and furthermore..who pays her vast fees?? is it her client or is it joe muggins again?:rant:

and furthermore..who pays her vast fees?? is it her client or is it joe muggins again?:rant:

It will not be her client you can bet your life on that.

and furthermore..who pays her vast fees?? is it her client or is it joe muggins again?:rant:

What the hell is wrong with you?

Never heard of the idea of innocent until PROVEN guilty?

NM

and furthermore..who pays her vast fees?? is it her client or is it joe muggins again?:rant:

Tut tut anlaby :shakes:

look here mister brainless nicolarse-hole!!!!!i never said innocent or guilty..i asked how the woman knew they were innocent..was she there at the time ???and i also asked who paid her fees...neither question had anything to do with your idiotic response....try reading the question and get back on the flags on cars thread and make some daft comments on that you stupid pratt!!! :loopy:

Who is to say whether they are guilty or innocent. Too many people assume that people who are arrested under the "terrorism law" are guilty.

Look at that poor Menezes guy who was doing nothing wrong and was murdered. And then cops tried to cover it up and said he was doing stuff he wasn't!

Bush & Blair have got some people right where they want them... they mention the word terrorism and everyone shivers and blames whoever the news want you to blame. The whole thing is driving me up the wall!

Edit: Example: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece

and furthermore..who pays her vast fees?? is it her client or is it joe muggins again?:rant:

Why does it worry you so much? If it is the taxpayer you can bet your life you wouldn't be shouting so loud if it was you who eneded up on the wrong end of the law.
It's her job to represent her client; it's what she does. The facts will be established in court, that's how it goes in this country.

Why does it worry you so much? If it is the taxpayer you can bet your life you wouldn't be shouting so loud if it was you who eneded up on the wrong end of the law.
It's her job to represent her client; it's what she does. The facts will be established in court, that's how it goes in this country.

Exactly! Afterall it is her job to try and prove them innocent! Wouldn't look good if she was shouting about how guilty they were :huh:

whatever the rights and wrongs of it all one thing is for certain...lawyers are mercenary and money grabbing....they have about as much idea as the rest of us who did it but because the taxpayer is funding their lifestyle it doesnt matter...they dont deal in justice..their interest lies only in how much money they can make...and that makes them as criminal as the guilty...to see that woman on tv making comments and judgments that she couldnt possibly know all for the sake of a fat fee is sickening

look here mister brainless nicolarse-hole!!!!!i never said innocent or guilty.:loopy:

The guy is a DJ - winds people up for a living :hihi:

The guy is a DJ - winds people up for a living :hihi:....oh he's a dj ok...dysfunctional jerk!!!

whatever the rights and wrongs of it all one thing is for certain...lawyers are mercenary and money grabbing....they have about as much idea as the rest of us who did it but because the taxpayer is funding their lifestyle it doesnt matter...they dont deal in justice..their interest lies only in how much money they can make...and that makes them as criminal as the guilty...to see that woman on tv making comments and judgments that she couldnt possibly know all for the sake of a fat fee is sickening

Only in how much money they make? Has it occurred to you thay she was acting as she was because of professional ethics? Or indeed because the client she is reprsenting could indeed be wholly innocent?
See the Menezes case, or that guy who was sat in his car ten or nore years ago and riddled with bullets by Police officers who later conceded they'd got the wrong man?

....oh he's a dj ok...dysfunctional jerk!!!

Harsh!

... sorry but you did start the thread with "who does she know etc..." it was always going to get differing opinions!

Your second post explained things more but going on your 1st post it appeared to me that you were assuming they were guilty.

I know that now to not be the case but thats the way it read.

Only in how much money they make? Has it occurred to you thay she was acting as she was because of professional ethics? Or indeed because the client she is reprsenting could indeed be wholly innocent?
See the Menezes case, or that guy who was sat in his car ten or nore years ago and riddled with bullets by Police officers who later conceded they'd got the wrong man?

Spot on!

The lawyer isn't going to go out and say "oh I think he did it, hes a terrorist etc... " is she when she is representing him.

What a lawyer says about a client must always be taken with a pinch of salt as it is not impartial.

Indeed, it is not up to a lawyer to judge the facts of the case, they are there to defend their client to the best of their ability based on the evidence available.

Would you never use legal aid if you were suspected of a crime?

Only in how much money they make? Has it occurred to you thay she was acting as she was because of professional ethics? Or indeed because the client she is reprsenting could indeed be wholly innocent?
See the Menezes case, or that guy who was sat in his car ten or nore years ago and riddled with bullets by Police officers who later conceded they'd got the wrong man?..yes you are right ..she was acting within her professional code and ethics..and thats what i'm saying..its sickening(and i question whether there is any moral code in the law profession anyway..i say "profession" metaphorically .i consider it too bent a game to be called a profession really .theres no justice in british courts..theres only law...and anybody with any sense knows that law is in place only to make money for lawyers....

..yes you are right ..she was acting within her professional code and ethics..and thats what i'm saying..its sickening(and i question whether there is any moral code in the law profession anyway..i say "profession" metaphorically .i consider it too bent a game to be called a profession really .theres no justice in british courts..theres only law...and anybody with any sense knows that law is in place only to make money for lawyers....

Why is it sickening? She is only doing her job! She may believe that they are innocent so why not share it and even if she doesn't believe it so what? Do you think she has an impact on what everyone else or the jury/ judge will think?

look here mister brainless nicolarse-hole!!!!!i never said innocent or guilty..i asked how the woman knew they were innocent..was she there at the time ???and i also asked who paid her fees...neither question had anything to do with your idiotic response....try reading the question and get back on the flags on cars thread and make some daft comments on that you stupid pratt!!! :loopy:

I bet you wouldn't have started this thread if you thought they were innocent!! i'm sure you don't intend to come across as thinking they are guity but i think you are doing......you're leaving a lot of between-line-reading

judging from your attack and the fact that i'm at least the 3rd person to have thought this, its more likely that you are in fact the DJ.

I bet you wouldn't have started this thread if you thought they were innocent!! i'm sure you don't intend to come across as thinking they are guity but i think you are doing......you're leaving a lot of between-line-reading

judging from your attack and the fact that i'm at least the 3rd person to have thought this, its more likely that you're are the DJ.

:thumbsup: Couldn't have said it better myself.

In this country everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Anyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial. They wouldn't get that if a lawyer walked in with assumptions they were guilty.

Many lawyers who work for those with legal aid don't get paid huge amounts of money for those cases - 'money-grabbing' probably doesn't even come into it. A highly paid lawyer doesn't have as much sway on a case as a highly paid expert witness either.

I bet you wouldn't have started this thread if you thought they were innocent!! i'm sure you don't intend to come across as thinking they are guity but i think you are doing......you're leaving a lot of between-line-reading

judging from your attack and the fact that i'm at least the 3rd person to have thought this, its more likely that you are in fact the DJ. well i personally think they are probably guilty but innocent till proven guilty i say...what my rant is is really about the lawyer..i have personal experience of a defence lawyer making life better for somebody who did terrible things to a member of my family...and i once served on a jury...i was hoodwinked by a smoothie lawyer who gave us that "it would be a travesty of justice if this poor man went to prison bit"and i was beginning to doubt my previous thoughts the accused was guilty..i was convinced by the rest of the jury he was guilty...and after when they read his record of crime out it read like war and peace...and he was laughing...he got about 2 years if i remember...and about 6 months later he was in the paper again for more crimes...

napoleon wanted a code whereby lawyers who lost did'nt get paid.

napoleon wanted a code whereby lawyers who lost did'nt get paid. ive always said that...if i didnt do my job properly i would get the sack...they get paid whatever

well i personally think they are probably guilty but innocent till proven guilty i say...what my rant is is really about the lawyer..i have personal experience of a defence lawyer making life better for somebody who did terrible things to a member of my family...and i once served on a jury...i was hoodwinked by a smoothie lawyer who gave us that "it would be a travesty of justice if this poor man went to prison bit"and i was beginning to doubt my previous thoughts the accused was guilty..i was convinced by the rest of the jury he was guilty...and after when they read his record of crime out it read like war and peace...and he was laughing...he got about 2 years if i remember...and about 6 months later he was in the paper again for more crimes...

I'm very sorry to hear that but you need to ensure that your experiences don't cloud your judgement.

I think Blair would do absolutely anything to help this "War on Terror" so I won't believe they are guilty unless they confess or there is outstanding evidence.

I see people looking at innocent people on the tram/buses etc ... Asian people with rucksacks who don't bloody deserve the looks they get. Its damn annoying!

....oh he's a dj ok...dysfunctional jerk!!!
Oh yeah....where can I get that T - shirt printed up :hihi:

I'm very sorry to hear that but you need to ensure that your experiences don't cloud your judgement.

I think Blair would do absolutely anything to help this "War on Terror" so I won't believe they are guilty unless they confess or there is outstanding evidence.

I see people looking at innocent people on the tram/buses etc ... Asian people with rucksacks who don't bloody deserve the looks they get. Its damn annoying!...no my experiences dont cloud my judgment...just the opposite ..experience forms my judgement....we all become wiser through lifes lessons

ive always said that...if i didnt do my job properly i would get the sack...they get paid whatever

yeah and lets start sacking teachers when kids fail exams

i'd have a lot more respect for you if you didn't start a thread on one subject then go off on a rant about another

look here mister brainless nicolarse-hole!!!!!i never said innocent or guilty..i asked how the woman knew they were innocent..was she there at the time ???and i also asked who paid her fees...neither question had anything to do with your idiotic response....try reading the question and get back on the flags on cars thread and make some daft comments on that you stupid pratt!!! :loopy:

The job of the brief is to prove their innocence and the police's guilt in this matter...what on earth is she expected to say? Your comments are some of the daftest posted on this forum...keep posting amigo:hihi:

Oh yeah....where can I get that T - shirt printed up :hihi: thank you kind sir ...nice to know my comments give tittilation to the masses ;)

...no my experiences dont cloud my judgment...just the opposite ..experience forms my judgement....we all become wiser through lifes lessons

Hmmm... you post saying one thing and now seem to be saying another? Wiser through lifes lessons eh? Fair enough! :loopy:

yeah and lets start sacking teachers when kids fail exams

i'd have a lot more respect for you if you didn't start a thread on one subject then go off on a rant about another yawn...well im off to bed now...gotta go to work...dont have the pleasure of living of the dole cheque....stay on

yawn...well im off to bed now...gotta go to work...dont have the pleasure of living of the dole cheque....stay on

Is that an assumption that we do?

am i right in saying that we have the finest legal system in the world?

am i right in saying that we have the finest legal system in the world?

