Two guilty of Lee Rigby murder.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

"He should probabkly have been prevented form making his 'protest' after being convicted", he absolutely should have been prevented, it now sets a precedent.

 

It gives the opportunity to put something in place to prevent it happening again

 

No reason to have any religious text in a court of law, especially when being charged with such a heinious crime.

 

To somone who is religious there is every reason..you want to (for example) deny an innocent defendent the opportunity to seek comfort in their religious text before a verdict is delivered? Not all Muslims who get put on trial are guilty as charged so it's absolutely right that they should be able to seek comfort foerm their holy book and observe their religious practices

 

Nothing to do with religious freedom but the precedent of taking anything into court is wrong....where does it stop.

 

The law says where it stops..you wouln't be allowed to take a knife in for example just cos you wanted to

 

Handcuffs are a means of shackling, an appropriate extra restraint to stop this or any other obscene gesture is required.

 

Well I took shackles as meaning chains etc. You want to shackle people who have not (yet) been found guilty, indeed shackle the innocent?

 

Printed in black and white, no reason to not believe it.

 

I didn't say he hadn't said it I just found it odd that suddenly you belive what he's said. He's a criminal, a murderer and a liar but you want to believe that? I have no idea if it's true or not and see it as an irrelevance

 

If it was bought into law then people who come to the UK would know what the outcome will be if similar atrocities are committed.

 

I agree but you are telling me that you want to deport innocent people or at least people (including British citizens) not convicted of any crime..I find that astonishing. Plus you mentioned people born here not just people who come here

 

There has to be as fundamental change to crimes wanting martyrdom of this kind.

 

Not at the expense of the fundamentals of our laws..like punishing those not proven to have committed any crime

 

Do that and we become a worse place..we lose and they have a victory

 

Now you are talking drivel and not worth commenting on.

 

You talk of precadent..if it's Ok to have the deterrent to deport British citizens cos of the crime of a relative they might not know to the country where some distant relative they may never have known came from then why not have the deterrent that if you commit a heinous crime then your dad, mum, granddad, grandma etc could be punished as well as you as the perpetrator? If it's about deterrent then why not? Surely having that deterrent is good

if it prevents someone's son/nephew etc from committing a murder?

 

Surely if some distant relative of yours committed a heinous crime you should be locked up too cos you might have known about it and not said anything? Why does it stop at people with 'foreign' connections?

[Paul6754]

It gives the opportunity to put something in place to prevent it happening again

 

Too late, better being proactive than reactive.

 

To somone who is religious there is every reason..you want to (for example) deny an innocent defendent the opportunity to seek comfort in their religious text before a verdict is delivered? Not all Muslims who get put on trial are guilty as charged so it's absolutely right that they should be able to seek comfort foerm their holy book and observe their religious practices

 

Better for them to live as religious law abiding people but they should understand, whatever their religion, that if in court for murder there is no hiding behind/seeking comfort from any religious book. Religion has nothing to do with the law.

 

 

 

The law says where it stops..you wouln't be allowed to take a knife in for example just cos you wanted to

 

So a paedo taking in a Barbie would be OK with you then?

 

 

 

Well I took shackles as meaning chains etc. You want to shackle people who have not (yet) been found guilty, indeed shackle the innocent?

 

Handcuffs and any other restraint that prevents a grotesque gesture as in this case.

 

 

 

I didn't say he hadn't said it I just found it odd that suddenly you belive what he's said. He's a criminal, a murderer and a liar but you want to believe that? I have no idea if it's true or not and see it as an irrelevance

 

If he didn't mean it then he shouldn't say it, he's in a court of law.

 

 

 

I agree but you are telling me that you want to deport innocent people or at least people (including British citizens) not convicted of any crime..I find that astonishing. Plus you mentioned people born here not just people who come here

 

Yes, there has to be a fundamental change in the law to help stop this type of event/Jihad happening again. A big part of the solution has to come from within the muslim community and there has to be consequences to encourage them to do this

 

Not at the expense of the fundamentals of our laws..like punishing those not proven to have committed any crime

 

Change the law for jihad/martydom

 

Do that and we become a worse place..we lose and they have a victory

 

We are losing now to these radicals, how can preventing some of the recent muslim sponsored atrocities be seen as detrimental to UK society. You should read about the effects of Islam on the Coptics in Egypt and Christians in Turkey.

