Omar Deghayes......re-arrested.....oh really !!

[BigGully]

Ok, that's your opinion and I'm not going to argue.

Just to be clear you are suggested that in the case of terrorism, there should be a special exemption to "guilty until proven innocent" ?

That's quite interesting, from a legal and logistic point of view. I'm interested how you would suggest the courts, police etc.. would handle such a drastic change in the law and whether you would like it to be extended to any other forms of criminality.

One other point because I think I'm missing something. In what way has he been unable to prove his innocence. You seem have a bit more of an insight than I have into the Cuban facility.

We already have detention without charge for up to 30 days and the Government and Police wish to extend it to 42 days exclusively for Terrorist suspects.

So the dynamics for Terrorism is already recognised as something so dangerous that it already works outside the normal legal procedures for other criminal activity.

 

[clapham_gull]

We already have detention without charge for up to 30 days and the Government and Police wish to extend it to 42 days exclusively for Terrorist suspects.

So the dynamics for Terrorism is already recognised as something so dangerous that it already works outside the normal legal procedures for other criminal activity.

The way we deal with terrorists works within the law.

( There is the Belmarsh oddity, where I think a few foreign nationals are locked up because they can't legally be deported )

Good, that's the best way to deal with people wanting to blow us up for a number of reasons.

The fact there are different laws for terrorism in this country is completely irrelevant to what's going on in Cuba.

 

[BigGully]

The way we deal with terrorists works within the law.

( There is the Belmarsh oddity, where I think a few foreign nationals are locked up because they can't legally be deported )

Good, that's the best way to deal with people wanting to blow us up for a number of reasons.

The fact there are different laws for terrorism in this country is completely irrelevant to what's going on in Cuba.

You responded to Arthur by saying:

The right thing to happen if he is suspected of something and there is evidence. is for the authories to prove his guilt the normal way.

Are you suggesting this normal practice should be simply thrown out the window ? There's a direct question.

I explained that with Terror Suspects they already work outside the normal parameters of 'suspected, evidence and trial', so all Political Parties in the UK and the Police have the power to detain without charge for 30 days and wish it to be increased to 42 days.

Its a recognition that Terror Suspects require special measures.

As for Cuba.....missed that one I am afraid.

 

[clapham_gull]

You responded to Arthur by saying:
I explained that with Terror Suspects they already work outside the normal parameters of 'suspected, evidence and trial', so all Political Parties in the UK and the Police have the power to detain without charge for 30 days and wish it to be increased to 42 days.

Wes, within the law and not detained indefinately. Not sure what point you are making.

Do you know where Guantánamo actually is ?

 

[GNF on Tour]

Any damage in Queen Street GNF?

Nope. Although I did feel it, 6.8 was big enough to interrupt the beauty sleep.

 

[e77]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If this bloke or anyone else for that matter is suspected of being a terrorist I don't want him walking the same streets as me/my family until he's proven his innocence....which he clearly hasn't been able to do.

So what if someone is accused of murder? He could hurt you or your family so would you still have him/her locked up indefinitely without any evidence?

 

[Questions]

Birmingham 6
Guilford 4

Potential banana skin there for Birmingham in the cup.

 

[Questions]

As far as I`m concerned if he is suspected of being a Muslim then thats enough to lock him up.

 

[BigGully]

So what if someone is accused of murder? He could hurt you or your family so would you still have him/her locked up indefinitely without any evidence?

Sorry not well thought out..............

If someone is accused of murder and is seen as a continued threat he would be charged without bail until it comes to Court so he is detained.

If the authorities beleive anyone is an immediate danger to the public or individual then they can already be detained.

But of course these decisions must be made on evidence ........ the USA , Britain and now Spain beleive they have the evidence to detain Omar, his supporters dont.

 

[BigGully]

So what if someone is accused of murder? He could hurt you or your family so would you still have him/her locked up indefinitely without any evidence?

Think I owe you an apology as the important point you were making was being detained 'indefinately'.

ermmmmmmmmm sorry !!

 

[Arthur]

One other point because I think I'm missing something. In what way has he been unable to prove his innocence. You seem have a bit more of an insight than I have into the Cuban facility.

Surely if he had been able to prove his innocence then he would have been released, It would have been splashed all over the media, our Government would have stepped in and the Spaniards wouldn't have asked for him to be extradited as soon as his feet hit British soil??

 

[Nibble]

They can hold whomever for whatever reason they make up for however long they want and they don't have to give us a reason or charge the person. Jesus. People don't think we are living in a slave culture? People say we are heading toward a Big Brother state? We are IN IT! When a government can detain whoever it wants without charge or due process then we are already there. If that can happen then they can do whatever they want. This is the UK and US government saying a big "f*** you" to the rest of the world. Hitler did the same thing. A new world order? It is already here.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

of course these decisions must be made on evidence ........ the USA , Britain and now Spain beleive they have the evidence to detain Omar, his supporters dont.

Eh?

Still not acknowledging the FACTS, I see.

He has NOT been detained by the UK authorities. He's back home in Saltdean.

 

[Ernest]

Eh?

Still not acknowledging the FACTS, I see.

He has NOT been detained by the UK authorities. He's back home in Saltdean.

Surely his home is on the Afghan/Pakistan border

 

[cannedheat]

Eh?

Still not acknowledging the FACTS, I see.

He has NOT been detained by the UK authorities. He's back home in Saltdean.

Well I never there is a Saltdean in Libya, the things we learn on NSC.

 

[Porky]

Eh?

Still not acknowledging the FACTS, I see.

He has NOT been detained by the UK authorities. He's back home in Saltdean.

Splitting hairs. Hasn't he been bailed to appear at an extradition hearing? If he had not raised the cash for his surety, he would still be detained.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Splitting hairs. Hasn't he been bailed to appear at an extradition hearing? If he had not raised the cash for his surety, he would still be detained.

I suspect the Save Omar campaign will have raised more than enough money to secure his bail is met.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Splitting hairs. Hasn't he been bailed to appear at an extradition hearing? If he had not raised the cash for his surety, he would still be detained.

The extradition hearing is conducted under the EU arrangements relating to extradition.

As far as the UK anti-terrorism legislation is concerned, he has been released without charge. The arrest under the extradition procedure occurred after his release from the first arrest.

 

[tedebear]

The extradition hearing is conducted under the EU arrangements relating to extradition.

As far as the UK anti-terrorism legislation is concerned, he has been released without charge. The arrest under the extradition procedure occurred after his release from the first arrest.

Just an odd question Lord B. (might be a daft question) but if he hasn't been charged then why would he have been "bailed"...I don't understand when they say that?

 

[BigGully]

The extradition hearing is conducted under the EU arrangements relating to extradition.

As far as the UK anti-terrorism legislation is concerned, he has been released without charge. The arrest under the extradition procedure occurred after his release from the first arrest.

LB it really isnt good enough when you only defense is 'no' 'no' 'no' 'no'

For such an innocent soul he aint half unlucky..........

You switch from one defence to another .......... without any recognition that he looks to be in some serious trouble and he has loads of explaining to do.

I would suspect that the evidence is mounting and it aint no good harping on about conspiracy theories and mistaken identification.