PDA

View Full Version : Killers deny all charges


Pages : [1] 2

SOPS
29th Nov 2013, 15:10
How can these morons deny they did it? They basically made sure their horrendous acts were broadcast on TV, starring themselves.

I hope they are locked up forever.

BBC News - Lee Rigby trial: Killing 'cowardly and callous', court hears (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25153273)

Sallyann1234
29th Nov 2013, 15:19
How can these morons deny they did it?
Simply in order to create even more publicity for their evil cause. They know they will be found guilty.

I hope they are locked up forever.
Not long enough.

500N
29th Nov 2013, 15:22
It's a pity the opportunity didn't occur where the Police had no choice
but to shoot both of them, dead.

Only problem with that is the fact they don't get to
spend 50 years in prison.

superq7
29th Nov 2013, 15:29
The Yanks have the best idea give them 600 years, then on appeal reduce the sentence to 450.

dubbleyew eight
29th Nov 2013, 15:36
the chinese get my support. a bullet.

rgbrock1
29th Nov 2013, 15:43
SOPS wrote:

I hope they are locked up forever.

Nah. Locking them up forever would cost the British taxpayer far too much for these scum.

Instead, after they are found guilty as charged. bring 'em out back and summarily execute them via firing squad.

Torque Tonight
29th Nov 2013, 15:54
Presumably claiming not guilty so that 1) they can have the publicity of a trial in which they can push their doctrine ad nauseam and 2) not guilty of murder because under their twisted dogma it's not murder it's a casualty of war, legitimate killing or some such drivel.

Even under our crim-friendly system there is no chance of anything other than a guilty verdict. Rotting in jail may be the best punishment for wannabe martyrs like this pair. They won't make many friends in jail and they won't get their 72 virgins.

This is probably the most offensive and deplorable event to affect my country in my lifetime. I do hope that it hurt when the police shot them, that the doctors who treated them were short of painkillers and that their prison guards will forever be looking the wrong way.

MagnusP
29th Nov 2013, 15:59
they won't get their 72 virgins

They may, of course, find they have 72 new boyfriends.

Lightning Mate
29th Nov 2013, 16:46
This is probably the most offensive and deplorable event to affect my country in
my lifetime. I do hope that it hurt when the police shot them, that the doctors
who treated them were short of painkillers and that their prison guards will
forever be looking the wrong way.

:D:D........

Sallyann1234
29th Nov 2013, 17:08
Unfortunately if that were to happen they would be expecting large amounts of compensation "because the authorities failed in their duty of care".

G-CPTN
29th Nov 2013, 17:14
BBC News - Michael Adebolajo 'attacked in jail' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23367877)

StressFree
29th Nov 2013, 17:24
Dreadful, utterly dreadful that these animals can commit this horrible act and then plead not guilty.

I'm a humanist and consider that civilised people must rise above folks like this, however my principles are severely tested by this event, so if they come to harm whilst in detention I won't be too bothered. Its a shame that we must waste precious public money on people like this.......:sad:

Gordy
29th Nov 2013, 17:34
Send them over this side of the pond.... I think they would get what they deserve.

El Grifo
29th Nov 2013, 17:36
Not fit for purpose. Erase :suspect:

El G.

500N
29th Nov 2013, 17:37
Pity they didn't end up Quads but with full mental capacity.
Would frustrate the hell out of that type of person.

But with enough damage to the body that they only live a few years
so it doesn't cost the Gov't too much.

Rwy in Sight
29th Nov 2013, 17:40
It is always amazing that people with such beliefs and principals are allowed to use all the legal rights and procedures to defend themselves. I am really curious what the law of their religion states in such cases; Maybe an eye for an eye?

Rwy in Sight

500N
29th Nov 2013, 17:43
"I'm a humanist and consider that civilised people must rise
above folks like this,"


You could be in the gutter and still be well above people like this.

StressFree
29th Nov 2013, 18:12
500N,

Much appreciated!

These sort of people test us to the limit, they abuse our societies and all of our civilisation. What do we do with them? What? They are members of a sub-species of humanity, but HOW the F can they plead not guilty? We'll now waste many thousands of pounds of public money allowing them to face a trial for a brutal murder that they themsleves wanted filming....

As I say it tests every fibre of our tolerance of these people, but we must not give in, we're better than that, we're not animals like them (and thats an insult to animals I know), we need to hang onto the principles that make us better than them, even if we all want to feed them to the dogs....

:sad:

rgbrock1
29th Nov 2013, 18:16
I still think this is the way to handle scum like that:

http://www.wnd.com/images/firingsquad.jpg

rgbrock1
29th Nov 2013, 18:17
StressFree wrote:

What do we do with them? What?

Throw 'em all out? Don't let any of them in in the first place?

500N
29th Nov 2013, 18:18
Stress

Putting a bullet into something / someone is not lowering ourselves,
it is an act of grace to society.

We put down injured and sick animals, why not people like this ?

I think you'd find plenty of takers in the UK.

Lon More
29th Nov 2013, 18:20
Just put them in with "normal" prisoners after sentencing. They'll probably leave in a pine box within 6 months

tony draper
29th Nov 2013, 18:22
What's the maximum sentence a Judge can recommend these days?40 years?.:suspect:

StressFree
29th Nov 2013, 18:31
RGB,

Agree fully but its too late, they're already here.....:(

G-CPTN
29th Nov 2013, 18:32
There's one thing that I can think of that would be worse than what Drummer Rigby suffered and worse than what has been suggested here for the culprits and that is cannibalism.

There are people who would volunteer to perform this duty (several have been caught, including this policeman (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dresden-cannibal-german-police-worker-obsessed-with-cannibalism-charged-with-torturing-butchering-and-eating-man-he-met-on-fetish-website-8973154.html) ).

If that seems unreasonable, how about being fed to pigs (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mamma-mia-how-he-squealed-screaming-mafia-boss-francesco-raccosta-fed-alive-to-pigs-by-rival-calabrian-assassins-in-bloody-mob-war-8972184.html)?

El Grifo
29th Nov 2013, 18:34
People are reporting the very first full burqa/niqab clad specimen flaunting itself in the streets here.

It could be stopped now, but probably will not-

Let me get back to you in 6 months :suspect:

El G.

500N
29th Nov 2013, 18:37
As long as they are alive when it's done, otherwise they won't feel the fear
of the gnashing tusks (which sound awful when they are doing it up close).

And the pain as they boar rips into you wouldn't be nice either :rolleyes:


It would take a couple of boars about a 1 - 2 days to eat him !

StressFree
29th Nov 2013, 18:38
500N,

Agree but in the 'modern' EU that'll never be allowed to happen....

Our hands are SO tied that we can no longer administer our justice system, which is why scum like this can enter our country and commit acts of brutal murder and then plead 'not guilty'. Honestly you couldn't make it up, its a joke except it isn't funny........

A hundred years ago there would be no mercy but now we are impotent about how to handle these sort of people.

Go to jail, three hot meals a day, clean clothes, colour TV, gym, education facilities, hot showers, Playstations etc.

FFS, I give up.........:(

rgbrock1
29th Nov 2013, 18:40
El Grifo,

When I was still working at the hospital in Da Bronx, NY there is a clinic there (free clinic) where lots and lots of full burqa/niqab clad women congregated.
Of course these same burqa-clad women were easily spotted not just by their attire but do to the fact that the male accompanying them were always a few paces in front. I guess so they could pull recon?

rgbrock1
29th Nov 2013, 18:42
Don't give up StressFree, they'll get what they so richly deserve. (Well, not entirely but close enough.)

Dushan
29th Nov 2013, 18:42
I still think this is the way to handle scum like that:

http://www.wnd.com/images/firingsquad.jpg

Nah, you're too humane. I am thinking one guy, who is a lousy shot, with a .22 from 100 yards. Oh, and no blindfold.

Dushan
29th Nov 2013, 18:44
The same reason this idiot is asking for a trial guide by Koran.

Via Rail terror suspect wants Qur?an-guided lawyer | Globalnews.ca (http://globalnews.ca/news/609219/man-accused-in-alleged-via-rail-terror-plot-to-appear-in-court-today/)

TORONTO - One of the men charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack a Via Rail passenger train says he hasn’t been able to find a lawyer who will use the Qu’ran as a reference for his case.

Chiheb Esseghaier appeared in a Toronto court via video link today for an update on his attempt to find legal aid representation.

Last month he told a judge he wants a lawyer who agrees that the Qu’ran can be used as a reference in deciding his case.

Esseghaier says the last potential lawyer he dealt with from prison told him in writing that he was unable to change the reference of his judgment “from the criminal code to the holy Qu’ran”

El Grifo
29th Nov 2013, 18:52
Help me out of my self induced pain and confusion.

For a long time now we have had Morroccan cooks and waiters. Hard workers they generally are.

The next wave was their mothers for some reason, clad in their traditional dress. Who could blame them. It was their long held custom

A year or so later it was lots of 25-35 year old women with headscarves, shoving prams.

A year on we had kids turning up at school wearing headscarves.

Hard to seriously criticise but not exactly an example of integration, the likes of which every other ethnic group on the island carries out.

Now for the first time, the full blown burqa.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the headscarf is the mode of dress of the conservative muslim, but the burqa is the mode of dress of the fundimentalist.

The like of which are responsible for 9/11, Kings Cross and Atocha and the same people that are killing our troops in the sandpit.The fundimentalist .

Why should this be tolerated.

Am I getting this totally wrong ??

El G.

Victor Inox
29th Nov 2013, 20:40
The sad part is that - at least so far - there is no mention in court of the quite obvious racial and religious hatred component of the crime.


These [email protected] need to be fed on pork for the rest of their miserable lives.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Nov 2013, 20:51
Whilst I am finding it hard to disagree with many of the solutions offered up so far making these 2 martyrs is the very last thing we need to do.


We will prosecute, they will be found guilty and then they will be incarcerated into total anonymity. Apart from the inevitable appeals they, like so many before them will simply disappear into the penal system for the rest of their natural days.

Flash2001
29th Nov 2013, 21:46
Certainly shakes my anti capital punishment stance.

tony draper
29th Nov 2013, 21:48
These sacks of filth are beginning to be made to sound like the Alien,you cant kill it because its blood is concentrated Acid, you cant kill these little bearded darlings because you will make em Martyrs.
Bollix

500N
29th Nov 2013, 21:56
I don't think you'll make them martyrs if they were killed.

Especially if they were fed alive to pigs.

Would make an interesting counter video to what they normally
put on the internet :O

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Nov 2013, 21:58
The seek martyrdom but locked away for ever after due process they don't get it.


Whilst I would certainly endorse anal infection with HIV and wrapping in pigs hide during burial the denial of what they seek is the way ahead.

gunbus
29th Nov 2013, 22:00
In this instance I rather favour this alternative

VIDEO: Killer boasted enjoying screams of mafia man eaten alive by pigs | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/video/mafia-boss-eaten-by-pigs/video-1075524/index.html) :E

Flash2001
29th Nov 2013, 22:16
At the very least, they should be experimental subjects. Psychologists should take their minds apart so that we can find out what makes them tick.

vee-tail-1
29th Nov 2013, 22:28
Almost certainly there is an army of lefty lawyers who will be defending these scum.

The judge has already told the jury members to 'Put out of their minds any preconceptions in this case' 'The jury must come to their deliberations only on the basis of what evidence is presented to the court'.

There is a real possibility that their lawyers will be using the racism, discrimination, and provocation cards in defending them.

Don't count on them going to jail for life ...They might even be seen as "unfortunate victims, freedom fighters in a racist, Islamophobic, country that makes war on their brothers". :mad::\:\:\:ugh:

6000PIC
29th Nov 2013, 22:33
Only a slow , painful and humiliating death would suffice as real justice in this horrendous case. God bless Lee Rigby`s family. Damn those evil muslim fanatical cockroaches.

tony draper
29th Nov 2013, 22:46
I think if they if they were being walked along that short corridor with a trapdoor on the other side of the door at the end they would happily take forty years more breathing than what's in that room.
Bring back the Death Penalty for terrorism.
Declare terrorist outlaws in the old sense of the word,they would be outside the protection of any law, be it our own or any shite coming from Brussels or the Hague.
:suspect:

SASless
30th Nov 2013, 02:41
Certainly shakes my anti capital punishment stance.

Spare us your sniveling.....either you believe in Capital Punishment or you do not....there is no middle ground.

The Killers are guilty as Sin itself....and anything beyond a long drop on a short waxed hemp rope is beyond contempt.

These Killers should have been dealt with much sooner...but sadly just like our Major Hassan....the trials will drag out for years and years....and they will make a mockery of our justice system.

We are our own worst enemy in this.....when there is no doubt....especially as in this case....Justice (or retribution, revenge, retaliation, or just deserves) whatever you want to call it....should have been done months ago within hours of their arrest....assuming they had survived their arrest.

Some people just need killing!

crewmeal
30th Nov 2013, 07:00
I've said it before and I'll say it again and again. Whilst we have a weak and feeble government who does nothing for punishment then all these sort of crimes will continue with defence lawyers making a fortune. There is no punishment that fits any crime these days. What is the point of a judge sentencing life when they can get out after 10 years ? What's the point of halving sentences? What does community service do? B:mad:r all! The sooner this country punishes people properly the sooner people will have faith in a justice system again.

I wonder how much the lawyers are making defending these scum?

I can't wait for the day when judges don their white gloves and black cap again to pass the death penalty for heinous crimes.

Black cap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cap)

courtesy of Wikipedia

Worrals in the wilds
30th Nov 2013, 08:02
Spare us your sniveling.....either you believe in Capital Punishment or you do not....there is no middle ground.I've held both points of view at various stages in my life; if that makes me a sniveller then so be it. We've not had the death penalty in living memory, so it can seem like a frightening, alien thing.

However, as I've gotten older and seen more of these pointless, brutal killings I've become pro-capital punishment, using a quick method, and only for extreme murders like this one after a fair trial.

Given the way they carried on, I'd guess that the bastards would like to drag everyone through all the gory details, hence the not guilty plea. :mad:

Krystal n chips
30th Nov 2013, 08:51
This case was always going to lead to intense emotions for obvious reasons, and there is no dispute as to the barbarity of the alleged murder.

All the self-righteous on here happy so far ?

