1 down, 22 to go... free?

When the suspected terrorists who were interogated in Pakistan say thay they were made to sit on hard seats and didn't have a human rights lawyer present, the evidence and confessions will be deemed inadmissable by the Uk authorities. That's the way it goes in this country now.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by justyc
they do seem to have a habit in the uk of killing, wounding and arresting totally innocent people they 'know' are terrorists because their 'intelligence' says so. who is supplying this 'intelligence' and should we be starting to question it? after all, what if the uk is deliberately being fed bad intel to make them look bad/stupid/incompetent & clueless

Uh ok yeah thanks bud want to accuse my country of anything else while your at it?
Intelligence isnt 100% accurate and it never is....bur hindsight is always 20/20.
[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

um, let me see? do any of these cases jog your memory?....

the birmingham six who were jailed for 16 years and guildford four who were jailed for 15 years before being set free because they were innocent

mentally ill judith ward who was jailed for life for the euston bombing who was released after 18 years

the three unarmed ira suspects who were shot dead in gibralter whilst out walking

derek bentley, who was hung at the age of 19 for the murder of a policeman. he was pardoned after 45 years thanks to the tireless campaign by his sister iris to clear his name

the 4 innocent men convicted of carl bridgewaters murder who served 18 years before being released

the tottenham 3, who were jailed for the murder of keith blakelock during the tottenham riots and were was released after having their convictions quashed

sally clark, jailed for the murder of her 2 cot death babies and released after 3 years in jail and 5 years of trying to clear her name. the 'expert' whose tesimony damned her was struck off the medical register for serious professional misconduct

i could go on with some lesser known cases and i could also list all the pending cases of alleged uk miscarriages of justice but i think you get my point by now

you see, being english myself, i kind of have this sense of feeling sorry for people who are innocent victims of the papers and the public baying to convict anybody for horrific crimes. past history shows that in cases of terrorism (ira), it was quite common to jail innocent people. so now we have a new form of terrorism and a lot of innocent people arrested/shot/killed i start to see a pattern forming.

so, with hindsight, i think the uk SHOULD hold itself to higher standards to ensure that the right people are convicted, rather than just grabbing anybody on concocted evidence just so we can all feel safe and smug and better for a few years until they are released and cleared on appeal (whilst the REAL guilty people are still roaming around in ALL of the above murder cases btw - just think about that!)

so before you condemn me without knowing the facts about me, remember that you are english and you have a duty ensure that our tainted uk convicting history doesnt repeat itself.

Originally posted by devilwasp
With respect stu would you like to aprehend the next subject that has a "small" bomb planted on him?

Considering the bombs apparently required assembly before use, I would happily go up to him and kick in square in the nuts. He won't have the time to find his cohorts and assemble his bomb. It would make more sense to apprehend them with the components than arrest them when they could have hidden away the evidence until the op turned active.

Stu, just theorising here, what would happen if say I dunno one was set off at the door of the cockpit then another thrown in for good measure?

At ground level? Not alot, apart from wounded crew. Remember, these "bombs" where to be smuggled on in their component parts, so waiting for them to be carrying the components and apprehendeing them then makes more sense than prematurely ejaculating and causing a frenzy, which is what they have done.

Uh ok yeah thanks bud want to accuse my country of anything else while your at it?
Intelligence isnt 100% accurate and it never is....bur hindsight is always 20/20.

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but on the flip side, you don't shoot a dude in the head 8 times if you know the intelligence is suspect. An ideal situation would be to challenge the suspect. If he runs or makes any moves, then shoot him. It is riskier, but athe chance of murdering innocents, which you are trying to avoid anyway, it's a chance I would willingly take. If it wasn't for the ban on smoking the wacky tobaccy, I would happily join the security services today.

Originally posted by justyc
um, let me see? do any of these cases jog your memory?....

the birmingham six who were jailed for 16 years and guildford four who were jailed for 15 years before being set free because they were innocent

mentally ill judith ward who was jailed for life for the euston bombing who was released after 18 years

the three unarmed ira suspects who were shot dead in gibralter whilst out walking

derek bentley, who was hung at the age of 19 for the murder of a policeman. he was pardoned after 45 years thanks to the tireless campaign by his sister iris to clear his name

the 4 innocent men convicted of carl bridgewaters murder who served 18 years before being released

the tottenham 3, who were jailed for the murder of keith blakelock during the tottenham riots and were was released after having their convictions quashed

sally clark, jailed for the murder of her 2 cot death babies and released after 3 years in jail and 5 years of trying to clear her name. the 'expert' whose tesimony damned her was struck off the medical register for serious professional misconduct

i could go on with some lesser known cases and i could also list all the pending cases of alleged uk miscarriages of justice but i think you get my point by now

Yes and how many of these happen compared to all the OTHER cases in the law?

you see, being english myself, i kind of have this sense of feeling sorry for people who are innocent victims of the papers and the public baying to convict anybody for horrific crimes. past history shows that in cases of terrorism (ira), it was quite common to jail innocent people. so now we have a new form of terrorism and a lot of innocent people arrested/shot/killed i start to see a pattern forming.

