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

[Buzzer]

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.

Bloody hell BigGully. You didn't last very long on the non-muslim/Omar themes did you? Can't believe this is still thundering on.

I'd say that your last statement by the way is about as based in fact as the rest of your evidence which is very little other than hearsay and guilt by association (and mistaken identity). If the US authorities can't find evidence in 5 years why would the British or Spanish suddenly have some?

Let's face facts. You don't want Omar here. You think he's a bit dodgy but have no evidence to back it up. Unfortunately for you there's sod all you can do about it but you just keep going on about him having to explain himself. But....He doesn't have to do anything. It's up to the authorities to prove his guilt. It's been the bedrock of British Justice for 800 odd years and hasn't done us too badly.

You're the NSC equivalent of the Daily Express on the Diana conspiracies.

So.....I'll ask again. Cox or Fraser to start? Is Bas going?

 

[BigGully]

Bloody hell BigGully. You didn't last very long on the non-muslim/Omar themes did you? Can't believe this is still thundering on.

I'd say that your last statement by the way is about as based in fact as the rest of your evidence which is very little other than hearsay and guilt by association (and mistaken identity). If the US authorities can't find evidence in 5 years why would the British or Spanish suddenly have some?

Let's face facts. You don't want Omar here. You think he's a bit dodgy but have no evidence to back it up. Unfortunately for you there's sod all you can do about it but you just keep going on about him having to explain himself. But....He doesn't have to do anything. It's up to the authorities to prove his guilt. It's been the bedrock of British Justice for 800 odd years and hasn't done us too badly.

You're the NSC equivalent of the Daily Express on the Diana conspiracies.

So.....I'll ask again. Cox or Fraser to start? Is Bas going?

Buzzer.....you really gotta sort yourself out mate.......

The reason we are discussing Omar is ermmmmmmmmmm because this is that thread...........

You see the reason we are all debating this is because as yet NONE of us are in receipt of many facts................. pretty healthy discussion I reckon.

You yourself have decided not to join in much ...... and on this submission that might be a very good idea ...... it aint good ..... and I await your childish rant on your reply .....

Do I want Omar here ..... absolutely not if he is implicated Terror Activities .... reasonable enough I reckon ?



Now as for Cox or Frazer ............... in the medium term the decision is not between them two..... as Fraser is more a natural central mid fielder whilst Cox is a more natural wide player

So I am afraid your argument is once again flawed.

 

[Buzzer]

I can assure you (once again) that my post was NOT a rant. And the reason I posted about it is because it's all you seem to post about.

You really have a very big opinion of yourself don't you? Deigning to give us all your wisdom....telling me to butt out of it when you acknowledge yourself that you haven't a scoobies about what's right or wrong. And posting a smilie after it doesn't stop you from being patronising or boring.

Where exactly in my post stating:

a) you are not aware of the facts
b) you don't like him
c) there's nothing you can do about it
d) we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty
e) the americans spent 5 years finding NOTHING on him ergo why would the British and Spanish all of a sudden have something?

is my argument flawed?

Or childish?

As I see it, you're the one resorting to name-calling.

Seriously...this is about the level of your arguments.

So why do I have to sort myself out? I'm not the one getting my knickers in a tizzy about all this.


Merry xmas by the way

 

[BigGully]

I can assure you (once again) that my post was NOT a rant. And the reason I posted about it is because it's all you seem to post about.

You really have a very big opinion of yourself don't you? Deigning to give us all your wisdom....telling me to butt out of it when you acknowledge yourself that you haven't a scoobies about what's right or wrong. And posting a smilie after it doesn't stop you from being patronising or boring.

Where exactly in my post stating:

a) you are not aware of the facts
b) you don't like him
c) there's nothing you can do about it
d) we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty
e) the americans spent 5 years finding NOTHING on him ergo why would the British and Spanish all of a sudden have something?

is my argument flawed?

Or childish?

As I see it, you're the one resorting to name-calling.

Seriously...this is about the level of your arguments.

So why do I have to sort myself out? I'm not the one getting my knickers in a tizzy about all this.


Merry xmas by the way

I told you trying to compare Fraser and Cox ...... massive flaw.

Merry Christmas

 

[Lord Bracknell]

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.