However....they are hardly the first, and won't be the last irrespective of the alleged crime(s) to plead "not guilty" and thus a trial has to take place...although many on here would, it seem, be perfectly happy to dispense with the judicial and legal processes formed over how many years ?....and simply pronounce an accused guilty....saves all that time, money and effort after all and, it stands to reason, well the reasoning of some obviously, that anybody who is accused of a crime must, by default, be guilty !.

Thankfully, we no longer have the death penalty in civilised Nations as it simply isn't a deterrent. merely State imposed revenge.

" There is a real possibility that their lawyers will be using the racism, discrimination, and provocation cards in defending them.

Ah, this could be the reason those who practice this aspect of Law are known as defence lawyers ?. Is this concept just a shade too complex for you I wonder given that murder isn't the only crime on the Statute Book ?

" Don't count on them going to jail for life ...They might even be seen as "unfortunate victims, freedom fighters in a racist, Islamophobic, country that makes war on their brothers"

Given your own, and many others on here, clarion calls and perceptions of Islam as being engaged in a war, then why should anybody ever get the impression the above paragraph may have some credence.?....and in fact, the previous paragraph, exemplifies the sentiments of the last one perfectly.

Well done !

Stress Free....thanks for the Daily Mail " weekend break at a Spa" promotion...sadly, you missed out a few other details....such as spending you life behind a door which only has one handle, on the outside, not being able to travel anywhere other than within the confines of the prison, being fed at pre-set times, every day...and the monotony of an institutionalised life...although this isn't exclusive to being in prison of course.

And of course, every prison in the UK has the facilities you describe...doesn't it ?

Blacksheep
30th Nov 2013, 09:53
I'm not a "hang 'em high" enthusiast. I believe that the retribution inflicted on Ian Brady and his repulsive sidekick, Myra Hindley was worth every penny of the taxpayers money. Both of them were incarcerated on whole life sentences and Hindley spent the rest of her miserable days trying to get out. Brady is still incarcerated and trying to squirm his way into normal prison where he believes he will be able to commit suicide to escape his misery.

These two specimens must be subjected to the same misery for the rest of their natural time on the planet - and it will be worth every penny spent on keeping them there.

StressFree
30th Nov 2013, 11:00
Krystal,

Feel better for your mini rant?

You know what, and this may surprise you, we are closer to agreement on this matter than you seem to appreciate.

The Daily Mail doesn't come into it, I'll leave the rest up to you to figure out.

Best regards.

Worrals in the wilds
30th Nov 2013, 11:02
I believe that the retribution inflicted on Ian Brady and his repulsive sidekick, Myra Hindley was worth every penny of the taxpayers money.Funnily enough that's part of my current 'hang 'em high' POV. In a way, I think it's more humane than locking people up for a lifetime of misery. They're nothing more than a hindrance and expense to society, so why perpetuate both the misery and cost?
...as it simply isn't a deterrent. merely State imposed revenge. Correct. I have no problem with that, though as previously stated only for the worst, most pointless, gratuitous and sadistic murders. I don't support the death penalty for drug traffickers or 'ordinary' murders. Most ordinary murders are crimes of passion that escalate from fights over money, domestic disputes or robberies gone wrong. Certainly their perpetuators deserve a hefty sentence, which is what they usually get.

However, occasionally there is a murder that is both senseless and abnormally brutal. This was one of them. They didn't know their victim. They hadn't fought with him, found him shagging their wife or tried to rob his house. To quote a defence lawyer friend (about a recent random murder here*) it's the sort of murder juries detest; the horror movie style calculating killer who jumps out of a tree and kills a random stranger. In these cases the victim did nothing to cause his or her death, except be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why shouldn't they be avenged?
*19yo man fronts court over Korean woman's murder in Brisbane's CBD - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/19yo-man-fronts-court-over-korean-womans-murder-in-brisbane-cbd/5116434)


Despite popular opinion and cultural references (CSI anyone :bored:?) this style of murder is very rare, and I think these guys fit the bill. There are valid arguments about the mental state of such a murderer and whether they can possibly be sane; however, as they can't safely be released, they can't be treated and they serve no use to society... once they are convicted, why keep feeding them? Torturing them with a mandatory life sentence is a POV I accept, but personally I think it's cheaper, easier and arguably more humane to kill them.

500N
30th Nov 2013, 11:41
Look at that evil kid who killed the Bulger ? kid ?

One is supposed to be rehab'd, the other ?????

Society would never agree to doing it to them but one
of them just seems pure evil.

SASless
30th Nov 2013, 12:39
Worrals....I certainly endorse your comments about growing older and becoming more supportive of the Death Penalty.

Some Crimes demand the ultimate price from the the Perpetrator.

We in the USA have a mixed view on this....with some States using that Sanction and other States refusing to use it at all.....no matter how heinous the crime(s).

I personally would opt for Public Hangings on the Court House Square on Saturday Mornings just at the Noon Hour.....and have the Executions required viewing on Television.

I would also like to see the Appeal Process streamlined such that the Convicted got a fair and thorough Investigation, fair Indictment Proceeding, a fair Trial, a fair Appeal, and a prompt fair Hanging.

I would also like to see the Death Penalty be applied to only those cases where the Crime was Heinous, and there was no doubt whatsoever the Accused was the Perpetrator without any doubt whatsoever.

I would limit the Death Penalty to First Degree Murder, Contract Murder, Forcible Rape or Molestation of a Child, or Intentional Maiming.

Texas does something similar to that.....I like their idea about an "Express Lane" for these kinds of killings that have three or more witnesses.

If Major Hassan had been tried in State Court instead of a Courts Martial....he would be with the 72 Virgins a long time ago. It took Four Years just to try him in the Military System....and now we will have Years of Appeals in the Military System, the Federal Court System, and perhaps an Appeal to the Supreme Court before the Military can get around to ending his Life.

vulcanised
30th Nov 2013, 12:54
I suppose we should be thankful they haven't been granted bail.............:rolleyes:

Worrals in the wilds
30th Nov 2013, 13:16
I personally would opt for Public Hangings on the Court House Square on Saturday Mornings just at the Noon Hour.....and have the Executions required viewing on Television.Interesting theory, but I wouldn't. To me, it's not an issue of the public actually viewing the execution, though I agree with the American view that executions be witnessed and not secret.

No punishment is a deterrent, because the punishment is dependent on being caught and most crims never think they'l be caught. If they thought they'd be caught, they wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place. Whether the punishment is community service or death is irrelevant to them, because they never considered it as an option.

Certain dectection is a far greater deterrant (such as with traffic cameras), but it doesn't apply to these sorts of inexplicable crimes. The people who commit these offences don't think of the consequences.

I don't believe that broadcasting the mechanics of capital punishment serves a useful purpose. If it's either a deterrent (which is doubtful) or a retribution (which it is, and rightfully so IMO) then it's enough that the community know it's been carried out in the presence of reliable witnesses. IMO broadcasting the actual process is both ghoulish and un-necessary.

Krystal n chips
30th Nov 2013, 13:44
" I would also like to see the Appeal Process streamlined such that the Convicted got a fair and thorough Investigation, fair Indictment Proceeding, a fair Trial, a fair Appeal, and a prompt fair Hanging"

No doubt you would, no doubt you would also be happy with commercial sponsorship of the events......and no doubt you would also be in favour, albeit belatedly, of a fast track posthumous pardon.....just a minor technicality of law really, for any miscarriage of justice .....such as being innocent of the accusation levelled against the now...deceased.

jolihokistix
30th Nov 2013, 14:29
Quote: "Mr Adebolajo, from Romford, east London, has asked to be known as Mujaahid Abu Hamza in court, and Mr Adebowale, from Greenwich, south-east London, wants to be known as Ismail Ibn Abdullah."

A bit like Maria Sharapova wanting to be called "Sugarpova" then?

LOL. You still think a) there is a quarter of heaven that has Islamic architecture, and b) by changing your names you will somehow be welcomed up there by Allah? Fat chance.

A bit late now to try and show people your faith in your twisted concept of Islam. By cutting off his head you were trying to guarantee he would go to Hell for all eternity. And you are liars on top. What cheek to ask for special rights and new names! :ugh:

Flash2001
30th Nov 2013, 20:25
Let me snivel a little more here. There are a great many people who would look remarkably good decorating the southbound end of a northbound rope. These include many lawyers, bankers, politicians and even a few police and prosecutors who withhold evidence that might favour the accused. I'd add in here a number of religious officials and investment managers. In a lot of cases I'd spring the trap myself. The big "however" is that I don't want this power in the hands of the buffoons who presently wield it. Let them go 20 years or so without one wrongful conviction, then ask me. An alternative might be to allow the Scottish verdict.

After an excellent landing etc...

Romeo Oscar Golf
30th Nov 2013, 21:13
K n c you write as one who knows and understands our legal system. I don't. So will you explain to me why this case cannot be completed in a few hours?
They brutally murdered, it was filmed and was seen by many.There is no "get out of jail" defence so the plea is meaningless.Produce the salient and damning evidence, dismiss the non salient defence, send out the jury and carry out sentence before lunch! Easy innit!:confused:

G-CPTN
1st Dec 2013, 00:03
The various legal beagles have to have their day(s) in court, otherwise folk will not appreciate that they have earned their fees.

SASless
1st Dec 2013, 00:19
KC.....you cannot actually believe what you wrote....or are you really that Naive?

Is there any doubt whatsoever these two evil bastards wantonly murdered that poor Soldier and did so in a most heinous way....in full view of dozens of people....and were recorded on Video bragging about it?

This ain't a damn Who Dunnit that would make a wonderful Documentary on the failures of the UK Criminal Justice System wrongfully convicting innocent people.

This was a cold blooded atrocity.....and warrants the most severe treatment possible under the Law.

The shame is they each did not collect a Double Tap to the Head when the Armed Police showed up.

Capetonian
1st Dec 2013, 00:35
I suppose we should be thankful they haven't been granted bail..........
Not at all. They should be released on bail or otherwise and allowed to walk free. They would be recognised and torn limb from limb to die a painful death. Even that would be too quick and too kind.

bedsted
1st Dec 2013, 01:50
Yes or hung, drawn and quartered would be a good alternative

SASless
1st Dec 2013, 02:27
.....then roasted over a slow fire perhaps! If we are going to do this correctly!:E

bedsted
1st Dec 2013, 02:42
:ok::ok::ok:

500N
1st Dec 2013, 03:42
I see K&C hasn't changed spots !

Good to see some like minded people are still around :ok:

baggersup
1st Dec 2013, 04:26
but HOW the F can they plead not guilty?

I could be wrong, but because the UK courts are now second-guessed by fluffy bozos in the EU, they have every chance of being freed (and then compensated for the trouble they endured while on trial and held during trial).

Any barrister in his/her right mind would plead not-guilty m'lord to any crime these days, especially one as heinous and famous as this one.

Once convicted the full force of the system will grind into action. Appeals will be made right on up the line; the full weight of "race" will be played, religious persecution will be claimed. Can't get a fair trial in the UK! will be claimed.

Then, if they lose appeals the next stop is, the European Court of Justice with a case filed in the European Court of Human Rights if that doesn't gel.

That's where the thing will come apart at the seams and these defendants will be back home enjoying a rack of lamb around the family hearth before you can opine that Robert is your mother's brother.

Any look at the headlines these days will see many templates for this scenario. These guys will walk.

Nobody's guilty these days in the ECJ and ECHR. But like Officer Krupke's lads, they are "misunderstood."

500N
1st Dec 2013, 04:32
"they have every chance of being freed"

I'd dare the Defense to ask a judge to free them.

I reckon if a few knew where they were and could get to them without too much fuss, they'd be dead within a week.


Heads on the metal spikes of he Tower of London would be a suitable end
as well as giving the Ravens something to feed on.

From what I've seen, they love eyes, and tongue and brains
if they can get to them.

ArthurR
1st Dec 2013, 11:13
K&C you say the death penalty is not a deterrent, it would have been in these cases.

Revealed: The 12 convicted murderers who were freed on licence only to kill AGAIN in the past decade | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420137/Revealed-The-12-convicted-murderers-freed-licence-kill-AGAIN-past-decade.html)

Krystal n chips
1st Dec 2013, 12:36
ROG,

I know as much about the legal system as probably the rest of the population. Virtually nothing, not being involved in, or experiencing it in my life.

What I do know however, is that we have in place an established judicial process, one that has taken a few centuries to develop and, whilst it may not be perfect, the fact that this process is integral to our society as a whole, means that, even when horrific crimes such as the one ( loose term here, being "discussed" ) happen that, despite the wishes of the deluded and demented on here, we, as a society have to apply it.

Once you start circumventing due processes, then the potential for a rapid deterioration of civilised values increases significantly. Would you wish this to be the case ?..if so, why.

Why the case will take so long, only m'learned friends would be able to explain.

SAS..so very tempting to fill in those initials...however, what, in you insular minded opinion, renders me naïve for stating the obvious ?.

Captivep
1st Dec 2013, 12:43
I think people should try and separate their justifiable anger about these two scumbags (and I, for one, hope they spend many years having a terrible time in prison before realising, just before they die a painful, slow death, that they have completely wasted their lives and that there is no grateful god waiting for them) from the ridiculous question "how can they plead not guilty?"

They can plead not guilty for the same reason I could if I were filmed by a dozen hd cameras killing someone in the middle of a crowded shop. It's because the system allows it, as indeed it should. It's a fundamental tenet of our civilization (and I choose that word deliberately) that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Just because one type of evidence (cctv for example) shows prima facie guilt that doesn't negate the need to do things properly, for everyone...

And, in defence of lawyers (and that's not a phrase I thought I'd ever write!) it is a fundamental principle of English legal practice that a barrister cannot refuse a defence brief, and for for exactly the same civilization reason - that we are a civilized nation which will not stoop to the kangaroo courts and summary justice that we are currently seeing on the streets of Syria.

Romeo Oscar Golf
1st Dec 2013, 13:11
I have no desire to cicumvent any long established procedure of British Law. However there is absolutely no defence for this crime. If anyone can think of a defence I'd love to hear your thoughts. Please don't confuse mitigation with defence, I'm expecting an alarmingly long catalogue of "mitigating circumstances" but innocence of murder? Give me strength!

vee-tail-1
1st Dec 2013, 13:59
QuranFlash (http://islamicbulletin.org/arabic/quranflash.html)

This will be used as evidence to show that they were only following orders.
Read through this document at random and you will find instructions to cut off hands and legs, beheadings, harsh punishments, etc.
They were only doing what Allah required of them so how can they be guilty?
:uhoh: :mad:

ArthurR
1st Dec 2013, 15:37
VT I followed your link, but I am afraid my Arabic is a little rusty, in fact its more than a little, I was possibly praying when they gave us the Arabic lessons at my C of E school in the 50's.