Yes and how do you tell who is innocent and who isnt?
Innocent people do get jailed because they where in the wrong place and in the wrong time or are simply tools used by terrorists or even just because of bad intelligence.

so, with hindsight, i think the uk SHOULD hold itself to higher standards to ensure that the right people are convicted, rather than just grabbing anybody on concocted evidence just so we can all feel safe and smug and better for a few years until they are released and cleared on appeal (whilst the REAL guilty people are still roaming around in ALL of the above murder cases btw - just think about that!)

Have you ever worked, talked to , been in the same room as a police/military officer?
Mabye you can explain to all the people that have to die before we are 100% sure that the person is the murderer.

so before you condemn me without knowing the facts about me, remember that you are english and you have a duty ensure that our tainted uk convicting history doesnt repeat itself.
WHAT!
I am not english in any way, shape or form! I am quite insulted you havent even taken the time to look at my display picture or the writing underneath it before posting..
Dont try to tell me what my duty is or isnt, I decide that not you.

Originally posted by stumason
Considering the bombs apparently required assembly before use, I would happily go up to him and kick in square in the nuts. He won't have the time to find his cohorts and assemble his bomb.

And what if he HAS assembled the device?

It would make more sense to apprehend them with the components than arrest them when they could have hidden away the evidence until the op turned active.

Thats a chance that the police cant take or otherwise IF people die its thier fault because they didnt protect them.
Dammed either way.

At ground level? Not alot, apart from wounded crew.

How wounded is this crew? KIA? Mauled?

Remember, these "bombs" where to be smuggled on in their component parts,

Yes and what happens when they go off at several thousand feet in a small room?

so waiting for them to be carrying the components and apprehendeing them then makes more sense than prematurely ejaculating and causing a frenzy, which is what they have done.

If you want to take the chance that they MAY have not assmbled a device and simply let another person dispose of it later once they board the flight as a backup?

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but on the flip side, you don't shoot a dude in the head 8 times if you know the intelligence is suspect.

7, once in the shoulder. The officer firing didnt know and the actual controller in charge was on the loo.

An ideal situation would be to challenge the suspect. If he runs or makes any moves, then shoot him. It is riskier, but athe chance of murdering innocents, which you are trying to avoid anyway, it's a chance I would willingly take.

Unfortunatly thats a chance that most people WOULDNT take , I wouldnt take it if someone had blown himself up not that long ago. If you want to risk 50 lives on the fact that he MIGHT not be a terrorist (the fact that they where nearby his house had a reason you know.)

If it wasn't for the ban on smoking the wacky tobaccy, I would happily join the security services today.

If you want to take that then go ahead, your choice, your body, your life.

They are now saying that some of these people don't even have passports so couldn't jump on international flights 'imminently'...

The UK Gov are also placing severe reporting restrictions on the media regarding all this which is unprecedented and this didn't happen with the botched London bombing attempt last year...

With airlines now becoming increasingly despairing over the new stringent requirements and lack of personnel for security checking the UK Gov has now said the new measures will NOT be permanent.

I don't mean to reply to myself but new info:

a plane was turned around mid-flight due to a mobile phone ringing and a phone was found onboard.

My question here is this: how effective will these security measures actually be? Are cabin crew allowed to bring their cell phones on board? As air hostesses and pilots spend most of their lives all over in different ports of call are they expected to no longer be able to take their cell phones?

Are we also to look forward to a new generation of air hostesses without any makeup? As mascara and lipstick are on the banned list does this now mean the thin (sometimes rather thick) veil of make-up will no longer conceal the rather average, over-aged face that greets us at the gate? Or will the ban not include the air hostesses? If so is it really workable as some of those being held in the UK worked at Heathrow it is reported.

As of this morning the UK Threat Level has been downgraded to severe from critical.

devilwasp, if i were to read and believe what members here put in their profiles then i would have to accept that kickoutthejams actually lives under the sea in a yellow submarine and has a talking dolphin friend named howard, and that stumason is actually a bald big-eyed alien from england who either waves with or gives people the middle finger. however, seeing as it was you who said "Uh ok yeah thanks bud want to accuse my country of anything else while your at it?" and that the biggest perpetrator of miscarriages of justice in the uk is in fact england, i wrongly assumed that you were english. my apologies. however, i never accused scotland of anything in my posts or are you saying that the uk is actually a country?

scotland, as i am sure you are aware, has a seperate legal system from england, wales, and northern ireland but also has its fair share of miscariages of justice (162 of them are listed here from 2000. it also has the scottish criminal cases review commission to investigate them.

as for your question of how you tell if somebody is innocent or guilty, you at least decide that by taking them to court and trying them and whilst all those cases i mentioned show the problem of rushing to convict somebody on flimsy evidence, im sure charles de menezes would have loved to have been given the opportunity to clear his name.

i never even mentioned in the thread whether i thought the police were right to arrest those people or not but only asked, after one of them had been released, what people would think if it turned out the were innocent, as has happened to the vast majority of people they have arrested so far in the war against terror. can we stay with that question please?

kickoutthejams, can you provide any links to your new info please?



[edit on 14-8-2006 by justyc]

justyc but I do!

links for what in particular? Most of all my news comes from Google news one way or the other and I don't quote from silly sources. They are from the UK national papers in the main. If you care to mention whichever stories (as I mentioned a few in those last posts) I'll happily provide.

We knew ages ago about these suspects. I can't give much details out but 2 weeks ago I was given information that the country was going into a high state of alert, the highest state since WW2.

There were also small articles put in national newspapers giving these warnings, and when I say small I mean small!!!

Most of the terrorists are known to the networks and are constantly monitored for unusual behaviour.... e.g one too many phonecalls to a terrorist supporting country or one too many visits to a country would trigger an upgrade in monitoring.

Even thier shopping would be under clsoe watch. Afterall most bombmaking equipment can be bought in DIY stores.

that's awfully vague picnation. John reid made the WW2 quote last Wednesday at DEMOS. So far to date the best collection of data regarding the case so far is (I have to say) on Alex Jones Prison Planet site that details the internal gov events that led up to this. I saw it there today and it makes interesting reading.

Its has to be vague I'm afraid. If I told you how I got these warnings, I'd be in deep trouble.

Now you'll be thinking I'm full of BS myself, so go and google The Orange Lodge of Scotland. In these pages you'll find a quote refering to 'protecting Queen and Country'.
Read the wording carefully, and draw your own conclussions.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Pictnation]

Duly done but I fail to see how anything about the Orange Lodge can be remotely construed as 'on topic' for this thread.

and aren't you just as likely to get into trouble by providing directions as you are as just coming out and saying whatever it is you are hinting at?

[edit on 14-8-2006 by kickoutthejams]

Originally posted by Pictnation
Its has to be vague I'm afraid. If I told you how I got these warnings, I'd be in deep trouble.

Now you'll be thinking I'm full of BS myself, so go and google The Orange Lodge of Scotland. In these pages you'll find a quote refering to 'protecting Queen and Country'.
Read the wording carefully, and draw your own conclussions.

Orangemen are very, well "loyal" in what they do.
They started a riot in Ulster last year when they were asked to move

ok can anyone make some sense of this from the Guradian

www.guardian.co.uk...

I quote

Suspected terrorists have mounted training exercises in some of the most popular areas of the national parks of England and Wales, the Guardian has learned.
Undercover detectives have watched groups of up to 20 men, some with known terrorist connections, taking part in outdoor training in the Lake District and elsewhere. The exercises have gone on sporadically for several years, but some training camps are understood to have been run in the past 12 months.

Colin Cramphorn, chief constable of West Yorkshire, said camps would be found in the Yorkshire Dales and the western Highlands, as well as the Lakes. "They're actually pure indoctrination camps," he said in a media interview. The following day his press officer said he had been attempting merely to "make an analogy", adding: "He was not talking about camps as physical locations."

end quote

eh?

not physical locations? what are they then?

Wasn't all this 'rolled out' after 7/7 how they had been on rafting holidays together?

and more...

The Guardian knows the precise location of the camps where the group has been monitored in the Lake District, but cannot disclose it. The group, unaware it has been under surveillance, was not undergoing weapons or explosives training.

However, police believe they have clear evidence the men were preparing a mission of some sort, not enjoying a camping holiday. The surveillance is thought to have been by detectives from Scotland Yard's antiterrorism branch; security sources in London confirmed they were aware of it.

The farmer whose land was used, and who knew nothing of the men's intentions, declined to comment, while other locals said they were completely unaware of the training mission. "Frankly, I would have thought they would have stood out," said one local resident.

indeed!

I'm sorry but some of the 'details' now coming out smacks of balony!

Originally posted by justyc
and that the biggest perpetrator of miscarriages of justice in the uk is in fact england, i wrongly assumed that you were english.

I see the UK as 4 countries but really is one super country , and how did you come to this conclusion?

my apologies. however, i never accused scotland of anything in my posts or are you saying that the uk is actually a country?

As I said; I see the UK as one united country with 4 states (yes this isnt correct but thats how I see it).

scotland, as i am sure you are aware, has a seperate legal system from england, wales, and northern ireland but also has its fair share of miscariages of justice (162 of them are listed here from 2000. it also has the scottish criminal cases review commission to investigate them.

No offence but I will trust a scottish person on scottish miscarages of law over a manchester wannabe investigator.

as for your question of how you tell if somebody is innocent or guilty, you at least decide that by taking them to court and trying them and whilst all those cases i mentioned show the problem of rushing to convict somebody on flimsy evidence,

Can you assure 100% evidence in a court case or just evidence that seems 100%?

im sure charles de menezes would have loved to have been given the opportunity to clear his name.

Would we have had to do the same to the 4 bombers on 7/7?