Since you aim this nonsense directly at me, I guess I'll comment - although the point has already been made by others.

He has no explaining to do, because he's not been charged with anything. He has been released by the UK authorities, with no charges to face.

An application for his extradition to Spain has been made, but no charges have been specified. The "evidence" isn't mounting - because not a shred of it has been aired. Since UK courts are quite quick to remand people in custody if it looks like that there is a serious case to answer, it looks to me like there isn't.

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?

Simple. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, there's no requirement for a person to be charged. Bail is simply a legally enforceable arrangement that requires an individual to present themselves to the court or police at some time in the future.

 

[tedebear]

Simple. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, there's no requirement for a person to be charged. Bail is simply a legally enforceable arrangement that requires an individual to present themselves to the court or police at some time in the future.

Thanks - I didn't know that....You learn something every day!

 

[cjd]

Just out of interest...........does this mean that someone has had to guarantee a certain amount of money , as bail.....?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Just out of interest...........does this mean that someone has had to guarantee a certain amount of money , as bail.....?

In this instance, yes. Vanessa Redgrave came forward.



Cue more claims of guilt by association.

 

[cjd]

In this instance, yes. Vanessa Redgrave came forward.



Cue more claims of guilt by association.

Thankyou Lord B.

May I ask how much the bail was, for this apparently, simple legal enforcement arrangement for him to present himself at a court, or to the police at some time in the future...?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Thankyou Lord B.

May I ask how much the bail was, for this apparently, simple legal enforcement arrangement for him to present himself at a court, or to the police at some time in the future...?

£50,000 according to the Guardian.

 

[cjd]

£50,000 according to the Guardian.

Thankyou again Lord B.

£50,000 seems a lot of money, if the only evidence the Spanish have, is a long since, dis-credited Chechyan video.
Hope he doesn,t decide to go on holday to Afghanistan again...LOL.

 

[Porky]

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.

Lord B. you are the master of semantics. You must have gone to the same school as Bill Clinton, who, during the questioning about his White House fellatio said,"It depends what the definition of IS is"

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Lord B. you are the master of semantics. You must have gone to the same school as Bill Clinton, who, during the questioning about his White House fellatio said,"It depends what the definition of IS is"

BigGully was still claiming (this morning) that Britain believed there was "evidence to detain Omar". I pointed out that Britain had released Omar.

I grant you that there is a semantic issue here. It does, indeed, depend on what the definition of 'DETAIN' is. My point is that 'DETAIN' means something slightly different from 'RELEASE'.

If you feel that the two words are barely distinguishable, then fair enough.

 

[e77]

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.

Where were there challenged of murder?

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

SPAIN DROPS EXTRADITION BID FOR GUANTANAMO TWO
By Chris Greenwood, Matt Williams and David Barrett, PA
Former Guantanamo Bay detainees Jamil el-Banna and Omar Deghayes no longer face
extradition to Spain to face terrorist charges, their solicitor said today.
Spanish authorities have dropped their bid to extradite the two men to face
terrorist charges linked to claims that they were members of an al Qaida cell.
Their representative Gareth Peirce said a hearing will take place at City of
Westminster Magistrates' Court later today to formally end legal proceedings.
mf

061616 MAR 08

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Birmingham 6
Guilford 4

That must have been a cracker of a game.

 

[bhaexpress]

Spanish Intelligence ....... Isn't that an oxymoron ?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Spanish Intelligence ....... Isn't that an oxymoron ?

Racist

 

[Lord Bracknell]

SPAIN DROPS EXTRADITION BID FOR GUANTANAMO TWO
By Chris Greenwood, Matt Williams and David Barrett, PA
Former Guantanamo Bay detainees Jamil el-Banna and Omar Deghayes no longer face
extradition to Spain to face terrorist charges, their solicitor said today.
Spanish authorities have dropped their bid to extradite the two men to face
terrorist charges linked to claims that they were members of an al Qaida cell.
Their representative Gareth Peirce said a hearing will take place at City of
Westminster Magistrates' Court later today to formally end legal proceedings.
mf

061616 MAR 08

What I said earlier.

 

[Buzzer]

What I said earlier.

Quite.

Seems that Omar has absolutely no explaining to do. So much for the "no smoke without fire" guff by certain posters on this thread.