Shaker Aamer £1m Compo

[tonywheatley 10]

What on earth are we doing paying compensation to this foreigner?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11966357/Shaker-Aamer-is-our-pride-not-our-shame.html

 

At least Jeremy Corbyn is happy to see his return to one of the countries he has lived in.

 

Giving humanitarian aid: my hat!

 

Should be £14 million 1 for each year in my eyes

[Gamston 10]

Should be £14 million 1 for each year in my eyes

Given the fact this Saudi Arabian terrorist spent zero years detained by the British authorities after he left Britain by his own free will your figure is precisely £14 million too much in my eyes .

[Cyclone 10]

You've just libelled him. He's not been tried, never mind convicted as a terrorist. He's no more a terrorist than you are.

[Gamston 10]

You've just libelled him. He's not been tried, never mind convicted as a terrorist. He's no more a terrorist than you are.

 

The Americans still believe he is a terrorist which is good enough for me .

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2015 at 07:55 ----------

 

Another terrorist has joined the compensation seeking bandwagon . This time one of the murderers of Lee Rigby is sueing over losing some teeth .

 

An utter disgrace .

[sgtkate 10]

The Americans still believe he is a terrorist which is good enough for me .

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2015 at 07:55 ----------

 

Another terrorist has joined the compensation seeking bandwagon . This time one of the murderers of Lee Rigby is sueing over losing some teeth .

 

An utter disgrace .

 

And again he is entitled to do so. If the prison officers did nothing wrong, which by all accounts they don't appear to have done, then he has no case. I am amazed that people who are able to use a computer seem to have such low basic logic.

 

However, I do actually agree with you but for totally different reasons, that I don't believe someone should be able to make a financial/civil case where there has been a court case or investigation and claims dismissed. But I remember someone pointed out this wouldn't be practical. I don't understand the legal position of why civil cases can have lower evidence to prove than criminal? Can anyone explain why this is? Is it to simplify the civil courts system?

 

Do I find it hard to accept that rapists, murders and so on can make claims like this? Yes, but then again I can see beyond the initial outrage and see how impossible it would be to have it any other way. Prisoners already have far fewer rights, correctly of course, but we cannot simply give prison officers a free for all. This case doesn't appear to be that, but anyone has the legal right to sue if they feel like it. He'll have to pay court costs if the case is dismissed.

[Quik 10]

You've just libelled him. He's not been tried, never mind convicted as a terrorist. He's no more a terrorist than you are.

 

Indeed. Merely an unfortunate fellow who happened to set off from the UK to afghanistan just after our war against al qaeda started. Probably looking for his cat or setting up an organic juice bar.

[cassity 10]

The Americans still believe he is a terrorist which is good enough for me .

 

So you agree that the Americans made the right decision in letting him go even though they believe he's guilty?

[Cyclone 10]

They've not convicted him of anything, so you're still libelling him.

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2015 at 09:13 ----------

 

Indeed. Merely an unfortunate fellow who happened to set off from the UK to afghanistan just after our war against al qaeda started. Probably looking for his cat or setting up an organic juice bar.

 

If there's evidence, he should be facing a trial... It's not like the way the law works is overly difficult to understand.

[ukdobby 224]

And again he is entitled to do so. If the prison officers did nothing wrong, which by all accounts they don't appear to have done, then he has no case. I am amazed that people who are able to use a computer seem to have such low basic logic.

 

However, I do actually agree with you but for totally different reasons, that I don't believe someone should be able to make a financial/civil case where there has been a court case or investigation and claims dismissed. But I remember someone pointed out this wouldn't be practical. I don't understand the legal position of why civil cases can have lower evidence to prove than criminal? Can anyone explain why this is? Is it to simplify the civil courts system?

 

Do I find it hard to accept that rapists, murders and so on can make claims like this? Yes, but then again I can see beyond the initial outrage and see how impossible it would be to have it any other way. Prisoners already have far fewer rights, correctly of course, but we cannot simply give prison officers a free for all. This case doesn't appear to be that, but anyone has the legal right to sue if they feel like it. He'll have to pay court costs if the case is dismissed.

 

Who'll have to pay court costs?

[sgtkate 10]

Who'll have to pay court costs?

Depends on who wins. You take someone to court and you have to cover the costs if you lose and the other party does if you win.

[ukdobby 224]

Depends on who wins. You take someone to court and you have to cover the costs if you lose and the other party does if you win.

 

How can he cover the costs and what with?

[mafya 248]

Indeed. Merely an unfortunate fellow who happened to set off from the UK to afghanistan just after our war against al qaeda started. Probably looking for his cat or setting up an organic juice bar.

 

He actually went to Afghanistan before the war started in Afghanistan= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_Aamer#Capture_and_allegations

Get your facts right.....