Manchester Bomber sentencing

[anonymous-user]

coolg said:

Sounds better than Asylum Seekers welcome.

Unless you are arguing over the legal technicalities to the average person in the street they are the same.

Well unless you are not meaning to come across as a knuckle dragging racist as you are currently are, i guess the facts don't matter to you in your rants, they were both British born Citizens..

So what has a rant about refugees and asylum seekers got to do with it?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 19th August 17:15

[Evanivitch]

coolg said:

Nothing at all you cant sail from Libya to the UK in a small dingy and although they are allowed to claim asylum we can say no.

All the idiots out there saying Refugees Welcome need to be aware of what they are actually saying and the likely issues this may cause.

He was born in Manchester, England.

[blueg33]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yes if you knew what it would be used for

[HaplessBoyLard]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It depends I suppose. If we had a conversation about shooting someone, planned how it was going to happen, and then you sourced me a gun, I’d say that’s a joint venture, regardless of who pulled the trigger. If I’d told you it was for self defence in case of home intruders or something like that then maybe not.

He helped the bomber plan an attack. He knew what was going to happen and that people would die. He presumably wanted it to happen. He’s just as guilty IMO, and apparently the law agrees.

[Algarve]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If you gave me a gun and we'd both agreed I'd go shoot up a terror target with it, and we'd jointly planned everything out... then you're just as guilty as me.

If you gave me a gun and said "look after that for me" and I then shot the postman... I get charged with murder and you get charged with possession of the gun.

[williamp]

Algarve said:

Because there was evidence that he participated in the planning and preparation of the attack. He's just as much to blame as his brother that detonated the bomb.

[GUARDIANreader] His brother died in a terrorist attack. Hasnt he suffered enough?? [Guardian reader]

[XCP]

I am fairly confident that I could get him into the dock if required.
I doubt he would like it much though.

[paulguitar]

The Spruce Goose said:

coolg said:

Sounds better than Asylum Seekers welcome.

Unless you are arguing over the legal technicalities to the average person in the street they are the same.

Well unless you are not meaning to come across as a knuckle dragging racist as you are currently are, i guess the facts don't matter to you in your rants, they were both British born Citizens..

So what has a rant about refugees and asylum seekers got to do with it?

Edited by The Spruce Goose on Wednesday 19th August 17:15

I'm not sure which banned member cg is, but a quick scan through posting history is something of an eye-opener.

[gazza285]

JuniorD said:

So what do you suggest we do with asylum seekers?

Give the legitimate ones asylum, and send the chancers back.

[coolg]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok then how many posts about cars do I need to do before posting here ???

[coolg]

Evanivitch said:

We agreed for his parents to come to the UK in a deal with the Saudi's, possibly linked to a £40Bn arms deal.

Possibly ??

The point remains we know very little about the people that leave war torn ****holes and come to the UK.

[Evanivitch]

coolg said:

Evanivitch said:

We agreed for his parents to come to the UK in a deal with the Saudi's, possibly linked to a £40Bn arms deal.

Possibly ??

The point remains we know very little about the people that leave war torn ****holes and come to the UK.

That's true, but he didn't enter the UK and then claim asylum, we flew him here. Someone in the UK made that decision.

[coolg]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That said I have started 4 threads, two car related one sport and one about a London murder. Hardly shocking, if other people post topics any my body is free to respond .

[Vizsla]

XCP said:

I am fairly confident that I Julian Clary could get him the weedy little turd into the dock if required.
I doubt he would like it much though.

FTFY

[Pothole]

coolg said:

JuniorD said:

coolg said:

Don Roque said:

They should throw a rope around his neck and drag him to the court room. His actions are an insult to justice.

That is a bit strong he was an Asylum Seeker, you know the Doctors and Engineers who come to make this country better

1. Refugeeswelcome

So what do you suggest we do with asylum seekers?

Nothing at all you cant sail from Libya to the UK in a small dingy and although they are allowed to claim asylum we can say no.

All the idiots out there saying Refugees Welcome need to be aware of what they are actually saying and the likely issues this may cause.

Not the place for this nonsense.

[paulguitar]

Pothole said:

Not the place for this nonsense.

It's relentless from that former banned member.

[gazza285]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Rape and pillage, a bit of slave taking, and generally taking advantage of the locals. I should imagine they were less than welcome as well. Took a few hundred years before they were integrated into society properly.

What was your point?

[Carl_Manchester]

Algarve said:

Its been delayed till tomorrow now.

I don't see the point in reading out all these victim statements or letting them have their say. He killed 20+ people just give him a life, no parole sentence and stop wasting any more of the courts time. Theres nothing that can be said for him in mitigation and the sentencing should be a formality.

Justice is not just about locking him up, it’s allowing the victims to express their suffering publicly and to make sure the judge takes these impacts into account in his sentencing statement, to make sure the rationale is water-tight.

the last thing we want is a sentencing appeal or this man to walk out after 25 years.

He has committed crimes but it’s also the level of harm which the judge has to assess as part of sentencing.

From what i saw and heard yesterday i was moved by the testimony and i think it may help some of the victims to express their suffering in this way as well as making sure this man never breathes free air again.

[Gecko1978]

Carl_Manchester said:

Algarve said:

Its been delayed till tomorrow now.

I don't see the point in reading out all these victim statements or letting them have their say. He killed 20+ people just give him a life, no parole sentence and stop wasting any more of the courts time. Theres nothing that can be said for him in mitigation and the sentencing should be a formality.

Justice is not just about locking him up, it’s allowing the victims to express their suffering publicly and to make sure the judge takes these impacts into account in his sentencing statement, to make sure the rationale is water-tight.

the last thing we want is a sentencing appeal or this man to walk out after 25 years.

He has committed crimes but it’s also the level of harm which the judge has to assess as part of sentencing.

From what i saw and heard yesterday i was moved by the testimony and i think it may help some of the victims to express their suffering in this way as well as making sure this man never breathes free air again.

Exactly this. I feel at the end when guilt is found the important part then is to allow the victims a voice and the judge to explain clearly why the sentence is being given.

The guilty party must for justice to be complete have to face that aspect. Ultimately by sitting in his cell he is imposing his will on others again and I feel in this instance its a right that should not be afforded.

But dragging someone kicking and spitting into court might also not be in anyones interests.

[98elise]

HaplessBoyLard said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It depends I suppose. If we had a conversation about shooting someone, planned how it was going to happen, and then you sourced me a gun, I’d say that’s a joint venture, regardless of who pulled the trigger. If I’d told you it was for self defence in case of home intruders or something like that then maybe not.

He helped the bomber plan an attack. He knew what was going to happen and that people would die. He presumably wanted it to happen. He’s just as guilty IMO, and apparently the law agrees.

Agreed. Both were involved in the planning and execution of the attack.

The person triggering it is just one part of the sequence. It could equally have been a timer, or one of the victims, or any of the many ways of triggering a bomb.

The fact that one of them triggered it personally does not absolve the other in any way.