News3 mins ago
He Might Not Have Done It? Right Oh!
221 Answers
https:/
He was already on bail for assault and threatening to kill her! Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs. I hope the apologists are having a little iternal review.
Why was he on bail? Why wasn't the scum in the slammer? I think we know, once again someone dies because we are petrified of offending muslims. Madness.
Answers
1. A man was captured, on a variety of CCTV films, stabbing to death a woman who was pushing a baby in a pushchair.2. The suspect was named, his photograph was published but his relationship to the victim was not given.3. The suspect was shown, in footage he filmed himself, assembling a baby's crib. He was confirmed as originally hailing from Bangladesh and as...
12:55 Wed 10th Apr 2024
AH: "TTT - As usual, your blind hatred of Muslims is blinding you to simple realities." - yes I tend to not like people who want to exterminate me.
"This man has not been confirmed as a Muslim, or convinced of murder, but your mindless prejudice has him convicted and ready for death." - correct but it's almost certain that he is a muslim and that he did it so I may be sticking my neck out a micron, I'll take that rather than kid myself.
"He was not released from custody because he is a (unconfirmed) Muslim, he was released because the law does not imprison people for what they might do, hindsight notwithstanding. " - People are remanded in custody for all manner of things for what they might do especially if the police think they are a danger. An assualt and threat to kill are pretty solid paramters in that area. Perhaps plod should have made a better case to the beak.
"Your knee jerk reaction to a hint of Islamic connection blinds you to facts, law, and logic." - No it doesn't but it does focus me on the likely source of the problem. When I see cloven hoof print in the mud I don't assume it was a dog.
"Anyone who attempts to point these things out, you brand as a 'sympathiser'." - When someone moves heaven and earth to avoid blaming the obvious then that is a sympathiser.
"It makes debating with you difficult, and at times impossible. " - why because I focus on the most likely rather than what I do/don't want it to be?
"You are not stupid, and your prejudices are irrational. " - that's 2 of us then.
"Something to think about?" - you first.
So has this new evidence not swayed your view at all?
"Magistrate naiveté - again."
Not necessarily correct.
Why was he on bail?
Because of the Bail Act 1976.
Under that act, with a few exceptions for the most serious offences (which do not include assault or threats to kill) defendants have the right to bail unless it can be shown that they are likely to either:
- Commit further offences
- Abscond
- Interfere with witnesses
By “shown” it means there must be evidence to support the claim. If magistrates simply do not like the cut of his jib, that is insufficient. If he has no record of offending or of committing offences whilst on bail, has no record of failing to answer bail or of interfering with witnesses, that would usually pass the test. Because he threatened to kill somebody that is not sufficient to deny him bail. Remember he is not guilty of that offence until proved otherwise (the very principle the Bail Act is designed to uphold) and if the allegation of his threats was sufficient to hold him in custody, everybody who was charged with than offence, or threatened to do anything else criminal, would be denied bail and, quite simply, that is not how the Bail Act works.
Before denying bail, the court must consider whether conditions attached to bail might lessen the risk of the defendant being released. I understand this miscreant was on conditional bail.
It's easy to blame the judiciary every time an offender commits an atrocity whilst on bail. But magistrates and judges must make their decisions based on the law as it stands, not as we’d like it to be.
NJ
Surely it is incumbent on West Yorkshire Police to raise their objections to bail for the original charges.
A. The seriousness of the threat (to kill)
.B. A reasonable likelihood that he may abscond.
He was here on a student visa and then a post graduate visa.
I would suggest that there was every chance he could have legged it back to Bangladesh like the Pakistani family who killed their little girl in West London recently. Are the Police worried about raising objections to bail I wonder?
"NJ
Surely it is incumbent on West Yorkshire Police to raise their objections to bail for the original charges."
Don't get me wrong, retro. I think it is an appalling decision. But there is a presumption of the right to bail and it's up to the CPS to present reasons why the defendant should not be released on bail. None ofus were in court last November so we cannot say what was the quality of the CPS case for remand (or if indeed they made such a case at all).
"Are the Police worried about raising objections to bail I wonder?"
