The banner headline is a non-story. He’s been held at a notorious American prison camp, not charged and returned to the UK where, presumably, he’ll face trial if there’s enough evidence against him (if the Americans haven’t sullied it all through using waterboarding). How he travels and what he does until then is pretty irrelevant; if he were a convicted criminal and prisoner it would be a different story.
So let’s get this straight, hitting people for no reason other than a spoken comment is OK? What if I thump the next OAP that makes a racist comment in my local newsagent’s? Would that be fine? ‘Cause I’ve been tempted so many times.
They are loving the little old lady story on the website for the local Exeter paper as it happened in a village just outside. Apparently it’s absolutely fine to hit a youngster in the face with rolled up council papers if you suspect them of being vandals. What a fine example she sets the youth of today.
She actually refused a caution from the Police. Had she accepted it she wouldn’t have gone to court. But then that wouldn’t have given her her time in the spotlight she seems to crave.
Well how else was he meant to get home other than private jet?? Lend some money off the chap who plugged him into the mains?? Just imagine the outcry if this guy had been white and held without trial in, say, Iran.
As the old lady, too right she should be reprimanded. Superb point by Killer Whale. Its ok to hit people as long as YOU think they deserved it. A thousand year old justice system boils down to that does it? Oh and as long as they are young.
As for the tea, I can have tea at a country house, and at the moment this guy is as guilty as I am which he isn’t because in this country we used to have trials in which juries would sit and reach a verdict with a judge involved.
HOWEVER nowadays we don’t have “trials”, well we do but the press just comment on them as being guilty before they even reach court.
As for the old woman, she quite clearly is guilty having been found so at court (I think) and thus she should be thrown in Jail or flogged or stoned….not for the offence, just for being a attention seeking old windbag.
“Tough on crime and the causes of crime”, does not permit people to beat other people around the head because just they think a petty crime is being committed.
If I wasn’t allowed to smack extremely annoying customers around the head when working in retail, I don’t see why people should be allowed to give youngsters a ‘clip around the ear’
As for the Guantanamo guy, clearly the Express doesn’t understand legal terminology such as ’suspect’ and ‘convicted criminal’
“Well how else was he meant to get home other than private jet??”
I flew Air France from Havanna, I understand that there are also many airlines running trips from Florida to the UK, so he could presumably have taken a private jet to the nearest international airport and then flown charter. Though I’m guessing the choice of airline wasn’t entirely in Mr Mohammed’s hands.
Repeat after me – the law is NOT was not written purely for your convenience. Imagine if a young kid had ‘clipped’ a pensioner for doing something they found objectionable? Of if the pensioner was a Muslim immigrant instead? It’d be a TOTALLY different story, despite being morally the same.
When you realise that the whole unspoken but largely understood agenda of the Express and Mail is a bigoted world view in that Whites should have more rights than blacks, straights than gays, old than young, Christians than Muslims and Men than Women, the stories write themselves.
Nick – Exactly, it wasn’t his choice. If they’d put him, a 100% terrorist in the Express’ eyes, on a commercial airplane surrounded by military escorts it’d be another scandal headline. And by ‘private jet’ they imply caviar and champagne breakfasts and 42 inch HD plasma screens. Utter toss and they know it.
That’s the pint everyone misses here – as far as the law stands he’s an innocent man so he deserves to be treated as such.
Imagine this was a white guy, middle class English wrongly locked up in solitary confinement for 8 years. If he was given anything less than £10,000,000 compensation they’d be screaming for blood.
The horror…the terror…Winston Churchill must be rolling in his grave….
He was drinking tea! He was eating crumpets with Jam AND butter! He was watching X Factor! He was sitting on comfy chairs, and smiling!
Focus on his Al Queda links, not that he was drinking tea for gods sake.
The banner headline is a non-story. He’s been held at a notorious American prison camp, not charged and returned to the UK where, presumably, he’ll face trial if there’s enough evidence against him (if the Americans haven’t sullied it all through using waterboarding). How he travels and what he does until then is pretty irrelevant; if he were a convicted criminal and prisoner it would be a different story.
What an ugly dress.
So let’s get this straight, hitting people for no reason other than a spoken comment is OK? What if I thump the next OAP that makes a racist comment in my local newsagent’s? Would that be fine? ‘Cause I’ve been tempted so many times.
They are loving the little old lady story on the website for the local Exeter paper as it happened in a village just outside. Apparently it’s absolutely fine to hit a youngster in the face with rolled up council papers if you suspect them of being vandals. What a fine example she sets the youth of today.
She actually refused a caution from the Police. Had she accepted it she wouldn’t have gone to court. But then that wouldn’t have given her her time in the spotlight she seems to crave.
In the face? So it should be “clip round the eye”?
Well how else was he meant to get home other than private jet?? Lend some money off the chap who plugged him into the mains?? Just imagine the outcry if this guy had been white and held without trial in, say, Iran.
As the old lady, too right she should be reprimanded. Superb point by Killer Whale. Its ok to hit people as long as YOU think they deserved it. A thousand year old justice system boils down to that does it? Oh and as long as they are young.
Nicely put Killer Whale. I couldn’t agree more. What did the silly old bag expect!?
I’m surprised at the lack of a “guess who’s paying for it?” after the banner headline.
How Royal Wife got it SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Wrong…
As for the tea, I can have tea at a country house, and at the moment this guy is as guilty as I am which he isn’t because in this country we used to have trials in which juries would sit and reach a verdict with a judge involved.
HOWEVER nowadays we don’t have “trials”, well we do but the press just comment on them as being guilty before they even reach court.
As for the old woman, she quite clearly is guilty having been found so at court (I think) and thus she should be thrown in Jail or flogged or stoned….not for the offence, just for being a attention seeking old windbag.
“Tough on crime and the causes of crime”, does not permit people to beat other people around the head because just they think a petty crime is being committed.
If I wasn’t allowed to smack extremely annoying customers around the head when working in retail, I don’t see why people should be allowed to give youngsters a ‘clip around the ear’
As for the Guantanamo guy, clearly the Express doesn’t understand legal terminology such as ’suspect’ and ‘convicted criminal’
“Well how else was he meant to get home other than private jet??”
I flew Air France from Havanna, I understand that there are also many airlines running trips from Florida to the UK, so he could presumably have taken a private jet to the nearest international airport and then flown charter. Though I’m guessing the choice of airline wasn’t entirely in Mr Mohammed’s hands.
And yes, it is a hideous dress.
It’s also a bloody silly hat, but that’s pretty standard.
Repeat after me – the law is NOT was not written purely for your convenience. Imagine if a young kid had ‘clipped’ a pensioner for doing something they found objectionable? Of if the pensioner was a Muslim immigrant instead? It’d be a TOTALLY different story, despite being morally the same.
When you realise that the whole unspoken but largely understood agenda of the Express and Mail is a bigoted world view in that Whites should have more rights than blacks, straights than gays, old than young, Christians than Muslims and Men than Women, the stories write themselves.
Nick – Exactly, it wasn’t his choice. If they’d put him, a 100% terrorist in the Express’ eyes, on a commercial airplane surrounded by military escorts it’d be another scandal headline. And by ‘private jet’ they imply caviar and champagne breakfasts and 42 inch HD plasma screens. Utter toss and they know it.
Charlie – “As for the Guantanamo guy, clearly the Express doesn’t understand legal terminology such as ’suspect’ and ‘convicted criminal’”
He’s clearly guilty, look at the colour of his skin!
Apologies for the double post.
When I was about 15 an old woman gave me a “clip round the ear” for playing football in the park (I kid you not).
I hit her back with the same amount of force. You should have seen her face.
Bit surprised they haven’t complained about his “free 6 year holiday in sunny Cuba at the expense of the hard working American tax-payer”.
That’s the pint everyone misses here – as far as the law stands he’s an innocent man so he deserves to be treated as such.
Imagine this was a white guy, middle class English wrongly locked up in solitary confinement for 8 years. If he was given anything less than £10,000,000 compensation they’d be screaming for blood.
That said though, he probably is guilty as sin!