Just found this:
Crimes where whole life order are recommended


murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following :

a substantial degree of premeditation or planning,
the abduction of the victim, or
sexual or sadistic conduct,

child murder if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation,
murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause,
murder by an offender previously convicted of murder,
other offence if the court considers that the seriousness of the offence (or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it) is exceptionally high. For example, high treason can warrant such a sentence, if it is grave enough.

fitliker
1st Dec 2013, 18:34
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks?
To murder men and give God thanks!
Desist, for shame!-proceed no further;
God won't accept your thanks for Murther


Robert Burns

Captivep
1st Dec 2013, 18:53
Romeo Oscar Golf - I think you're missing the point...

Which is that the whole ethos of our legal system is that the defendant is allowed to present his defence (however nonsensical), the judge will advise the jury whether it is a legally allowable one and the jury will decide whether to believe the prosecution or the defence.

That's the system, whether it's someone accused of nicking a loaf of bread from the corner shop, or a hideous murder (witnessed by many people and on camera). It has to be that way because, if it wasn't, who gets to decide whether somebody is "allowed" to plead not guilty? It is a symbol of our strength, not weakness, that it applies it cases like this too.

For what it's worth I think that, whatever actual defence they try to present, the jury will convict very quickly and the two scumbags will get a whole life tariff.

Romeo Oscar Golf
1st Dec 2013, 21:17
No I'm not missing the point.
OK I'll expand.
Of course a not guilty plea can be made. However if the evidence/defence is clearly nonsense time wasting etc. and in this case I do not need to spell out what that means, the judge should be able to discard it and after due consultation with the defence team discard any other as yet unpresented nonsense. I f he/she cannot do this the system is flawed and needs to be changed.
Does the defence team have to believe their client if a non guilty plea is made? If they do they're unworthy of their calling (in this case) if not then the whole procedure is farcical.
I'm also aware that there is no such thing as justice anymore.....just a legal process.

radeng
2nd Dec 2013, 00:31
I believe that whether or not they 'believe' their client, they are bound to present the defence.

How well is another matter...

But remember 'Trial By Jury'....(Sullivan and Burnand)


"All thieves who could my fees afford
Relied on my orations.
And many a burglar I've restored
To his friends and his relations."

Krystal n chips
2nd Dec 2013, 03:56
" However if the evidence/defence is clearly nonsense time wasting etc. and in this case I do not need to spell out what that means, the judge should be able to discard it and after due consultation with the defence team discard any other as yet unpresented nonsense. I f he/she cannot do this the system is flawed and needs to be changed

What a truly deluded perception of how a legal system should be simply, and conveniently, adapted to arbitrary justice based on the sole perception of one judge as to the guilt of the individual (s) accused of a crime.

There are plenty of locations in the world where this happens, and the term used is persecution, not prosecution.

Bo doubt you are in favour of a return to a level of draconian justice we have discarded, We used to hang children for example,

However, your rather simplistic wish to negate the legal processes now in place has a small flaw.

You propose these changes be implemented in cases such as this, and I agree the case against the accused is self-evident, but then comes the little and far from inconsequential matter of how your arbitrary system of "justice" could be applied across not simply the most serious case, but also the whole range of minor offences,

Hence the term "judge, jury and executioner ",

Please explain how, and why, other than cost savings which is risible at best, you would prefer the above statement to become enshrined on the Statute book.

We all know it won't happen, but, as you seem so enthusiastic as to the removal of a defendants rights, here's your opportunity to defend yourself against the perfectly valid accusation that you are delusional,

PLovett
2nd Dec 2013, 05:00
Never have I read such inanity from supposedly intelligent people regarding the justice system, with some exceptions.

Firstly, a "not guilty" plea does not mean "I did not do it". It means "You are accusing me - you prove it." There is no requirement for the defence to do anything. The onus is on the prosecution to prove both act and mental state.

However, if a plea of not guilty is made on the basis of putting the prosecution to proof and the defendant admits to their lawyer that they did the crime (or, as in this particular case, it is obvious) it places a very heavy responsibility on the defence barrister to only put the prosecution to proof and never to try and suggest that the defendant was, for example, not there, or it was another person entirely.

Secondly, there are some instances where a defence is required to prove something. One of them is where a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is made. Now, this is not necessarily explicitly stated at the time of entering the plea but it soon becomes obvious from the manner in which the defence is handled. It is one of the few occasions when a defence is required to be made.

Incidentally, the legal test of insanity is way behind the medical definition. I don't know about the UK now but it used to be found where it could be shown that the defendant did not know either that their specific act was illegal (due to the state of their mind - not that they did not know - we are all presumed to know the law) or that due to the state of their mind they could not differentiate between right and wrong.

Thirdly, if a defence of insanity is successful, it does not mean the defendant walks free. It means they are taken to a secure place and detained there until such time as they are of a sane mind and can stand trial. Normally, that means never so they spend the rest of their days incarcerated in a secure institution.

Fourthly, a barrister is not required to believe their client is guilty or not. They are required to use their skills to the best of their ability to represent their client while also observing their oath to the court they made on admission to practice that they will uphold the law in their dealings. In the majority of cases it is straight forward and there is no conflict. Please remember that the majority of criminal matters brought before court are resolved by pleas of guilty; the last set of figures I saw was a split of 80/20 and it now may be even higher.

As a last point, to all those righteous individuals that want to dispense with a judicial system, please remember that you are a hairs breadth from the dock yourself where you'll scream for every piece of the defence armoury that you wish to deny others. It takes very little for a person to suddenly find themselves on the receiving end; a momentary distraction while driving a car; a sudden loss of temper; an overreaction to a provocation. That is even without the police managing to make a complete bollocks of an investigation; for many years I kept a page of transcript from a magistrates court hearing I had conducted where the magistrate basically accused the detective of committing perjury. Some years later I found myself defending another person with the same detective for the prosecution. On that occasion a jury didn't believe him either.

The justice system is about the only thing I can think of that separates us from the animal kingdom. Without it, we may think we would cope, but I suspect it would not be for very long.

Alloa Akbar
2nd Dec 2013, 09:29
This is a minority case however, to comply with the judicial system "You are accusing me - you prove it." There is miles of video evidence showing these wankers committing the crime, open/shut, lock 'em up with skinheads for the rest of their days and the jury are back home in time for lunch..

This isn't about proving guilt - They are guilty beyond any shade of doubt, of murder. If you cannot see that or agree with that statement then you are as bad as those wankers and the wankers that support them :mad:

PTT
2nd Dec 2013, 09:40
If you cannot see that or agree with that statement then you are as bad as those wankers and the wankers that support themWhere do you get off with creating assumed moral equivalence? This is about the justice system and how it works, not some perceived empathy with the accused.

They did it, the justice system swings into action, properly, and they will be convicted like the criminals they are. End of story. You might see it as a waste of time/money/effort, but in reality the justice system is reasserting its moral authority by giving these tossers a proper trial: it's saying to anyone else who thinks that they can further an agenda in this manner that our system is good enough and strong enough to deal with you as the criminals you are and give you no special place simply because of the nature of the crime you committed.
The press, however...

Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilization. - Winston Churchill, "Closing the Ring"
Before anyone misinterprets that quote and goes on some moral crusade about this not being a popularity thing, Churchill was really saying that everyone - everyone - deserves a fair trial under the law, no matter how abhorrent they are.

Alloa Akbar
2nd Dec 2013, 13:12
Where do you get off with creating assumed moral equivalence? This is about the justice system and how it works, not some perceived empathy with the accused

And rather than moral equivalence it was more a statement aimed at the apologist brigade. In this instance the law is an ass..

These animals killed and butchered an innocent man in broad daylight in front of dozens of witnesses, cameras and media. The young man's death must have been terrifying and horrifying. I think what many on here are saying is that there should be a fast track to deal with these scumbags without the need for giving them a public voice, wasting taxpayers money and forcing witnesses and family to re-live a most horrifying event, when the evidence as collected in statements and video recordings is overwhelming and indisputable. A fast track mechanism could be introduced in cases such as this where all the requirements of the law are met, without re-living the whole episode publicly and allowing these fcukers to spill out more bile in the name of their so-called "religious beliefs".

There is no debate, this was a deliberate and barbaric killing. The offenders are the actual perpetrators and they are guilty (in all aspects of the law) beyond doubt. My opinion and by default - assertion, is that anyone disputing those facts is quite simply mad.

Churchill was really saying that everyone - everyone - deserves a fair trial under the law, no matter how abhorrent they are. Churchill was entitled to his opinion.. In this case I believe his views to be out-dated and simply wrong.

PTT
2nd Dec 2013, 13:23
the apologist brigadeHas anyone here actually been an apologist for these people? Who?
A fast track mechanismAnd how do you decide what qualifies for this "fast track" mechanism?
There is no debate, this was a deliberate and barbaric killing. The offenders are the actual perpetrators and they are guilty (in all aspects of the law) beyond doubt. My opinion and by default - assertion, is that anyone disputing those facts is quite simply mad.I don't think anyone believes or has said otherwise. Seems to me you're flailing at a strawman here. All anyone has said is that the trial must be carried out as per the law.
I believe his views to be out-dated and simply wrong.I believe that anyone who thinks that any accused, regardless of crime, is not entitled to a fair trial is advocating rule by decree (i.e. dictatorship, on this occasion by the masses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_masses)) and by media (who will influence those masses).

wings folded
2nd Dec 2013, 14:08
Plovett's response is one of the more balanced and factually correct on this thread.
Guilt of the parties appears pretty obvious, given the witnesses, but it has to be proven.
Proving their guilt should not be too difficult, nor too lengthy, but it has to be done unless you want to live under 14th century rules as these two appear to want.
Those posters who delight in devising more and more barbaric methods of dealing with them would fit well in a fundamentalist Islamic state.


This isn't about proving guilt - They are guilty beyond any shade of doubt, of murder. If you cannot see that or agree with that statement then you are as bad as those wankers and the wankers that support them http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif


It most definitely is about proving guilt. The proof will be forthcoming during the trial. According to our 21st century sense of civilisation. The purpose of a jury trial is to establish guilt beyond any shade of doubt, as decided by twelve people, not one poster on pprune.

Would you prefer guilt to be determined by some savage fundamentalist cleric, and barbaric punishment meted out?

Or would you prefer our modern concept of justice?

14th century barbarism or modern justice?

Unless I have missed it, I don't read any "wankers who support them" views on this thread.

Alloa Akbar
2nd Dec 2013, 15:32
Wings - Feelings running a little high probably, made the ill informed decision to go pprune-ing straight after reading latest from the case, blood was still at evaporation point..

Apologies if I have caused offence, one or two posts fuelled my already incendiary feelings on the issue. :(

wings folded
2nd Dec 2013, 15:50
AA,

Of course feelings run high, and such an appaling event cannot leave anybody indifferent.

But if our response is to sink to the depths of distortion of ethics displayed by this and other events, we have lost our way.

How many lives were sacrificed over the last two millenia for us to have today a reasoned and reasonably secure judicial process?

Barristers will defend them; it is their duty.

Doctors have an ethic which requires them to preserve life even of the most despicable of beings. Same thing.

If you want a pre-judgement judgement (your fast track solution), you are heading towards a society in which all ethical, moral, decent standards built over centuries will collapse.

The case will be heard. Lawyers will defend. Lawyers will prosecute. A jury will decide.

I like that.

Romeo Oscar Golf
2nd Dec 2013, 20:02
Thanks for your replies and explanations....well not sure about Knc's response but we're all entitled to express our views.... and I have learned a little more about the legal process. However nothing is set in concrete and there's always room for improvement.
This deplorable murder is, I believe, a one off and I still believe that a one off solution could and should be adopted for it. If you believe its ok for the family and friends and many others to have to go through the nightmare again and again and to give a platform to these scumbags to pour forth more bile and filth, for the sake of your "legal system" so be it. Please dont be surprised if a large number of sensible educated and mature people regard the legal fraternity like they would a fart in a lift.
OK I'll shut up now and stick to golf, and I can only hope our fine legal system will bring some measure of protection to the family and friends.:ok:

Victor Inox
2nd Dec 2013, 20:05
Among all that is going on in court, we must not forget that Lee Rigby was also let down by the fundamental shortcomings of the police service. Despite there being a police officer on site within minutes (and while Lee Rigby was still alive), the fact that said officer was unarmed and thus felt inadequately equipped to intervene meant that it took far too long for armed response to arrive. This in a city with a significant proportion of its population being exposed to Islamic hate preachers and other human excrement and thus with a reasonable probability of violent crime waiting to happen. The whole matter would have most likely never reached its eventual terrible outcome if the first police officer at the scene had pumped a few bullets into the two sh1tbags.

500N
2nd Dec 2013, 20:11
Victor

+ 1 :ok:

especially about the Police.

air pig
2nd Dec 2013, 20:17
VI, if they had slotted them there and then, then they have won but a trip to court sentencing when found guilty is far better. Sling them in jail in solitary as it will not be safe from them to be in the general population and allow them to moulder their days away for the next 50 plus years.

500N
2nd Dec 2013, 20:27
Airpig

If the FIRST policeman had been armed and slotted both of them,
then a chance existed that Lee Rigby could have been saved and
still alive today. That alone would have been worth slotting them.

air pig
2nd Dec 2013, 21:29
500N,

I do accept your point totally. We will never know if Lee Rigby would have survived his injuries, given how bad they appear to be. If one of the police officers had slotted both of them, you would have had the lefties and other scum saying that they had been extra judicially executed and wanted the officer prosecuted for murder.

I would rather that they were suitably charged prosecuted and if found guilty, then executed by hanging. Unfortunately due to the ECHR means we cannot impose the ultimate sanction. They will stay in prison, hopefully they will never come out unless it's very early in a box after the population have had a word with them. They will be I suspect be incarcerated on Rule 43. I would have them in solitary 23 and a half hours a day, no television, solitary exercise, no television, bland food and drink, minimal contact with staff and none with other prisoners, inside a glass block cell with constant light and cctv surveillance.

500N
2nd Dec 2013, 21:46
Airpig

Agree since we can't do it, what you suggested sounds the best.
if they get solitary, they will go nuts over time !

Except for ECHR which needs to suffer a bit of "cleansing" itself,
preferably permanently !


I still wish the copper had tried with whatever he had at hand.
Even jump in a car and try to run them over ?

Rail Engineer
2nd Dec 2013, 22:04
monty python-witch scene - YouTube

radeng
2nd Dec 2013, 22:26
I feel we should wait until the end of the trial, the jury's verdict and the sentence before passing comment.

After which.........

Flash2001
3rd Dec 2013, 00:55
These are not the only ones that need be in the dock. They do not appear to have the necessary to do this by themselves. I think that skilful interrogation might reveal various imams, muftis, sheiks, etc. who are complicit to the extent of being equally guilty.

After an excellent landing etc...

SASless
3rd Dec 2013, 01:18
One of our Judges summed it up for Eric Reid the Shoe Bomber.....I am sure a British Judge could be as eloquent come sentencing.


snopes.com: Judge William Young -- Shoe Bomber Sentencing (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/shoebomb.asp)

Worrals in the wilds
3rd Dec 2013, 05:35
Thanks for that SASless, I hadn't read it before.
Thanks also to Plovett.

Krystal n chips
3rd Dec 2013, 05:42
" and I have learned a little more about the legal process. However nothing is set in concrete and there's always room for improvement.
This deplorable murder is, I believe, a one off and I still believe that a one off solution could and should be adopted for it.

Oh, the presumably unintended irony as to how much you have learned !

radeng
3rd Dec 2013, 17:51
It will be interesting to see what the defence case is, although so far it seems that Counsel will definitely be trying to make bricks without straw.

charliegolf
3rd Dec 2013, 20:11
Can I ask in all seriousness, why the police did not shoot them dead? I had always taken it that when a decision to shoot is made, the perp was dropped with fatal intent. What happened here?

CG

rgbrock1
3rd Dec 2013, 20:18
CG:

What happened here? The police involved obviously had no balls. I do know that had these perpetrators/scum bags perpetrated their ghastly crime on the streets of NYC they would have been instantly shot dead. If a crowd of NY'ers didn't get to them first and rip them apart.

500N
3rd Dec 2013, 20:25
Charlie

"Can I ask in all seriousness, why the police did not shoot them dead? I had always taken it that when a decision to shoot is made, the perp was dropped with fatal intent. What happened here ?"

I know it is the DM but have a read of this. It is the quickest I could find that had photos and description.

To be honest, after wounding him twice, he then raised a gun again. I am surprised he wasn't killed instead of shot in the hand, unless of course they missed the kill shot. I don't know what standard they are trained to.

Moment police shoot men 'after they murdered soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517389/Moment-police-shoot-men-murdered-soldier-Lee-Rigby-Woolwich.html)

wings folded
3rd Dec 2013, 20:28
If I read the reports correctly, having carried out their hideous acts, they were no longer presenting an immediate threat and were in fact engaged in discourse with those brave folk who went to the aid of the unfortunate lad.

To shoot them dead would constitute summary execution without trial.

The police may have had no balls, but were perhaps trained in the rules of use of their guns, when to use, when not to use, and not to be state executioners without due process.

rgbrock1
3rd Dec 2013, 20:31
wings wrote:

To shoot them dead would constitute summary execution without trial.

and in the case in discussion the problem with that would have been....??????

wings folded
3rd Dec 2013, 20:40
and in the case in discussion the problem with that would have been....??????
that we hand wound back civilisation 700 years to the standards embraced by these hideous beings.

I prefer to be more civilised. Perhaps you do not.

radeng
3rd Dec 2013, 20:42
Were they to be found guilty, which is not a foregone conclusion, a conditional discharge setting them free with publication of their address would be my choice...........plus a lack of police presence in the area.

Just a supposition - suppose they were found to be guilty and only suppose, which they well may not be, because they could be found to be innocent - could any appeal cite not having a jury of whom the majority were fundamentalist Muslims?

The possible legal ins and outs could go on for years......Jarndyce v. Jarndyce?

rgbrock1
3rd Dec 2013, 20:58
Ah, so the response to such barbaric acts should be choruses of kumbayah sung their way. Makes sense.

I prefer summary execution for scum bags such as those two.

Romeo Oscar Golf
3rd Dec 2013, 21:05
http://stats.bbc.co.uk/o.gif?~RS~s~RS~News~RS~t~RS~HighWeb_Story~RS~i~RS~25198859~R S~p~RS~99116~RS~a~RS~Domestic~RS~u~RS~/news/uk-25198859~RS~r~RS~http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25198859~RS~q~RS~print=true~RS~z~RS~58~RS~


http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/barlesque/2.56.15/desktop/3.5/img/blq-blocks_grey_alpha.png (http://www.bbc.co.uk/)
Accessibility links


Skip to content (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25198859?print=true#main-content)
Skip to local navigation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25198859?print=true#blq-local-nav)
Accessibility Help (http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/)
BBC iD


Sign in (https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/id/signin?ptrt=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25198859)

If I read the reports correctly, having carried out their hideous acts, they were no longer presenting an immediate threat and were in fact engaged in discourse with those brave folk who went to the aid of the unfortunate lad.

To shoot them dead would constitute summary execution without trial.

Which bit of this report do you not understand Wings?



Search





Lee Rigby trial: Police officer says she feared for her life

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71499000/jpg/_71499274_71499273.jpg

The jury was shown disturbing footage of Michael Adebolajo explaining why he killed Lee Rigby

Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25198859?print=true#story_continues_1) Related Stories


Man pleaded 'do not kill' Rigby (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25186307)
Rigby killing 'cowardly and callous' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25153273)
An armed police officer thought one of soldier Lee Rigby's killers was going to kill her, the Old Bailey has heard.
The officer, identified only as D49, said: "I thought 'Oh my God he's going to shoot me'," of the moment one of the men ran towards her waving a weapon.
Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22, deny the murder in Woolwich, south-east London, on 22 May.
Earlier, the court was shown mobile phone footage of Mr Adebolajo explaining why he killed the soldier.
Mr Adebolajo and Mr Adebowale also deny attempting to murder a police officer and conspiracy to murder a police officer.
The Old Bailey also heard from an eyewitness who wept as she told the jury that she had pleaded with Fusilier Rigby's attackers to stop.
'Chopping motion' Prosecutor Richard Whittam QC read the police officer's account to jurors, in which she said: "I saw a black male running at me waving both his hands in the air in a chopping motion. In his right hand I saw what I call a meat cleaver or a machete.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71507000/jpg/_71507359_3b1ed7fc-6c72-4daf-b149-cc81bdbfbc49.jpg Images released by the Metropolitan Police show Mr Adebowale and Mr Adebolajo in the aftermath of the attack on Lee Rigby
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71507000/jpg/_71507175_e206501a-ce79-4752-8e73-0826ea1d7fef.jpg Mr Adebowale was shot in the leg and stomach after running towards police with a gun - Mr Adebolajo had already been shot
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71507000/jpg/_71507174_8e7f6cd6-a1ba-4e5b-a827-dd2c69bba22c.jpg This image shows Michael Adebowale on the floor raising his gun - police shot him again in the thumb at this point
"I instantly thought 'he's going to kill me'. I went to draw my Glock. Due to my position in the car, the internal door has a panel jutting out, I could not immediately draw my Glock out due to this. It was a split second decision to draw my Taser.
"I could still see the look in the suspect's eyes. They were so wide and I could see the whites of them. He was shouting something."
She then saw a second suspect, said to be Mr Adebowale, holding a gun.
"I thought 'Oh my God he's going to shoot me'. I feared for my life," she said.
A second officer, named in court as E48, told the jury a man had run at the car with a knife when police arrived at the scene.
"He almost instantly broke into a sprint and I realised we were being attacked. We had very little time to deal with the threat," he said.
Video footage of Mr Adebolajo charging towards the officers and then falling to the ground as he was shot was played to the court. The footage then shows Mr Adebowale also being shot.
Officer D49 is seen keeping her gun trained on Mr Adebolajo as he lies on the ground, while E48 is seen rushing back to the police car to get a medical kit.
'Never be safe' In a statement, paramedic Nicholas Goh told the court that when he arrived at the scene he realised Fusilier Rigby was dead as he had suffered "injuries not compatible with life".
He then treated Mr Adebolajo, describing him saying: "I don't want anyone to die, I just want the soldiers out of my country. Your government is all wrong. I did it for my God."
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71471000/jpg/_71471827_71422769.jpg Fusilier Rigby was walking back to Woolwich Barracks when he was killed
Another paramedic William Woolston said in a statement that Mr Adebolajo had said he believed in Sharia law, and made repeated statements about British soldiers raping and killing women in Afghanistan all the way to hospital.
Mr Adebolajo earlier watched as the mobile phone footage was played to the jury, while Mr Adebowale bowed his head.
In the video, Mr Adebolajo has bloodied hands, and says: "The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. It's an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
"We will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone."
He adds: "I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same.
"You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don't care about you. Do you think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think the politicians are gonna die?
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71507000/jpg/_71507362_ad5e774f-ac90-4115-99dd-8d3325887f88.jpg The jury heard Mr Adebolajo handed a letter to passer-by, Amanda Donnelly Martin
"No it's gonna be the average man like you, and your children. So get rid of them, tell them to bring our troops back so we can, so you can all live in peace.
"Leave our lands and you'll live in peace. That's all I have to say."
His final words are an Islamic blessing.
Tina Nimmo told the Old Bailey she was a passenger in a car when she saw one of the attackers stab the 25-year-old from Manchester and drag the soldier's body into the road. She said she got out and shouted at the men to stop.
"I wanted them to stop. At the time you just get on and do what you have to do. And that's what I had to do," she said.
In a statement, her daughter, Michelle Nimmo, who was driving the car, said: "Throughout the attack, the two men had an evil look on their face.
"They stood around looking proud and posing with the gun and knives. They made no attempt to run away."
Earlier in the hearing the jury was read a letter Mr Adebolajo handed to passer-by, Amanda Donnelly Martin.
Addressed to "my beloved children", the letter told them to seek martyrdom, and stated: "If you find yourself curious as to why carnage is reaching your own towns then know its simply retaliation for your oppression in our towns."
The trial continues.

More on This Story

.related-links-list li {position: relative;}.related-links-list .gvl3-icon {position: absolute;top: 0;left: 0;}Related Stories


Man pleaded 'do not kill' Rigby (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25186307)
02 DECEMBER 2013, UK
Rigby killing 'cowardly and callous' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25153273)
29 NOVEMBER 2013, UK

PTT
3rd Dec 2013, 21:38
Ah, so the response to such barbaric acts should be choruses of kumbayah sung their way. Makes sense.

I prefer summary execution for scum bags such as those two.What a wonderful false dilemma combined with a strawman! Did anyone suggest kumbayah but you?

@ ROG - which bit of that report makes you think he should have been shot dead?

Romeo Oscar Golf
3rd Dec 2013, 21:44
I saw a black male running at me waving both his hands in the air in a chopping motion. In his right hand I saw what I call a meat cleaver or a machete.


This image shows Michael Adebowale on the floor raising his gun - police shot him again in the thumb at this point

Mr Adebowale was shot in the leg and stomach after running towards police with a gun

Video footage of Mr Adebolajo charging towards the officers and then falling to the ground as he was shot was played to the court

Roland Pulfrew
3rd Dec 2013, 23:08
One thing that I still struggle to get my head round is how anyone in the legal profession can even consider defending these two. Do lawyers and barristers have all sense of personal integrity removed when going through their training?

Any lawyer allowing their clients to enter a not guilty plea in cases like this are morally only slightly above the two guilty [email protected] I for one am not happy that the death penalty has been removed from "civilised society" and I do not believe that removing it makes anymore civilised. I'd be happy to be on the firing squad for these two.

air pig
3rd Dec 2013, 23:43
One thing that I still struggle to get my head round is how anyone in the legal profession can even consider defending these two. Do lawyers and barristers have all sense of personal integrity removed when going through their training?

Any lawyer allowing their clients to enter a not guilty plea in cases like this are morally only slightly above the two guilty [email protected] I for one am not happy that the death penalty has been removed from "civilised society" and I do not believe that removing it makes anymore civilised. I'd be happy to be on the firing squad for these two.

Barristers are obliged to take cases on a 'cab rank' system in that if they are next then they get the case, they are obliged to defend their clients in accordance with their clients wishes, irrespective of their own feelings.

A death penalty is what these two desired, far better to construct a glass cell bland food and 23 and a half hour day incarceration, no contact with anyone. I could construct a system of incarceration that would make Gitmo look like an 18 - 30 holiday, I assure you.

Romeo Oscar Golf
3rd Dec 2013, 23:53
PLovett '#80 stated
Fourthly, a barrister is not required to believe their client is guilty or not. They are required to use their skills to the best of their ability to represent their client while also observing their oath to the court they made on admission to practice that they will uphold the law in their dealings.

I'm not too sure what that means in old money except another case of we have a rigid legal system and must, therefore, fulfill all the players roles which includes a defence barrister to defend the indefensible.

To be fair to Mr Lovett his post contains other information which puts the legal system in a more understanding light but the most worrying aspect(to me) is the insanity card. Although the end result is still a lifetime of custody for these scumbags, the family and friends have had to endure a farcical and painful episode to satisfy the "process". There are better ways of dealing with this appalling crime.
Before the usual suspects get too fluffed up and have another go at me I am not suggesting any change to the present legal system for just about every case (even if I do not believe it has anything to do with justice) just a sensible look at one off cases. Now thats not too right wing or radical is it?

500N
3rd Dec 2013, 23:59
"and in the case in discussion the problem with that would have been....??????"


RGB

Even you know if you are going to do something like that, makes sure no cameras are around (just ask the British royal Marines !!!) and plenty of them were around in this instance.


I am still surprised one of them, having been wounded twice was not shot dead when he pointed the gun at the Police. That would have been justified, unless the training they get is not "centre of mass" anymore.

PTT
4th Dec 2013, 06:57
I saw a black male running at me waving both his hands in the air in a chopping motion. In his right hand I saw what I call a meat cleaver or a machete.


