JFKvsNixon Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Apart from the millions of UK taxpayers money already spent on legal fees for both sides and not forgetting the £70,000 of UK taxpayers money to pay for the private jet used to fly this Saudi Arabian terrorist into Britain . And what stopped this terrorist rotting away in jail for the rest of his days? Maybe your anger should be aimed at those that thought that the judicial process wasn't for them? After all, it is their actions that have led to this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Millions is it? You'll be able to provide a source for that information I assume? I assume you can provide a source for your claim the case of Shaker Aamer (non British citizen) has cost the UK taxpayer practically nothing . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I assume you can provide a source for your claim the case of Shaker Aamer (non British citizen) has cost the UK taxpayer practically nothing . If it's as clear cut as you seem to think then it will take up little court time and need no real defence. I can't prove a negative though, but you should be able to prove that it's already cost millions as you claim. ---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 11:42 ---------- I assume you're familiar with the background? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/30/shaker-aamer-freed-guantanamo-the-story-behind-the-five-year-delay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qualum Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I explained qualum you might want to familiarise yourself with the case or even read the thread to put yourself in a better position of discussing the issues. Its not exactly clear what his full legal case will be, but part of it will be based on claims he was tortured by MI5 directly and MI5 were also complicit in his rendition. Yes he has a right to lodge a claim against the UK government and the courts will decide if it has any merits at various stages before trial. Thats how the legal system works. ---------- Post added 09-11-2015 at 22:56 ---------- Couldnt that be said of any court case, in fact why have courts at all, just move all the money to the NHS or perhaps court cases and law serve a crucial function in society and access to justice is important I'm in a very good position to descuss the topic because I did read the thread and do know about his capture, imprisonment, interrogation and his claims, I understand how our legal system works and how the enemy should be treated when captured. No it couldn't be said about all court cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I'm in a very good position to descuss the topic because I did read the thread and do know about his capture, imprisonment, interrogation and his claims, I understand how our legal system works and how the enemy should be treated when captured. No it couldn't be said about all court cases. Then you will realise his case is based upon his claims he was tortured by MI5 and they were complicit in his detention. If a person feels someone has broken the law and they have veen done a wrong, then yes I think they have a right to acess the legal system to be able to bring their claim. I dont believe they should be told to get lost as you do, becayse thats not how it works. There are safeguards within the system to dispose of the case as quickly as possible. Im all for the claim being heard as its a serious issue. helping resolve disputes is what part of the legal system is about and it would be a sad day if we had no way of doing this. If you understand how it works and why then im not sure why you are against court cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) If it's as clear cut as you seem to think then it will take up little court time and need no real defence. I can't prove a negative though, but you should be able to prove that it's already cost millions as you claim. ---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 11:42 ---------- My claim is based on common sense . A few years ago William Hague made a comment that it would cost £50 million if the cases of the British citizens who had been held at Guantanomo went to court, which was one of the reasons the British terrorists held at Guantantomo were given compensation for out of court settlements . Based on the £50 million figure , I think it is reasonable to assume the legal bill which the UK Taxpayer is funding in relation to Shacker Aamer has already cost millions . If as you claim Shaker Aamer's legal bill the UK taxpayer is funding is practically nothing , then I assume you would have no objection if the UK Government invoiced you for the amount ? Edited November 10, 2015 by Gamston typo error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qualum Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 They ARE free to sue the government. Everyone is free to take out court actions. Do you live in some kind of alternate universe where access to the court system is somehow restricted? ---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 09:10 ---------- If people think that the case is so laughable then it won't be expensive will it. It will be thrown out in about 5 minutes, costing practically nothing. Do you live in a universe in which people with opinions that differ from yours aren't allowed to express those opinions. You are happy for him to sue the government which will cost money that could be better spent on public services, and I am not, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Do you live in a universe in which people with opinions that differ from yours aren't allowed to express those opinions. You are happy for him to sue the government which will cost money that could be better spent on public services, and I am not, get over it. yes im happy for him to sue the government because its an important issue that needs to be resolved if they have acted illegally. Court cases cost money but its not a reason to deny people access to the court system as youd be happy to do. Being sued is just one of the ongoping expenses of government. They wont be paying any compensation if he doesnt win. Theres a case going on at the moment before the Supreme Court involving Renditition of Abdul Hakim Belhaj. presumably that shouldnt be going ahead or any cases due to expense? Edited November 10, 2015 by 999tigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qualum Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Then you will realise his case is based upon his claims he was tortured by MI5 and they were complicit in his detention. If a person feels someone has broken the law and they have veen done a wrong, then yes I think they have a right to acess the legal system to be able to bring their claim. I dont believe they should be told to get lost as you do, becayse thats not how it works. There are safeguards within the system to dispose of the case as quickly as possible. Im all for the claim being heard as its a serious issue. helping resolve disputes is what part of the legal system is about and it would be a sad day if we had no way of doing this. If you understand how it works and why then im not sure why you are against court cases. I get that you don't understand and that is something I can't change, but I will try, he was captured and locked away because it was felt that he is the enemy and I don't think he should have been flown back to the UK or allowed to reside in the UK, I don't think the UK owes him anything nor should we give him anything. ---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 19:45 ---------- yes im happy for him to sue the government because its an important issue that needs to be resolved if they have acted illegally. Court cases cost money but its not a reason to deny people access to the court system as youd be happy to do. Being sued is just one of the ongoping expenses of government. They wont be paying any compensation if he doesnt win. Theres a case going on at the moment before the Supreme Court involving Renditition of Abdul Hakim Belhaj. presumably that shouldnt be going ahead or any cases due to expense? Its not such an important issue for me, but the money it wastes is, I'd rather spend tax's improving the public services and cutting the deficit. You are right we shouldn't be wasting money on a Supreme Court hearing for Abdul Hakim Belhaj. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Do you live in a universe in which people with opinions that differ from yours aren't allowed to express those opinions. You are happy for him to sue the government which will cost money that could be better spent on public services, and I am not, get over it. Not much to get over really..you're at a disadvantage where your myopic bigoted views are laughed at and ignored by our judicial system, which you fail to understand even at a basic infant level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts