With All Due Respect...

So, just to interject, what kind of theological discussion do you think the two people in question who started this thread wished to encourage?

Any? None? Just a point to prove? Merely a statement? Are they even worthy of our discussion, any more than the point they wished to make would have been discussed otherwise?

Who "wins" here?

januarymix

Please read my thread

januarymix

"Hate breeds hate."

"What if there was a war and nobody came?"

With All Due Respect...

Exactly. And looking at this thread on the whole then they're doing rather well, whatever side of the religious or national divides you fall upon.

I really like that war quote, BTW.

Right, I'm stepping back out of this thread again. I was just a bit pissed last night and reading the posts over the past several days on this thread was getting my back up!

januarymix

Yeah, it's nicer to care, I reckon, than not to care so thanks. But the tricky edge is being careful not to become what is criticised/despised..

Best wishes
floatsy

With All Due Respect...

Gordon Barlow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_bDiSosaPU

Check out the "charismatic leaders"...

mikelincs

Killers sentenced today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26357007

Adebolajo gets whole life tariff, Adebolawe gets 45 years.

If you can get through it, just read the comments by the defence counsels, they should be struck off for defending such scum.

Hebe

Everyone has a right to a defence regardless of the crime.

The uk legal system also used to (and may still do)operate a cab rank rule. Ie you take the case given to you regardless of your belief. There are a few exceptions to this ie the client has admitted in private their guilt but still wants to plead not guilty or they are threatened with physical violence.

Also those lawyers have had to wade through evidence and pictures that non of us ordinarily joe public would have to see - very traumatic for both the CPS lawyers and the defence

Shard

They do have a right, but this wrong. It's a waste of public money and has many other negative ramifications. In extreme cases (such as this) summary justice would be a better solution. Let's send an MP to China to see how they do it.

Molly Coddle

I can't even put it into words how angry reading that article makes me feel.

Hebe

But you either believe that everyone has a right to a defence or not. You can't then say but not for this type of crime or that type. I certainly wouldn't want a justice system like China or other parts of the world.

In this instance I would hazard a guess that the defence lawyers would have advised them time and time again that the evidence against them was solid amd recommended that they pleaded guilty but if the defendant says no then there is nothing else to do but to go ahead with a trial.

Also don't get me wrong, what these two men did to this soldier was abhorrent and I don't on any way shape or form condone their actions but I do believe in everyone's right to a defence.

Shard

Here's what Adebolajo's lawyer said:

Mr Gottlieb said Adebolajo was "not so depraved or wicked that he is incapable of redemption", saying the murder "shares the characteristics of a religiously aggravated crime".

I wonder if that is genuinely his view or if it is part of the charade he must undertake to give the impression that justice is impartial. Absolute nonsense.

Shard

Explain why you cannot say that ? Why in cases which are irrefutable, which are 100% beyond doubt, which are fact, and where the nature of the crime is horrific that there cannot be summary justice. Where's the problem?

mikelincs

In this case they wanted summary justice, which is why they ran at armed police while still carying the knives etc and a gun, they wanted the police to shoot and kill them then they would have become martyrs, and enjoyed the 75 virgins awaituing them. Unfortunately, for them, the police only wounded them in the leg, Summary justice in this case was exactly what they were after.