Thread: Terrorist attack in london. Libyan asylum seeker arrested

Originally Posted by English Noodles

your TEFL certification gives you a good authority on it

I guess there's a reason why he chooses more appropriate verbs than you do, but do you really think that's it?

I'd say he just paid more attention in class and may well be brighter.

Originally Posted by English Noodles

It's the same in the thread about the stupid Australian woman shoplifter, your main concern was for her 'feelings'.

Oh do show me that quote.

For noodles it was a giveaway that you're 'an ultra left winger', if I remember correctly.

Originally Posted by English Noodles

Hey Harry. At least the BBC are now referring to him as being a Libyan asylum seeker now too.

You best get on the blower and advise them how the British legal system works, after all your TEFL certification gives you a good authority on it, i'm sure....

*Sigh*

They will do what they can get away with, however:

The right to a fair trial

Every person charged with a criminal offence has the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as enacted into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

In the case of media coverage and adverse publicity, if the jury are likely to be swayed by excessive media coverage and this affects the defendant’s right to a fair trial, then the court must do something to mitigate the unfairness to the defendant or dismiss the case altogether.

Negative impacts on trial judgements

There have been many cases in which a conviction has had to be quashed, or a trial stayed on the grounds of abuse of process, because of adverse pre-trial publicity.

In the case of R v Taylor and Taylor the Court of Appeal confirmed the principle created in R v McCann, that if media coverage created a substantial risk of prejudice to the defendants, the convictions should be regarded as unsafe and quashed.

The prejudice may be such that a re-trial is not possible because a fair trial cannot take place.

Prejudicing juries

If a court decides that the jury is prejudiced by media coverage there are a number of options. The court may decide to stay or quash proceedings and may or may not decide to order a re-trial. The court may decide that the prejudice caused can be remedied by the judge directing the jury on the issue.

This was seen recently when a judge warned a jury to ignore the Prime Minister’s widely reported prejudicial remarks about a case.

The judge may also decide that the risk of prejudice is slight due to time elapsed, or because a jury is not present and the trial may go ahead.

There has recently been a lot of discussion amongst the judiciary regarding the use of the social media site Twitter from the court room. The Lord Chief Justice ruled that journalists can Tweet from the court room as long as it doesn’t interfere with the administration of justice.

However, they must apply for permission from the trial judge first, and this is likely to be refused in ongoing criminal trials.

Contact Law | Find a solicitor in the UK


The less information on the case in the press the better.

Not according to Tommy!

Should have killed the scum on the spot!
Now he will feel right at home where Muslim inmates count for a staggering 16 percent of the prison population, but the Muslim community only constituting 4.8 percent of the general population.
Home sweet Home!

Thread: Terrorist attack in london. Libyan asylum seeker arrested

Oh look, it's Herman advocating Old Testament eye-for-an-eye 'justice' like a religious fanatic with no sense of irony...

There goes AntRobertson trying to explain to me that "Terrorist lives matter"

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

*Sigh*

They will do what they can get away with, however:


Contact Law | Find a solicitor in the UK


The less information on the case in the press the better.

Quaint words stencilled in stone to divert and distract the masses.

True, for nearly a thousand years the ‘presumption of innocence’ has been a cardinal principle of English Law; but also true, the practice does not quite fit the theory.

In criminal courts around the country, defendants that are presumed wholly innocent in law, are placed in a dock surrounded by uniformed prison officers and separated by a wooden fence from everyone else, including and importantly, they are separated from those who are charged with their defence.

So, let's pimp the theory that everyone is innocent until they are formally convicted, and while the people chomp on this highfalutin principle that makes them feel special, we can construct a transparent atmosphere of guilt to defeat that very concept of justice, which can hamper defendants from properly advising those who have been charged with their defence, and which will not be noticed because it's part of a legal process that we keep telling the people presumes innocence; and because we'll hide it in plain sight.

Maybe a future 'democratic' generation will see through the smoke and do way with such practices, or at least update it to within striking distance of the 21st century.

^ None of that undermines this...

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The less information on the case in the press the better.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Should have killed the scum on the spot!
Now he will feel right at home where Muslim inmates count for a staggering 16 percent of the prison population, but the Muslim community only constituting 4.8 percent of the general population.
Home sweet Home!

I don't think Libya will be a suitable deportation destination in 10-20 years time, and no Brit court would allow deportation into danger, so like it or not the UK is stuck with him.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

but the Muslim community only constituting 4.8 percent of the general population.