 

 

 

You talk of precadent..if it's Ok to have the deterrent to deport British citizens cos of the crime of a relative they might not know to the country where some distant relative they may never have known came from then why not have the deterrent that if you commit a heinous crime then your dad, mum, granddad, grandma etc could be punished as well as you as the perpetrator? If it's about deterrent then why not? Surely having that deterrent is good

if it prevents someone's son/nephew etc from committing a murder?

 

I don't understand this paragraph.

 

 

 

Surely if some distant relative of yours committed a heinous crime you should be locked up too cos you might have known about it and not said anything? Why does it stop at people with 'foreign' connections?

 

I'm suggesting close relatives and any relative where there's evidence of being involved/interested in Jihad.

[For Us All]

Nice to see that our licence payers money is being well spent? :rolleyes:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/radical-preacher-anjem-choudary-not-deserving-of-bbc-time-9018878.html

[Warren]

The slightly plausible defence is that they attacked a soldier and represented people at war with the UK as they see it. We argue they are murderers and if not that terrorists. But our ethical authority and indeed upholding international law is only achieved if the soldier who executed the Afghan on camera is dealt with to the full extent of the law. His defence is a claim of mental anguish and we view him as having more of a case they these two individuals. But is that right, probably not. So if these two murderers feel the full force of the law and life imprisonment then the soldier who killed the Afghan should be on the same tariff at least even if the two different situations warrant some different handling.

[Guppy 4 England]

The slightly plausible defence is that they attacked a soldier and represented people at war with the UK as they see it. We argue they are murderers and if not that terrorists. But our ethical authority and indeed upholding international law is only achieved if the soldier who executed the Afghan on camera is dealt with to the full extent of the law. His defence is a claim of mental anguish and we view him as having more of a case they these two individuals. But is that right, probably not. So if these two murderers feel the full force of the law and life imprisonment then the soldier who killed the Afghan should be on the same tariff at least even if the two different situations warrant some different handling.

 

Waffling warren strikes again.

 

Don't worry though three hot meals a day , a prayer room, PlayStation , pool table and a bed to sleep on, hardly a prison sentence .

 

Idiots we are in this country proven by warrens post who tried to make an excuse for their behaviour. Just string them up by the balls and let lee rigbys family beat them until they are dead, at least they will feel some sort of justice.

[Andyregs]

One of them kissed the Koran and raised his hands in the air at the verdict, presumably in triumph as he wanted martyrdom. WTF was he doing with a Koran in a British court and why wasn't he shackled in chains when the verdict was read out.

 

All their families for 5 generations back should be deported from the UK (even those born in the UK) to whichever country the first one of them came. There has to be significant deterrent to this type of behaviour and its clear that life in jail or the noose is insufficient. If the perpetrators of such crimes knew their relatives were going to suffer then it would make the perpetrators think even more and give an incentive to close family members to inform the authorities of radicalization/radical behavior.

 

Either you are allowed any religious text or none. I can't see why any are needed at sentencing, in the same way other books are probably not allowed. However whether the Koran, bible, Torah or whatever, doesn't make a difference. The second half is nonsense and once again someone arguing to make life worse for everyone in a hysterical reaction. I don't even know my family 5 generations back! And why would those countries accept criminals born in the Uk? This idea takes civilisations back literally thousands of years to the ridiculous 'sins of the father'. Why do we always have people desperate to push our civilisation back to the dark ages because of the acts of one or two evil people. Just lock them up for life, and let everyone get on with their lives with the freedoms they deserve.

[For Us All]

Waffling warren strikes again.

 

Don't worry though three hot meals a day , a prayer room, PlayStation , pool table and a bed to sleep on, hardly a prison sentence .

 

Idiots we are in this country proven by warrens post who tried to make an excuse for their behaviour. Just string them up by the balls and let lee rigbys family beat them until they are dead, at least they will feel some sort of justice.

 

......and probably allowed to preach their views to others in prison.

[Paul6754]

The second half is nonsense and once again someone arguing to make life worse for everyone in a hysterical reaction.