This image shows Michael Adebowale on the floor raising his gun - police shot him again in the thumb at this point

Mr Adebowale was shot in the leg and stomach after running towards police with a gun

Video footage of Mr Adebolajo charging towards the officers and then falling to the ground as he was shot was played to the courtSo why should he have been shot dead? Is it not sufficient that he was stopped? Does he then need executing as well?

PTT
4th Dec 2013, 07:15
just a sensible look at one off cases.Who decides what a one-off case is? How?

Roland Pulfrew
4th Dec 2013, 07:27
Barristers are obliged to take cases on a 'cab rank' system in that if they are next then they get the case, they are obliged to defend their clients in accordance with their clients wishes, irrespective of their own feelings.

And therein lies part of the problem with the law as it is today. All too often the important part is the game for lawyers not the delivery of justice. It's about can I use the law to my own purposes to get the guilty [email protected] off. This is an open and shut case. The whole country knows these two are guilty of murder. We should not have to endure the farce of them pleading not guilty.

Capetonian
4th Dec 2013, 07:31
So why should he have been shot dead? Is it not sufficient that he was stopped? Does he then need executing as well?
I can think of a number of reasons why he should have been shot dead. Most of them have already been outlined earlier in this thread by others.
The only downside I can see is that death by a bullet would have too kind and too quick.

gunbus
4th Dec 2013, 07:42
So why should he have been shot dead? Is it not sufficient that he was stopped? Does he then need executing as well?

If he was white and English,and had failed to pay his TV licence or a fine for double parking he possibly would have been !

PTT
4th Dec 2013, 07:52
We should not have to endure the farce of them pleading not guilty.We absolutely must in order for justice to be seen to be done.

I can think of a number of reasons why he should have been shot dead. Most of them have already been outlined earlier in this thread by others.Don't be obtuse. I meant with respect to what ROG said. Nothing in there suggests he should be killed.
It's sideways comments like this which send threads into deathspirals of miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Capetonian
4th Dec 2013, 08:01
I hadn't read the original comment in its context.

PLovett
4th Dec 2013, 09:22
but the most worrying aspect(to me) is the insanity card. Although the end result is still a lifetime of custody for these scumbags, the family and friends have had to endure a farcical and painful episode to satisfy the "process". There are better ways of dealing with this appalling crime.

ROG, you are quite right. Where an insanity defence is made comes at the end of the prosecution evidence so, therefore, witnesses are required to give their evidence and be cross-examined before the defence is commenced. This can have very unfortunate consequences due to the requirement that the prosecution must show that the accused both did the act and appeared to intend the act. There is a presumption of sanity that assists the prosecution in that,

However, that is where a defence of insanity has to be made by the defence. Because of the presumption of sanity it has to be overturned by evidence led by the defence and it can't happen until the prosecution case is closed.

I live in the state of Australia where the worst mass killing took place. The killer was arrested and all initial indications were that an insanity defence was going to be made. The killer was known for being "odd" to say the least and to all it appeared that he had "flipped his lid". In the end he pleaded guilty to all charges. I was at a talk given by one of the Supreme Court judges (the highest court in Australian states) who told us that there was a huge collective sigh of relief from the judges chambers when news reached them that the plea was to be guilty. None of them were looking forward to a trial that would involve near a hundred witnesses, some of whom had been severely traumatised by what they had seen.

This last point I can attest to. I was to give legal advice on another matter to a man who had witnessed a woman and her two children gunned down during the massacre. He was a psychological mess even several years after the events.

All too often the important part is the game for lawyers not the delivery of justice. It's about can I use the law to my own purposes to get the guilty [email protected] off. This is an open and shut case. The whole country knows these two are guilty of murder. We should not have to endure the farce of them pleading not guilty.

Roland Pulfrew. I suggest you have watched far too much tabloid television. Part of the oath one takes on admission to legal practice is to uphold the justice system. While one can always point the finger at the profession as a whole, the barristers I met during my time in legal practice were, in the main, some of the most principled people I have met who were prepared to put personal considerations aside to put their clients case to the best of their ability as part of their role in upholding the justice system.

To suggest that a person has no right to plead in accordance with their wishes is to undermine a fundamental pillar of the justice system. Incidentally, the Legal Aid Commission, certainly in Australia, and I believe also in the UK is rapidly achieving your wish, but that is another matter. A lawyers responsibility is to advise their client as to their rights and to recommend a course of action. It is not up to the lawyer to tell the client what they will do. If the client does not want to accept the lawyer's advise then they must be advised of the dangers of so doing but in the end it is their decision.

In this particular case, because any sentence will be the maximum allowable, there is nothing to be gained by pleading guilty which MAY have influenced the plea. No brickbats please I, obviously, have absolutely no links with the defence. I am hypothesising. If nothing is to be gained then you may as well put the prosecution to the proof. Its not good for the witnesses but it is part of the system and that system is far preferable to the alternative.

Worrals in the wilds
4th Dec 2013, 10:29
Agreed.
I think this crime was deeply upsetting, even for people on the far side of the world :sad:. It was a horrible, gratuitous killing of a person who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The alleged criminals who carried it out made it even worse by their gloating and carry-on to the media after the event, which we all saw. :yuk:

If you had to come up with a definition of 'worst possible murderer in a civilised society' these guys would be #1 and #2 nominee. It was at the worst level of Somalia-style shit. However, the system has to apply to all. If it doesn't then it isn't a system, but simply a favour granted to some, Somalia style...we become as bad as they were.

To those who hypothesise about them being granted bail, being let off by a lenient system and all the rest of it, I'd say with the utmost respect...take a deep breath.

They haven't been bailed. They haven't been found not guilty. They haven't been let off by a lefty, apologist government. They're in jail. If the evidence is as sure as that (and it appears to be) then the verdict will be Guilty and that's where they will remain. However, their right to plea is a right we all have, no matter what we're accused of. If you deny them their right then you deny the rest of us the same right, and IMO that's not good.

While I feel desperately sorry for the victim's family, they don't have to attend court. They don't have to relive the horror (though they'd have to avoid the media for the duration of the trial :(). The trial is not conducted solely for the victim's family, but for the collective so justice can be served. If there were to be executions after their guilty verdicts (which I am in favour of) the same would apply.

Like an autopsy (which is also conducted so justice can be served) the process will be deeply unpleasant and distressing for the poor family (which is why they're not invited along to an autopsy) but just as necessary. If the system doesn't go through the process then the process becomes optional, and that is a dangerous path to tread.

Roland Pulfrew
4th Dec 2013, 11:15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland Pulfrew
We should not have to endure the farce of them pleading not guilty.
We absolutely must in order for justice to be seen to be done.



No we shouldn't. They should have been directed to plead guilty. We know they did it. They know they did it. Their legal team know they did it. Plead guilty, found guilty, incarcerated. Justice still seen to be done. I do not know how their legal team can live with themselves - they are trying to defend the indefensible.

air pig
4th Dec 2013, 11:50
Bollocks, spouted by someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

I am sure that the defence barristers will have raised the issue of a guilty plea. Given the overwhelming evidence, I am sure that they will have encouraged the defendants to plead guilty. If the defendants choose not to take that advice, it is incumbent upon their counsel to provide a defence to the best of their ability.

It is absolutely the cornerstone of our criminal justice system that everyone, regardless of the crime they are alleged to have committed; regardless of the evidence against them; should be afforded a competent defence.

The legal team of the two defendants in this case are simply doing their job. What on earth is the point of having a legal system if defendants can be "directed" to plead guilty in the interests of expediency, and because the baying mob demands it. That is not justice. I am opposed to the idea of summarily executing criminals. We must give people a fair trial, and then execute them.

The defence can only present the case in accordance with the defendants wishes, no matter how stupidly absurd. The defendant has the right to a competent defence and a plea of mitigation.

I can think of one case in England during the period when capital punishment was available to the judge. The defendant pleaded guilty to murder, he was determined to be sane under the McNaughton rules, he was warned of the consequences of his plea by the judge, he refused to change his plea so the judge moved immediately to sentencing, therefore he was sentenced to death by hanging and the penalty was carried out.

G-CPTN
4th Dec 2013, 11:57
Meanwhile Nigella (erstwhile wife of Charles Saatchi) has been told by the judge that she must answer question - unless in doing so would incriminate her of an illegal act or acts.

This seems strange as Nigella is just a witness, not the accused . . . :confused:

MagnusP
4th Dec 2013, 12:23
G-CPTN, she is, I think, compellable as a witness in the case, but would be unlikely to mention sticking a grand a week in Columbian marching powder up her nose.

G-CPTN
4th Dec 2013, 12:40
Isn't being a witness voluntary?

Dont Hang Up
4th Dec 2013, 12:50
Why do we give these people the benefit of law? I think Robert Bolt summed things up very eloquently in a his play "A man for all seasons".

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

MagnusP
4th Dec 2013, 12:54
In Scotland, the only exception to a competent witness being compellable is the spouse of the accused.

charliegolf
4th Dec 2013, 13:49
So why should he have been shot dead? Is it not sufficient that he was stopped? Does he then need executing as well?



I asked the question. It was nothing to do with me wanting anyone dead (but I have no reason to worry about these two).

I spent a few years in the mil, in a branch which was better kept away from guns! In the training, ROEs were hammered home, but, when the time comes to shoot, we were always taught that 'winging' or 'shooting in the leg' was a load of crap- you shoot centre of the torso and drop the enemy.

I asked why that seemed not to happen. Later on the news, I heard a quote from one copper along the lines of, "as soon as he started towards me, I made the decision to shoot."

In video, at least 4 shots were fired. My question again (and it is cock all to do with executions) is, were they shooting to halt the person; or to kill them, but were so shite that they failed. It's not a difficult question.

CG

Roland Pulfrew
4th Dec 2013, 14:00
Bollocks, spouted by someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about.


Au contraire John Smith; I understand very well what I'm talking about. I just happen to have a growingly jaded view of (elements of) the legal "profession". You wouldn't be a lawyer would you?:hmm:

Captivep
4th Dec 2013, 14:17
So go on then, Mr Pulfrew...answer these:

Who "directs" them to plead guilty? You? The Police? A judge?

What if they don't? (To which my answer would be put all the evidence in front of 12 randomly chosen people and let them decide...)

Who chooses which crimes you "have" to plead guilty to? You? The Police? A judge?

Or do you mean only certain instances of a crime? So, if I murder my wife in a fit of anger (and are seen by many people doing it) I'm allowed to plead not guilty?

You do realise that the logical extension of what you're saying is that, if the police arrest you on a "no innocent plea allowed" crime then they might as well take you straight to jail, don't you?

I fully understand why we're all so angry with these two scumbags currently on trial; what I'm finding increasingly difficult to understand is how some people seem to completely not comprehend the utter necessity of treating everyone (and I mean everyone) with the same legal even- handedness until they are proven guilty. It's one of the things that sets us apart from the people who perpetrate crimes such as these. Even at the end of WW2, proper legal process was followed at Nuremburg.

There is an apposite saying, I think: "Hard cases make bad law."

Romeo Oscar Golf
4th Dec 2013, 19:20
OK you win Knc, your comments are just too tiresome and school debating society for me. However knock off the insults dear chap, its most unbecoming.
Back to the thread.... I note that the Prosecution is likely to wind up tomorrow and after a lawyers weekend the Defence will open their case on Monday. At least it seems that the Prosecution can see no reason to extend this case into a marathon and for once brevity is the winner. This goes some way to appease the irritating folk like me who would like to see a speedy conclusion to this case. I'm still concerned that the Defence will throw the insanity ball, and Mr Lovett explained on an earlier post the likely consequences of such a thing.

ArthurR
4th Dec 2013, 19:35
Best thing for these two, would be to fly them to Saudi, then take them by helicopter to the middle of the empty quarter, drop them off and let Allah decide if they are innocent or guilty. It has been done before, I believe Allah found those guilty.

rgbrock1
4th Dec 2013, 20:43
ArthuR.

I like this:

Best thing for these two, would be to fly them to Saudi, then take them by helicopter to the middle of the empty quarter, drop them offHowever, it is of my not so humble opinion that it should be changed to

Best thing for these two, would be to fly them to Saudi, then take them by helicopter to the middle of the empty quarter and throw them out of the chopper, and attached to boat anchors.

PLovett
4th Dec 2013, 21:00
I'm still concerned that the Defence will throw the insanity ball, and Mr Lovett explained on an earlier post the likely consequences of such a thing.

ROG, just to expand on that point. The witnesses cannot be recalled once the prosecution has closed its case so any trauma caused by having to relive their experiences will be over as far as the trial is concerned.

I haven't read any of the evidence, or more importantly, the cross-examination, but if it was along the lines of, "....did the accused appear to be ranting?" or similar then the defence of insanity is likely to be raised. If so, then the defence will start by calling a battery of psychiatrists. In such cases you avoid putting the accused on the stand.

The prosecution would also have prepared for this defence and would have had the accused psychiatrically examined while pending trial. They can re-open the prosecution and call rebuttal evidence should the insanity defence be led.

To also elaborate on the point about not putting the accused on the stand. It is often said that the high point of a defence is at the close of the prosecution case and it can only go downhill after that. Juries want to hear from the accused but it is part of the ethos that it is the prosecutions job to prove the guilt that means an accused does not have to give evidence. A barrister will usually advise their client to remain silent, however, like much else it is the clients wishes that prevail and if they want to go in the witness box then it is their right to do so.

In this particular case the accused may want to use the witness box as a pulpit to rant their particular form of venom again. However, a judge has the power to immediately put a stop to any form of statement that is not relevant to the trial. They have done so in the past and most I have met are absolute in their desire to limit court proceedings solely to the matter at hand.

wings folded
4th Dec 2013, 21:19
If so, then the defence will start by calling a battery of psychiatrists. In such cases you avoid putting the accused in the dock.


A bit confusing, that. Accuseds are generally always in the dock except if they are called to the stand to witness.

Did you mean "stand"?

Romeo Oscar Golf
4th Dec 2013, 21:22
Thanks for the info.

Earlier the court heard how a psychiatrist who assessed Mr Adebolajo concluded that he does not have a mental disorder.
The expert who assessed Mr Adebolajo said he was polite and co-operative and had mental capacity, the jury was told.
BBC report.
As an aside PL, my son's a Brisbane Policeman and he's take on the States lawmakers is not too different from yours.

Out Of Trim
4th Dec 2013, 21:26
Would happily take my place on a firing squad to terminate these two :mad: scum! With a full magazine!

BenThere
4th Dec 2013, 22:07
One concession I'll make to the Saudis is that if cases like this happen there before Thursday, the perps are dispatched NLT Friday night.

PPRuNe Pop
5th Dec 2013, 15:26
Keep to the topic and cut out the snide and abuse. BOTH are against the rules and it might just get anyone who steps over the mark - banned.

Romeo Oscar Golf
10th Dec 2013, 03:20
Under cross examination by prosecutor Richard Whittam QC, Mr Adebolajo replied "yes" when he was asked if he had killed Fusilier Rigby, describing it as a "military operation".
Fusilier Rigby's widow Rebecca left the courtroom in tears as Mr Adebolajo claimed the soldier was still moving after being hit by the car.
He refused to answer questions about how long he had planned the attack, but said he had not planned to run down Fusilier Rigby, saying "it just so happened that Allah caused him to cross in front of my car."
He described attacking Fusilier Rigby with a meat cleaver in graphic detail, and said the soldier was already dead by the time Mr Adebowale had joined him in attacking the soldier.


When he was later asked what his defence to the charge of murder was, he said: "I am a soldier. I'm a soldier of Allah".
He continued: "I understand that some people might not recognise this because we do not wear fatigues and we do not go to the Brecon Beacons and train and this sort of thing. But we are still soldiers in the sight of Allah as a mujahid.
"This is all that matters, if Allah considers me a soldier, then I am a soldier

FFS ..... we have to take this crap seriously and prolong the friggin circus??

crewmeal
10th Dec 2013, 06:47
When he was later asked what his defence to the charge of murder was, he said: "I am a soldier. I'm a soldier of Allah".
He continued: "I understand that some people might not recognise this because we do not wear fatigues and we do not go to the Brecon Beacons and train and this sort of thing. But we are still soldiers in the sight of Allah as a mujahid.
"This is all that matters, if Allah considers me a soldier, then I am a soldier

In that case is the the UK not waging a war on terrorism? If so they should be executed.

Krystal n chips
10th Dec 2013, 07:00
" FFS ..... we have to take this crap seriously and prolong the friggin circus??!"

You have to take the defence very seriously, not simply because a defence is a basic tenet of our legal framework, but also to gain ( or rather let those whose expertise lies in this area ) a much deeper insight as to what motivated him / them, why and how this motivation transpired, who else was involved across the years and what, if anything, given this was seemingly a random attack ( and a random attack is precisely that ) can be done to negate as far as possible, a repeat.

El Grifo
10th Dec 2013, 10:02
"I am a soldier. I'm a soldier of Allah".

They should perhaps call in his commanding officer as a character witness.

If they can find him that is ! :ugh:

tezzer
10th Dec 2013, 11:06
If they want a war, I'm MORE than happy to give them one. Every single one of them in MY Country.

sitigeltfel
10th Dec 2013, 11:10
They should perhaps call in his commanding officer as a character witness.

Too busy molesting nine year old virgins to attend.

ArthurR
10th Dec 2013, 12:27
sitigeltfel

Too busy molesting nine year old virgins to attend.

He's given up on 6 year olds then.

superq7
10th Dec 2013, 12:33
I'm a soldier of Allah

If he's a soldier he can spend his "time" in a military prison :E:

Captivep
10th Dec 2013, 13:38
Much as I would relish the idea of these two being banged up in the glasshouse at Colchester (and not in solitary, obviously) it is far better that we do not dignify them with any treatment that suggests that there is even the remotest hint that anybody considers them to be "soldiers".

They will be, when duly convicted, be the lowest scumbag criminals - just that. Let them disappear into the normal criminal system for what I hope will be a whole life tariff...

Slight thread drift, but I remember my heart sinking when Bush coined the phrase "war on terror"; for two reasons. Firstly, how do you know when you've won? And secondly, it encourages lowlifes like this to think they are something special.

rgbrock1
10th Dec 2013, 13:39
Well, the way I see it: if these two scum are "soldiers" of a "force" which is at war with the West yet these same two scum are citizens of one of those countries who is at war with the other, than that constitutes treason.

And the punishment for treason? :ok::ok::ok:

PTT
10th Dec 2013, 13:44
And the punishment for treason?In the UK it's life imprisonment. Has been since 1998.

SASless
10th Dec 2013, 14:20
You have to take the defence very seriously, not simply because a defence is a basic tenet of our legal framework, but also to gain ( or rather let those whose expertise lies in this area ) a much deeper insight as to what motivated him / them, why and how this motivation transpired, who else was involved across the years and what, if anything, given this was seemingly a random attack ( and a random attack is precisely that ) can be done to negate as far as possible, a repeat.

You don't need a fancy expensive trial for that....just a very good interrogation immediately before the Execution.....the Summary kind.

Do you even remotely believed you can prevent another one of these attacks based upon anything these two have to say?

We know all about Armed Robbers, Guns, Poverty, Drug Use and the like.....yet we still have Armed Robbery taking place every single day.

So just what makes this kind of crime any different?

PTT
10th Dec 2013, 14:25
So just what makes this kind of crime any different?Excellent question. Why should it be treated any differently to any other crime?

Seldomfitforpurpose
10th Dec 2013, 15:00
Excellent question. Why should it be treated any differently to any other crime?



Sadly that is precisely what most posters on here are struggling with :-(

wings folded
10th Dec 2013, 16:57
Right, here goes.
I know I will get shot down in flames, but Why should it be treated any differently to any other crime?

There is no reason in law.
This forum is frequented a lot by current or ex military people who find the horrid assasination of a serving member to be repulsive. We all agree.
I found the death of a civilian mother of three in the Irish conflicts to be a bit upsetting too. Especially as it was my cousin.

Worrals in the wilds
10th Dec 2013, 23:59
I know I will get shot down in flames, but Why should it be treated any differently to any other crime?

There is no reason in law.It shouldn't. Otherwise there is no law. If there is to be law then it must apply to all, from the patently wrongly accused to the obviously guilty. That's what law is.

Sorry about your cousin, btw :sad:. I'm probably not the only person here who sees a violent, pointless crime on the news and thinks 'what if that had been my relative or friend'? One time, it was my friend; killed by a reckless, drunken driver trying to evade the police by turning his car headlights off and speeding through a stop sign, thence colliding with an innocent driver on his way home from work.

As the media say; the trial continued. It continued, found him guilty and he was sentenced. IMO it was a woefully inadequate sentence, but that's the law. If you choose to support the alternative, hope that you are never wrongly accused of something, because it happens. Not in this case, but the fundamental tenet of fair law is one set of rules for everyone. Otherwise it's mob rule. Often mob rule gets the correct decision (most crimes aren't that complicated and the mob isn't that stupid) but not always.

Now I'll take the opportunity to get shot down in flames. If it were my relative I don't know if I'd want to attend the trial. Maybe the execution (if that was the sentence post verdict) but the trial? That's where the horrible details will be laid out and debated. That's where the accused will carry on with their crap. I know 'closure' is a popular concept, but I don't know that sitting there and listening to the ins and outs of the incident would do any good. :confused:

With my friend, I watched the news broadcast the next night, saw his car, his street and his ambulance desperately running a race they ultimately lost. It didn't help 'healing', in fact it made it worse. It didn't achieve anything. A decade on, I still hate watching fatal car accident reports on the TV, because it all comes flooding back, and it was a minor incident compared to this one :(.

I don't know that this 'closure by full disclosure' thing really helps victims' families and friends. Sure, you need to know what happened and how the process works, but I don't know that sitting through the nitty gritties is a good thing for people who are already messed up.

Thoughts?

PLovett
11th Dec 2013, 00:38
Worrals, I totally agree with you. "Closure" is the most overworked and ridiculous phrase used by an ever-increasingly vacuous media. Try telling that they will achieve closure to Fusilier Rigby's widow, or his parents, all of whom were no doubt proud of their husband and sons life and career. Try telling that to any bereaved person whose love of their life has been cruelly curtailed. Time may dull the pain but it will always be there.

From the scant accounts of the trial that I have read it would appear that the defendants are merely digging a deeper hole for themselves. A question for a UK resident. Does the UK still have a "term of natural life" sentence or since the EU Court of Human Rights must every sentence have a defined period?

Worrals in the wilds
11th Dec 2013, 01:41
Without waiting for responses from the Brits to your question :O, I think that parole is a fraught issue.

IME, people are largely happy to exchange death penalty for life imprisomment without parole, which is still on the books here (though rarely implemented). It achieves the same purpose as execution, in that the convicted criminal is removed from the public. They don't get hanged/gassed/shot, but they don't get let out, ever.

However, when a parole period is allowed (even if it rampantly exceeds the convicted person's natural life) the public feel a bit ripped off. However remote, there is a possibility that the convicted murderer may one day walk free, and the mass media milk this for all it's worth. My understanding is that the EU has squashed this option in the UK, hence the angst; there is no longer a 'natural life' sentence.

The public generally distrust government, government boards and government tribunals. Unfortunately, in any of our countries there is ample, daily evidence to support this distrust. We all know that all too often the government can't find its own arse with a map and GPS steering committee. :(

When it comes to parole, the public feel (rightly or wrongly) that sometime in the future, such boards or tribunals may capitulate to outside influences and free a criminal who is both a threat to their safety, and who deserves to be locked up. This is where parole periods (even if they are fifty years or more) become a sticking point. There is always the chance that sometime in the future, the Manic Killer may be considered fit for release because in the public's eyes, he or she conned the psychs into thinking they were reformed.

People will largely accept that a death sentence is inhumane, if the natural life imprisonment option is the alternative. However, if there is any question of parole (however remote), people see it as a cop out and a threat to public safety even if the convicted murderer is only eligible for release in his eighties. When a parole period is offered to convicted cold blooded killers, I think a lot of people feel ripped off.

Romeo Oscar Golf
11th Dec 2013, 03:37
Good posts Worrals, so much to agree with.
Closure!!
W and PLovett couldn't agree more.
It's my major reason for wishing for a swift end to the trial because the pressure on the family to "be there" is overwhelming. However I believe they attend because its expected. BTW I do know that there cannot be a fast track to the process I just wish there could be and believe there should be.
Of course the family should stay away until sentencing day if the process is too horrific, but would you tell them that?
Closure -- Foxtrot Oscar

radeng
11th Dec 2013, 09:51
Not sure if a 'whole life' sentence is allowed now. But for defendants charged with several offences, handing out the maximum for each offence, all to be served consecutively, could have the same effect. However, consecutive sentencing appears to be rare these days, which does lead one to wonder what the point of concurrent sentences is when the defendant is charged with multiple offences.

charliegolf
11th Dec 2013, 10:54
which does lead one to wonder what the point of concurrent sentences is when the defendant is charged with multiple offences.

For the record! And in lesser cases, the flexibility for the judge to give heftier sentences if the crim reoffends?

CG

Worrals in the wilds
11th Dec 2013, 22:18
BTW I do know that there cannot be a fast track to the process I just wish there could be and believe there should be.Fair enough, I agree.

You're right re the expectation to show up, but I think it's a pity. Murder trials are hard enough on the lawyers and court staff who have to be there, let alone for people who were close to the victim. I suppose the media needs their daily fix of traumatised relatives walking out of court in the afternoon. :yuk:

Certainly a 150 year sentence with a parole period set at 60 would fit the bill nicely. Are there regulations re consecutive sentencing in the UK or is it up to the judge?

sitigeltfel
19th Dec 2013, 11:44
This shouldn't take long... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25448658)

or should it?

StressFree
19th Dec 2013, 11:56
Siti,

Hmmm, 5 minutes should be enough...........

Alloa Akbar
19th Dec 2013, 12:32
Aye including time for a shower, ciggy and change of clothes..

MFC_Fly
19th Dec 2013, 12:42
1 hour 30 minutes between retiring and returning to the court room - hmmmm, I wonder what the verdicts will be :E

MFC_Fly
19th Dec 2013, 12:49
Both found GUILTY of the murder of Lee Rigby - no surprise there then.

Both found NOT GUILTY of attempted murder of the police officers - again, not really a surprise there either

Blacksheep
19th Dec 2013, 13:16
1 hour 30 minutes between retiring and returning to the court room It took them that long? :confused:

superq7
19th Dec 2013, 13:20
I wonder how long they'll get ?

Blacksheep
19th Dec 2013, 13:34
They're both in their 20s. Eighty years would be about right.

Alloa Akbar
19th Dec 2013, 13:44
40 years each in General Population should suffice, I wouldn't back them to last 12 months..

Dak Man
19th Dec 2013, 13:50
Will they get longer than Sgt. A.?

sitigeltfel
19th Dec 2013, 14:01
1 hour 30 minutes between retiring and returning to the court room It took them that long? :confused:

I think 1hr 29mins of that was for lunch. ;)

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2013, 14:31
Not familiar with the British legal system I will then ask: how long does it usually take between the conviction and sentencing?

Captivep
19th Dec 2013, 14:36
Sentencing can be immediate or the Judge can decide to delay it for a number of reasons (listening to social work reports and so on - not likely in this case!).

In this case, he's delaying it until after an Appeal Court ruling in January about the use of "whole life" tariffs which probably gives a clue to what he's thinking!

500N
19th Dec 2013, 14:38
RGB Said
"Not familiar with the British legal system I will then ask: how long does it usually take between the conviction and sentencing?"


RGB is used to "Guilty, Load, Aim, Fire" :O :ok:

Or never having to get to this stage by making sure they are in a body bad !

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2013, 14:39
No, no, no, 500N:

Guilty. Aim. Fire. (No loading necessary as it's always pre-loaded, so to speak!) :ok::}:E

500N
19th Dec 2013, 14:42
Can anyone answer this question.

I believe they were shot in the legs by the Police. One may have been shot in the lower abdomen.

Why when an armed offender advanced towards them did Police shoot them
in the legs / lower abdomen ?


What ever happened to centre of aimed mass to ensure stopping the offender ?

Anyone know ?

Do police in the UK try not to kill people ?

superq7
19th Dec 2013, 14:43
500, you crack me up guilty aim load fire brilliant :ok::ok:

Romeo Oscar Golf
19th Dec 2013, 14:46
Although my heart agrees with the "instant" justice, my head tells me, that as these scumbags wanted to die in a shower of bullets, the likelihood of a very long custodial sentence is more appropriate.
May they rot in hell, after the inmates have had their say.

