ChatterBank2 mins ago
Perhaps Another Reason For Voting Out?
30 Answers
http://
It is reported that this piece of scum has £83,000 in a UK bank account, I wonder how much of that has been used to pay for his legal fees?
/// Three times married Ahmed told the court he had four children living in the UK, had lived here for nearly 50 years and had £83,000 in a UK bank account. ///
It is reported that this piece of scum has £83,000 in a UK bank account, I wonder how much of that has been used to pay for his legal fees?
/// Three times married Ahmed told the court he had four children living in the UK, had lived here for nearly 50 years and had £83,000 in a UK bank account. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
mushroom25
/// but does he have a point about his trial - British justice provides for an accused to have his case heard by his peers. is that served, in the case of ethnic or religious minorities, by a panel of white christians? ///
They choose to come to Britain, they wish to be classed as British, Britain is a majority white country, and the law of the land is British law.
Are you saying that in the name of diversity, we should have every religion represented and every ethnic minority represented, or perhaps different courts and laws, for whatever group the accused belongs to?
/// but does he have a point about his trial - British justice provides for an accused to have his case heard by his peers. is that served, in the case of ethnic or religious minorities, by a panel of white christians? ///
They choose to come to Britain, they wish to be classed as British, Britain is a majority white country, and the law of the land is British law.
Are you saying that in the name of diversity, we should have every religion represented and every ethnic minority represented, or perhaps different courts and laws, for whatever group the accused belongs to?
“This is the European Court of Human Rights, surely, part of the European Commission not the EU”
It’s neither.
The European Commission is the Executive (unelected) body of the EU (the European Union). It is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing its decisions and upholding EU law. It has nothing to do with the ECHR.
The European Court of Human Rights to which this piece of filth is taking his case is the court where alleged contraventions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are heard and judged upon. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. This means that the UK could leave the EU tomorrow and matters such as this would continue to be raised with the Court. To end this farce the UK must do two things: it must withdraw as a signatory to the Convention; but it must also repeal our own 1998 Human Rights Act which all but mirrors the ECHR and incorporates its principles into domestic law. Mr Cameron promised to do this and introduce a “Bill of Rights” (whatever that might be) instead when he headed the Coalition of 2010. He was, so the story goes, prevented from doing so by the LibDems. We are still waiting now that his hands are no longer tied.
“…but does he have a point about his trial - British justice provides for an accused to have his case heard by his peers. is that served, in the case of ethnic or religious minorities, by a panel of white christians?”
No he does not have a point. The trial to which he refers was held in a Crown Court before a jury. People who form juries in the UK are drawn at random from the electoral register. Each jury is further “randomised” by being selected from a much larger group who are all called to court on the same day. Mr Ahmed’s jury may well have been all white (though it would be quite a long shot) but nobody has any clue to their religious affinities as they are not asked to state them. A jury of one’s “peers” is of one’s “equals”. As I have explained, jury selection is random and, with a very few exceptions that do not concern us here, no group is excluded for selection (unless you count as a separate group those who break the law by failing to register to vote). Defendants being tried by jury must take their chance that the panel will be to their liking. A trial by one’s equals does not mean a trial by one’s clones: women are not tried exclusively by women, Africans not exclusively by Africans, Jews not exclusively by Jews and certainly not Muslims exclusively by Muslims. That’s not how it works here and if Mr Ahmed wants to live under such a system he should perhaps consider living elsewhere.
Hopefully, and if the UK government has more concern for its law-abiding citizens than it has for an individual sentenced to 22 years in prison for serious sexual offences involving young girls, that decision may be made for him. Personally however I doubt that he will be stripped of his UK citizenship. He has lived here for 50 years and has four sons living here. That would normally be more than enough to see Article 8 trump any concerns such as the trifling matter of the safety of young girls.
It’s neither.
The European Commission is the Executive (unelected) body of the EU (the European Union). It is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing its decisions and upholding EU law. It has nothing to do with the ECHR.
The European Court of Human Rights to which this piece of filth is taking his case is the court where alleged contraventions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are heard and judged upon. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. This means that the UK could leave the EU tomorrow and matters such as this would continue to be raised with the Court. To end this farce the UK must do two things: it must withdraw as a signatory to the Convention; but it must also repeal our own 1998 Human Rights Act which all but mirrors the ECHR and incorporates its principles into domestic law. Mr Cameron promised to do this and introduce a “Bill of Rights” (whatever that might be) instead when he headed the Coalition of 2010. He was, so the story goes, prevented from doing so by the LibDems. We are still waiting now that his hands are no longer tied.
“…but does he have a point about his trial - British justice provides for an accused to have his case heard by his peers. is that served, in the case of ethnic or religious minorities, by a panel of white christians?”
No he does not have a point. The trial to which he refers was held in a Crown Court before a jury. People who form juries in the UK are drawn at random from the electoral register. Each jury is further “randomised” by being selected from a much larger group who are all called to court on the same day. Mr Ahmed’s jury may well have been all white (though it would be quite a long shot) but nobody has any clue to their religious affinities as they are not asked to state them. A jury of one’s “peers” is of one’s “equals”. As I have explained, jury selection is random and, with a very few exceptions that do not concern us here, no group is excluded for selection (unless you count as a separate group those who break the law by failing to register to vote). Defendants being tried by jury must take their chance that the panel will be to their liking. A trial by one’s equals does not mean a trial by one’s clones: women are not tried exclusively by women, Africans not exclusively by Africans, Jews not exclusively by Jews and certainly not Muslims exclusively by Muslims. That’s not how it works here and if Mr Ahmed wants to live under such a system he should perhaps consider living elsewhere.
Hopefully, and if the UK government has more concern for its law-abiding citizens than it has for an individual sentenced to 22 years in prison for serious sexual offences involving young girls, that decision may be made for him. Personally however I doubt that he will be stripped of his UK citizenship. He has lived here for 50 years and has four sons living here. That would normally be more than enough to see Article 8 trump any concerns such as the trifling matter of the safety of young girls.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Jobs & Education8 mins ago
Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
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.