 

Not hysterical at all, based on the logic that a major part of the solution to Jihad/radicals/martyrdom in the UK has to come from within the muslim community itself. An incentive to them is needed, positive or negative, to actually get muslims to do something about it not just talk. How is reducing/preventing terrorists attacks on innocent people making life worse for everyone?

 

I don't even know my family 5 generations backAnd why would those countries accept criminals born in the Uk? This idea takes civilisations back literally thousands of years to the ridiculous 'sins of the father'. Why do we always have people desperate to push our civilisation back to the dark ages because of the acts of one or two evil people. Just lock them up for life, and let everyone get on with their lives with the freedoms they deserve.

 

Perhaps 5 generations is pushing it but 3 or 4 is certainly workable. The increasing influence of Islam and muslims is taking UK civilization back to the dark ages, it isn't a result of these two evil people but include the London/Exeter bombings etc and all the other countless potentially heinous murderous events that have been prevented by the security services.

 

It may not have struck you but the strategy of lock them up and throw away the key is not working and will not work, additional deterrents need to be put in place and into law. The question about offspring born to immigrants in the UK is doable if bought into law.

[Andyregs]

Not hysterical at all, based on the logic that a major part of the solution to Jihad/radicals/martyrdom in the UK has to come from within the muslim community itself. An incentive to them is needed, positive or negative, to actually get muslims to do something about it not just talk. How is reducing/preventing terrorists attacks on innocent people making life worse for everyone?

 

 

 

Perhaps 5 generations is pushing it but 3 or 4 is certainly workable. The increasing influence of Islam and muslims is taking UK civilization back to the dark ages, it isn't a result of these two evil people but include the London/Exeter bombings etc and all the other countless potentially heinous murderous events that have been prevented by the security services.

 

It may not have struck you but the strategy of lock them up and throw away the key is not working and will not work, additional deterrents need to be put in place and into law. The question about offspring born to immigrants in the UK is doable if bought into law.

 

So it's only Muslim murderers we are talking about then?

You have no idea or evidence it would reduce crimes that have only ever happened a handful of times, yet anyone with immigrant families 5 generations back who did something wrong should have less rights?

You say it hasn't struck me that the lock them up and throw away the key strategy is not working?

How many Muslims terrorists who have committed terrorist acts in British soil have we locked up and thrown away the key for? Sorry, but it's all just unsubstantiated, sensationalised, ranting at the moment.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Too late, better being proactive than reactive.

 

Which goes completely against how the law works in the UK..we don't go around banning things cos they might happen

 

Better for them to live as religious law abiding people but they should understand, whatever their religion, that if in court for murder there is no hiding behind/seeking comfort from any religious book.

 

A muslim wrongly accused and wrongly on trial may well have lived as a religious law abiding person so why should he not have his koran avaiable to him? Innocent until proven guilty

 

Religion has nothing to do with the law.

 

Apart from for example swearing on the Bible in court? Apart form Christian morals being the basis of UK law?

 

So a paedo taking in a Barbie would be OK with you then?

 

No of course not but it's not for me to say..its for the law to decide

 

Handcuffs and any other restraint that prevents a grotesque gesture as in this case.

 

You want to shackle the innocent? Not all Muslims on trial are guilty..have we become medieval

 

If he didn't mean it then he shouldn't say it, he's in a court of law.

 

I asked why you believe he was being truthful in saying that when he's a lying murderer..why do you believe that statement, why not everything else he said?

 

Yes, there has to be a fundamental change in the law to help stop this type of event/Jihad happening again. A big part of the solution has to come from within the muslim community and there has to be consequences to encourage them to do this

 

So you want separate law that only applies to Muslims? You're giving them what the more extreme want..division

 

I am all for encouraging the Mulsim community to do their bit but punishing people not proven to have commiited a crime? A step too far for me..we don't deport British citizens

 

Change the law for jihad/martydom

 

To be applied to ALL martyrs regardless of why tbey are doing it? If an ordinary bloke form say Hanley did this in the name of, say, workers rights then he should be treated the same and his family the same as well cos they may have known what he was planning?

 

We are losing now to these radicals, how can preventing some of the recent muslim sponsored atrocities be seen as detrimental to UK society. You should read about the effects of Islam on the Coptics in Egypt and Christians in Turkey.

 

I am somewhat aware of what some Muslims do and have done

 

Do what you advocate and we all lose, we all lose freedoms, we become divided..Muslims are just as much a part of UK society as anyone else but you want separate laws that only apply to them? Souhnds like what some of them want re Sharia Law

 

I don't understand this paragraph.

 

If the deterrent you propose is likely to achieve such success then why not apply it to everyone and all heinous crimes..irrespective of whether it's anything to do with Muslims/Jihad?

 

I'm suggesting close relatives and any relative where there's evidence of being involved/interested in Jihad.

 

Only evidence? So not proof, no trial, no conviction? "interested in"? Hou want to punish people cos of their interests? Deport Uk citizens cos they might have known something? By all means punish them when it's proven that they knew something and didn't act but due process must be followed and surely should apply to all similarly heinous crimes

 

I want to stop this but not at the cost that you propose

 

We have hard fought freedoms in the UK and I'm not in favour of giving them up

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Not hysterical at all, based on the logic that a major part of the solution to Jihad/radicals/martyrdom in the UK has to come from within the muslim community itself. An incentive to them is needed, positive or negative, to actually get muslims to do something about it not just talk.

 

You think all Mulsims on this just talk the talk and don't walk the walk?

 

Surely this nshould be applied to EVERYONE who knows a heinous crime is planned and doesn't shout up

 

How is reducing/preventing terrorists attacks on innocent people making life worse for everyone?

 

Creating divisions in society, conviciton when no crime has been proven..you really think that does not hurt us as a society? That it does not set massively dangerous precadents?

 

Perhaps 5 generations is pushing it but 3 or 4 is certainly workable.

 

It's not about the logistics

 

The increasing influence of Islam and muslims is taking UK civilization back to the dark ages,

 

No it isn't..that is hysteria. The vast majority of Muslims integrate perfectly well into Uk society.

 

it isn't a result of these two evil people but include the London/Exeter bombings etc and all the other countless potentially heinous murderous events that have been prevented by the security services.

 

Will you apply this to ALL who want to commit such heinous crimes? Would you have done this to the irish when the IRA were at their 'peak'

 

I am frankly astoinished that you want to have separfate laws for a section of UK citizens..that is so dangerous

 

It may not have struck you but the strategy of lock them up and throw away the key is not working and will not work, additional deterrents need to be put in place and into law.

 

But they will have to be applied to EVERYONE..you can't single out Muslims

 

The question about offspring born to immigrants in the UK is doable if bought into law.

 

Of cause it's doable but it is so dangerous..treat some Uk citizens different in the eyes of the law than others? Set that precadent and next it will be division on all sorts of criteria..religion, social status, employment status, home ownership, etc etc..all will be made possible by such a precadent..frightening

[JOHNNYAITCH]

......and probably allowed to preach their views to others in prison.

 

 

So you want to do away with the right to religious freedom?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The slightly plausible defence is that they attacked a soldier and represented people at war with the UK as they see it. We argue they are murderers and if not that terrorists. But our ethical authority and indeed upholding international law is only achieved if the soldier who executed the Afghan on camera is dealt with to the full extent of the law. His defence is a claim of mental anguish and we view him as having more of a case they these two individuals.

]

 

Do we?

 

But is that right, probably not. So if these two murderers feel the full force of the law and life imprisonment then the soldier who killed the Afghan should be on the same tariff at least even if the two different situations warrant some different handling.

 

Totally different laws/rules apply so i see no comparison..it would be more valid to compare a soldier killing an enemy soldier during a battle with what these two did.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Nice to see that our licence payers money is being well spent? :rolleyes:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/radical-preacher-anjem-choudary-not-deserving-of-bbc-time-9018878.html

 

It showed him up for what he is...let people hear what he says then they can dismiss him from a position of knowledge

[For Us All]

So you want to do away with the right to religious freedom?

 

If it promotes terror attacks,yes.

Prisons have been identified as one of the major breeding grounds for terrorism-related extremism and Belmarsh Prison in south-east London,which detains some of the most dangerous extremists in the country and where 20 per cent of inmates are Muslim,

currently houses more than 30 terrorist prisoners and prison staff believe extremist views were “widely disseminated” among Muslim inmates.