500N
19th Dec 2013, 14:49
Superq

Thank you, that is my Xmas present to you on behalf of RGB and me,
two people on opposite sides of the world who think almost identically :O :ok:


(Now, if you have any vacancies for Judges, incorporating the roles of
Judge, jury and executioner, please PM both of us :O)

goudie
19th Dec 2013, 14:56
Aim, Fire, Guilty, if you want really rough justice

superq7
19th Dec 2013, 14:57
If I had the power I would appoint you both in a heartbeat. :ok:

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2013, 15:08
500N wrote

Why when an armed offender advanced towards them did Police shoot them
in the legs / lower abdomen ?

I think you know the answer to your own question. Or at least you should.

Perhaps the police were aiming for the culprits' knees. And you should very well know what happens to someone when you shoot out their kneecaps.

pvmw
19th Dec 2013, 15:12
......as these scumbags wanted to die in a shower of bullets, the likelihood of a very long custodial sentence is more appropriate.
I think i agree with that - with the caveat that they should only be fed bacon and pork suasages, and incarcerated in a proper prison where the other inmates can deliver a little retributive justice.

However, with the current penchant for huggy-fluff justice in this bloody country, they will probably be placed in a secure wing surrounded by suitable candidates for conversion/brainwashing, with their own Imam, access to TV/internet on demand - and that meddling woman Chakrabarti and the Nat. Council of Civil Liberties to ensure their "human rights" aren't infringed.

RedhillPhil
19th Dec 2013, 16:01
Although my heart agrees with the "instant" justice, my head tells me, that as these scumbags wanted to die in a shower of bullets, the likelihood of a very long custodial sentence is more appropriate.
May they rot in hell, after the inmates have had their say.


Did you print an "S" instead of a "W" at the start of the last word?

500N
19th Dec 2013, 16:04
"to ensure their "human rights" aren't infringed."

With a red hot poker :ok:

air pig
19th Dec 2013, 17:45
Gentlemen gentlemen, you are all a little bloodthirtsy, guns is messy. The old middle age age method is far more appropriate, hanging drawing and quartering is quite good. When they are dead and that would take a long long time believe me, wrap in pig skin and cremate.

Hanged, drawn and quartered - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered)

500N
19th Dec 2013, 17:51
Slice open the stomach, let the guts drop out, stick a flame thrower
in there and pull the trigger. The screams will turn milk to butter.
(Method courtesy of the VC).

That always stuck in my mind as a method to make someone wimper.

fitliker
19th Dec 2013, 17:53
Any links to funds for the Rigby family would be appreciated.

419
19th Dec 2013, 18:51
One would hope that when they get sentenced, the prison that they are sent to will contain a few ex squaddies.
Even if they kept in solitary, sooner or later someone will manage to get to them.

unclenelli
19th Dec 2013, 18:53
I can't believe it took 90 minutes!

They were as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a poo!

Dak Man
19th Dec 2013, 18:54
Why martyr them?, it's exactly what they want and would consider it a victory.

The sentence for illegally killing an enemy combatant has already been set.

cavortingcheetah
19th Dec 2013, 18:58
Sadly for revenge theorists, the fate that awaits the two murderers is more likely to be veneration and lionisation that any of the suggested more appropriate methods of dispatch to martyrdom.
Britain: Muslim Prison Population Up 200% :: Gatestone Institute (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3913/uk-muslim-prison-population)

Rosevidney1
19th Dec 2013, 19:08
I wonder just how much this court case has cost the nation?
Too bloody much!

mtoroshanga
19th Dec 2013, 19:11
How could these two pieces of crap be considered as human beings, our society has become too soft on this sort of crime, we put up with too much and why were they here in the first place ,send them and their family back to Nigeria, and better still let them be tried and sentenced there. They would be too cowardly to commit a crime like that there
These two cowardly pieces of scum should be fed to pigs alive and that should be recognised as being the fate of any moron that follows their creed. Get real, we are heading for a major problem and the sooner our ****** politicians take it on board the better. Good guys come last!!!

Capetonian
19th Dec 2013, 19:21
I wonder just how much this court case has cost the nation?A damn sight more than a few properly aimed bullets.
mtoroshanga : Nice to see a fellow liberal here!

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2013, 19:43
mtoroshanga

don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. :}

Actually, I agree with your sentiments 100%. :ok:

500N
19th Dec 2013, 19:51
rgb

Isn't it nice to see another one join us :ok:

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2013, 20:07
500N, John Smith, myself and a few others would certainly make for a very effective U.S. Army Ranger squad. Heck, we could all probably rid the world of radical Islam in very short order.

Atten..hut. Presennnnnt, arms. http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new-thumbnail/ehow/images/a08/4n/u4/military-rangers-800x800.jpg

:ok::ok::ok:

Basil:

Although I certainly understand your wish not to make these scum bags martyrs I think a fitting fate for the lot of 'em would be similar to that of Osama bin Liner: a double-tap to the head and then a swim with da fishes. :ok:

ArthurR
19th Dec 2013, 20:12
A swim with the fishes, no, feed them to the pigs.

RGB other than that I'm with you.

500N
19th Dec 2013, 20:13
RGB

Count me in :ok:

El Grifo
19th Dec 2013, 20:23
Did anyone see the UK C4 news at 7.00 tonight where some muslim cleric was saying that he would be proud to think that his teachings led to the actions of one of the slaughterers.

He went further by introducing his 7 year old kid and proclaiming he would be proud if his son followed the slaughterers example.

I believe he was talking from the UK.

If so I would imagine (not) that a squad car is making its way to his abode as I type.

As If :ugh:

It is all going pear shaped very fast !!

El G.

Andu
19th Dec 2013, 20:23
Bear with me a minute... I understand the outrage (I share it, with knobs on), but we all know that none of the punishments some are positing here will never happen.

However, what would the chances be of something along these lines getting into law? What would the chances be of legislators enacting a law that made the punishment for a crime such as this include smearing the guilty person's body daily liberally in pork fat and a diet of pork products and nothing but pork products (apart from water) and veggies cooked in pork fat?

I know the Leftie Luvvies would be in court for the term of their natural lives trying to overturn any such law because it so obviously infringes on the human rights of one and one only section of society - (if we disregard the many thousands of rabidly homicidal vegetarians and vegans we all know are out there lining up to commit hate crimes like the killing of Trooper Rigby) - and you'd have to accept that bacon and pork snags for breakfast for life would be considered 'looxury' by some of the low-lifes occupying our prisons.

But you'd have to accept that it might give pause to some of the more committed of that section of society we dare not mention here where 'martyrdom' does not. I strongly suspect that we as a society have become so weak - and so afraid to acknowledge the elephant (make that the mammoth) in the room that anything even mildly approaching such measures would never get up.

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2013, 20:37
El Grif:

If so I would imagine (not) that a squad car is making its way to his abode as I type.

Most certainly not because we wouldn't want to offend their sensitivities nor their religion. So what if they call for the slaughter of all of us, they are still human beings deserving of our attention, no? (Read to the sounds of Kumbayah sounding in the background.)

No. Instead of having the coppers show up at the door I suggest the following visit:

http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/1152x864/us-army-ranger/223740/us-army-ranger-noncoms-223740.jpg

Ah, Mr. Mohammed? Would you please come with us, we're here to escort you home.

modtinbasher
19th Dec 2013, 20:43
Well, maybe it's the time when HM Government roll out the old (not that I would subscribe to it by any means) platitude of "God forgive them because they know not what they do". It is pretty timely in this once Christian country that we now have to appease all sorts of scroats, and be seen to be doing so, and of course said scroats know full well what they do and are so trained to do it.


Personally, have any fellow PPRuners read ARRse, on this topic? It's an experience to behold! A similar post on this forum would result in.........arghhhhhh! Nuff said.


But, bets are open, the recent crap 10 year rap for doing "the right thing" in the right circumstances, when under severe provocation, have clearly knocked a stake in the ground, and this may colour what these highly trained motivated brainwashed UK benefit suckers may get when the learned Judge does is bit.


I don't hold out much hope....


My considered thought is 20 years, with 18 off for good behaviour, promising, when, as a member of the ruling theological party in this country ( in about 10 years max if not now) to "sorry, I'll not do it again".


But I'll be dead by then, I just worry about those of my family who outlast me. Governments have taken no notice so far, indeed the subversion has all been planned for a long time............................


How far away is your nearest burka? Think on!


MTB

vulcanised
19th Dec 2013, 20:58
Along with agreeing with most that something really painful and permanent should be dealt frequently to them, I do hope they are NEVER banged up in the same prison after today.

Captain Sand Dune
19th Dec 2013, 21:05
Death is too good for these guys, and would give them what they want - martyrdom. Put 'em in the general prison population where they can receive daily rogerings from a conga line of white supremacist skin heads.

500N
19th Dec 2013, 21:07
RGB

"Ah, Mr. Mohammed? Would you please come with us,
we're here to escort you home."


I am very dissappointed in you.

Instead of standing there at ease with guns slung, I think all kneeling
or lying prone would be more appropriate with guns on full auto
and letting rip at the house so that it looks like a pepper pot at the end.

It's an impressive shooting up a building and watching it slowly collapse
and I think very appropriate for this scum bag and his family !

Andu
19th Dec 2013, 21:15
Trouble is, it's almost a dead certainty that it would be a council house, supplied by the taxpayer.

500N
19th Dec 2013, 21:19
Andu

It would still be worth it.

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2013, 21:19
500N:

I guess you don't get it then. See the fire blazing in the background? It's not there to toast marshmallows ya know! :ok:

500N
19th Dec 2013, 21:21
Ah, that is the "after" shot :O

Gotcha :ok:

Worrals in the wilds
19th Dec 2013, 21:27
Trouble is, it's almost a dead certainty that it would be a council house, supplied by the taxpayer. One of these would fit the bill...
http://www.aviewoftheworld.com/images/USA/Wyoming/Attractions/FrontierPrison/gas_chamber.jpg
Death is too good for these guys, and would give them what they want - martyrdom.It would, but it would also satisfy a lot of other law abiding, decent people. I'm not a fan of capital punishment for run of the mill murders, but what these guys did (and have now been found guilty of by a jury after a fair trial) is well beyond the norm in a civilised society.

Tempting as it may be, so is feeding them to pigs, putting them in an industrial mincer etc etc (some people have obviously spent a bit of time thinking about this :}) but IMO there's a time and a place in a civilised society for quick executions when two people commit a pre-meditated crime that is so far outside the boundaries of what is acceptable conduct, and this is the time and place.

Tankertrashnav
19th Dec 2013, 21:28
My considered thought is 20 years, with 18 off for good behaviour, promising, when, as a member of the ruling theological party in this country ( in about 10 years max if not now) to "sorry, I'll not do it again".


I understand people are angry, but a lot of the posts on this thread are just complete rubbish.

For a start - you cannot get "18 years off for good behaviour" - if a judge sets a minimum tariff for a life sentence, then that's what it is - a minimum period before the person can be considered for parole, and then they can still be detained until the parole board thinks fit. You dont get time off for good behaviour on a life sentence - check your facts.

My guess is that the judge is looking to check that this crime fits the parameters for giving a whole life tariff (ie die in jail), and I hope that's what they get. If not, I'm thinking something along the lines of 35 - 40 years will be likely.

parabellum
19th Dec 2013, 21:35
You dont get time off for good behaviour on a life sentence - check your facts.


Are you sure TTN? I thought a life sentence was twenty one years with the possibility of one third remission meaning fourteen years served? Possibly just a popular myth?

Capetonian
19th Dec 2013, 21:36
They are not fit to rejoin society - ever. There is no point, other than punishment, in keeping them alive in prison until they die. A slow, miserable and painful death should be their end, perhaps by starvation. They deserve no mercy whatsoever.

Why should the taxpayer fund their continued existence?

Tankertrashnav
19th Dec 2013, 21:45
Are you sure TTN? I thought a life sentence was twenty one years with the possibility of one third remission meaning fourteen years served? Possibly just a popular myth

As you say- a popular myth. Life sentences differ from all other sentences in that they are never spent. A lifer may be released on parole at the end of the time set as a minimum tariff, but they remain on a life sentence until they die, and may be recalled to prison at any time should they breach their parole conditions.

Cant speak for Australia though!

radeng
19th Dec 2013, 22:06
One does wonder if there will be an 'unfortunate mistake' made and they get put in the same area for a while with non-Muslim white British (BNP?) prisoners......

Flash2001
19th Dec 2013, 22:08
Life in solitary with a TV tuned to an Evangelical source and the volume on high just out of reach outside the cell.

angels
19th Dec 2013, 22:11
Picking up on this thread again was getting depressing until tankertrash came up with --

I understand people are angry, but a lot of the posts on this thread are just complete rubbish.

We should be proud of our country. The first thing the cops did when they shot them (they aim for the trunk, but you saw the circumstances they were firing under) was remove their weapons and then provide medical assistance.

It's what makes our society far more civilised than the scum want. Remember the people who tended to Rigby, who said a little prayer, who bravely verbally engaged with the Tangos? Again, ordinary decent folk who by their actions piss all over what these two idiots stand for.

And did we then tear these two limb from limb? No, they were arrested, given legal aid (no doubt, but don't know for sure) and subjected to -- from what I saw and heard -- a fair trial.

A civilised society does it that way.

I saw one of those police fly-on-the wall things the other day where they stopped some chavette nutter from axing someone who had flung the axe through her lounge window. Oops, she'd got the wrong bloke.

Do you really want mob rule here?

Let's have a bit more patriotism out of you Right Whingers. You want an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, find a place that still enacts the Old Testament.

As this happened locally I know two of the people who were interviewed for tonight's Panorama special. I can't say what about. They believe they may be edited out for reasons I cannot divulge, Maybe will comment more after I see the programme.

Dushan
19th Dec 2013, 22:33
If so I would imagine (not) that a squad car is making its way to his abode as I type.

As If :ugh:

It is all going pear shaped very fast !!

El G.

Actually I think it is. A squad car is going to make sure than people like RGB's friends don't come and hurt the little darlings.








(Not that RGB's friends wold have any trouble with a couple unarmed cops, but still).

Dushan
19th Dec 2013, 22:47
Do you really want mob rule here?

