Anjem Choudary finally going down
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 07 Sep 16 10.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Sorry silvertop but from my perspective that is EXACTLY what it is. He has received a fair trial but the sentence does not reflect the harm his preaching has done not only here but across the world... he's a dangerously bad influence to young minds. As Stuk pointed out his refusal to stand in the dock to hear his sentence and his supporters shouting "Alan's Snack Bar" or whatever their rallying cry is shows his utter contempt of our society and effect on other impressionable followers. I don't expect you or others like you to change your minds anytime soon... that is how people like Choudary are able to get away with it for so long, but I'll bet that public pressure will mean this ridiculously short sentence is reviewed and increased to 10 years to act as a proper deterrent to other muslim hate preachers peddling their venomous jihadi dialogue whilst enjoying the lifestyle that the UK affords them, with many actually on huge benefits supporting them and their families! Its a very fine line though between freedom of speech. Sentencing has to be on the strength of the case, and the degree to which the support could be show to be material and contributory, rather than just personal views and idea. Problem of Free Speech, is if you're going to have it, it does mean having to accept speech you find abhorrent, inflammatory and potentially inciteful - rather than actually inciteful. Its just one reason why free speech is bollocks. People really only support it when it 'suits them'
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 wombat84 07 Sep 16 10.48am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Should have hung the c**t.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| silvertop Portishead 07 Sep 16 11.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Sorry silvertop but from my perspective that is EXACTLY what it is. He has received a fair trial but the sentence does not reflect the harm his preaching has done not only here but across the world... he's a dangerously bad influence to young minds. As Stuk pointed out his refusal to stand in the dock to hear his sentence and his supporters shouting "Alan's Snack Bar" or whatever their rallying cry is shows his utter contempt of our society and effect on other impressionable followers. I don't expect you or others like you to change your minds anytime soon... that is how people like Choudary are able to get away with it for so long, but I'll bet that public pressure will mean this ridiculously short sentence is reviewed and increased to 10 years to act as a proper deterrent to other muslim hate preachers peddling their venomous jihadi dialogue whilst enjoying the lifestyle that the UK affords them, with many actually on huge benefits supporting them and their families! Nothing in my post said I supported what he did. Everything I said aggressively advocated our way of life enshrined in fair liberal sentencing. If our security forces and criminal justice system are there to support anything, it is such rights and freedoms built up over millennia that is threatened by the spread of radical Islam. Btw, the call means God is Great and is the Islamic equivalent to, say, amen. That it has been hijacked as a rallying cry for daish [or whatever] and that he did not stand to hear his sentence should have no bearing on the sentence which I understood to be the subject matter of my post. Then again, you are one of the clever posters on this site and I suspect you know both points full well. Indeed, I think you may be trying to tweak my tail you scamp. On topic, Mr Choudary is indeed a c**t. If we can agree on nothing else I suspect we can agree on that.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 16 11.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by wombat84
Should have hung the c**t. We'd have to set the bar for capital punishment really low, we'd be hanging a lot of people.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 16 11.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
Nothing in my post said I supported what he did. Everything I said aggressively advocated our way of life enshrined in fair liberal sentencing. If our security forces and criminal justice system are there to support anything, it is such rights and freedoms built up over millennia that is threatened by the spread of radical Islam. Btw, the call means God is Great and is the Islamic equivalent to, say, amen. That it has been hijacked as a rallying cry for daish [or whatever] and that he did not stand to hear his sentence should have no bearing on the sentence which I understood to be the subject matter of my post. Then again, you are one of the clever posters on this site and I suspect you know both points full well. Indeed, I think you may be trying to tweak my tail you scamp. On topic, Mr Choudary is indeed a c**t. If we can agree on nothing else I suspect we can agree on that. Allah Akbar, simply means god is great. Its part of the call to prayer, and as central to prayer as Amen or Our Father. I don't think you can really make that a 'crime'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 07 Sep 16 12.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Its a very fine line though between freedom of speech. Sentencing has to be on the strength of the case, and the degree to which the support could be show to be material and contributory, rather than just personal views and idea. Problem of Free Speech, is if you're going to have it, it does mean having to accept speech you find abhorrent, inflammatory and potentially inciteful - rather than actually inciteful. Its just one reason why free speech is bollocks. People really only support it when it 'suits them' I think the quote regarding freedom of speech along the lines of "freedom of speech does not protect a man from falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre to cause panic" is a pretty good one.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 07 Sep 16 12.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
We'd have to set the bar for capital punishment really low, we'd be hanging a lot of people. You make that sound like a bad thing.....
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Alexi_the_Eagle Newton-le-Willows 07 Sep 16 12.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by wombat84
Should have hung the c**t. Forget hanging. A bullet in his head would solve everything.
