FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Anjem Choudry
Anjem Choudry
Jump to: Newest in thread
The hate preacher.
Remember him? Just been released after serving half his sentence.
I'm fuming. The country is a fucking joke. For all the hard work communities do this idiot can reverse all of this.
They have put restrictions in place upon his release but so fucking what.
If he still thinks the same way as before it isn't going to stop him getting his message of hate across. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How come he was released early?"
It's pretty standard. A person has a minimum term on their sentence which is often half way through. After this they will be considered for parole, release on temporary license etc depending on the risk they pose and many other factors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How come he was released early?
I'm guessing with 'Good Behaviour'.
I am flabbergasted. Read that back. Good behaviour."
No. He was released on parole after serving half his sentence. That's the law that applies to all prisoners. He can be returned to prison if he re offends or breaches the terms of his parole.
The law was applied to him in the same way as it would be applied to anyone else |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How come he was released early?
It's pretty standard. A person has a minimum term on their sentence which is often half way through. After this they will be considered for parole, release on temporary license etc depending on the risk they pose and many other factors. "
That's not correct. For someone serving a determinate sentence, parole at the half way stage is automatic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You behave badly, go to prison.
You then behave well and they let you out early. I get that.
In this case I wouldn't let him out.
Has he declared that all Christians and non Muslims are decent people now?
Has the system corrected his hatred views? Nuh, I don't think so.
He's a fanatic. This is a stupid decision and I hope nothing comes of it.
It's also as if they kept this a bit quiet until they let him out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You behave badly, go to prison.
You then behave well and they let you out early. I get that.
In this case I wouldn't let him out.
Has he declared that all Christians and non Muslims are decent people now?
Has the system corrected his hatred views? Nuh, I don't think so.
He's a fanatic. This is a stupid decision and I hope nothing comes of it.
It's also as if they kept this a bit quiet until they let him out."
To repeat. The authorities had no choice. The law says he has to be released when he was. It's nothing to do with how he behaved.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
He’s not going to be ‘free’ to do as he wishes. As soon as he does/says anything then he’s back in.
Treat him like a common criminal rather than the person he thinks he is........ spot on |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You behave badly, go to prison.
You then behave well and they let you out early. I get that.
In this case I wouldn't let him out.
Has he declared that all Christians and non Muslims are decent people now?
Has the system corrected his hatred views? Nuh, I don't think so.
He's a fanatic. This is a stupid decision and I hope nothing comes of it.
It's also as if they kept this a bit quiet until they let him out.
To repeat. The authorities had no choice. The law says he has to be released when he was. It's nothing to do with how he behaved.
"
Don't the home sec. get the chance to have the final word?
I'm sure something could of been done about this.
I literally am steaming over this. I rarely make a non sport thread. That's how ratty it's got me.
I think the guy is very dangerous and I doubt he has changed his thoughts.
I really respect British law but in this instance I think it's fucked right up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He’s not going to be ‘free’ to do as he wishes. As soon as he does/says anything then he’s back in.
Treat him like a common criminal rather than the person he thinks he is........ spot on "
How the hell can you censor someone completely?
I'm sure if he's still as hell bent as he was before he'll find a way of getting his message across. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You behave badly, go to prison.
You then behave well and they let you out early. I get that.
In this case I wouldn't let him out.
Has he declared that all Christians and non Muslims are decent people now?
Has the system corrected his hatred views? Nuh, I don't think so.
He's a fanatic. This is a stupid decision and I hope nothing comes of it.
It's also as if they kept this a bit quiet until they let him out.
To repeat. The authorities had no choice. The law says he has to be released when he was. It's nothing to do with how he behaved.
Don't the home sec. get the chance to have the final word?
I'm sure something could of been done about this.
I literally am steaming over this. I rarely make a non sport thread. That's how ratty it's got me.
I think the guy is very dangerous and I doubt he has changed his thoughts.
I really respect British law but in this instance I think it's fucked right up."
No. Its automatic. He has been put on very tight conditions and can be returned to prison to serve the rest of his sentence if he breaches them.
For the third time, nothing could have been done. From when he was sent to prison he was always going to be released at this point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He’s not going to be ‘free’ to do as he wishes. As soon as he does/says anything then he’s back in.
Treat him like a common criminal rather than the person he thinks he is........ spot on
How the hell can you censor someone completely?
I'm sure if he's still as hell bent as he was before he'll find a way of getting his message across."
As soon as he breaches any conditions then he’s going back in; plus he’s going to be the most watched person in the country........ he’s going to be bricking it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How come he was released early?
I'm guessing with 'Good Behaviour'.
I am flabbergasted. Read that back. Good behaviour.
No. He was released on parole after serving half his sentence. That's the law that applies to all prisoners. He can be returned to prison if he re offends or breaches the terms of his parole.
The law was applied to him in the same way as it would be applied to anyone else "
That's right, regardless of what people think, when kangaroo courts of public opinion win the day, humanity will cease in the UK. Looby the law makers for change.
As pitiful some prisoners releases are, the law trumps all opinions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back."
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily. "
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He's just a patsy used for division.
The real hate preachers are based in westminster.
There is where your anger should be directed."
That's what that guy on Westminster Bridge tried doing. He killed members of the public before entering the grounds.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up."
No you’re not. I agree |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up."
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I just can't help but think this guy who hate us, gets locked up by us is only going to hate us more and spend every day thinking about harming us.
How long will these restrictions be in place?
A life behind bars of solitary confinement would of been adequate in my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The hate preacher.
Remember him? Just been released after serving half his sentence.