Of course!

Of course!

The defence rests?

lawyers would not take on cases that are hopeless if they knew they would not get paid.

lawyers would not take on cases that are hopeless if they knew they would not get paid.
Very, very true.
And we all know that lawyers knowingly defend people they know to be guilty as sin - because they're being handsomely paid, not because they feel some moral obligation.

That's why my lawyer has bought a brand new Range Rover and a brand new TVR this year. Mind you, he's good.

What a lawyer says about a client must always be taken with a pinch of salt as it is not impartial.

Absolutely right, but let's not lose sight of the fact that, in the case of the CPS the client is the Crown, therefore whatever they say about the prosecutions case should also be taken with a pinch of salt for the same reasons.

yawn...well im off to bed now...gotta go to work...dont have the pleasure of living of the dole cheque....stay on

Early bed? Need your sleep for work tomorrow? Need a clear head to think? Hmmm .... you're not a lawyer by any chance? :hihi:

lawyers would not take on cases that are hopeless if they knew they would not get paid.

I suppose when you go into work Monday morning, you will tell the boss that you will work for free from now on? :huh:

I suppose when you go into work Monday morning, you will tell the boss that you will work for free from now on? :huh:
i don't think so.

am i right in saying that we have the finest legal system in the world?

Of course you are!

In fact, as we speak, I have Lord Lucan living in my garden shed writing an article on the subject, which he will later this week deliver to The Star having been transported there in a carriage driven by Elvis and pulled by Shergar. :nod:

Isn't it the lawyers job to defend them even if they ARE guilty, so long as the suspects keeping saying they are innocent?
If that's the case, they can keep pleading innocence and the lawyer must plead innocent on their behalf, even if they know it's most likely a lie.

yawn...well im off to bed now...gotta go to work...dont have the pleasure of living of the dole cheque....stay on

And I get called a troll?

Madness.

NM

She insits they are wrong because she is impartial to the case by law and if the suspects claim to be innocent then by the law of the land they are innocent unless proved guilty.

Not read the full thread but it just shows the problem we have

We have the possiblity that a group of British born asains want to create a chemical bomb to murder hundreds/thousands of us and then we have one person shot as part of an anti-terror. Guess which gets more coverage :roll:

well i personally think they are probably guilty ..

Eh?

What do you base that on?

The colour of their skin? The Sunday People?

If these guys are so innocent, then why were they in the frame in the first place. Was a perfectly random selection made for an investigation lasting months. And a raid involving 250 coppers and hundreds more staff made purely on a whim.
Further more why did the guy start fighting with the police, steal a gun and fire off a shot? These are not the actions of innocent people mixed up in something they do not understand.
What amuses me is the report that the injured guy was in his 'pyjamas', as if he was in flanellette stripy things people wear in bed.
Pyjamas are the day to day street clothes of people who live in warmer climes, and are now to be seen in any city street, along with women dressed like The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.

If these guys are so innocent, then why were they in the frame in the first place. Was a perfectly random selection made for an investigation lasting months. And a raid involving 250 coppers and hundreds more staff made purely on a whim.
Further more why did the guy start fighting with the police, steal a gun and fire off a shot? These are not the actions of innocent people mixed up in something they do not understand.
What amuses me is the report that the injured guy was in his 'pyjamas', as if he was in flanellette stripy things people wear in bed.
Pyjamas are the day to day street clothes of people who live in warmer climes, and are now to be seen in any city street, along with women dressed like The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.

Why was an innocent man under observation for weeks in London, before being followed and shot dead as he sat on the Tube? I'm not saying these guys didn't do it, they may have, they may not, it isn't for us to decide. I think everyone should wait until more information emerges and not jump to any conclusions.

Why was an innocent man under observation for weeks in London, before being followed and shot dead as he sat on the Tube? I'm not saying these guys didn't do it, they may have, they may not, it isn't for us to decide. I think everyone should wait until more information emerges and not jump to any conclusions.
He was living in the same block of flats as the guy they wanted, and bore an uncanny resmblance to him (get the pictures up and compare them).
In the coppers eyes he was behaving strangly that morning, getting on and off buses, visiting different tube stations etc. Then he suddenly ran across the platform for no reason and jumped a newly arrived train. Admittedly he paid a high price for queue jumping, but can anyone be sure he was not a decoy?
Dont forget he was not a dear little thing either. He was in the country illegally, having overstayed his visa or whatever. IMO his family should not have recieved a penny compo. They should have been given an Oscar for best performance however

....oh he's a dj ok...dysfunctional jerk!!!

good argument

well i personally think they are probably guilty

This has got to be the funniest post of the year. Look at the (your) title of the thread and then ask yourself why you bothered

Eh?

What do you base that on?

The colour of their skin? The Sunday People?

Here we go again with the old chestnut.....if all else fails use a cliche thats been around for fifty years...i suggest before you make stupid comment you consider its just possible that i might think they are guilty because of all the police involvement but just for your information..i already stated further down this thread that nobody can help what colour they are or what they look like...and furthermore...i dont read the sunday people..what do you read ??...the sunday sport?? :help:

Further more why did the guy start fighting with the police, steal a gun and fire off a shot? These are not the actions of innocent people mixed up in something they do not understand.

And your evidence for these assertions is? Were you there?

I think not.

.

Oi! Empty your Inbox!

(Apologies to the thread) :)

And your evidence for these assertions is? Were you there?

I think not.
no and the lawyer wasnt there either ..so wheres her evidence for the assertions

no and the lawyer wasnt there either ..so wheres her evidence for the assertions

She wasn't but she's spoken to the two guys that were , which puts her in a rather more advantageous position than you to determine the truth of the matter.
I wouldn't mind betting that both of your assertions a) that there was a struggle and b) the even more improbable 'stole a gun and fired off a shot' turn out to be completely unfounded.
You can quote me on that and if I turn out to be wrong I'll accept it publicly here. If the guy who got shot had his hands on aweapon do you not think the Police would have found it by now. They were there at the scene. Perhaps the guy was a magician as well as an alleged terrorist?

She wasn't but she's spoken to the two guys that were , which puts her in a rather more advantageous position than you to determine the truth of the matter.
I wouldn't mind betting that both of your assertions a) that there was a struggle and b) the even more improbable 'stole a gun and fired off a shot' turn out to be completely unfounded.
You can quote me on that and if I turn out to be wrong I'll accept it publicly here. If the guy who got shot had his hands on aweapon do you not think the Police would have found it by now. They were there at the scene. Perhaps the guy was a magician as well as an alleged terrorist? i dont think just cos she has spoken to them puts her in any position closer to the truth..they might be a pair of liars ..i dont know,maybe they are innocent...but she doent know either...but she makes factual statements saying theyre innocent...and that was the whole point of this thread...it wasnt about innocence or guilt ..it was about her earning her unearned income...and furthermore ..i suggest you challenge the view and not the person

She wasn't but she's spoken to the two guys that were , which puts her in a rather more advantageous position than you to determine the truth of the matter.
I wouldn't mind betting that both of your assertions a) that there was a struggle and b) the even more improbable 'stole a gun and fired off a shot' turn out to be completely unfounded.
You can quote me on that and if I turn out to be wrong I'll accept it publicly here. If the guy who got shot had his hands on aweapon do you not think the Police would have found it by now. They were there at the scene. Perhaps the guy was a magician as well as an alleged terrorist?
In the commotion caused it was grappled from a coppers hand and fired, missed his target and shot the injured man. if you have ever been in a scuffle you will know these things happen in an instant.

If you came downstairs at first light and found your house full of policemen, would you start fighting with them? Of course not, so why did these guys, even to the point of pistols being fired.
Halibut, you will be fried on this one :)

In the commotion caused it was grappled from a coppers hand and fired, missed his target and shot the injured man. if you have ever been in a scuffle you will know these things happen in an instant.

So you're suggesting the injured man shot himself? Or that the gun fell/was knocked out of the Policemans hand and accidentally discharged? Possible but really quite unlikely. It was a shoulder wound allegedly.
Far more likely that it was an aimed shot fired by a police officer, I think.

If you came downstairs at first light and found your house full of policemen, would you start fighting with them? Of course not, so why did these guys, even to the point of pistols being fired.
Halibut, you will be fried on this one :)
Halibut is fried each and every time the fish speaks - but fails to realise this.

well...bad as the coppers are..and there are some bad ones...we would be in a hell of a state without them...and its still the best police force in the world

no and the lawyer wasnt there either ..so wheres her evidence for the assertions

The guy who was shot ......via his lawyer acting on his behalf issued a statement on Newsnight this evening agreeing that these types of police actions are necessary due to the terrorist threat but the police were trigger happy and had been fed the wrong information. If this guy is the real deal then I think this is more than a generous statement...don't you think?
The police themselves have found no evidence of a terrorist threat at the address.

Perhaps the original poster of the thread should now make a comment?

The guy who was shot ......via his lawyer acting on his behalf issued a statement on Newsnight this evening agreeing that these types of police actions are necessary due to the terrorist threat but the police were trigger happy and had been fed the wrong information. If this guy is the real deal then I think this is more than a generous statement...don't you think?
The police themselves have found no evidence of a terrorist threat at the address.

Perhaps the original poster of the thread should now make a comment? certainly...but time will tellif they are guilty or not....but again at the risk of repeating myself...i dont know if they are guilty..BUT NEITHER DOES SHE !!!...but she is being paid megabucks to make statements she cannot possibly justify

If you came downstairs at first light and found your house full of policemen, would you start fighting with them? Of course not, so why did these guys, even to the point of pistols being fired.
Halibut, you will be fried on this one :)

There is absolutely no credible evidence that these men struggled. The lawyers statement refers to an admission that one of the men shouted.
Before you talk about me being 'fried' I suggest you wait till there is some credible evidence to back up your statement, which, as far as I can see is guesswork dressed up as fact.

Here we go again with the old chestnut.....if all else fails use a cliche thats been around for fifty years...i suggest before you make stupid comment you consider its just possible that i might think they are guilty because of all the police involvement but just for your information..i already stated further down this thread that nobody can help what colour they are or what they look like...and furthermore...i dont read the sunday people..what do you read ??...the sunday sport?? :help:

I'm not sure which old chestnut you're referring to.

