Woolwich serious incident

Pleading not guilty?! They were caught on bloody camera! They'll get convicted and serve a longer jail term because of this. Good that they'll stay off the streets for longer, but bad for the taxpayers.
 
It's an obvious ploy to get more publicity and people talking about them again. I've seen it on Facebook, Twitter and now here - people playing right into their hands.

Do not feed the trolls.
 
Would be nice if the police had killed them at the scene... nicer still if they could be buried Russian style... wrapped up in pig skins...
 
deuse said:
So the two men have pleaded not guilty!
Click to expand...

Considering they saw themselves as soldiers then that is hardly shocking. By definition they would not consider it a murder but a sanctioned act of war.

Don't think the jury or judge will see it that way though! ;)

deuse said:
"Mr Adebolajo has asked to be known as Mujaahid Abu Hamza in court, while Mr Adebowale wants to be called Ismail Ibn Abdullah."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24297429
Click to expand...

What would you say Cassius Clay or Mohammed Ali ... no-one has a problem with the conversion name there. Different context for sure but the principle is the same. And we shouldn't change the rules just because we don't like someone that sets nasty precedents.
 
Reading this thread is like going back to the stone-ages.
The mob are baying for blood.
It's like watching one of those movies where a woman is being burnt at the stake for witch-craft and crowd has gathered to cheer the execution.

And with regards to the "not guilty" plea - the killers merely want more publicity. The whole point of them doing the killing, then waiting for the cameras to arrive, then making a statement, which got played on TV, was that they want publicity. Something to do with what's going on in Africa...or something or other.

Its unfortunate that they had to kill an off-duty soldier.

In any case, a long prison sentence is the right thing for these guys - being killed would end their suffering too quickly. And besides, these nutters are probably trying to get themselves killed so they can go to heaven (or similar). People must remember that these nutters have been brain-washed to such a point that they honestly believe that what they are doing is 100% correct and justified.
 
Omaeka said:
[..] I'm pretty sure the Queen has enough power to order his death?
Click to expand...

Technically, yes. In practice, no. The last official use of royal power was in 1708 if I recall correctly, and that was queen Anne vetoing a law. Outright death order...I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it would be during the Protestant/Catholic wars. Mary? Elizabeth I?

Why doesn't she? :mad:
Click to expand...

I can think of several reasons, not least of which is that she doesn't want to provoke a crisis and destablise the country or risk the ending of the monarchy. Even absolute monarchs (which we haven't had since 1215 at the latest) can only rule with support.
 
Efour said:
Just trial 'em, bang 'em up for 25 years and let them be murdered in prison.

Job done...
Click to expand...
Better still, why not just shoot them. 25 years in jail costs a lot of money, money from our taxes. A bullet costs a pound or so, (bill their family for it). It's a win win situation for all. We get rid of another burden on society and save money.
 
It's funny how the the people calling for such punitive measures are often found in the lolmiddleeast and lolamerica threads. Seems they would fit in just fine.
 
setter said:
Better still, why not just shoot them. 25 years in jail costs a lot of money, money from our taxes. A bullet costs a pound or so, (bill their family for it). It's a win win situation for all. We get rid of another burden on society and save money.
Click to expand...


If only we could.
 
Xordium said:
What would you say Cassius Clay or Mohammed Ali ... no-one has a problem with the conversion name there. Different context for sure but the principle is the same. And we shouldn't change the rules just because we don't like someone that sets nasty precedents.
Click to expand...

I rather thought that his contemporaries Joe Frazier and Ernie Tyrell both refused to call him Muhammad Ali and there may have been others? Although it would probably be fair to say that such responses were limited in scope - then again it might have helped that he was both generally popular and (arguably) the best fighter there ever has been.

I would agree though that we shouldn't deny people rights just because we don't like them. As has been said by a variety of people you don't judge a society by how it treats those in favour, you judge it by how it treats those on the margins.
 
Their not guilty plea has exactly nothing to do with whether they are guilty or not. They're pleading so that they get a trial and can use the trial as a platform from which to spew forth their ideology.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I rather thought that his contemporaries Joe Frazier and Ernie Tyrell both refused to call him Muhammad Ali and there may have been others? Although it would probably be fair to say that such responses were limited in scope - then again it might have helped that he was both generally popular and (arguably) the best fighter there ever has been.
Click to expand...

You are correct they did but all those who would scoff at these chaps for changing their names would not think twice of referring to the boxer as his chosen name. Least the bloke actually did it properly and just didn't decide to call himself Chelsea overnight with no legal chance - not that it stopped the Guardian from immediately accepting it to facilitate their agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom