Cyclone Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 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 ? An entirely different court process to a civil suit taken out against the government. ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 09:23 ---------- 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. Did I try to stop you sharing your fascist opinion? I simply pointed out factual, moral and logical errors in it. Get over it. ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 09:24 ---------- I believe in the rule of law but don't think our legal system should be available to everyone on earth, What a self contradictory sentence. ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 09:25 ---------- And there is no sound reasoning , rationale or logic for allowing a foreign terrorist to live on our country and pay him for the privilege . And if he were a terrorist then we should prosecute him and put him in jail. The British system of justice requires a trial by jury to determine guilt. Not your opinion, fortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 An entirely different court process to a civil suit taken out against the government. Absolute nonsense , the only difference is Shaker Aamer is a Saudi Arabian citizen and should have returned to his own country and not Britain . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qualum Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) No im making an assumption that he claims he was tortured and he should have a right to have his claim considered by the legal system. He hasnt been charged and no evidence produced so its unproven hat he was a terrorist or hes our enemy. Then he should complain to the authorities in his own country and have them take it up with the UN What do you think he could be charged with? ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 18:35 ---------- An entirely different court process to a civil suit taken out against the government. ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 09:23 ---------- Did I try to stop you sharing your fascist opinion? I simply pointed out factual, moral and logical errors in it. Get over it. ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 09:24 ---------- What a self contradictory sentence. ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 09:25 ---------- And if he were a terrorist then we should prosecute him and put him in jail. The British system of justice requires a trial by jury to determine guilt. Not your opinion, fortunately. Its not fascist to have an opinion that British public services should only be available to British people and foreign workers working and paying taxes in Britain. Edited November 11, 2015 by qualum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Then he should complain to the authorities in his own country and have them take it up with the UN What do you think he could be charged with? . No need for that if the UK govt has broken the law then there is the facility to bring the UK govt to account under UK laws. The UN isnt an international court for individuals. Thats how the law works and how all the other cases have proceeded. Why do I think he should be charged with anything? To be charged would require him to have broken some law and for the authorities to have credible evidence to prove their case. Thats the decision of the DPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qualum Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 No need for that if the UK govt has broken the law then there is the facility to bring the UK govt to account under UK laws. The UN isnt an international court for individuals. Thats how the law works and how all the other cases have proceeded. Why do I think he should be charged with anything? To be charged would require him to have broken some law and for the authorities to have credible evidence to prove their case. Thats the decision of the DPP. That facility should only be available to the British people and foreign workers paying into the British system, it shouldn't be available for everyone on earth. British public services shouldn't be available for everyone to use. You keep saying they didn't charge him, so what is it you think they could have charged him with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 That facility should only be available to the British people and foreign workers paying into the British system, it shouldn't be available for everyone on earth. British public services shouldn't be available for everyone to use. You keep saying they didn't charge him, so what is it you think they could have charged him with? You mean suing the people who have allegedly done him harm? Where better to make a claim against the Uk government than in the UK. Fortinately we already have a mechanism to deal with who cna and who cant use the UK court system which lawyers use. As they were unable to provide sufficient evidence to charge him for anything then one has to presume he is innocent till proven guilty. You seem happy to think guilty becayse of nationality or because you dont like them is good enough reason. Fortunately the courts in the UK work according to the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qualum Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 You mean suing the people who have allegedly done him harm? Where better to make a claim against the Uk government than in the UK. Fortinately we already have a mechanism to deal with who cna and who cant use the UK court system which lawyers use. As they were unable to provide sufficient evidence to charge him for anything then one has to presume he is innocent till proven guilty. You seem happy to think guilty becayse of nationality or because you dont like them is good enough reason. Fortunately the courts in the UK work according to the rule of law. I take it you don't if I express my opinion that such a mechanism shouldn't exist. So you want the USA to provide the evidence that proves he is the enemy and then charge of for being the enemy. WOW, good job you wasn't in charge when we captured and imprisoned our enemies during WW1 and 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I take it you don't if I express my opinion that such a mechanism shouldn't exist. So you want the USA to provide the evidence that proves he is the enemy and then charge of for being the enemy. WOW, good job you wasn't in charge when we captured and imprisoned our enemies during WW1 and 2. Fortunately it does, so opine away or seek a change in the legal system. If the USA have evidence that Aamer has broken English laws, then they are free to make that available to the authorities who in turn are free to submit that to the DPP to consider. No charges have been brought. Btw your paragraph makes no sense. Have another go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qualum Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Fortunately it does, so opine away or seek a change in the legal system. If the USA have evidence that Aamer has broken English laws, then they are free to make that available to the authorities who in turn are free to submit that to the DPP to consider. No charges have been brought. Btw your paragraph makes no sense. Have another go. I wasn't aware that he had broken English laws, what law are you claiming he broke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I wasn't aware that he had broken English laws, what law are you claiming he broke? I am not claiming he broke any. The legal system will decide if he has the right to have his case heard, the govt cna decide if they wnat to asettle the ase or the courts can decide whether he has proven his claim if it goes to trial. Thats the way court cases work because they conduct there case according to the law. Fortunately your wont matter Theres nothing you can do so get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts