Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
Thanks - that answers my previous question re the guy who was born in the U.K.
They haven’t been made stateless at all.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Daily Mail: UK won't block death penalty for IS 'Beatles'
- Thread starter najaB
- Start date
- Status
Thanks - that answers my previous question re the guy who was born in the U.K.
They haven’t been made stateless at all.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
Because, as aliens detained in a foreign regime, these people are not within the aupisces of the U.K. legal system.
End of.
Can you point me to any illegality in the U.K. government assisting with their prosecution?
I have no idea if or how it does. Which is why I never mentioned it.
Did they both hold dual nationality at the time that the declaration was made?
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
You’re clutching at straws now.
You mentioned the ECHR. I, more accurately, referred to the HRA which was how the ECHR was codified into U.K. law, was it not?!!
It doesn’t apply to the Beatles, in any case, for the reasons outlined above.
Yes, you are correct. I did mention it about 30 posts or so ago, and in reference to the side conversation about the B-word. Not quite sure why you're bringing it up again now though.
Agreed, if they are both legally non-citizens of the UK then the Human Rights Act doesn't apply.
londiscape
Member
Can't help but think this is getting more press attention than it deserves, only serving to give these scumbags unnecessary air time.
We're missing a trick - bump them off quietly via CIA/MI6 black ops and make it look as if they were killed by their own people i.e. other IS members. That would deal with the martyrdom factor. IS members killed by other IS member because he slept with his wife/girlfriend, or something like that.
We're missing a trick - bump them off quietly via CIA/MI6 black ops and make it look as if they were killed by their own people i.e. other IS members. That would deal with the martyrdom factor. IS members killed by other IS member because he slept with his wife/girlfriend, or something like that.
I suspect that, if they didn't have human intelligence value, that's exactly what would have happened. Now that they're known to be in custody it is significantly more difficult to disguise it as a 'friendly fire' incident.
It wouldn't be a "friendly fire" incident anyway, on account of the fact that they're the enemy.
Friendly fire just means killed by your own side, rather than by your enemy.
Fair point, although I thought it was more used to describe an accidental, rather than a deliberate killing by your own side.
Hence why I suggested that we would take them out but disguise it as friendly fire.
Oh, I see.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
shot whilst trying to escape always worked in the past.
No it didn't everyone always knew that "shot whilst trying to escape" was a cover up usually perpetrated by regimes with which I don't think we would want to be confused with!
DarloRich
Veteran Member
You know, I know, we all knew. They were still shot. Anyway we don't lower ourselves to do the actual shooting. That would be uncivilised. We get a client to do it for us.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Sorry if I have missed out on something in the title of the thread but how are these men known as "Beatles"?
Warwick
Member
It won't stop the jackals at Matrix Chambers getting stuck in. They are true lawyers in the sense that they have no conscience only a lust for money.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
They were nicknamed “the Beatles” by captives because they had English accents and there were four of then.
EDIT: one has been assassinated and three remain, so there’s another similarity to the “Fab Four”!
I have always thought the death penalty is wrong in all circumstances and for any reason. We test these beliefs by the most difficult cases and there should be no exceptions no matter how heinous the crime.
I reckon I'll get over their execution pretty quickly.
I reckon I'll get over their execution pretty quickly.
Have to agree with Barn that whilst I won't worry about them, they should not be executed. Universal rights and universal rule of law means applying it even to those we despise, otherwise it becomes not right, but privilege and not law but convention or guideline.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
In Britain, there seems to be two different schools of thought regarding the death penalty. The British judicial system on one hand and the criminal fraternity on the other hand who see themselves outside this stricture with results seen this year of their modus operandi which has led to a number of deaths by both gun and by knife.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,611
Can you identify any difference between law and convention/guideline?
There’s no such thing as universal rights or universal rule of law, neither should there be. Is it right that the U.K. undertakes drone strikes and extra judicial killings for political expediency? Probably not, in the strict “legal” sense. Am I glad it does? Yes.
I hope these guys are executed. There’s absolutely no good reason why our own government shouldn’t assist with their prosecution, as far as I can see.
The UK government has maintained the opposing view since December 10, 1948.
To an extent, yes: Law is applied always, convention and guideline are applied when those in power feel like it. The fomer, though open to interpretation is rigid in nature, the other of somewhat arbitrary definition and application. The former applies to all and is mandatory, the latter applies in most cases and is discretionary.
To address your other point, you're partially right in that rights and rule of law are artificial concepts, but then so are many other things such as values of exchange and nations. However in almost all of these cases having agreed concepts and definitions, especially when these concepts serve the net good of human wellbeing and serve human needs well is more productive than arbitrary desires, application of force and unfettered self interest respectively.
Last edited:
Basher
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 333
Let's have a referendum on the death penalty. Why we keep some off theses people alive at huge cost bewilders me.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
You’d lose.
Up_Tilt_390
Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 923
I'd vote against it in any referendum, for several reasons. Also, if huge cost of dealing with these criminals is what concerns you then capital punishment is not what you should be advocating for.
I don't have the exact figure to hand, but each execution in the States costs around a million dollars when everything is figured in.
And beside that, "It's cheaper" would be a terrible justification for ending someone's life, does that apply to people with chronic ailments too?
- Status