"Look at that. Accident blackspot? These aren't accidents! They're throwing themselves into the road gladly! Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness!" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 07 Sep 16 12.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
Nothing in my post said I supported what he did. Everything I said aggressively advocated our way of life enshrined in fair liberal sentencing. If our security forces and criminal justice system are there to support anything, it is such rights and freedoms built up over millennia that is threatened by the spread of radical Islam. Btw, the call means God is Great and is the Islamic equivalent to, say, amen. That it has been hijacked as a rallying cry for daish [or whatever] and that he did not stand to hear his sentence should have no bearing on the sentence which I understood to be the subject matter of my post. Then again, you are one of the clever posters on this site and I suspect you know both points full well. Indeed, I think you may be trying to tweak my tail you scamp. On topic, Mr Choudary is indeed a c**t. If we can agree on nothing else I suspect we can agree on that. can I ask how you managed to combine fair with "liberal" in a comment about sentencing. Furthermore why should sentencing be Liberal or fair, and who decides (surely not you) what is fair, the respondent of the crime ? the Judge Advocat ? the Jury ? or as is the system at present (clearly unfit for purpose) that gives guidelines on sentencing, i.e. a start point of sorts, that then allows for mitigating or aggravating factors. A system which gives convicted rapists (on average)only 5 years, and yet someone like Choudary who has incited the deaths of weak willed Muslims by getting them all "jihady John" and in kind responsible for the murder of people like Lee Rigby (whose cold bloodied murder he supported by the way) a similar figure. Actually your right it is bloody Liberal and fair, to the criminals not the Victims !
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 16 12.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
can I ask how you managed to combine fair with "liberal" in a comment about sentencing. Furthermore why should sentencing be Liberal or fair, and who decides (surely not you) what is fair, the respondent of the crime ? the Judge Advocat ? the Jury ? or as is the system at present (clearly unfit for purpose) that gives guidelines on sentencing, i.e. a start point of sorts, that then allows for mitigating or aggravating factors. A system which gives convicted rapists (on average)only 5 years, and yet someone like Choudary who has incited the deaths of weak willed Muslims by getting them all "jihady John" and in kind responsible for the murder of people like Lee Rigby (whose cold bloodied murder he supported by the way) a similar figure. Actually your right it is bloody Liberal and fair, to the criminals not the Victims ! Liberal and fair have a vague common ground, in so much as they present the ideology of a trial that is exempt from political or social bias or interference. The Liberal movement, typically is based around the concept of the pragmatic and unbiased, rather than being ideological (not to be mistaken for Liberal Democrats). However the fair trial is not a liberal thing The idea of the fair trial, however isn't a liberal concept. Its basis lies in the Magna Carta, and has been contributed to by both left and right wing politics to establish a concept of what defines a fair trial - Which is for the state to prove, to an random sample of the populace, guilt beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise dismiss charges. So whilst liberals tend to assume they're responsible for the idea of a free and fair trial, its really has its basis in the ideology that justice must be impartial, proportional and above all fairly dispensed. The history of UK law really is about establishing an effective system of determining guilt, rather than being liberal. It long predates liberalism. The importance of ensuring that you have the right person, outweighs ideological arguments of politics. Which is something generally accepted by all parties. Even the more extreme parties tend towards only wanting to 'add certain crimes'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 16 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
can I ask how you managed to combine fair with "liberal" in a comment about sentencing. Furthermore why should sentencing be Liberal or fair, and who decides (surely not you) what is fair, the respondent of the crime ? the Judge Advocat ? the Jury ? or as is the system at present (clearly unfit for purpose) that gives guidelines on sentencing, i.e. a start point of sorts, that then allows for mitigating or aggravating factors. A system which gives convicted rapists (on average)only 5 years, and yet someone like Choudary who has incited the deaths of weak willed Muslims by getting them all "jihady John" and in kind responsible for the murder of people like Lee Rigby (whose cold bloodied murder he supported by the way) a similar figure. Actually your right it is bloody Liberal and fair, to the criminals not the Victims ! There are laws that cover that under Anti-Terrorist legislation - the problem though would be proving that beyond reasonable doubt. Incitement or conspiracy to murder for example (both can carry whole life sentences). Problem is, judicially, its about what you can prove, not who the person is, or what he might be associated to. Slight exception, in that conspiracy cases you have to prove your innocence (which is why people tend to be convicted of conspiracy to cause explosions or conspiracy to facilitate terrorism). So whilst we can all say its because of people like him that Lee Rigby was murdered, in court you have to prove that it was because of his actions that Lee Rigby was murdered. It aint fair, because the guilty tend to walk. But many women can tell you how unfair the law can be.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 16 1.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Alexi_the_Eagle
Forget hanging. A bullet in his head would solve everything. No, what you want, is him to 'hang himself in prison' or be 'killed in an altercation with another Muslim prisoner' or by someone he's 'sexually assaulted' in prison. Plus, now, with five years on his cards, it becomes a lot easier to get further convictions etc. The last thing you want is some martyr.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.