I'm fuming. The country is a fucking joke. For all the hard work communities do this idiot can reverse all of this.
They have put restrictions in place upon his release but so fucking what.
If he still thinks the same way as before it isn't going to stop him getting his message of hate across."
Well said ... Scumbag should be deported if they had to let him out.
To hell... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And they can’t watch them closely. Man near here got put away for grooming and sexual assault on kids. Was out after 2 years. 2 YEARS!! Within 2 months did the same again and is back inside. It’s ridiculous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released. "
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The hate preacher.
Remember him? Just been released after serving half his sentence.
I'm fuming. The country is a fucking joke. For all the hard work communities do this idiot can reverse all of this.
They have put restrictions in place upon his release but so fucking what.
If he still thinks the same way as before it isn't going to stop him getting his message of hate across.
Well said ... Scumbag should be deported if they had to let him out.
To hell... "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this. "
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them. "
I don't care if Postman Pat made the decision. My point being is nobody did. I get the bit about the law saying this and that.
Are you happy he's released? In fact, if you don't mind please offer your thoughts on it, along those lines. What's your opinion on Him being Out? Do you see him as harmless?
I'm law abiding. Not 100% but I'm a decent enough citizen.
The law dosent always get it right. That's why you have appeals. That's why we have changes in the law.
I hope nothing comes of his release. I also live in a capital city and thank god nothing has happened here and I pray nothing ever ever again happens in the capital city you live in. London has suffered enough as it is.
The law never said about sticking Hooky on a plane, maybe it did but they got that kind of correct in the end.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
One of the conditions:
He will not be allowed to leave the UK without permission.
They got that bit wrong.
I'd have him out of the country already. As mentioned. Drop him off over an isis area (if there's any) you don't have to stop. Open the door and boot him out. Good riddance.
He used to preach to one of Lee Rigby's killers.
Mi5 are going to monitor him very carefully. As if they haven't got enough on their plate as it is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released."
It's a law I'd like to see revised, but this above is key. Didn't hear much complaining on sentencing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The hate preacher.
Remember him? Just been released after serving half his sentence.
I'm fuming. The country is a fucking joke. For all the hard work communities do this idiot can reverse all of this.
They have put restrictions in place upon his release but so fucking what.
If he still thinks the same way as before it isn't going to stop him getting his message of hate across."
he should have been extradited surely he has to leave? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
One of the things these fanatics hate is our democracy, they hate our laws. They want Shira law.
Well I imagine he ain't hating it so much today.
Have your Sharia law today. Let's deal with this act of treason in the same way your beloved isis would of.
I'm pretty sure we would all know how that would pan out and I'd be totally fine with it. One less burden. One less hateful bastard |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You behave badly, go to prison.
You then behave well and they let you out early. I get that.
In this case I wouldn't let him out.
Has he declared that all Christians and non Muslims are decent people now?
Has the system corrected his hatred views? Nuh, I don't think so.
He's a fanatic. This is a stupid decision and I hope nothing comes of it.
It's also as if they kept this a bit quiet until they let him out."
his beliefes have no baring in his good behavior tho
He may just have learned keep his trap shut about it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you don't like the law, lobby to have it changed
He's served his time and will no doubt be under strict supervision "
He's out. It's happened. It's too late.
This isn't a shop lifter. This guy was a serious threat to our nation with his opinions. I can only hope for all of us they have changed and the safety net put in place does its job, if needed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision. "
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you don't like the law, lobby to have it changed
He's served his time and will no doubt be under strict supervision "
Exactly .The law has been appplied correctly .If you don't like this law write to your MP or make a banner and go onto the streets.Laws Can and have been changed and will continue to be amended .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them.
I don't care if Postman Pat made the decision. My point being is nobody did. I get the bit about the law saying this and that.
Are you happy he's released? In fact, if you don't mind please offer your thoughts on it, along those lines. What's your opinion on Him being Out? Do you see him as harmless?
I'm law abiding. Not 100% but I'm a decent enough citizen.
The law dosent always get it right. That's why you have appeals. That's why we have changes in the law.
I hope nothing comes of his release. I also live in a capital city and thank god nothing has happened here and I pray nothing ever ever again happens in the capital city you live in. London has suffered enough as it is.
The law never said about sticking Hooky on a plane, maybe it did but they got that kind of correct in the end.
"
Your point appears to be that some politician should have stepped in and broken the law and stopped this guy being released. If that were to happen it would be far worse than the release of any prisoner. We would then be living in a dictatorship where people can be locked up on the whim of a politician and where there was no law other than what those in power wanted.
As for the release of this bloke. As has been said, he's under pretty much house arrest, will be under permanent surveillance and will be back inside should he step an inch out of line.
That seems fair enough to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you don't like the law, lobby to have it changed
He's served his time and will no doubt be under strict supervision
Exactly .The law has been appplied correctly .If you don't like this law write to your MP or make a banner and go onto the streets.Laws Can and have been changed and will continue to be amended .
"
No do you think my letter would get this bad decision corrected?
If I felt the home sec opens it and think 'ahhh good point Jizzy let's lock Anjem back up' then yeah I'd write it now in proper joined up writing.
But No. That's not going to happen and there's no point in any protest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them.
I don't care if Postman Pat made the decision. My point being is nobody did. I get the bit about the law saying this and that.
Are you happy he's released? In fact, if you don't mind please offer your thoughts on it, along those lines. What's your opinion on Him being Out? Do you see him as harmless?
I'm law abiding. Not 100% but I'm a decent enough citizen.
