Mozza
It’s Carrick you know
Think he’s already gone, only managed one word of his sentence.
Didn't need more than one word to dismiss your nonsense
Think he’s already gone, only managed one word of his sentence.
Is Mozza still going? How many more times does he need to be shown up by 2cents before he just gives in and gets his one way ticket to Syria?
No.Weren't you complaining in this very thread about oates being patronizing?
Sure.2cents hasn't shown me up
No.
Sure.
You know what Oates, would've been to debate it with you, but you're being a bit of a prick, so I don't think I'm going to bother.
To me there seems to be a problem with this idea. The idea that to treat someone fairly a country has to introduce new law after the event which would be in itself, unfair.
If the Justice System cannot introduce evidence suitable to punish the defendant with the crimes she is supposedly to have committed under the beliefs of the mob then that would be the Justice Systems problem.
It seems to me that she is being accused of crimes without name, assumed crimes. Crimes which the mob are unhappy she will not be charged with until some supposed Acts of Parliament can introduce after the event.
Hmm. Isn't this the sort of thing that happens in a country that is not the UK.
Joining a terrorist organisation - tick. Now, whatever else you want to accuse her of then name it and supply proof. I'm all for her facing justice but it has to be...well..justice.
Nope.Isnt being a prick patronising?
So is it that you feel the Syrian Justice System would be fairer or the the evidence exists in Syria or both?This is not an idea, it's a fact.
Also, I think in an ideal scenario, she should stand trial in Syria.
So is it that you feel the Syrian Justice System would be fairer or the the evidence exists in Syria or both?
But you did mention Shamima being treated fairly so are you saying that Syrian Justice will be fairer?I think it's more to do with the fact that the crime was committed on Syrian territory.
I don't know if it is a question of being easier. In any case I'm seeking a bit of clarity on why one will be fairer than another.Would life be any easier for her back in Britain?
I don't know if it is a question of being easier. In any case I'm seeking a bit of clarity on why one will be fairer than another.
At the same time will she be the only one to face trial and does Syria have the infrastructure to deal with all of the former family and fighters?
I don't know if it is a question of being easier. In any case I'm seeking a bit of clarity on why one will be fairer than another.
At the same time will she be the only one to face trial and does Syria have the infrastructure to deal with all of the former family and fighters?
But you did mention Shamima being treated fairly so are you saying that Syrian Justice will be fairer?
Kind of a strong indication that Shamima would be treated more fairly if not in Britain then certainly in the West.There’s no justice in Syria. Assad is a monster whose idea of ‘justice’ will be revenge over the coming months and years. The SDF who are currently holding her have a better reputation in the West but are not recognized, are a battle-hardened militia with more battles ahead of them, and probably don’t have the capability or the desire to conduct proper trials for the thousands of ISIS captives currently in their hands.
It is fair to stand trial in the country where the crime was committed.
Your answers seem contradictory then to your supposed fact. I can't see any proposed 'fairness' in being tried in Syria and particularly with reference to @2cents post above.Syria doesn't want them.
It is fair to stand trial in the country where the crime was committed.
Kind of a strong indication that Shamima would be treated more fairly if not in Britain then certainly in the West.
It would be easier for her to get luxury amenities like toiletries and comfort food. There's a very good chance she'll be ostracised by not only the wider Muslim community but also wider members of her family (excluding siblings and parents).Would life be any easier for her back in Britain?
Well I'm just glad that with your approval I won't be accused of stretching there.I’d say that’s a certainty.
I believe it was this one which I suggested wasn't a great idea or some such.Which one was my "supposed fact"?
UK has neither the required legislation nor enough evidence to treat her fairly under the rule of law.
Thanks for confirming that it wasn’t a slip of the tongue.Didn't need more than one word to dismiss your nonsense
Nice.Well I'm just glad that with your approval I won't be accused of stretching there.![]()
I tend to respond to when I'm quoted unless they become confusing or a waste of time but I'll answer you this once to be polite.Nice.
You can still accuse people of saying she shouldn't face British justice, and when you're challenged to provide the post where this happened, you can just stop responding.![]()
Why do you think 90% of those returning from Syria weren't prosecuted? Don't you think at least some of them would be responsible for crimes committed?I believe it was this one which I suggested wasn't a great idea or some such.
Why do you think Shamima will be fairly treated if she is tried in Syria or in Britain if 90% of those returning weren't prosecuted?Why do you think 90% of those returning from Syria weren't prosecuted? Don't you think at least some of them would be responsible for crimes committed?
Would you hold the same position if Singapore for instance want to hang a British national for smuggling, say, 10 pounds of cocaine? Or Saudi Arabia doing the same with a blasphemer?
Why do you think Shamima will be fairly treated if she is tried in Syria or in Britain if 90% of those returning weren't prosecuted?
Well so long as you can't see any inequality in your answer by all means.Because there's a high probability that she will walk free and never answer for her actions. Because it is hard to evidence someone's activities abroad and because there's no adequate legislation.
Now, can you answer my question?
But still not to the post asking you to back up the assumption you made. Nice one!I tend to respond to when I'm quoted unless they become confusing or a waste of time but I'll answer you this once to be polite.![]()
I've no idea what you are on about. Perhaps you've misunderstood something.But still not to the post asking you to back up the assumption you made. Nice one!![]()
Convenient, that. Think back to when you abruptly and inexplicably stopped responding to me. When I asked you to clarify your assumption and you decided, after realizing your mistake, that that was the time to end the conversation.I've no idea what you are on about. Perhaps you've misunderstood something.![]()
Yeah, after you'd called me a prick there couldn't be another reason why I ignored you? Sweet. I think you've misunderstood definitely.Convenient, that. Think back to when you abruptly and inexplicably stopped responding to me. When I asked you to clarify your assumption and you decided, after realizing your mistake, that that was the time to end the conversation.![]()
Thanks for confirming that it wasn’t a slip of the tongue.
You're not very good at this
Yup! You continued to reply well after that so don't try to pretend your convenient decision to end the conversation there had anything to do with that. And still you haven't found the post? Shocking.Yeah, after you'd called me a prick there couldn't be another reason why I ignored you? Sweet. I think you've misunderstood definitely.
I've never used the Ignore feature but I'm thinking there might be a use for it. Perhaps we could just ignore each other eh? And stop taking the thread off topic?