ChatterBank1 min ago
Jihadi Jack Parents Guilty Of Funding Terrorism
//The parents of a Muslim convert dubbed "Jihadi Jack" have been found guilty of funding terrorism.
John Letts, 58, and Sally Lane, 57, from Oxford, sent their son £223 while he was in Syria despite concerns he had joined the Islamic State group.
An Old Bailey jury found the couple not guilty of sending him a further £1,000 and could not reach a verdict on a third charge of funding terrorism.
The pair each received 15 months imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
In a statement read by their solicitor, they said: "We have been convicted for doing what any parent would do if they thought that their child's life was in danger."//
https:/ /www.bb c.co.uk /news/u k-engla nd-oxfo rdshire -486768 94
Their son, who had declared his wish to decapitate people and to carry out a suicide attack now wants to return to the UK, assuring us that he won’t blow us up.
https:/ /www.in depende nt.co.u k/news/ uk/crim e/jihad i-jack- intervi ew-isla mic-sta te-isis -syria- terrori sm-a897 1276.ht ml
Funding terrorism or caring parents?
John Letts, 58, and Sally Lane, 57, from Oxford, sent their son £223 while he was in Syria despite concerns he had joined the Islamic State group.
An Old Bailey jury found the couple not guilty of sending him a further £1,000 and could not reach a verdict on a third charge of funding terrorism.
The pair each received 15 months imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
In a statement read by their solicitor, they said: "We have been convicted for doing what any parent would do if they thought that their child's life was in danger."//
https:/
Their son, who had declared his wish to decapitate people and to carry out a suicide attack now wants to return to the UK, assuring us that he won’t blow us up.
https:/
Funding terrorism or caring parents?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The parents obviously love their son and blood is thicker than water. The trial judge recognised their love for him and remarked that they were intelligent people.
However, despite repeated warnings, they crossed the line by sending the payment.
Zacs is right, they can and are in my opinion, both caring and funding terrorism.
However, despite repeated warnings, they crossed the line by sending the payment.
Zacs is right, they can and are in my opinion, both caring and funding terrorism.
I wonder how the jury found them guilty of sending one amount and not the other?
I mean, the £1000 was either sent or it wasn't.
There must have been some evidence surely and had it been sent then there it could only be used for terrorist funding given that they were found guilty of sending the lesser sum?
I mean, the £1000 was either sent or it wasn't.
There must have been some evidence surely and had it been sent then there it could only be used for terrorist funding given that they were found guilty of sending the lesser sum?
It's not as if either sum was a significant amount in terms of it lasting long for genuine purposes or funding terrorism for that matter.
They were defiant though and the amount is secondary to the act.
I'd be willing to bet that some parents who, if put in that position, would say they wouldn't have acted in the same way actually would.
Generally, I've known parents continually give money to their sons and daughters knowing full well that it is not to pay bills or get food but actually fund their drug habit!
They were defiant though and the amount is secondary to the act.
I'd be willing to bet that some parents who, if put in that position, would say they wouldn't have acted in the same way actually would.
Generally, I've known parents continually give money to their sons and daughters knowing full well that it is not to pay bills or get food but actually fund their drug habit!
// [The judge] said that they were "intelligent adults" who set aside their suspicions to "please your son". //
I don't believe it's as trivial as 'pleasing their son'. I believe they thought he was in great danger and wanted to help him get back home, which is understandable.
However, this is the problem..
// She added Letts and Lane were repeatedly told by "numerous police officers" not to send any money. //
If the police repeatedly tell you not to do something because of it's potential illegality, but you choose to do it, you have to accept the consequences. So although I understand their motives, they've got no defence in legal terms, and should probably just be thankful they've avoided imprisonment.
I don't believe it's as trivial as 'pleasing their son'. I believe they thought he was in great danger and wanted to help him get back home, which is understandable.
However, this is the problem..
// She added Letts and Lane were repeatedly told by "numerous police officers" not to send any money. //
If the police repeatedly tell you not to do something because of it's potential illegality, but you choose to do it, you have to accept the consequences. So although I understand their motives, they've got no defence in legal terms, and should probably just be thankful they've avoided imprisonment.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.