The law dosent always get it right. That's why you have appeals. That's why we have changes in the law.
I hope nothing comes of his release. I also live in a capital city and thank god nothing has happened here and I pray nothing ever ever again happens in the capital city you live in. London has suffered enough as it is.
The law never said about sticking Hooky on a plane, maybe it did but they got that kind of correct in the end.
Your point appears to be that some politician should have stepped in and broken the law and stopped this guy being released. If that were to happen it would be far worse than the release of any prisoner. We would then be living in a dictatorship where people can be locked up on the whim of a politician and where there was no law other than what those in power wanted.
As for the release of this bloke. As has been said, he's under pretty much house arrest, will be under permanent surveillance and will be back inside should he step an inch out of line.
That seems fair enough to me. "
Yes that's my point.
1. The law got it wrong
2. Fix it then. (That's what mp's etc do)
Well I suppose you kind of answered my question about if your happy he is out etc.
I stand corrected but I'm sure the home sec could step in at any point on this. I'm sure that's what happened with hooky.
I hope there's a public outcry on this and somehow pressure builds and he's extradited somewhere, somehow, as I think UK is safer that way and it's more cost effective etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them.
I don't care if Postman Pat made the decision. My point being is nobody did. I get the bit about the law saying this and that.
Are you happy he's released? In fact, if you don't mind please offer your thoughts on it, along those lines. What's your opinion on Him being Out? Do you see him as harmless?
I'm law abiding. Not 100% but I'm a decent enough citizen.
The law dosent always get it right. That's why you have appeals. That's why we have changes in the law.
I hope nothing comes of his release. I also live in a capital city and thank god nothing has happened here and I pray nothing ever ever again happens in the capital city you live in. London has suffered enough as it is.
The law never said about sticking Hooky on a plane, maybe it did but they got that kind of correct in the end.
Your point appears to be that some politician should have stepped in and broken the law and stopped this guy being released. If that were to happen it would be far worse than the release of any prisoner. We would then be living in a dictatorship where people can be locked up on the whim of a politician and where there was no law other than what those in power wanted.
As for the release of this bloke. As has been said, he's under pretty much house arrest, will be under permanent surveillance and will be back inside should he step an inch out of line.
That seems fair enough to me.
Yes that's my point.
1. The law got it wrong
2. Fix it then. (That's what mp's etc do)
Well I suppose you kind of answered my question about if your happy he is out etc.
I stand corrected but I'm sure the home sec could step in at any point on this. I'm sure that's what happened with hooky.
I hope there's a public outcry on this and somehow pressure builds and he's extradited somewhere, somehow, as I think UK is safer that way and it's more cost effective etc."
For God's sake.
No one, not the home secretary or anyone else, can step in and break the law and stop him being released. He is a British citizen sentenced by a judge to a determinate term of imprisonment. That means he is released at a particular time and that time cannot be changed.
If you want to change the law, you need to campaign for Parliament to do that. But the new law would not apply to this particular case, given he committed his offences under the current law.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them.
I don't care if Postman Pat made the decision. My point being is nobody did. I get the bit about the law saying this and that.
Are you happy he's released? In fact, if you don't mind please offer your thoughts on it, along those lines. What's your opinion on Him being Out? Do you see him as harmless?
I'm law abiding. Not 100% but I'm a decent enough citizen.
The law dosent always get it right. That's why you have appeals. That's why we have changes in the law.
I hope nothing comes of his release. I also live in a capital city and thank god nothing has happened here and I pray nothing ever ever again happens in the capital city you live in. London has suffered enough as it is.
The law never said about sticking Hooky on a plane, maybe it did but they got that kind of correct in the end.
Your point appears to be that some politician should have stepped in and broken the law and stopped this guy being released. If that were to happen it would be far worse than the release of any prisoner. We would then be living in a dictatorship where people can be locked up on the whim of a politician and where there was no law other than what those in power wanted.
As for the release of this bloke. As has been said, he's under pretty much house arrest, will be under permanent surveillance and will be back inside should he step an inch out of line.
That seems fair enough to me.
Yes that's my point.
1. The law got it wrong
2. Fix it then. (That's what mp's etc do)
Well I suppose you kind of answered my question about if your happy he is out etc.
I stand corrected but I'm sure the home sec could step in at any point on this. I'm sure that's what happened with hooky.
I hope there's a public outcry on this and somehow pressure builds and he's extradited somewhere, somehow, as I think UK is safer that way and it's more cost effective etc.
For God's sake.
No one, not the home secretary or anyone else, can step in and break the law and stop him being released. He is a British citizen sentenced by a judge to a determinate term of imprisonment. That means he is released at a particular time and that time cannot be changed.
If you want to change the law, you need to campaign for Parliament to do that. But the new law would not apply to this particular case, given he committed his offences under the current law.
"
Okey Dokey |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment "
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens."
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"get him on a plane also all his family we are paying for and throw them out of it also all the other so called know terrorists and lets get our country back before its to late "
He is a British citizen. You cannot deport him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his."
Perhaps don't comment on things without spending 5 minutes reading around the subject. Stops the emotivd bullshit people spout from influencing our policy makers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his."
The justice system in this country is built around the premises of the rehabilitation of offenders and not retribution.
Remember the law is blind all are equal before it regardless of their origin or beliefs.
Or is you just some people to be more equal than others
You can have one set of rules for one and another set for others. Regardless of the court of public opinion. Otherwise we might as well go back to a feudal society.
There are countless numbers of prisoners who have committed heinous crimes and are serving the appropriate sentence with same tarrif parole terms.