I tend to stay out of these spittle flecked "don't trust the fuzzy wuzzy" arguments that pop up on here all the time, but the irony of your post is genuinely beautiful.


Forgive me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that you've said that lawyers involved with the case can't possibly know what's happening, whereas you know that the bloke who got shot was guilty (you don't say what of).

Do you see that it doesn't add up, or has it really passed you by?

certainly...but time will tellif they are guilty or not....but again at the risk of repeating myself...i dont know if they are guilty..BUT NEITHER DOES SHE !!!...but she is being paid megabucks to make statements she cannot possibly justify

And at the risk of repeating what other posters have already said there's no reason to believe she was getting paid 'megabucks' - and every reason to believe she was doing her job to the best of her ability, i.e. being a professional.

well i personally think they are probably guilty


i dont know if they are guilty

Ah, I see what you're saying.

certainly...but time will tellif they are guilty or not....but again at the risk of repeating myself...i dont know if they are guilty..BUT NEITHER DOES SHE !!!...but she is being paid megabucks to make statements she cannot possibly justify

In law, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt not the other way round.

'Innocent until proven guilty'..the defence do not have to make any assertion if they so wish...you can go to trial and not even make any statement apart from entering a plea of 'not guilty' - it is the prosecution's job to prove guilt.

We have an adversarial court system...that is both sides argue from their particular standpoints...Defence and Prosecution

It really is a basic point that is being made for you anlabystreet:help:

I'm not sure which old chestnut you're referring to.

I tend to stay out of these spittle flecked "don't trust the fuzzy wuzzy" arguments that pop up on here all the time, but the irony of your post is genuinely beautiful.


Forgive me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that you've said that lawyers involved with the case can't possibly know what's happening, whereas you know that the bloke who got shot was guilty (you don't say what of).

Do you see that it doesn't add up, or has it really passed you by?

....youre doing it again...since when did i say he was guilty???look back all the way on this thread...i never said he was guilty at all...and just cos those lawyers are involved in the case doesnt mean they know what happened ...they werent there...youre making assumptions and as far as your second paragraph goes.. yes i forgive you for being wrong

....youre doing it again...since when did i say he was guilty???

err,

well i personally think they are probably guilty

It was that bit.

....youre doing it again...since when did i say he was guilty???look back all the way on this thread...i never said he was guilty at all...and just cos those lawyers are involved in the case doesnt mean they know what happened ...they werent there...youre making assumptions and as far as your second paragraph goes.. yes i forgive you for being wrong

Banging...brick...head....wall

Weave into a well known phrase:o

Banging...brick...head....wall

Weave into a well known phrase:o

Is it 'head wall brick banging'? I dunno. Maybe anlabystreet can enlighten us?

Is it 'head wall brick banging'? I dunno. Maybe anlabystreet can enlighten us?

Don't encourage him:o

Who is to say whether they are guilty or innocent. Too many people assume that people who are arrested under the "terrorism law" are guilty.

Look at that poor Menezes guy who was doing nothing wrong and was murdered. And then cops tried to cover it up and said he was doing stuff he wasn't!

Bush & Blair have got some people right where they want them... they mention the word terrorism and everyone shivers and blames whoever the news want you to blame. The whole thing is driving me up the wall!

Edit: Example: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece

The cops never tried to cover this up, if they did it was not a good cover up was it? We should be grateful that we do have a check on our security services and police, unlike a greater part of this world that does not; Brazil for one!

err,



It was that bit....no i said i think they were probably guilty...i didnt say they ARE guilty..theres a difference...theres a difference

Banging...brick...head....wall

Weave into a well known phrase:o...you missed out...your and against

...no i said i think they were probably guilty...i didnt say they ARE guilty..theres a difference...theres a difference

anlabystreet.....no I give up:wave:

anlabystreet.....no I give up:wave:...noooooo ..dont do that..i see it as my lifes vocation to educate

The lawyers statement refers to an admission that one of the men shouted.
.
One of the men shouted, I bet it wasnt 'I say guys dont walk on my clean floor with those muddy boots'
It was, I would imagine something like 'Allah Akbar', or words to that effect.
Perhaps if he'd offered them a cup of tea all this unpleasantness could have been avoided.
The problem is now, what have they done with the bomb.
I imagine that the answer lies with the injured man, that being the reason his brother tried to kill him, using the policemans gun.

We really are into potentially quite fanciful realms now. Please can I remind you that the rules on sub-judicy still apply.

Sorry Tony I have also just realised we into 6/6/6, the mark of the beast, so any thing could happen today! :D

The cops never tried to cover this up, if they did it was not a good cover up was it? We should be grateful that we do have a check on our security services and police, unlike a greater part of this world that does not; Brazil for one!
Yes they did, the only reason we know what really happened is because the IPCC report was leaked. They've still refused to offically confirm many of the crucial details themselves.

This new scenario is also sounding dodgier by the minute.

Yes they did, the only reason we know what really happened is because the IPCC report was leaked. They've still refused to offically confirm many of the crucial details themselves.

This new scenario is also sounding dodgier by the minute.

