Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Friend or faux wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 1:26 pm Quite a few well informed bods are saying she is more dangerous where she is now, than in the UK where she could be closely scrutinised. I would suggest a nice hotel placement in the constituency of Christchurch ( my favourite bête noire ) is the honourable (?) member.

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:53 pm

Yanzi Gravy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:42 pm

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:14 am

What legal basis are you asserting this on?

Many of the other high court cases where the judiciary are on the side of the common man, the law is cast aside for common sense. The just stop the oils cases for example is a classic example. Ok the protesters smash the glass which was like bull it proof and bespoke for the bank but the protesters go and bought the centre punch ( some people would not know the meaning these days) and knew how to use it to criminal damage the thick glass. The law judges saw this differently . The judges discharged the case. The McDonald’s two case similarly cost the m Donald’s Two nothing despite losing the trial but cost thre Hamburger giant as Michael Mansfield is a top exert lawyer. Michael fights of those without a voice.

You haven’t stated a legal basis, also…..

The ER protestors were found not guilty in a crown court jury trial not the Supreme Court

The McLibel case was a civil case ruled on in the high court not the Supreme Court and they ruled against the respondents

It’s a tuff#1 one but, on balance, I’m going to go with the unanimous court of appeal board of judges over your legal knowledge.

Yanzi Gravy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 4:44 pm

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:53 pm

Yanzi Gravy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:42 pm

Many of the other high court cases where the judiciary are on the side of the common man, the law is cast aside for common sense. The just stop the oils cases for example is a classic example. Ok the protesters smash the glass which was like bull it proof and bespoke for the bank but the protesters go and bought the centre punch ( some people would not know the meaning these days) and knew how to use it to criminal damage the thick glass. The law judges saw this differently . The judges discharged the case. The McDonald’s two case similarly cost the m Donald’s Two nothing despite losing the trial but cost thre Hamburger giant as Michael Mansfield is a top exert lawyer. Michael fights of those without a voice.

You haven’t stated a legal basis, also…..

The ER protestors were found not guilty in a crown court jury trial not the Supreme Court

The McLibel case was a civil case ruled on in the high court not the Supreme Court and they ruled against the respondents

It’s a tuff#1 one but, on balance, I’m going to go with the unanimous court of appeal board of judges over your legal knowledge.

The court where these cases are heard are immaterial. It is the change in the once ‘establishment old school tie stiff upper lip attitudes ‘ that matter. Look at the judge this week let the women convicted of displaying the hang gliders on their jackets during the pro Palestinian March , walk free with leniency. This judge is a Transgender Judge but oh no, not an ordinary judge transgender. She was transgender before it became headline news and talked about , Oxford educated as well and a shining rising star in her own right, written books, a clever and knowledgeable lady who incidentally is wedded to a lady of equal academic brilliance. This Judge is also a psychologist , absolutely talented and is unlike some of these politicians these days, actually in the real world .

As for the legal basis, my Readers Digest Home Law Book does not entitle me to legal audience with a high court judge but I say this, I have already heard the Begum’s legal team indicating they will approach a fresh appeal from a completely different angle and why blame them if they are fighting for her justice? She has served a life sentence at a young age and can provide valuable information to the likes of M15/16

LittleMate wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 7:22 pm

Yanzi Gravy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 4:44 pm

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:53 pm

You haven’t stated a legal basis, also…..

The ER protestors were found not guilty in a crown court jury trial not the Supreme Court

The McLibel case was a civil case ruled on in the high court not the Supreme Court and they ruled against the respondents

It’s a tuff#1 one but, on balance, I’m going to go with the unanimous court of appeal board of judges over your legal knowledge.

The court where these cases are heard are immaterial. It is the change in the once ‘establishment old school tie stiff upper lip attitudes ‘ that matter. Look at the judge this week let the women convicted of displaying the hang gliders on their jackets during the pro Palestinian March , walk free with leniency. This judge is a Transgender Judge but oh no, not an ordinary judge transgender. She was transgender before it became headline news and talked about , Oxford educated as well and a shining rising star in her own right, written books, a clever and knowledgeable lady who incidentally is wedded to a lady of equal academic brilliance. This Judge is also a psychologist , absolutely talented and is unlike some of these politicians these days, actually in the real world .

As for the legal basis, my Readers Digest Home Law Book does not entitle me to legal audience with a high court judge but I say this, I have already heard the Begum’s legal team indicating they will approach a fresh appeal from a completely different angle and why blame them if they are fighting for her justice? She has served a life sentence at a young age and can provide valuable information to the likes of M15/16

Why would (a) she want to co-operate with our intelligent services and (b) how much reliance would we really put on that intelligence. She's been out of the loop for a while and any intelligence is likely to be of little value.

Its sad the way some peoples lives play out but everyone chooses a course. She made her bed a long time ago - at an age her religion believes she is adult enough to make that decision - and today she lays in that bed. If any government of ours believes my children are safer without her in this country then who am I to disagree.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:18 pm To be honest, not surprised to hear people are avoiding you.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:19 pm We've all done stupid things as teenagers.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:19 pm We've all done stupid things as teenagers.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:51 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:48 am

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:41 am

Of course they should be tried in that country. However, as far as we're aware, there's no evidence that she has committed any crimes in Syria - she's at present living in a refugee camp.

We imprison foreign nationals here in the UK for crimes committed in the UK. And then in many cases we deport those foreign nationals back to their country of origin.

So hypothetically, if SB is tried and convicted in Syria, serves her sentence, where should Syria deport her to?

Here, once her sentence finishes.

Or Bangladesh. Whats the reason she doesnt have citizenship there again? Because they dont want anything to do with her either.

This. I’ve just been reading that she has/had dual citizenship with Bangladesh so the UK revoking her citizenship has not made her stateless.

E10EU wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:33 pm What a cop out from the Court of Appeal!
Seems that they didn't actually explore and evaluate the circumstances and evidence etc, but simply determined that Javid as Home Secretary made the decision and they assumed that he had explored all the details and whatever, so it is in his power to make the decision he did.
So .... one individual man was allowed such extreme power which seems to endorse party politics as more important than any other considerations.
Off with her head.
Despite the fact that she has never been charged with an offence in a British court, so even now she has never been tried and convicted!
And if that wasn't enough ....
.
FFS: she was a 15 year old child!

LittleMate wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 8:28 pm

E10EU wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:33 pm What a cop out from the Court of Appeal!
Seems that they didn't actually explore and evaluate the circumstances and evidence etc, but simply determined that Javid as Home Secretary made the decision and they assumed that he had explored all the details and whatever, so it is in his power to make the decision he did.
So .... one individual man was allowed such extreme power which seems to endorse party politics as more important than any other considerations.
Off with her head.
Despite the fact that she has never been charged with an offence in a British court, so even now she has never been tried and convicted!
And if that wasn't enough ....
.
FFS: she was a 15 year old child!

She was being led at the time by he cultural and not her nations beliefs.

In Muslim culture, the transition from being considered a girl to a woman is often associated with reaching the age of puberty. This is based on Islamic teachings that define puberty as the point of maturity, or "bulugh," marking a person's responsibility for their religious duties and moral conduct. The exact age at which puberty is reached can vary among individuals, but it is generally recognized to occur around the ages of 9 to 15.

She can't have it both ways. I think that if I had to err on the side of caution then I'd exclude her too. She might not be dangerous; she may have been a child in law - but she could be dangerous and she did know what she was doing.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:43 am Have you tried make up and a baseball cap?