If you don’t like our justice system you can lobby government ministers for change
No system is perfect but it sounds like you are saying some offenders should be treated more harshly than others due to your beliefs.
Ask yourself if you want retribution where do you stop ....... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have a slightly more nuanced view on this... I think it’s proba better that he is out of prison on licence and I’ll explain why.
If he’s in prison he’s able to spread his hatred and vile extremism to other prisoners who may already be in a vulnerable mental states and easier to radicalise.
Out on licence means he’s going to be monitored, and will be limited on his ability to contact other extremists or spread his views, otherwise he’ll end up being detained again.
In short, it’s easier for him to spread his ideology in prison than out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his.
Perhaps don't comment on things without spending 5 minutes reading around the subject. Stops the emotivd bullshit people spout from influencing our policy makers."
I created the thread |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his.
Perhaps don't comment on things without spending 5 minutes reading around the subject. Stops the emotivd bullshit people spout from influencing our policy makers.
I created the thread"
You may have created the thread but it helps if you have some understanding of the criminal justice system first. Rather than spout ill informed opinions regarding on how one rule should apply to one and another set of rules should apply to others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his.
Perhaps don't comment on things without spending 5 minutes reading around the subject. Stops the emotivd bullshit people spout from influencing our policy makers.
I created the thread
You may have created the thread but it helps if you have some understanding of the criminal justice system first. Rather than spout ill informed opinions regarding on how one rule should apply to one and another set of rules should apply to others."
Some understanding of the criminal justice system. I showed that. I've ticked that box.
Spout. I'm sure there's a better choice of words you can use there. Just because you give an opinion it doesn't mean your 'spouting'. Besides none of that really matters, same as your opinion and mine.
While I'm fine with being corrected and I'm open minded I'm not prepared to budge on what I wrote in my very first post.
I'm not even going back to double check what I said.
This guy should not be anywhere other than in prison.
We should not be reading headlines along the lines of:
Hate preacher released from prison after two years.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his.
Perhaps don't comment on things without spending 5 minutes reading around the subject. Stops the emotivd bullshit people spout from influencing our policy makers.
I created the thread
You may have created the thread but it helps if you have some understanding of the criminal justice system first. Rather than spout ill informed opinions regarding on how one rule should apply to one and another set of rules should apply to others.
Some understanding of the criminal justice system. I showed that. I've ticked that box.
Spout. I'm sure there's a better choice of words you can use there. Just because you give an opinion it doesn't mean your 'spouting'. Besides none of that really matters, same as your opinion and mine.
While I'm fine with being corrected and I'm open minded I'm not prepared to budge on what I wrote in my very first post.
I'm not even going back to double check what I said.
This guy should not be anywhere other than in prison.
We should not be reading headlines along the lines of:
Hate preacher released from prison after two years.
"
Does this mean that you believe that all prisoners regardless of how petty or severe their crimes. Should serve their full sentence and there should be no such thing as parole.
Retribution rather than rehabilitation ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The hate preacher.
Remember him? Just been released after serving half his sentence.
I'm fuming. The country is a fucking joke. For all the hard work communities do this idiot can reverse all of this.
They have put restrictions in place upon his release but so fucking what.
If he still thinks the same way as before it isn't going to stop him getting his message of hate across.
Well said ... Scumbag should be deported if they had to let him out.
To hell...
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his.
Perhaps don't comment on things without spending 5 minutes reading around the subject. Stops the emotivd bullshit people spout from influencing our policy makers.
I created the thread
You may have created the thread but it helps if you have some understanding of the criminal justice system first. Rather than spout ill informed opinions regarding on how one rule should apply to one and another set of rules should apply to others.
Some understanding of the criminal justice system. I showed that. I've ticked that box.
Spout. I'm sure there's a better choice of words you can use there. Just because you give an opinion it doesn't mean your 'spouting'. Besides none of that really matters, same as your opinion and mine.
While I'm fine with being corrected and I'm open minded I'm not prepared to budge on what I wrote in my very first post.
I'm not even going back to double check what I said.
This guy should not be anywhere other than in prison.
We should not be reading headlines along the lines of:
Hate preacher released from prison after two years.
Does this mean that you believe that all prisoners regardless of how petty or severe their crimes. Should serve their full sentence and there should be no such thing as parole.
Retribution rather than rehabilitation ?
"
I have NO opinion on them. Why would I?
I really do care about the UK being in even a tiny amount of danger due to this guy not being in prison, as he was, this time yesterday.
He has point blank refused to go on courses in prison to correct his twisted views.
He is in a probation centre for 6 months.
He is not some criminal mastermind.
These are all views or facts I have read on the BBC.
He has point blank refused to have his twisted thoughts corrected - that for me hammers home what I've been trying to say.
He should be inside, segregated (as he was) where he can not influence anyone and still be a message go others that if you want to SPOUT hate, don't do it in the UK.
Instead he got released half way through his sentence. The very thing he didn't like 'our democracy' has kind of thrown it's arms around him and given him a cuddle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his.
Perhaps don't comment on things without spending 5 minutes reading around the subject. Stops the emotivd bullshit people spout from influencing our policy makers.
I created the thread
You may have created the thread but it helps if you have some understanding of the criminal justice system first. Rather than spout ill informed opinions regarding on how one rule should apply to one and another set of rules should apply to others.
Some understanding of the criminal justice system. I showed that. I've ticked that box.
Spout. I'm sure there's a better choice of words you can use there. Just because you give an opinion it doesn't mean your 'spouting'. Besides none of that really matters, same as your opinion and mine.
While I'm fine with being corrected and I'm open minded I'm not prepared to budge on what I wrote in my very first post.
I'm not even going back to double check what I said.
This guy should not be anywhere other than in prison.
We should not be reading headlines along the lines of:
Hate preacher released from prison after two years.
Does this mean that you believe that all prisoners regardless of how petty or severe their crimes. Should serve their full sentence and there should be no such thing as parole.
Retribution rather than rehabilitation ?
"
The system is at fault. I was shocked only yesterday to learn that a man who killed his parents with an axe, would likely have killed his sister had she not cried off the family gathering at short notice, and is suspected of at least one similar murder has been released with a new identity and no doubt the protection of the law if he needs it.I thought he would die in Broadmoor. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The problem we have is the system .
We live in a time that wants to be all things to all people . Yet we have been conditioned to think that an eye for a eye is the correct way of seeing things . We want to see a punishment that fits the crime , but rarely these days do we see that .
If you look at the Scandinavian way of dealing with custodial sentences you would be even more angry . It’s like a bloody holiday there , with conjugal visits , television , internet , next to no supervision , etc..... they see prison as being a place to rehabilitate rather than punish . I think it’s crazy , but , and here’s the thing - it seems to work !
Over here , and more so in America we try to balance it . Some retribution , some rehab . And it doesn’t work . So what do we do about it ? I’d sooner see scum like him sent down for good , or deported too . But that just appeals to my sense of values and my conditioning . Which may be wrong in the grand scheme of things . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"they see prison as being a place to rehabilitate rather than punish . I think it’s crazy , but , and here’s the thing - it seems to work !
"
Rehabilitation saves people from being future victims of crime.
Punishment does nothing other than fulfill our need for vengeance. It has no practical good.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *good-being-badMan
over a year ago
mis-types and auto corrects leads cock leeds |
There are many sentences for many crimes I think are wholly disproportionate to the crimes committed.
There was an outcry (rightly in my opinion ) over John wharbuoys being released after a determinate time it seemed populist opinion managed to change that decision.
I've heard (although cannot recollect) how many terrorist threats and operations were foiled by our security services (I'm truly thankful) this year.. having to now surveil a known threat is another drain on a stretched resource...I hope it doesn't bite our backside..
rather than make this bloke a martyr I hope the benevolent way we treat our prisoners shows our country to be fair and right and can be used to change some folks behaviour or ideology.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The guy is freed on licence with not 1 or 2 conditions but a full 25. Surely anyone who is allowed back in society with so many conditions is still obviously a risk so why are the parole board taking a chance with our lives? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"The problem we have is the system .
We live in a time that wants to be all things to all people . Yet we have been conditioned to think that an eye for a eye is the correct way of seeing things . We want to see a punishment that fits the crime , but rarely these days do we see that .
If you look at the Scandinavian way of dealing with custodial sentences you would be even more angry . It’s like a bloody holiday there , with conjugal visits , television , internet , next to no supervision , etc..... they see prison as being a place to rehabilitate rather than punish . I think it’s crazy , but , and here’s the thing - it seems to work !
Over here , and more so in America we try to balance it . Some retribution , some rehab . And it doesn’t work . So what do we do about it ? I’d sooner see scum like him sent down for good , or deported too . But that just appeals to my sense of values and my conditioning . Which may be wrong in the grand scheme of things ."
Initially the Scandinavian system seems crazy to people who think that criminals should be punished.
We seem to want our prisoners punished first and rehabilitated a poor second.
Norway for example has a less punitive approach and focuses on making sure prisoner don’t come back.
The recidivism rates are about 20% with this approach compared to the 60% for the UK.
Research has shown that strict and harsh imprisonments actually increase prisoner reoffending. While prison programs that engage in cognitive behavioural programs actually are the most effective at keeping people ex-prisoners out of gaol.
I know this is counter intuitive to the “lock em up and throw away the key” brigade but it works that why they have one of the lowest crime rate and prison populations in the world.
The real crime is how much it is costing tax payers to fund a prison and criminal justice system with high reoffending rates that has not moved to adopt a proven working model. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yet Tommy Robinson was put inside illegally for highlighting the Muslim, sorry, Asian raype gangs"
No, he was jailed (improperly, though he may well be jailed properly next week) for breaching reporting restrictions around an ongoing trial and jeopardising the prosecution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"they see prison as being a place to rehabilitate rather than punish . I think it’s crazy , but , and here’s the thing - it seems to work !
Rehabilitation saves people from being future victims of crime.
Punishment does nothing other than fulfill our need for vengeance. It has no practical good.
"
Yeah as I said , I can see the benefit of the rehab . But until we are able to see past our desire to see punishment fitting the crime , we will always struggle with this kind of thing .
I wonder if future generations will get it ?
As I say , I struggle with it . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How come he was released early?
I'm guessing with 'Good Behaviour'.
I am flabbergasted. Read that back. Good behaviour.
No. He was released on parole after serving half his sentence. That's the law that applies to all prisoners. He can be returned to prison if he re offends or breaches the terms of his parole.
The law was applied to him in the same way as it would be applied to anyone else "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you don't like the law, lobby to have it changed
He's served his time and will no doubt be under strict supervision
Exactly .The law has been appplied correctly .If you don't like this law write to your MP or make a banner and go onto the streets.Laws Can and have been changed and will continue to be amended .
No do you think my letter would get this bad decision corrected?
If I felt the home sec opens it and think 'ahhh good point Jizzy let's lock Anjem back up' then yeah I'd write it now in proper joined up writing.
But No. That's not going to happen and there's no point in any protest."
Have you ever heard of 38 degrees? It's a site which you can use to campaign about things that you think need to be heard. One letter won't change anything, but lots of letters and noise would.
Do I agree with the sentence? No. I think the should have been on an indeterminate public protection sentence. That way he would have stayed in until the prison service deemed that he was rehabilitated enough.
I'm pretty certain he was given the maximum sentence for his crime though, which was 5 and a bit years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them.
I don't care if Postman Pat made the decision. My point being is nobody did. I get the bit about the law saying this and that.
Are you happy he's released? In fact, if you don't mind please offer your thoughts on it, along those lines. What's your opinion on Him being Out? Do you see him as harmless?
I'm law abiding. Not 100% but I'm a decent enough citizen.
The law dosent always get it right. That's why you have appeals. That's why we have changes in the law.
I hope nothing comes of his release. I also live in a capital city and thank god nothing has happened here and I pray nothing ever ever again happens in the capital city you live in. London has suffered enough as it is.
The law never said about sticking Hooky on a plane, maybe it did but they got that kind of correct in the end.
Your point appears to be that some politician should have stepped in and broken the law and stopped this guy being released. If that were to happen it would be far worse than the release of any prisoner. We would then be living in a dictatorship where people can be locked up on the whim of a politician and where there was no law other than what those in power wanted.
As for the release of this bloke. As has been said, he's under pretty much house arrest, will be under permanent surveillance and will be back inside should he step an inch out of line.
That seems fair enough to me.
Yes that's my point.
1. The law got it wrong
2. Fix it then. (That's what mp's etc do)
Well I suppose you kind of answered my question about if your happy he is out etc.
I stand corrected but I'm sure the home sec could step in at any point on this. I'm sure that's what happened with hooky.
I hope there's a public outcry on this and somehow pressure builds and he's extradited somewhere, somehow, as I think UK is safer that way and it's more cost effective etc."
He can't be extradited if he's a British Citizen (and doesn't hold any other nationalities). That's to stop someone becoming stateless - which is illegal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his.
Perhaps don't comment on things without spending 5 minutes reading around the subject. Stops the emotivd bullshit people spout from influencing our policy makers.
I created the thread
You may have created the thread but it helps if you have some understanding of the criminal justice system first. Rather than spout ill informed opinions regarding on how one rule should apply to one and another set of rules should apply to others.
Some understanding of the criminal justice system. I showed that. I've ticked that box.
Spout. I'm sure there's a better choice of words you can use there. Just because you give an opinion it doesn't mean your 'spouting'. Besides none of that really matters, same as your opinion and mine.
While I'm fine with being corrected and I'm open minded I'm not prepared to budge on what I wrote in my very first post.
I'm not even going back to double check what I said.
This guy should not be anywhere other than in prison.
We should not be reading headlines along the lines of:
Hate preacher released from prison after two years.
"
You have shown that you have NO idea of how the Criminal Justice System works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you don't like the law, lobby to have it changed
He's served his time and will no doubt be under strict supervision
Exactly .The law has been appplied correctly .If you don't like this law write to your MP or make a banner and go onto the streets.Laws Can and have been changed and will continue to be amended .
No do you think my letter would get this bad decision corrected?
If I felt the home sec opens it and think 'ahhh good point Jizzy let's lock Anjem back up' then yeah I'd write it now in proper joined up writing.
But No. That's not going to happen and there's no point in any protest.
Have you ever heard of 38 degrees? It's a site which you can use to campaign about things that you think need to be heard. One letter won't change anything, but lots of letters and noise would.
Do I agree with the sentence? No. I think the should have been on an indeterminate public protection sentence. That way he would have stayed in until the prison service deemed that he was rehabilitated enough.
I'm pretty certain he was given the maximum sentence for his crime though, which was 5 and a bit years."
I don't know if he was given the maximum sentence, but the offence he was charged with only allowed a fixed-term sentence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago
Hull |
I don't know if this has been noticed by anyone but on 2 news bulletins today, it was reported that he refused to attend de-radicalisation sessions in prison which were part of his sentence requirements.
But he still was released according to legal guidelines afforded to every prisoner.
Just seems odd that despite failing to comply with his sentence Do's & Don'ts he still wins his freedom, albeit under strict compliance rules. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As much as I hate the cunt, and I hope he ends back up in prison and dies there, it does make me laugh when I see the gibbering wrecks saying "deport him"!
Unfortunately, for all of us, he was born in the UK. And "deport" means to send him back to the country he was born.
Read and learn, numpties!"
They could always re-introduce "banishment" - I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As much as I hate the cunt, and I hope he ends back up in prison and dies there, it does make me laugh when I see the gibbering wrecks saying "deport him"!
Unfortunately, for all of us, he was born in the UK. And "deport" means to send him back to the country he was born.
Read and learn, numpties!"
Hey numptie couldn't of put it better myself |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not happy with this but let's be blunt,he has not been released. He is effectively under house arrest - I mean he cannot access the internet without personal supervision.
He's not in prison. He's not been deported.
For me personally it's still not a harsh enough punishment
He was born in the UK. He cannot be deported. I don't like calling people ignorant, but maybe consider that a state cannot deport its own citizens.
I wasn't aware he was UK born. You I suppose the term deported is wrong and who are we to go putting people in other countries just because you don't want them. You can't.
I don't like the death penalty.