The point I was making, is that we in the UK have bodies such as the IPCC,
most of the rest of the world doesn't bother with such niceties.
When you have people with weapons, usually young men, protecting the security of their country, there will ineveitably also be mistakes. Unfortunately mistakes with guns leads to deaths.
No matter how good your intelligence is; if you are up against someone that you believe has a weapon of destruction Bio- Chem or such other dirty bomb, then you have to act with deadly force.
If you don't act and the device is operated even, remotely, more people could possibly be maimed, injured or killed

and furthermore..who pays her vast fees?? is it her client or is it joe muggins again?:rant:

Can you update us on this thread please, anlabystreet?

Sadly it looks like she was right. She won't be needing such a 'vast fee" now to prove their innocence. :(

Sadly it looks like she was right. She won't be needing such a 'vast fee" now to prove their innocence. :(

Not a good choice of words, Tony old chum. ‘Sadly’ makes it sound as though you wanted her to be wrong! Doesn’t do race relations much good either!

Sadly it looks like she was right. She won't be needing such a 'vast fee" now to prove their innocence. :(

Don't be sad Tony. If these fellows are innocent, it's not unfeasible to believe that there wasn't a deadly anthrax/sarin/other-nasty-stuff bomb either.
Good news, I'd say. Now then, I wonder where all the posters who were insisting this man was guilty - and cating aspersions at me - have sloped off to?
Any of you care to admit you got it wrong?
I'm not holding my breath.....

There's no problem with the words peterw. It is sad that she was right. I think it's sad that the Police made the mistake. I also think that the Police did exactly what we should expect of them. This is just one of those sad situations where the best of intentions didn't work out.

It's sad all round, not specifically.

Don't be sad Tony. If these fellows are innocent, it's not unfeasible to believe that there wasn't a deadly anthrax/sarin/other-nasty-stuff bomb either.
Good news, I'd say. Now then, I wonder where all the posters who were insisting this man was guilty - and cating aspersions at me - have sloped off to?
Any of you care to admit you got it wrong?
I'm not holding my breath.....

anlaby street? artisan? Bartfarst - oh maybe not you, you might be on 'holiday' and thus unable to reply.
Besides, you might have some of that famous inside knowlkedge of yours that proves they were really guilty anyway. Y'know like the Birmingham six.

Tony, it's also sad that the 'intelligence' - if it held any water - may just have been correct but the wrong people/ address was used.

It's alarming to think that there may well still be a very real risk & threat out there.

I totally agree with you DK. I'm a big supporter of our security services and the largely unseen work that they do. It's sad that these sort of incidents tarnish them so undeservedly.

There ARE terrorists out there. plotting, building bombs, making plans. The security services know this and really are doing their best. Sadly stuff like this is bound to happen. Nobody is to blame, and lessons will be learned.

I do worry that these sad events will make their job even harder and give rise to more lies for the likes of the BNP to peddle.

To me it smacks of a double bluff now.
The right intelligence - the wrong location given.

The Muslim community backed by the media have all the credance to discredit the security services while, quietly, the ploters & bomb builders work with near impunity. :mad:

There ARE terrorists out there. plotting, building bombs, making plans.

Or so the government has been telling us whilst gradually removing civil liberties.

I'm not saying there aren't terrorists, but is the threat lesser or greater than when the IRA were active? Why did we never hear about raids on suspected irish terrorists with innocent people being shot at the height of the troubles?

We did but it all went off on the Emerald Isle

:suspect: why bring the IRA into it? There's no threat there any more, or are you trying to justify todays Muslim terrorists by the 2-wrongs-make-a-right theory?

Perhaps the media today are better equipped to report stuff than when the IRA were active.

Perhaps the intelligence services allow more info out.

Cyclone, you are right, but I did say " I'm a big supporter of our security services and the largely unseen work that they do."

It should remain unseen unless it is in the public interest, but it's a bit hard to hide 250 policemen in NBC suits. I make no comment on if that was the correct strategy.

There are lots of issues here and none of them are easily resolved if they are capable of being resolved at all. We perhaps return back to that old bugbear of mine - press scaremongering in the pursuit of column inches.

I think the saddest thing is that another innocent man has been shot, what if he had also been killed? This must be having some effect on the way we are being seen by other countries,.

There are lots of issues here and none of them are easily resolved if they are capable of being resolved at all. We perhaps return back to that old bugbear of mine - press scaremongering in the pursuit of column inches.

You can't blame the press in isolation. This govt. and Blair in particular have been obsessed with media headlines since 1997; both running scared of them and brazenly trying to manipulate them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this obsession has rubbed off onto the security services to some degree, and if the security services are suffering from a 'tarnished image' it's largely self-inflicted.

The police have said that a probability of as little as 5% of the information that led to the Forest Gate raid being true will lead to similar action in the furure, so there will be lots of opportunity for further false alarms. They'll just have to learn to grin and bear the flak arising from those, and ensure maximum publicity from their successes.

I think the saddest thing is that another innocent man has been shot, what if he had also been killed? This must be having some effect on the way we are being seen by other countries,.

we've had certain rightwing group members on here crowing about the police's success, in this case.. and yet there is no evidence against them, and they have been released without charge.

It's horrendous, just like the De Menendes case in stockwell.

PT

It's horrendous, just like the De Menendes case in stockwell.

I don't know how you can think that, since none of us know more than a few facts and some of those are conflicting.

If the police had some kind of credible evidence that there was a chemical device then they have to raid the premises. They can always apologise afterwards. If they believe that someone is about to harm them, or those that they are there to protect, then they have to shoot. There should only be a scandal if there turns out to be no real credible evidence and, even then, this should probably not reflect badly on the policeman who shot the suspect. If I was in his shoes and I was told that they might have a chemical weapon and might be able to blow themselves up then perhaps I would shoot him if he didn't do exactly as he was told. This may turn out to be what happens or may not, I don't know, but neither does anyone else.

anlaby street? artisan? Bartfarst - oh maybe not you, you might be on 'holiday' and thus unable to reply.
Besides, you might have some of that famous inside knowlkedge of yours that proves they were really guilty anyway. Y'know like the Birmingham six.
Just because there is no tangible evidence against them does not mean they are innocent.
Letting them go is a good idea. They will lead us to the evidence eventually.
Look at Al Zaquari, his own arrogance led to his downfall.
These kind of people are not nice guys, dont treat them as fools, no matter how much you fawn over them they will always despise you.

:suspect: why bring the IRA into it? There's no threat there any more, or are you trying to justify todays Muslim terrorists by the 2-wrongs-make-a-right theory?


what a truly ridiculous thing to say, did you actually read my post?

The reason i 'brought' the IRA into it was to a draw a comparison between this time of apparently high terrorist threat and the last time the country faced a high level of terrorist activity. There is little to justify a different level of response as far as i'm aware, but this time we have emergency legislation, shoot to kill (innocent people apparently) policies, the loss of certain civil liberties, etc...

The question is a perfectly valid one, why are these response needed now if they were not needed the last time we faced a similar threat?

Edit - to add, Tony, I agree, I think that the police and the services do the best they can in the circumstances, it's mainly the politicians I don't trust and I see their responses to the situation in a very cynical light.

Just because there is no tangible evidence against them does not mean they are innocent.
Letting them go is a good idea. They will lead us to the evidence eventually.
Look at Al Zaquari, his own arrogance led to his downfall.
These kind of people are not nice guys, dont treat them as fools, no matter how much you fawn over them they will always despise you.

You'd best hope that no one in power ever takes a dislike to whatever group you can be identified as belonging too, because with your attitude you'd deserve whatever happened.

No tangible evidence in british law means innocent.

And unless you know something that everyone else doesn't, there's no evidence for them to lead anyone too.

Just because there is no tangible evidence against them does not mean they are innocent.
Letting them go is a good idea. They will lead us to the evidence eventually.
Look at Al Zaquari, his own arrogance led to his downfall.
These kind of people are not nice guys, dont treat them as fools, no matter how much you fawn over them they will always despise you.

Why don't you admit you were wrong and stop trying to squirm out of it. At least you could retain some dignity that way. The tip off was not credible as the police have now admitted.


BTW where is anlabystreet??

Why don't you admit you were wrong and stop trying to squirm out of it. At least you could retain some dignity that way. The tip off was not credible as the police have now admitted.


BTW where is anlabystreet??
I am not wrong, I am merely having a perod of incorrectitude :D

Anlaby Road is one of the main roads into Hull. presumably the street is off that road. What has that got to do with it?

We did but it all went off on the Emerald Isle

:suspect: why bring the IRA into it? There's no threat there any more, or are you trying to justify todays Muslim terrorists by the 2-wrongs-make-a-right theory?

Perhaps the media today are better equipped to report stuff than when the IRA were active.

Perhaps the intelligence services allow more info out.

When the IRA first became active in England all newspapers (national, regional and weekly) agreed to a clamp-down on reporting bomb scares simply because to have done so would have encouraged even more of those ‘nutters’ who found their fun in making them. Some actual raids on suspects were reported as a matter of ‘public interest’, others were not.

When the IRA first became active in England all newspapers (national, regional and weekly) agreed to a clamp-down on reporting bomb scares simply because to have done so would have encouraged even more of those ‘nutters’ who found their fun in making them. Some actual raids on suspects were reported as a matter of ‘public interest’, others were not.
They agreed to this at Thatchers orders.
They were not reported as it would have shown up even more, the fact that the woman did not the first idea how to deal with it.
As with most thing she did she was blundering in the dark.
What little knowledge or ability she had was focused on the economy, and she made a balls of that as well.
It was only when intelligent men took the reins of power that some semblance of order returned to the country

what a truly ridiculous thing to say, did you actually read my post?

The reason i 'brought' the IRA into it was to a draw a comparison between this time of apparently high terrorist threat and the last time the country faced a high level of terrorist activity. There is little to justify a different level of response as far as i'm aware, but this time we have emergency legislation, shoot to kill (innocent people apparently) policies, the loss of certain civil liberties, etc...

The question is a perfectly valid one, why are these response needed now if they were not needed the last time we faced a similar threat?

Edit - to add, Tony, I agree, I think that the police and the services do the best they can in the circumstances, it's mainly the politicians I don't trust and I see their responses to the situation in a very cynical light.

The threat today is not just explosive devices, but the likes of anthrax, chemical and viral weapons of unknown mass destruction. Not only to us but our children and their children. Terrorism has moved with the times, they can detonate remotely; they are willing to sacrifice their own lives. The IRA were not keen to do that. So sadly our security services have to act as best as they can, with seemingly undue speed in recent cases. They are for the main part young people doing their best to keep Britain safe, but they unfortunately, because of the very nature of this task, bound to make errors.

well well well, they were released WITHOUT charge! and i hope they sue the police!

Sorry but I had to dig this topic up... it appears that the solicitor was correct. No?!

How the thread changed!

Sorry but I had to dig this topic up... it appears that the solicitor was correct. No?!

How the thread changed!

Concur:thumbsup:

And where are all the posters who insisted they were guilty as sin? Nowhere to be seen...what a surprise.

[QUOTE=TwoFour]Can you update us on this thread please, anlabystreet?...yes i would love too...no evidence found..but that wasnt my point..my point was how did the lawyer make such sweeping statements about their innocence and how did she possibly know..she couldnt...at the time she wasnt privy to the full facts because the house was still being searched...and..on another separate note...isnt it strange that 38 grand was found in the house??more money than most people have at any one moment in their lifetime...if its legal why wasnt it in the bank..let me guess...is it anything to do with means tested benefit claims??...mmm i wonder ...no i know what it is...its cos it might have been a sunday and the banks werent open..just wondering thats all...no im not being cynical...just the experience of life

and...i reckon dear old halibut should get out a bit more instead of spending his life on this forum...there is a world out there you know

and...i reckon dear old halibut should get out a bit more instead of spending his life on this forum...there is a world out there you know
'Dear old Halibut' has a very full and active life thankyou - of whach the forum plays only a small, but interesting part. Since when did having a bit of cash make a reasonable excuse for getting oneself shot?
Talk about clutching at straws....

well here i am ...1 in the morning and ready to do some verbal sparring with halibut and his henchman teabag but no sign of either...i can only assume they have gone to bed early so they can get up early and be on the forum all day:loopy: thats teabag....:loopy: ..and thats his mate..heh heh

we've had certain rightwing group members on here crowing about the police's success, in this case.. and yet there is no evidence against them, and they have been released without charge.

It's horrendous, just like the De Menendes case in stockwell.

PT

Let's wait for all the screeming that would follow if the police ignore the next threat and sometihing does go off.
The police in the NBC kit were there in case a chemical bomb was found so that the residents could be moved out quickly.
Why is it always the security forces who take the flack. May be that the info was fed to them so that the extemists could see what the reaction would be and how they could counter act it.

either way, the fact is that it only takes one terrorist 'getting lucky' to cause devastation and destruction - the security services have to be lucky every time.

I'd much rather this situation than one in which we ignore tip offs unless the evidence is rock solid...

my point was how did the lawyer make such sweeping statements about their innocence and how did she possibly know..she couldnt...at the time she wasnt privy to the full facts because the house was still being searched...and..on another separate note...isnt it strange that 38 grand was found in the house??more money than most people have at any one moment in their lifetime...if its legal why wasnt it in the bank..let me guess...is it anything to do with means tested benefit claims??...mmm i wonder ...no i know what it is...its cos it might have been a sunday and the banks werent open..just wondering thats all...no im not being cynical...just the experience of life

Anlabystreeet implies stitched up men are benefit frausters...how does she know?

I really can't believe you won't give this up. Admit it - you thought they were guilty and now you can't bear it that you were wrong. So much so that you STILL insist on casting aspersions against these innocent people. What is your problem, is it the race of them that you can't deal with? Now you imply they are benefit fraudsters...I have read that they were all hard working poeple with their own business and as several people lived in the house the money wasn't that much anyway between them. Anyway why am I defending them? There is nothing to defend.

Dont go defending them too much. I think we will find that this is not over, by a long chalk.

whatever the rights and wrongs of it all one thing is for certain...lawyers are mercenary and money grabbing....they have about as much idea as the rest of us who did it but because the taxpayer is funding their lifestyle it doesnt matter...they dont deal in justice..their interest lies only in how much money they can make...and that makes them as criminal as the guilty...to see that woman on tv making comments and judgments that she couldnt possibly know all for the sake of a fat fee is sickening

Do you actually know how much this "fat fee" is that criminal lawyers get paid? It may (or may not) interest you to know that legal aid rates have hardly changed in the last ten years and are due to be capped to cut costs even further. As a result, criminal lawyers earn fees which are a fraction of those charged by lawyers in other fields of law. As for not being paid if they "lose", you seem to have a misunderstanding of the lawyers' role.

Do you actually know how much this "fat fee" is that criminal lawyers get paid? It may (or may not) interest you to know that legal aid rates have hardly changed in the last ten years and are due to be capped to cut costs even further. As a result, criminal lawyers earn fees which are a fraction of those charged by lawyers in other fields of law. As for not being paid if they "lose", you seem to have a misunderstanding of the lawyers' role.
You're quite right.


My lawyer, who mostly does criminal work, has had to avoid renewing his Range Rover this year, because he could only afford either a new Range Rover or a new TVR - so he went for the TVR.

He's also had to reduce his motor racing to one clas this year, because running two classes would be another £50k.

I feel so sorry for him that I've considered sending a food parcel.