Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 I know next to nothing about Babar Ahmed so won't comment on his case, but Abu Hamza won't be missed. A truly vile individual who has already been convicted of soliciting to murder and stirring up racial hatred, as well as costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands. It's unlikely he'll wind up in Gitmo, so the chances of him being tortured or executed are slight. A long prison spell awaits in the US and there our involvement ends. He's not our problem any more.
StanSP Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 I thought you'd finally got control of the TV remote in your own house
The Year Of The Fox Posted 24 September 2012 Author Posted 24 September 2012 I thought you'd finally got control of the TV remote in your own house I have mate, they've gone now! Though the missis has spent the evening catching up on last weeks hollyoaks!
z-layrex Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 Why would anyone slap your wrists for slagging off these stone age cu**s?
The Year Of The Fox Posted 24 September 2012 Author Posted 24 September 2012 Why would anyone slap your wrists for slagging off these stone age cu**s? C Well I wouldnt like to think of hamza going over there for a fair trial if you get me. But yeh there are people on here who would strongly criticise me saying that
StanSP Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 I hope they hang him by his bollocks tbh. And use his own hook?
Guest Bilo Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 How does Abu Hamza wipe his arse? Carefully.
Webbo Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 How does Abu Hamza wipe his arse? Carefully. My kids just asked me the same question and I just gave them the same answer.
21st Century Fox Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 Well he's not getting off the hook so lightly. He'll have to keep one eye open from now on.
Captain... Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 Can't see anyone having a problem with suspected criminals being treated fairly within the law and without their human rights being compromised.
z-layrex Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 Can't see anyone having a problem with suspected criminals being treated fairly within the law and without their human rights being compromised. I dont consider Islamic extremists worthy of human rights because they dont believe in them themselves.
MPH Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 Can't see anyone having a problem with suspected criminals being treated fairly within the law and without their human rights being compromised. You have picked a great person to be using in a human rights post
The Doctor Posted 24 September 2012 Posted 24 September 2012 I dont consider Islamic extremists worthy of human rights because they dont believe in them themselves. By that line of logic UKIP supporters shouldn't have human rights since ours are governed by the EU and the ECHR... I like it, lets go waterboard Farage. Being serious though, I disagree. No-one could really defend these scumbags, but stripping some people of human rights really just makes a mockery of those rights.
Captain... Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 I dont consider Islamic extremists worthy of human rights because they dont believe in them themselves. How about we at least have a trial and a conviction before we start taking away human rights?
Daggers Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 I know next to nothing about Babar Ahmed He's a bitch of an elephant with one motherfvcking big family who all get up to shitloads of fun. (I've been drinking cider).
MPH Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 When was it decided that human rights as defined by the European union were the absolute rule? I do not recognise the authority of someone in another country making up rules that govern my own. Bugs the life out of me. I do believe humans should have rights but i dont think they should be defined by the European Union and i do not agree with their definition, nor peoples interpretation of them that someone inciting mass murder should not be prosecuted for it or held prior to trial because the consequences therof could 'violate his human rights' Thats such a bunch of crap. I see America's ( and ours) right to hold people accountable for their actions as of equal importance. As Cap Shrap had made the point lets have a trial and conviction before taking away human rights.... what he is also saying then is anyone accused of any crime should not be held in remand as they are innocent until proven guilty. Ok so lets release all the suspected murders, and rapists until their trial no matter how strong the evidence is as they are 'innocent until proven guilty' Wouldnt want to infringe their human rights now would be. They cant be defined as being dangerous to society as they are 'innocent until Proven guilty' Slightly pedantic of me but im sure you get my point... ( oh and lets just hope they all turn up for trial too!).
Captain... Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 When was it decided that human rights as defined by the European union were the absolute rule? I do not recognise the authority of someone in another country making up rules that govern my own. Bugs the life out of me. I do believe humans should have rights but i dont think they should be defined by the European Union and i do not agree with their definition, nor peoples interpretation of them that someone inciting mass murder should not be prosecuted for it or held prior to trial because the consequences therof could 'violate his human rights' Thats such a bunch of crap. I see America's ( and ours) right to hold people accountable for their actions as of equal importance. As Cap Shrap had made the point lets have a trial and conviction before taking away human rights.... what he is also saying then is anyone accused of any crime should not be held in remand as they are innocent until proven guilty. Ok so lets release all the suspected murders, and rapists until their trial no matter how strong the evidence is as they are 'innocent until proven guilty' Wouldnt want to infringe their human rights now would be. They cant be defined as being dangerous to society as they are 'innocent until Proven guilty' Slightly pedantic of me but im sure you get my point... ( oh and lets just hope they all turn up for trial too!). That is not what I said, unless I have been posting in my sleep, the European court of human rights is largely concerned about torture, slavery, freedom of expression etc, and this case and the other one that got so many knickers in a twist, is about whether a human being should be extradited to a country where they face a risk of being tortured, or detained indefinitely without trial. There is plenty of evidence that people in Guantanamo Bay are there without trial, are being tortured, and have had no trial and expect non, this is illegal. Nobody has any problem with a criminal being arrested, detained until trial, tried, and if convicted punished. What I and you should object to, is people being picked up by the US in a highly illegal practice of extraordinary rendition, thrown in a torture camp, kept there until they confess, and then tried based on that confession. You may not agree with the European Court of Human Rights' definition of human rights, but I suspect it is more because you don't understand them, and criminals try and hide behind them, but largely fail to do so, this doesn't stop the trashy newspapers getting hold of it and making a big song and dance about it. Euroscepticism is fine, but this is not some dictatorial draconian rule, these are provisions to ensure we have the basic human rights and these cannot be taken away by our own government for their own political gains.
The Doctor Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 When was it decided that human rights as defined by the European union were the absolute rule? I do not recognise the authority of someone in another country making up rules that govern my own. Bugs the life out of me. Well, so long as we're signatories to it, we're kind of tied to adhering to the ECHR. I do believe humans should have rights but i dont think they should be defined by the European Union and i do not agree with their definition, nor peoples interpretation of them that someone inciting mass murder should not be prosecuted for it or held prior to trial because the consequences therof could 'violate his human rights' Thats such a bunch of crap. And, despite what the more moronic section of the press say, that's not the case. Mass murder is still a crime, you still face trial and prosecution for inciting it etc. - Human rights simply mean the right to a fair trial and the right to not be tortured. As Cap Shrap had made the point lets have a trial and conviction before taking away human rights.... what he is also saying then is anyone accused of any crime should not be held in remand as they are innocent until proven guilty. Ok so lets release all the suspected murders, and rapists until their trial no matter how strong the evidence is as they are 'innocent until proven guilty' Wouldnt want to infringe their human rights now would be. They cant be defined as being dangerous to society as they are 'innocent until Proven guilty' Slightly pedantic of me but im sure you get my point... ( oh and lets just hope they all turn up for trial too!). Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean you can't be taken in and held awaiting trial - it simply means you need to have a trial and be proven guilty prior to facing punishment.
purpleronnie Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 I dont consider Islamic extremists worthy of human rights because they dont believe in them themselves. so you believe in an eye for an eye? irony.
Captain... Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 so you believe in an eye for an eye? irony. Irony for an irony?
Guest MattP Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 Great news, hope every promise they have made goes out the window and they start sticking ice picks in his balls when he gets there. The real tragedy is the British taxpayer actually paid for this guy to live for years, should never be forgotten.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.