Let's have a bit more patriotism out of you Right Whingers. You want an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, find a place that still enacts the Old Testament.



Actually an eye for an eye is what we have here because we are civilized. It was enacted to prevent previous practice of "an entire village for a tooth".

But in this case a bit of a mob rule woud be a good thing.

Oh, and what exactly is a "Right Whinger"?

Torque Tonight
19th Dec 2013, 23:40
I have to say I am increasingly uncomfortable with the way the UK is heading. I think that within 20 years the values and institutions that make Britain what it is will have been diluted into obscurity. Islamist lunatics are an ever increasing threat who now have a secure beachhead in the UK, but in addition we have the welfare/health tourists, economic migrants, our own growing indigenous benefits class, and to cap it all we've run out of land and resources. Unless government gets a grip on the situation now, I think we're screwed. In fact the genie is out of the bottle and it may already be too late. Blair threw the gates wide open and promised a multicultural paradise. Cosmopolitan, he said. Café culture, was another expression. He should take a stroll through Luton (without bodyguards).

I have no great issue with controlled immigration; unfortunately what we have in the UK is an absolute free-for-all. Plenty of my old squadron mates have now emigrated. I think we will see a growing exodus the indigenous, educated, professional classes from the UK. Not a very good outlook, further compounding the issue. When do you pull the yellow and black handle?

500N
19th Dec 2013, 23:55
"Originally Posted by angels http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/528823-killers-deny-all-charges-post8216515.html#post8216515)
Do you really want mob rule here?
Let's have a bit more patriotism out of you Right Whingers. You want an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, find a place that still enacts the Old Testament."

If it comes down to it, yes, not a problem.
RGB and our ilk can normally look after ourselves.

And as for "find a place that still enacts the Old Testament."
no thanks, where I am is fine, if they want to start something
then so be it but don't blame me if mob rule takes over and
they suffer the consequences.

Torque Tonight
20th Dec 2013, 00:07
A few years ago, just by chance, I found myself alongside the procession route when the new Pope visited the UK, so I thought I'd stick around and watch proceedings. Adjacent to Hyde Park Corner was the now standard gang of Islamist troublemakers, their leader shouting through a megaphone, the rest chanting in response.

As you can imagine the message was highly offensive. Such delights as 'behead Christians, burn the Pope, sharia for UK'. I asked a policeman if they would arrest this group for breach of the peace, inciting racial hatred, making death threats etc - he answered no; apparently a policy decision from above. Asked if we could therefore chant reciprocal expressions the answer was no, we would face arrest. Tolerance of deliberately antagonistic behaviour and unequal application of the law: a pretty shabby state of affairs. This kind of thing is becoming normal.

rh200
20th Dec 2013, 00:09
You want an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth

Nope, thats mamby pamby stuff, all ways be prepared to go one or more above. A hand for a finger, a arm for a hand, the head for an eye.:E

Worrals in the wilds
20th Dec 2013, 00:19
Can't speak for Australia though! It's the same.
It's what makes our society far more civilised than the scum want. Remember the people who tended to Rigby, who said a little prayer, who bravely verbally engaged with the Tangos? Again, ordinary decent folk who by their actions piss all over what these two idiots stand for.

And did we then tear these two limb from limb? No, they were arrested, given legal aid (no doubt, but don't know for sure) and subjected to -- from what I saw and heard -- a fair trial. And that's what's great about the UK. The scum tried their best at playing Somalia-style mayhem rules and they lost. They weren't torn apart as they undoubtedly deserved. For all of you that push for their torture (and I've thought the same way) that's what they wanted; a barbaric Britain that espouses torture and mob rule without trial. This hasn't happened because you are the good guys; you aren't murderous barbarians. They are the murderous barbarians and they have been convicted as such. You've won and whatever happens to them, they've lost.
I have to say I am increasingly uncomfortable with the way the UK is heading.So what are you going to do about it?
I'm not being a smart arse (for a change :}); this is an honest question. Both up your way and down our way there are many people who don't like the way their government or the opposition does things, but they do nothing to try and change it. All too often fatalism takes over, people shrug their shoulders and say 'well I can't change anything, I'm just one person and they're the government' :(.

This ignores the fact that both sides of politics are beholden to lobby groups, activists and other people who are prepared to stand up and say to their pollies; 'You don't represent us and we'll campaign accordingly, even if it's just at a local level via door knocking, letter box drops and the dreaded Community Sausage Sizzle (people will sign all sorts of things if you give them a free sausage :}). With optional voting you can make your local MP's life very miserable, if you feel like it. :E

Have you done that or are you just generally concerned? If so the Ronin quote applies: You're either part of the problem, part of the solution or just part of the landscape.

Maybe you won't change the system/policy/government even if you try your hardest; but if you don't try, then they'll get your agreement by default because you never said anything.

Depends on how much you care.

Torque Tonight
20th Dec 2013, 00:47
Worrals, I exercised my vote. Unfortunately British politics is something of a stalemate. There isn't an outright majority government and none of the parties have the balls to get a grip of the situation, particularly as migrants make up a good proportion of the electorate. Those that pound the streets canvassing and lobbying have their work negated by this sort of thing:Widespread allegations of electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/widespread-allegations-of-electoral-fraud-in-tower-hamlets-7682075.html)

Now the article is careful not to point any fingers, but suffice to say there aren't many indigenous Brits in Tower Hamlets any more, or parts of Birmingham, also mentioned.

The bottom line is that when a vote in the ballot box doesn't seem to make a difference, some people will vote with their feet. As I said, of my old colleagues who have left the air force, about half have also left the UK, heading off to Aus, NZ, Canada and elsewhere. Many feel that it is only a matter of time before British democracy is used to successfully vote in some rather un-British imports.

Worrals in the wilds
20th Dec 2013, 01:32
Fair enough. I came up with (and deleted) a number of strategies but I don't know your local area well enough to tout them as sure fire winners :(. Some of them involved potentially being arrested which may not be your thing :}.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that it takes more than a vote to change the system, and it takes more than wishing to make stuff happen. If you don't like your government and you want it to change, then you have to do more than vote. Of course you could do more than vote, work your butt off for your party of choice (or as an independent), have it still not change and end up bitter and twisted, but that's the game. If you do that, at the worst you can say you tried and at best you got what you wanted.

PLovett
20th Dec 2013, 01:51
Worrals, an excellent post.

The older I get the more I see the truth in the adage by Mark Twain (I think), that is, we get the government we deserve. Merely exercising a vote (which in the UK is less than 50% I believe) is not enough anymore.

The truth is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and these days there are some very organised squeaky wheels that should get a bucket of cold water rather than grease. Torque Tonight, those ranting fundamentalists should have been prosecuted and a two-finger salute given to the braying lobbyists who call for "understanding" and other such weasel words. By all means protest but when protest is a call to kill then you have stepped over the line.

I don't work as a lawyer any more and there are some corners of it that are deeply corrupt. It was due to what I saw as corrupt advice from someone I had previously admired that I decided to leave the profession. However, during my time as a barrister primarily working in criminal defence work, I came across some of the highest ideals and ethics by fellow barristers one could wish to meet. Obviously, not all met those standards but the vast majority did. The most obvious corruption I encountered in the criminal courts came from the prosecution side.

This is a rather long-winded way of saying that I believe a fair and just legal system is vital to our society and it is when we allow politicians, interest groups et.al. to meddle with its standards that we begin the slippery slope to anarchy. If 500N and rgbrock1 think thats ok and that they will survive due to their military background I suggest they look at how long sole survivors of military encounters have lasted when there is a mob after them.

vee-tail-1
20th Dec 2013, 09:23
John Humphries interviewed Anjem Choudary on BBC Radio 4 0815 this morning Friday 20th Dec.
Choudary refused to condemn the killing. Said British foreign policy was the reason for such incidents. Openly admitted to his agenda of destruction of British democracy and substitution of Sharia in an Islamic state.
While it would be good to see Choudary hung off a lamp post, he is a useful terrorist, since he tells us in great detail what Muslims in the UK think and what they propose to do to achieve their aims.

Tankertrashnav
20th Dec 2013, 09:34
While it would be good to see Choudary hung off a lamp post, he is a useful terrorist, since he tells us in great detail what a tiny minority of Muslims in the UK think and what they propose to do to achieve their aims.

Fixed that for you vee-tail

El Grifo
20th Dec 2013, 09:52
While it would be good to see Choudary hung off a lamp post, he is a useful terrorist, since he tells us in great detail what a tiny minority of Muslims in the UK think and what they propose to do to achieve their aims.

Tell me how you can say that with any certainty Tankertrash.

Then tell me how you can separate the good and bad with just a glance.

Tell me then how you can instantly decide on how a togged up muslim carrying a shoulder bag on the underground is carrying a bag of pies or a bag of semtex.

Until them. myself and many millions will treat them all with suspicion !

Tar them all with the same stick if you like !

El G.

Tankertrashnav
20th Dec 2013, 10:10
At which point with some regret, I sigh and abandon this thread.

angels
20th Dec 2013, 10:33
I know what you mean Tankertrash, you or I won't change any minds here.

When people come up with stuff like there aren't many indigenous Brits in Tower Hamlets any more you realise what you're up against. When were there? From the Romans onwards the place has been full of furriners!

When I lived in Wapping I knew a wonderful lady who had taken part in the Battle of Cable Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street) when Mosely decided to march against all those nasty Jews.

The east End has always been a melting pot.

El Grifo - Tell me then how you can instantly decide on how a togged up muslim carrying a shoulder bag on the underground is carrying a bag of pies or a bag of semtex.

I get the Tube several times a week, do you? I don't decide anything. I get on the tube with Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and other religions. And I get off again. Simples.

I've got more chance of being mugged at North Greenwich than being in a bomb incident. :rolleyes:

Capetonian
20th Dec 2013, 10:43
you realise what you're up against. When were there? From the Romans onwards the place has been full of furriners!
You know precisely what was meant here. It's always easy to pull others' arguments apart to suit a particular viewpoint.
That's not really the point. I heard the interview with that piece of shit and I'm astounded that the BBC gives airtime to such views. If a white person came on and expressed similar views about what is now laughingly called an ethnic minority group ..... they wouldn't get airtime.
Plenty of Muslims in the UK are appalled by such extreme actions and viewpoints, and the extremists are a tiny percentage who embarrass the majority.
Personally, I have more time for many Muslims than I do for a lot of other immigrants (and don't pull that apart ....) to the UK.

Regulation 6
20th Dec 2013, 11:30
I thought John Humphries was pretty ineffective in interviewing Choudary on the today prog this morning. Humphries continually interrupted, got angry and flustered when he should have kept it simple, remained calm and let the listeners come to their own conclusions.

Mr Choudary is, as well as being despicable, an extremely clever operator. Humphries, once he had established clearly that Choudary was not going to condemn the two murderers (but attempt to justify the killing on the grounds of the "hundreds of thousands" of Muslims that he alleges are being murdered by the British), should have left it with the listeners and swiftly ended the interview, since their was clearly nothing constructive coming out.

Surely it's time John Humphries retired? He is not in the same league as Eddie Mair or Martha Kearney. The today prog should bring in some young talent.

While I'm at it, the BBC should sack Steve Wright at the same time. Bloody awful and completely outdated. Although he plays good music (in my view of course) when I hear his voice I immediately change to Jack FM. Bring on mark Radcliffe I say!!

6

El Grifo
20th Dec 2013, 12:18
My point being Angels, is that the cult of islam has backed itself knowingly into a corner.

The word has become synonymous with hate and intolerance.

El G.

angels
20th Dec 2013, 12:43
capetonian -

You know precisely what was meant here

Yes, I think I do. I think the poster was saying the east End is full of foreigners. It is. I was there yesterday on the Mile End Road. There were a lot of people of Indian sub-continent origin there (but not exclusively). The latest in a series of foreign immigrants (and their forebears born here) to arrive in the east End.

Plenty of Muslims in the UK are appalled by such extreme actions and viewpoints, and the extremists are a tiny percentage who embarrass the majority. Personally, I have more time for many Muslims than I do for a lot of other immigrants (and don't pull that apart ....) to the UK.

I quite agree. Nicely put. :ok:

vee-tail-1
20th Dec 2013, 14:29
Sigh! Certain people with a lefty view point hold on to that view point regardless of evidence.

These are the facts, research them as you wish, they are still the facts:

Muslim agenda:
To establish a World wide Islamic state under Sharia law, beginning in the host countries.

Method:
(1) Infiltration: Of the host country’s vital organisations. Law. Media. Education. Politics. Health.
(2) Demographics: Maintain high birth rate and punish any mixing with non Muslims.
(3) Acts of Violence: Spread fear and loathing, bringing on the ultimate ‘Clash of Civilisations’ which Muslims expect to win.

Lefties often talk of moderate Muslims who just want to live in peace and get on with their lives. These are precisely the people who are using methods (1) & (2)

In this context moderate Muslims are only moderate in their choice of method.
Indeed they disapprove of violence, since it is seen as alarming the host country and therefore counter productive.

Romeo Oscar Golf
20th Dec 2013, 16:00
After 70 years living in this (once) wonderful country, what vee-tail-1 says seems about right.:ok:
Back on thread.......I was severely criticised earlier on in this thread for suggesting that this crime was a fairly unique one off and there should be some form of fast track system for dealing with it. Interestingly I've seen and heard many commentators uttering the same or similar points of view. (no I dont have copy) At least I dont feel alone in my mild criticism of the legal process.

rgbrock1
20th Dec 2013, 16:06
As far as the case against these scum bags goes, and the speed of which they were convicted, I wouldn't hold anything against the British judicial system for this. Had this case gone to trial here in the U.S. it would have been years before anything would have come out of it. Many years undoubtedly.

Romeo Oscar Golf
20th Dec 2013, 16:10
Fair comment rgb, I agree it was quite speedily dealt with once they went to Court, so I may have got my wish after all.:O

500N
20th Dec 2013, 16:10
"(3) Acts of Violence: Spread fear and loathing, bringing on the ultimate ‘Clash of Civilisations’ which Muslims expect to win."

That would all depend on whether the other side holds back like we currently do
courtesy of the niceties of our Governments or goes all out with a final solution
which the muslims go a long way in assisting in achieving due to their religion.

rgbrock1
20th Dec 2013, 16:12
500N wrote

goes all out with a final solution

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: