Jump to content

BBC Begging for Begum


derbyduck
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

We have homeless ex-servicemen / women people on the street, but still manage to find taxpayers money to fund appeal after appeal for this worthless human being.

One lawyer said the decision was offensive. I find it offensive that anyone can side with this terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Yes, that would lower the massive expense.

Interesting, selling off justice. 

17 minutes ago, harrycatcat1 said:

Why should the illegal immigrants be entitled to it anyway 🤔 If so why?

 Are you saying that we should have a tiered legal system, not sure that is a good thing!

For the same reason we can appeal decisions here, whether it is against a decision on refugee status or against an unduly light sentence and because we have a fair justice system. If you prefer a kangaroo court then more fool you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, henry d said:

Does this also apply to the whole of the country, and if not why not?

Yes, definitely.  When you have spent as many wasted hours as I have at Courts, with witnesses, complainants etc., all ready to go for trial, then the Defence produce the Doctors note or some other cocked up reason for yet another adjournment.  This is why most big Supermarkets never report shoplifting any more, it was costing them a fortune in lost work hours, whilst their Staff were at Court  !  One fee, one job would see more ONE appearance at Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Westley said:

When you have spent as many wasted hours as I have at Courts, with witnesses, complainants etc., all ready to go for trial

Sums up my experience of jury service (about 30 years ago).  We were set for 3 cases.  One needed no jury as the defendant changed the plea to guilty at the last moment.  The other two were cancelled/postponed because a necessary participant failed to show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Sums up my experience of jury service (about 30 years ago).  We were set for 3 cases.  One needed no jury as the defendant changed the plea to guilty at the last moment.  The other two were cancelled/postponed because a necessary participant failed to show.

NONE of which would have occurred IF the Lawyer was getting a single fee  !  Apart from the ,'Guilty' plea, of which you would see a lot more   !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, London Best said:

British legal aid should be for British citizens only.


But she was a British citizen. 
 

As much as everyone hates her, we always have to remember that ruling in law set precedent. 
 

If the U.K. government would be allowed to strip her British citizenship and leave her supposedly stateless, without any course of appeal, then they could do it to others as well. 
 

Would you be happy if it happened to you? Or your family member? 
 

I would not be happy if the Government could do that to me, without any right to appeal it. 
 

She was allowed to appeal it, and she lost the appeal.
 

The obvious right decision. 
 

This is the cost of our system, some bad eggs will get access to the same rights and protections as the good people. 
 

Criminals in custody have the same right to legal advice and support as any other citizen. 
 

Such is the cost of our system. It’s a damn sight better than living in a backward communist country where someone can drag you off to a concentration camp (still happening in China), or the Government can just execute you for your political views (happening today in Russia and Korea). 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:


But she was a British citizen. 
 

As much as everyone hates her, we always have to remember that ruling in law set precedent. 
 

If the U.K. government would be allowed to strip her British citizenship and leave her supposedly stateless, without any course of appeal, then they could do it to others as well. 
 

Would you be happy if it happened to you? Or your family member? 
 

I would not be happy if the Government could do that to me, without any right to appeal it. 
 

She was allowed to appeal it, and she lost the appeal.
 

The obvious right decision. 
 

This is the cost of our system, some bad eggs will get access to the same rights and protections as the good people. 
 

Criminals in custody have the same right to legal advice and support as any other citizen. 
 

Such is the cost of our system. It’s a damn sight better than living in a backward communist country where someone can drag you off to a concentration camp (still happening in China), or the Government can just execute you for your political views (happening today in Russia and Korea). 
 

 

In my view, I'd like to see a country where officials could use a degree of digression, particularly when a terrorist sympathiser is concerned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, henry d said:

Interesting, selling off justice. 

 Are you saying that we should have a tiered legal system, not sure that is a good thing!