Life in solitary confinement is good enough for him. It sends the correct message and stops him sending his."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"See this is where we fucked up. If we let I.S. have their caliphate, we could have sent him there!  "
What do you mean *if* we let them have it...we basically trained and armed them in the first place, not to mention giving the leadership the environment in which to create and promulgate the idea |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Both Anjem Choudery and Tommy Robinson are cut from the same cloth, why isn’t he having the same restrictions placed on him also?
Both are preachers of hate, or am I missing something here? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Both Anjem Choudery and Tommy Robinson are cut from the same cloth, why isn’t he having the same restrictions placed on him also?
Both are preachers of hate, or am I missing something here?"
Well said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't know if this has been noticed by anyone but on 2 news bulletins today, it was reported that he refused to attend de-radicalisation sessions in prison which were part of his sentence requirements.
But he still was released according to legal guidelines afforded to every prisoner.
Just seems odd that despite failing to comply with his sentence Do's & Don'ts he still wins his freedom, albeit under strict compliance rules."
As has been said before on this thread, for a fixed-term determinate sentence, release at the halfway point is AUTOMATIC. There are NO requirements on the prisoner before release. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As much as I hate the cunt, and I hope he ends back up in prison and dies there, it does make me laugh when I see the gibbering wrecks saying "deport him"!
Unfortunately, for all of us, he was born in the UK. And "deport" means to send him back to the country he was born.
Read and learn, numpties!
Hey numptie couldn't of put it better myself"
You were one of the ones saying to deport him  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps if we stopped bombing other folks countries we would'nt have so many people wanting to cause us harm.
Just a thought"
Perhaps if we stopped cuddling up to the Saudis (who fund most of the extreme Wahhabi mosques and basically tick every Islamic bogeyman trope there is going) just because they buy lots of bombs off us, that might help too... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Both Anjem Choudery and Tommy Robinson are cut from the same cloth, why isn’t he having the same restrictions placed on him also?
Both are preachers of hate, or am I missing something here?"
Exactly this! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Both Anjem Choudery and Tommy Robinson are cut from the same cloth, why isn’t he having the same restrictions placed on him also?
Both are preachers of hate, or am I missing something here?"
Exactly my thoughts! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As much as I hate the cunt, and I hope he ends back up in prison and dies there, it does make me laugh when I see the gibbering wrecks saying "deport him"!
Unfortunately, for all of us, he was born in the UK. And "deport" means to send him back to the country he was born.
Read and learn, numpties!
Hey numptie couldn't of put it better myself
You were one of the ones saying to deport him "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"tommy robinson is only saying what a lot of people are thinking this will end up a muslim country if nothing is done "
Reminds me of something along the lines of what Hitler said in the 30s, and look what that led to.
Tommy Robinson doesn't speak for me, or indeed anyone else with a brain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them.
I don't care if Postman Pat made the decision. My point being is nobody did. I get the bit about the law saying this and that.
Are you happy he's released? In fact, if you don't mind please offer your thoughts on it, along those lines. What's your opinion on Him being Out? Do you see him as harmless?
I'm law abiding. Not 100% but I'm a decent enough citizen.
The law dosent always get it right. That's why you have appeals. That's why we have changes in the law.
I hope nothing comes of his release. I also live in a capital city and thank god nothing has happened here and I pray nothing ever ever again happens in the capital city you live in. London has suffered enough as it is.
The law never said about sticking Hooky on a plane, maybe it did but they got that kind of correct in the end.
Your point appears to be that some politician should have stepped in and broken the law and stopped this guy being released. If that were to happen it would be far worse than the release of any prisoner. We would then be living in a dictatorship where people can be locked up on the whim of a politician and where there was no law other than what those in power wanted.
As for the release of this bloke. As has been said, he's under pretty much house arrest, will be under permanent surveillance and will be back inside should he step an inch out of line.
That seems fair enough to me.
Yes that's my point.
1. The law got it wrong
2. Fix it then. (That's what mp's etc do)
Well I suppose you kind of answered my question about if your happy he is out etc.
I stand corrected but I'm sure the home sec could step in at any point on this. I'm sure that's what happened with hooky.
I hope there's a public outcry on this and somehow pressure builds and he's extradited somewhere, somehow, as I think UK is safer that way and it's more cost effective etc."
I don't think the OP is happy at the release of AC.
I think he's happy the rule of law has been followed.
I may be wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps if we stopped bombing other folks countries we would'nt have so many people wanting to cause us harm.
Just a thought
Perhaps if we stopped cuddling up to the Saudis (who fund most of the extreme Wahhabi mosques and basically tick every Islamic bogeyman trope there is going) just because they buy lots of bombs off us, that might help too..."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps if we stopped bombing other folks countries we would'nt have so many people wanting to cause us harm.
Just a thought
Are you suggesting that no one's ever wanted to harm us?"
I think on balance, if we look at history in true playground "You started it!" "No! You!" fashion, we're far more guilty of being the aggressors...
Live by the sword and all that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps if we stopped bombing other folks countries we would'nt have so many people wanting to cause us harm.
Just a thought
Are you suggesting that no one's ever wanted to harm us?
I think on balance, if we look at history in true playground "You started it!" "No! You!" fashion, we're far more guilty of being the aggressors...
Live by the sword and all that"
History books are written by the victors.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps if we stopped bombing other folks countries we would'nt have so many people wanting to cause us harm.
Just a thought
Are you suggesting that no one's ever wanted to harm us?
I think on balance, if we look at history in true playground "You started it!" "No! You!" fashion, we're far more guilty of being the aggressors...
Live by the sword and all that
History books are written by the victors. "
Apart from Genghis Khan... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps if we stopped bombing other folks countries we would'nt have so many people wanting to cause us harm.
Just a thought
Are you suggesting that no one's ever wanted to harm us?
I think on balance, if we look at history in true playground "You started it!" "No! You!" fashion, we're far more guilty of being the aggressors...
Live by the sword and all that
History books are written by the victors.
Apart from Genghis Khan..."
I still say he had a ghost writer. He'd never have found time to write a book with all the pillaging and plundering. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them.
I don't care if Postman Pat made the decision. My point being is nobody did. I get the bit about the law saying this and that.
Are you happy he's released? In fact, if you don't mind please offer your thoughts on it, along those lines. What's your opinion on Him being Out? Do you see him as harmless?
I'm law abiding. Not 100% but I'm a decent enough citizen.
The law dosent always get it right. That's why you have appeals. That's why we have changes in the law.
I hope nothing comes of his release. I also live in a capital city and thank god nothing has happened here and I pray nothing ever ever again happens in the capital city you live in. London has suffered enough as it is.
The law never said about sticking Hooky on a plane, maybe it did but they got that kind of correct in the end.
Your point appears to be that some politician should have stepped in and broken the law and stopped this guy being released. If that were to happen it would be far worse than the release of any prisoner. We would then be living in a dictatorship where people can be locked up on the whim of a politician and where there was no law other than what those in power wanted.
As for the release of this bloke. As has been said, he's under pretty much house arrest, will be under permanent surveillance and will be back inside should he step an inch out of line.
That seems fair enough to me.
Yes that's my point.
1. The law got it wrong
2. Fix it then. (That's what mp's etc do)
Well I suppose you kind of answered my question about if your happy he is out etc.
I stand corrected but I'm sure the home sec could step in at any point on this. I'm sure that's what happened with hooky.
I hope there's a public outcry on this and somehow pressure builds and he's extradited somewhere, somehow, as I think UK is safer that way and it's more cost effective etc.
I don't think the OP is happy at the release of AC.
I think he's happy the rule of law has been followed.
I may be wrong."
But the rule of law has been followed by his release. He can't have it both ways. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"just SHOOT the bastard, job done.
Will you pull the trigger?
Yes 100% i would."
Wouldn't that be a hate crime, and carry the new death sentence you just invented?
Shouldn't we also sentence those who financed the arming and training of I.S in the first place... Oh hang on, that was us British tax payers... bugger! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Please don't tell me a 4th time. There's no need.
I know it's the law.
That doesn't mean that I think it's the right decision. It's not the right thing to do and in this instance I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of doubt.
If he goes on to convert hate preachers etc back to being 'normal'. I take it all back.
I'll will try one last time. No one made a "decision". It was the automatic operation of law. On the day he first went inside, he would have been given this day as the day of his release.
You seem to be suggesting the government should break the law and imprison people arbitrarily.
Not sure what the very last word means.
I'd be more than happy if this guy never came out.
He's not free to do what he did before. He's free though.
He can't go on the Internet without restrictions. Same for all of us but his Internet use will be scrutinised.
From what I gather, so far in this thread I'm the only one that thinks this is a bit fucked up.
You can argue that the release at half way shouldn't apply and the law should change.
Unless you think the government should be able to break the law whenever it feels like it, you can't argue that this bloke shouldn't have been released.
I think the government is wrong. The law is wrong. This decision is wrong.
The home sec/prime minister/boris/the mayor, I don't really care who - someone should of stopped this. Did anyone know this was going to happen today?
Other than following the law I don't see what's right with this.
Blimey.
So you think Boris Johnson should be able to break the law whenever he feels like it.
From the moment he was sentenced anyone could have worked out the day he would be released.
What astonishes me about these threads is how little regard people have for the rule of law and how they think politicians should just be able to ignore the law when it suits them.
I don't care if Postman Pat made the decision. My point being is nobody did. I get the bit about the law saying this and that.
Are you happy he's released? In fact, if you don't mind please offer your thoughts on it, along those lines. What's your opinion on Him being Out? Do you see him as harmless?
I'm law abiding. Not 100% but I'm a decent enough citizen.
The law dosent always get it right. That's why you have appeals. That's why we have changes in the law.
I hope nothing comes of his release. I also live in a capital city and thank god nothing has happened here and I pray nothing ever ever again happens in the capital city you live in. London has suffered enough as it is.
The law never said about sticking Hooky on a plane, maybe it did but they got that kind of correct in the end.
Your point appears to be that some politician should have stepped in and broken the law and stopped this guy being released. If that were to happen it would be far worse than the release of any prisoner. We would then be living in a dictatorship where people can be locked up on the whim of a politician and where there was no law other than what those in power wanted.
As for the release of this bloke. As has been said, he's under pretty much house arrest, will be under permanent surveillance and will be back inside should he step an inch out of line.
That seems fair enough to me.
Yes that's my point.
1. The law got it wrong
2. Fix it then. (That's what mp's etc do)
Well I suppose you kind of answered my question about if your happy he is out etc.
I stand corrected but I'm sure the home sec could step in at any point on this. I'm sure that's what happened with hooky.
I hope there's a public outcry on this and somehow pressure builds and he's extradited somewhere, somehow, as I think UK is safer that way and it's more cost effective etc.
I don't think the OP is happy at the release of AC.
I think he's happy the rule of law has been followed.
I may be wrong.
But the rule of law has been followed by his release. He can't have it both ways."
.... absolutely |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