I think they are worried about raising all sorts of issues in places such as Bradford. The need to appear unbiased and without prejudice has truly trumped the requirement to operate without "affection of ill will."
Oh yes. Thanks for your reply NJ. The Criminal Protection Service have something to do with it. I forgot. In my day the arresting officer would provide compelling reasons to the magistrate in order to get a remand in custody. I was never hindered by the CPS or PACE. We conducted our own prosecutions.
TTT - //
AH: "TTT - As usual, your blind hatred of Muslims is blinding you to simple realities." - yes I tend to not like people who want to exterminate me. //
Once again your blind predjudice leads front and centre - you cannot assume that all Muslims want to 'exterminate' you, on the basis of the actions of a few psychopaths that hide behind Islam as a supposed reason for their murderous actions.
//This man has not been confirmed as a Muslim, or convinced of murder, but your mindless prejudice has him convicted and ready for death." - correct but it's almost certain that he is a muslim and that he did it so I may be sticking my neck out a micron, I'll take that rather than kid myself. //
'Almost certain is not the same as certain, but happily that law does not operate on your shakey assumptions - he MAY be ... so that's good enough.
//He was not released from custody because he is a (unconfirmed) Muslim, he was released because the law does not imprison people for what they might do, hindsight notwithstanding. " - People are remanded in custody for all manner of things for what they might do especially if the police think they are a danger. An assualt and threat to kill are pretty solid paramters in that area. Perhaps plod should have made a better case to the beak. //
Perhaps so, which lays the responsibility where it belongs, with the legal system, which means you neatly sidestep your nonsense about him being released because he was a Muslim, when clearly that was not, and never is, a factor in the decision, in the real world, outside your imagination.
// And "Your knee jerk reaction to a hint of Islamic connection blinds you to facts, law, and logic." - No it doesn't but it does focus me on the likely source of the problem. When I see cloven hoof print in the mud I don't assume it was a dog. //
But when you see the word 'Muslim', you do assume it must mean murder, which is entirely baseless and entirely wrong.
"Anyone who attempts to point these things out, you brand as a 'sympathiser'." - When someone moves heaven and earth to avoid blaming the obvious then that is a sympathiser.
// "It makes debating with you difficult, and at times impossible. " - why because I focus on the most likely rather than what I do/don't want it to be? //
No, becuase proper debate is based on facts, and reasonable conclusions, and your instant conclusion that Islam equals death and destruction is neither of those. You cannot offer an argument based on your own biased conclusions and expect it to go unchallenged.
// "You are not stupid, and your prejudices are irrational. " - that's 2 of us then. //
Please explain where you think my 'predjudices' are? As far as I am concerned, i think it is irrantional to make giant leaps of assumption based on what you think may be an innocent man's religion, because you think there is a better than even chance that you are right.
// "Something to think about?" - you first. So has this new evidence not swayed your view at all? //
There is no 'new evidence'.
At the time of writing, there is no confirmation that I have read that the suspect is a Muslim.
And at the time of writing, he has not been charged, so he remains innocent in the eyes of the law.
I know you have him down as a Muslim, and therefore guilty of murder, but again, here in the real world, we are waiting for evidence of either - your imagination doesn't actually count.
AH: Once again your blind predjudice leads front and centre - you cannot assume that all Muslims want to 'exterminate' you, on the basis of the actions of a few psychopaths that hide behind Islam as a supposed reason for their murderous actions.
The thing is though that the extremists do their work with at least the tacit approval of the "moderates" because deep down they want the same but not with the same fanatic fervour. In WWII most of the Germans were moderate but they went along with it and were irrelvant to what happened. See here:
&t=8s
Your determination that they are not all bad despite the many attrocities is the most dangerous thing, we'll never wake up with so many supporters of the barbarians.
AH: Please explain where you think my 'predjudices' are? As far as I am concerned, i think it is irrantional to make giant leaps of assumption based on what you think may be an innocent man's religion, because you think there is a better than even chance that you are right.
Giant leaps of assumption are what you are doing. You start from the assumtpion that it not muslim despite solid evidence that it is. This guy has a Muslim name, he was on bail for assault, he threatened to kill the victim, low and behold the victim is indeed murdered. Yet you'll swear black is white it was not him and he's not a muslim. If you were the police you'd be searching for the murderer among Orkney fisherman rather than at least start with the obvious to at the very least determine he didn't. But no you don't want it to be your fluffy bunny wonder muslims so you'll kid yourself! Pull yourself together man, Occams Razor.
Whether or not the guilty party turns out to be the man the police now have in custody, we don't yet know why the murderer did what he did. However, that aside, if Muslim killers do what they do because they are psychopaths, it follows that of all religions, just one harbours a hugely disproportionate number of people with serious mental health issues. As unsavoury as it might be to those who don't want to hear it, that renders the repeated claim totally irrational - and repeating it over and over doesn't change that. It's simply nonsense.
I hope the apologists are having a little iternal review.
you mean assessing your own sanity? Everyone is entitled to a trial innit - even the people on AB ! chrissakes
Why was he on bail? - covered on radio 4 the am
Bail Act means just about anyone gets bail and it has to be so as our jails are fully to sq1ueaking
well says TTT - righto ! - pile them ontop of each other, stackem on shelves ! Bare shelves !!
Prison Gov: no we have already dont that....
TTT - // Giant leaps of assumption are what you are doing. You start from the assumtpion that it not muslim despite solid evidence that it is. This guy has a Muslim name, he was on bail for assault, he threatened to kill the victim, low and behold the victim is indeed murdered. Yet you'll swear black is white it was not him and he's not a muslim. //
As usual TTT, and I admire your consistency, you are allowing you predjudices to blind you to what I have said, because you prefer your own version, even though it is entirely wrong.
// This guy as a Muslim name. //
He does, but that does not mean he must be a Muslim.
I have a Christian name, a Saint's name in fact, and under your logic, I MUST be a Christian.
But I'm not.
//If you were the police you'd be searching for the murderer among Orkney fisherman rather than at least start with the obvious to at the very least determine he didn't. But no you don't want it to be your fluffy bunny wonder muslims so you'll kid yourself! Pull yourself together man, Occams Razor. //
Nonsense - as usual.
The police have a named suspect who there were seeking, and has now been found and arrested, they knew who they were looking for, and roughly where he was, so i would not have been looking elsewhere for someone who did not fit the description of the person of interest.
// Yet you'll swear black is white it was not him and he's not a muslim. //
I have 'sworn' nothing of the sort!
What I have said, and will repeat like the proverbail cracked record is this - and these are facts, not assumptions, which are your domain -
There is no indication that this man is a Muslim.
It is probable that he is? Absolutely, but 'probable' is not a fact, I am merely asserting that we do not know that as a fact.
Is he guilty? Quite probably, but again, 'probably' doesn't cut it, when he has yet to be charged, much less tried and convicted.
To be clear - I am not defending this man in any way shape or form.
But neither am I assuming that he is a Muslim, and because he is a Muslim, he must be a murderer.
I don't care if he is a Vulcan and worships growbags.
He is entitled to be judged in a court of law by evidence based on facts.
And that is all I have ever said.
You continue to whip yourself into a frenzy by assuming I am a 'Muslim lover' who 'swears he is not guilty'.
The simple truth is, much as you may hate to acknowledge it, at the time of writing, he is not guilty, because under the law he remains not convicted, and thus far, not even charged.
Please re-read any, or all of my posts on here, and you will see that my only points are -
He is not proven to be a Muslim.
He is innocent of any crime.
Now you can accept that or not, clearly not, but those are the facts, and me stating them does not make me a 'Muslim lover', or a 'fluffy bunny'.
It means I observe simple facts and accept them - you are clearly incapable of either.
Dave - //
A-H "He is innocent of any crime."
No be bloomin' well isn't !!!!!!!!!!!!! //
You're guilty of assault.
Why?
Because someone got punched in the pub where you are known to go drinking.
And because your name starts with 'D'.
And because I say so.
Wow, this condemnation of innocent people who have not been charged, tried or convicted, but I think they are guilty, and therefore they are, and that's it, is really good fun!
No wonder you are so keen on it.
Latest Posts
Cadburys Is No Longer Royal! Diddums!
News4 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
Is Labour Starting To Abolish Democracy...
News16 mins ago