For the same reason we can appeal decisions here, whether it is against a decision on refugee status or against an unduly light sentence and because we have a fair justice system. If you prefer a kangaroo court then more fool you. 

Are you saying that anyone from all corners of the world should be entitled to our legal aid?

What has a kangaroo court got to do with anything 🤔 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

In my view, I'd like to see a country where officials could use a degree of digression, particularly when a terrorist sympathiser is concerned. 


What you are saying is that people should be able to apply who and where the law applies to. 
 

The law is the law, it’s the same for me as it is for you and anyone else. 
 

You can’t decide to pick and choose to let it apply to only the cases you want. 
 

If people can’t see that then there’s not much point debating it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:


But she was a British citizen. 
 

As much as everyone hates her, we always have to remember that ruling in law set precedent. 
 

If the U.K. government would be allowed to strip her British citizenship and leave her supposedly stateless, without any course of appeal, then they could do it to others as well. 
 

Would you be happy if it happened to you? Or your family member? 
 

I would not be happy if the Government could do that to me, without any right to appeal it. 
 

She was allowed to appeal it, and she lost the appeal.
 

The obvious right decision. 
 

This is the cost of our system, some bad eggs will get access to the same rights and protections as the good people. 
 

Criminals in custody have the same right to legal advice and support as any other citizen. 
 

Such is the cost of our system. It’s a damn sight better than living in a backward communist country where someone can drag you off to a concentration camp (still happening in China), or the Government can just execute you for your political views (happening today in Russia and Korea). 
 

 

yes if they were happy to kill us or our armed forces, or supported such acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Do they belive in her case, do they believe in her "rights" or do they like the ever growing money tree?

It is a license to print money for them.  Nothing lawyers love more than a publicly funded challenge to a publicly funded defence.  The taxpayer paying to oppose itself! 

She chose to leave this country and join a 'jihad'.  She supported those fighting against British and allies forces.  She supported terrorist organisations who wish to attack this country.  She (rightly in my view) had her British citizenship revoked.

Now she has 'changed her mind'.  She wants British taxpayers money to once again oppose the British nation (in the form of the decisions taken by it's government) - this time in the courts not in conflicts overseas. 

In the words of a former Prime Minister - No, No, No.

2 minutes ago, ilovemyheckler said:

I am really disappointed at all the negative posts

Not negative at all.  Just supporting the UK gov't and (hard pressed) UK taxpayer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ilovemyheckler said:

I am really disappointed at all the negative posts. This is a girl who was groomed online as a minor and then trafficked and sexually abused by a terrorist organisation. Perhaps she does deserve a second chance?

Perhaps others of the same ilk will see this and change their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I am really disappointed at all the negative posts. This is a girl who was groomed online as a minor and then trafficked and sexually abused by a terrorist organisation. Perhaps she does deserve a second chance?

Groomed? I think you are having a laugh. Trafficked - by who? Her friends? Sexually abused? 

Does she deserve a second chance, unlike the Manchester bombing victims? She was cocky when she was first caught - thought they deserved it. Now she has become a changed person in the eyes of the truly gullible. Those who know her better than Pigeonwatch members don't believe her and neither do I. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ilovemyheckler said:

I am really disappointed at all the negative posts.

I saw them as positive posts ?
Its a positive thing shes not getting back in, which is excellent news.

19 minutes ago, ilovemyheckler said:

This is a girl who was groomed online as a minor and then trafficked and sexually abused by a terrorist organisation.

She fancied herself a jihadi 'husband' , so she 'trafficked herself' , using false ID to get herself over to ISIS.
From her own admission , she quite liked living in the caliphate.

19 minutes ago, ilovemyheckler said:

Perhaps she does deserve a second chance?

At what , more terrorism, back in the UK ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one interview she said she didn't realise ISIS was a death cult. This contradicts her record at school, spending time watching beheading videos. 

Still, it's a free country and everyone is entitled to be gullible. Thankfully not MI5 or the Home Secretary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...