Is that it? 4.8%? From the way most Brits whine on and on I thought it was about 80%.

Factor in that most of the obsessives on here live thousands of miles away from the UK...and it gets even weirder.

Or what about being German and living thousands of miles away from the UK?

Originally Posted by pickel

Is that it? 4.8%? From the way most Brits whine on and on I thought it was about 80%.

That's the official statistic. Reality might look different.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Reality might look different.

Especially through the eyes of a bit of a nutter.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Factor in that most of the obsessives on here live thousands of miles away from the UK...and it gets even weirder.

Or what about being German and living thousands of miles away from the UK?

What is really weird or should I say sad "Not knowing your Geography and distancing".
I

Originally Posted by cyrille

You posted a doctored story in the 'news' section, the second time you've done so in a few days.

Tax has posted a story taken directly, unaltered, from its source.

You know full well that they are not the same thing.

Just as George Lucas has intended in its original form on big screen where greedo shoots first.

Originally Posted by YourDaddy

Just as George Lucas has intended in its original form on big screen where greedo shoots first.

Oh dear.

Another terrorist act by somebody known to MI5...

Wondering what does the classification "terrorist attack" serve for? In another cases it's just a simple ("innocent") homicide...
Like this weekend e.g. in Chicago with hundreds of shooting but "only" a dozen of fatal ones...
Obviously not so attractive as a "terrorist act"...

Perhaps the rule is so simple:
---being shot by another ethnicity not native to the country: "terrorist"..
---being shot by another ethnicity from another country - not native to the country: "war casualty" (because also a "terrorist")...

The man was as much a terrorist as a fucking hedgehog.

He applied for asylum falsely posing as a freedom fighter in the Libyan insurrection and held a bogus identity card identifying him as such and was granted residence but in the course of his stay he developed psychotic tendencies exacerbated by illicit drug abuse and alcoholism. His delusional behaviour lurched into extremes when he proselytised his Christian conversion by getting a crucifix tattooed on his body but it was now becoming clearer that his psychosis was in fact a form of schizophrenia requiring medication. From what else I can gather he was also manifesting paranoid tendencies and was fixating on homosexuals as a threat to his delusional beliefs. I'm not sure but I suspect the three victims were gay.

I rather think the charge of terrorism was merely a legal device in order to facilitate other enquiries.

It's clear he is a raving nutter.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Another terrorist act by somebody known to MI5...

The man held on suspicion of killing three people at a park in Reading was known to MI5, security sources say.
Khairi Saadallah, 25, from the town, was arrested on Saturday and police say they are not looking for anyone else over the terror incident.
Sources told the BBC he is originally from Libya and came to the attention of MI5 in 2019.
One victim has been named as teacher James Furlong - described by his family as "a wonderful man".
Paying tribute to Mr Furlong, 36, head of history, government and politics at The Holt School in Wokingham, his parents Gary and Janet said: "He was beautiful, intelligent, honest and fun."
PM Boris Johnson said he was "appalled and sickened" by the attack in Forbury Gardens on Saturday evening.
Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTSPE) said a 25-year-old man from Reading, who was arrested initially on suspicion of murder on Saturday, has now been re-arrested under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Reading stabbing attack suspect Khairi Saadallah known to MI5 - sources - BBC News

Looks very much like PTSD.

Libyan + PTSD = Terrorist, it seems.

We are quick to label the Reading attack terrorism – but there is little benefit in doing so | Simon Jenkins | Opinion | The Guardian

Originally Posted by cyrille

Libyan + PTSD = Terrorist, it seems.

There's only one scientifically valid way to determine it, the FGT*:



*Family Guy Test.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Looks very much like PTSD.

Libyan + PTSD = Terrorist, it seems.

PTSD is merely a label of convenience stuck on a host of behavioural idiosyncrasies and often used whenever the "sufferer" witnesses some traumatic event.

The Libyan is clearly mentally ill and the pathology of his affliction was no doubt triggered in part by his isolation in Manchester and separation from his cultural and familial network.
Poor fucker, never stood a chance in Mancland.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

was granted residence but in the course of his stay he developed psychotic tendencies

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

illicit drug abuse and alcoholism.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

From what else I can gather

Gathered from where?

Expert witnesses during his trial?

His MI5/five eyes file.