ScotsAlan Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 A London teen has been sentenced to 22 years for planing a terrorist act. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31987242 First thing, I don't doubt the UK law system. He has been found guilty, so therefore I have to agree with the verdict. Guilty as charged. What he planned to do was terrible, pointless, stupid and just plain evil. But 22 years? When no crime was actually commited in terms of causing harm to others. Wow. Back in the 90's one of my friends was murdered. He was beaten to death by a couple of thugs for 20 quid and a casio watch. They were both sentenced to life, they were out in seven years. They done something. They killed a guy. But 22 years for saying you will do something, but not actually doing it? Oh come on. The justice system is blameless. They follow the law set by the Government. But goodness me, 22 years for saying you will do something. Imagine if they applied that law on the IOM on black eye Friday.... the jail would be full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Rubber dinghy rapids bro! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 It should have been a full life term without parole in a penal colony, not amongst the ordinary prison population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I agree. They should have waited until he hacked off a soldier's head before taking any action. Hang on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 Another "thought crime" ? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31956142 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 A London teen has been sentenced to 22 years for planing a terrorist act. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31987242 First thing, I don't doubt the UK law system. He has been found guilty, so therefore I have to agree with the verdict. Guilty as charged. What he planned to do was terrible, pointless, stupid and just plain evil. But 22 years? When no crime was actually commited in terms of causing harm to others. Wow. Just a mo. You can't say on one thread that you think we should stop war and all get on together, then start another thread to say we should be soft on people planning atrocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 When no crime was actually commited in terms of causing harm to others. Wow. If you take that statement, which is clearly true in itself, in isolation and ignore all the other evidence, it does seem wrong. However it is highly likely he would have randomly killed someone in uniform had he not been intercepted. It's a bit like you're saying if someone planted a bomb in parliament and it didn't go off because of a timer fault, that they hadn't done much wrong because nobody got hurt..... That said it does seem a very long sentence compared to other similar levels of crime and is no doubt meant as a deterrent. Whether you can actually deter someone who thinks something imaginary called allah has told him to do it is highly debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 I agree. They should have waited until he hacked off a soldier's head before taking any action. Hang on.... Yeah, of course not ans. No problem with the conviction. But 22 years. That says to me that the UK has no faith in it's reform system. A few years in jail, a de-radicalisation course, let him out as a reformed person to get on with his life. It's almost as if the sentence says it will take 22 years to break him. To make him not be so nasty in his thoughts. He did not actually do anything. He said he would do it. The sentence assumes he would have carried out his plan. This is in the realm of the Tom Cruise film "Minority report" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 When no crime was actually commited in terms of causing harm to others. Wow. If you take that statement, which is clearly true in itself, in isolation and ignore all the other evidence, it does seem wrong. However it is highly likely he would have randomly killed someone in uniform had he not been intercepted. It's a bit like you're saying if someone planted a bomb in parliament and it didn't go off because of a timer fault, that they hadn't done much wrong because nobody got hurt..... That said it does seem a very long sentence compared to other similar levels of crime and is no doubt meant as a deterrent. Whether you can actually deter someone who thinks something imaginary called allah has told him to do it is highly debatable. Highly likely? Yes. but does that deserve 22 years. OK. I get home and the wife tells me she want's a divorce because she has fallen in love with my best mate. I grab a hammer, and run out the door screaming my intention to kill him. Worth 22 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 A London teen has been sentenced to 22 years for planing a terrorist act. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31987242 First thing, I don't doubt the UK law system. He has been found guilty, so therefore I have to agree with the verdict. Guilty as charged. What he planned to do was terrible, pointless, stupid and just plain evil. But 22 years? When no crime was actually commited in terms of causing harm to others. Wow. Just a mo. You can't say on one thread that you think we should stop war and all get on together, then start another thread to say we should be soft on people planning atrocities. I am not saying we should be soft. I am saying that 22 years is maybe a bit over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karellen Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I'd let him off altogether, as long as he surrendered his British passport and boarded a one way flight to Saudi Arabia or some similar muslim hell hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I'd let him off altogether, as long as he surrendered his British passport and boarded a one way flight to Saudi Arabia or some similar muslim hell hole Hear, hear. A one-way flight to the I.S. "caliphate" with a get-off at 20,000 feet. Along with rest of his ilk. Sans parachutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 I'd let him off altogether, as long as he surrendered his British passport and boarded a one way flight to Saudi Arabia or some similar muslim hell hole Lol dude. Saudi Arabia are our allies. Our friends. They are are one of the most opressive regimes on the planet, but when their King died recently many many heads of states went. I think you selected the wrong Muslim hell hole. Try another :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 He did not actually do anything. He said he would do it. He said it, he put it in writing, he researched where to find soldiers, and then he went out carrying weapons. You're missing out lots by saying it was just a "thought". And it wasn't done in a fit of passion like your example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Worth 22 years? No.... I thought I'd already said...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.