Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@slayer wrote:
@forumhostpb wrote:
@eve wrote:
Surely the greatest point against the death penalty must be the Birmingham 6?
Just slightly aside from the topic – but this Birmingham 6 thingy has always puzzled me.
OK they were originally convicted of killing all those people in Brum, imprisoned, and many years later their convictions were overturned on appeal, and they were released.
The bit that puzzles me is this. Why, given that they were totally innocent of any sort of involvement at all, did the Police arrest them in the first place???
I mean, there they were presumably living in or around the Birmingham area, going about their lawful business as most everybody else does, when along comes Mr Plod and arrests them for, apparently, no reason at all. Not only that but then they are tried at great public expense and so on. What on earth made the Police just pick on 6 guys at random???
Can anybody shed any light on this at all???
Is that a serious question?
They were Irish, Catholic and in Birmingham at the time- that was all the police needed!
Have no idea how old you are PB but I can (just) remember the early 70’s when bombs were going off like firecrackers and the police were under a huge amount of poressure to find and convict those responsible. The fact they found people who they knew weren’t responsible but would “fit the crime” was irrelevant for the 20 years they were falsely imprisoned.
Well frighteningly enough Slayer I am 60 (61 in August) as many people on here know, so I do have a very clear recollection of the IRA bombing campaign – particularly as I was on the wrong end of a couple of their bombs. I do also know a bit about pressure to solve crimes as I spent some time in the Metropolitan Police Service during the 1970’s when the IRA were really active.
I read Magoo’s most interesting Wikpedia link and it does go some way to explain why these particular guys were picked up. It wasn’t in Birmingham but in fact they were on their way by train to Northern Ireland to attend an IRA funeral when Special Branch stopped them and arrested them.
Apparently there was ”evidence” of explosives but this was eventually discredited on their third appeal. Also they all made ‘confessions’ to the Police, but predictably withdrew them later on. this essentially left the prosecution with no actual evidence with which to press home the charges and no confession evidence either. Small wonder that the third appeal overturned the convictions.
Having now looked through the various Google hits on them, the tone and flavour are all very similar….. miscarriage of justice…. totally innocent…. Police malpractice…. that sort of thing. Curiously enough the Police have never pursued their enquiries further and no other persons have been suspected or charged with this apparently unsolved crime.
I’m going to stick my neck out here and say that in my opinion these guys actually did it and eventually got off after multiple appeals and the use of some smart lawyers.
Apparently they have two parallell objectives. First one is to rescue their kidnapped soldier. The second one is to seek and destroy the ”bomb factories” that are making all the Quassam rockets that get fired into Israel all the time.
You know I really like their style. OK so they were wrong footed when a bunch of heavily armed terrorists tunneled under the border fence and ‘invaded’ them. Now most countries would moan and whinge, complain to the United Nations, go to the World Court, hold press conferences to tell the world how awful it was and so boring on and so boring forth.
But not the Israelis. If we don’t get our guy back ASAP then we’re going to invade you – take it or leave it, ……and that’s exactly what they have done. Can’t say fairer than that.
No frigging around for weeks and weeks whilst all the pinko liberals wring their hands and try to negotiate. No dicussing ludicrous demands. Plain and simple, either you give us our guy back or we’ll come and get him the hard way…. your choice. Yup I really like their style.
@Tory Girl wrote:
Life is too precious to wantonly kill anyone
Unless of course they are a paedophile or rapist or whatever – then suddenly all the knee jerkers rant on about that bloodthirsty things they’d like to do to the person.
Hmmmmm a bit inconsistent huh???
@eve wrote:
Surely the greatest point against the death penalty must be the Birmingham 6?
Just slightly aside from the topic – but this Birmingham 6 thingy has always puzzled me.
OK they were originally convicted of killing all those people in Brum, imprisoned, and many years later their convictions were overturned on appeal, and they were released.
The bit that puzzles me is this. Why, given that they were totally innocent of any sort of involvement at all, did the Police arrest them in the first place???
I mean, there they were presumably living in or around the Birmingham area, going about their lawful business as most everybody else does, when along comes Mr Plod and arrests them for, apparently, no reason at all. Not only that but then they are tried at great public expense and so on. What on earth made the Police just pick on 6 guys at random???
Can anybody shed any light on this at all???
@(f)politics? wrote:
@squeezy wrote:
I think he should do the ful 9 years,
I just don’t understand our system – he got 9 years, but a couple who raped a baby grl only got around 4…. :?
All the b@stards should get 20 years minimum and f*cking castrated. :evil:
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
I suspect that most people would agree with this view. Problem is that the Judges cannot hand out sentences of the sort of length that the public wants as a) there aren’t sufficient places in prisons to accomodate criminals and b) the Government has restricted the Judges ability to impose lengthy sentences through the use of the Sentencing Council guidelines.
So whilst Tony and the Blairites talk the talk they don’t walk the walk – tough on crime…… oh yes ???? really ????
I guess I’m really struggling NOT to get into the analysis of the ”history” of all this as the facts can be shown to support whichever argument you feel like supporting, depending on who you speak to.
It seems to me that constantly going back over old ground and plucking ‘facts’ out to support a particular viewpoint is pretty pointless. What happened in the past happened in the past.
I prefer to take a ‘realpolitik’ view of things. When all is said and done, the Arab nations generally impose the Israeli boycott and have done so for years. Basically it is total window dressing and has no real effect on anything. If they were REALLY serious about finishing off Israel then they’d just get on with it and cut out the incessant yapping.
They tried a few years ago and got a beating so maybe they aren’t too excited about having another go. They all seem to take the soft option and let the Palestinians bleed themselves dry whilst wringing their hands and telling everybody how awful it is.
@pats wrote:
@rubenesquefemale wrote:
oh sorry!..itwasnt meant that way…being new on forums im not sure how to do that, if you tell me how then i will…happily
ignore him ruben. hes takin the pi/ss.
Yes rubenesque – PATS spotted it straight away – GOTCHA !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
The Russians and other countries have carried out talks with Hamas and anyway we all know that this rhetoric about not talking to terrorists is all bullsh1t because the British government talked to the IRA before they called a ceasefire. Plus we all remember the americans rolling the red carpet out for Gerry Adams year after year after year.
Indeed the US did constantly talk to the IRA, much to our intense irritation – particularly whilst they (the IRA) were busy murdering British citizens. But Mr B, the not so subtle difference here is that the IRA were NOT the elected government of Ireland whereas Hamas ARE the elected government of the Palestinians.
It’s all well and good utilising the ‘if you did this then you must do that’ style of argument. I realise that it most probably doesn’t suit your entrenched view of things, but the plain fact is that the Hamas government is seen as a terrorist organisation by the vast majority of the world – other than those countries that sponsor terrorismn that is. No country is sending them money in the form of aid because they know it will simply be used to purchase arms and explosives. So yet again the Palestinians score an own goal.
@Mr B wrote:
If you’re a mediator then you have to talk to both sides. If other countries don’t want to then fine, but you can’t be a mediator if you only want to talk to one side. Jimmy Carter believes that a solution has to be imposed on both sides and he’s absolutely right. The international community needs to formulate a solution based on international law and force both sides to implement it.
Well Jimmy Carter – the ”Peanut President” – didn’t exactly go down in history as one of the most successful or revered of Presidents. I would suggest to you that he was more an appeaser than a negotiator. But let’s not get drawn into a side issue which would detract from the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
This international community that you refer to , suggesting that it uses force to impose its solution, simply doesn’t exist in reality. Oh…. unless you are talking about the United Nations and they are more a joke than a serious organisation. The UN using force against Israel – they’d get their asses whopped so fast…………. !!!
@Mr B wrote:
You could say that the attack on the israeli military outpost was bound to provoke a reaction (I DID say exactly that, there was no ‘could’ about it !!!) but you could equally say that the constant attacks and persecution carried out by the Israelis was bound to provoke a reaction. It’s the never-ending cycle of violence that Secretary of State Marshall predicted way back in the 1940s and the only way to stop it is by 3rd party intervention. Unfortunately, the current 3rd party is the USA and so everyone’s screwed.
And finally Mr B I think we have something in common in terms of our respective viewpoints. Yes everyone IS screwed. Whatever the idealistic solutions may be from negotiation to capitulation the reality is that both parties are going to be in their respective positions for many many years to come.
Mind you, here’s a thought. As the US clearly isn’t going to invade etc etc how about your friends (the Palestinians) calling in their Arab supporters from Egypt, Jordan and Syria to invade Israel and put an end to it once and for all?????
Sadly I am drawn to the inescapable conclusion that her death was accidental. By this I mean that it wasn’t the result of a carefully orchestrated plot by person or persons unknown.
I say this because the way the accident occurred was simply too public to have been staged and prepared well in advance. There were simply far too many variables that could not have been controlled with any degree of certainty.
Had it have happened on a quiet country road or similar then maybe, just maybe it could have been staged. But there she was screaming through the centre of Paris hotly pursued by several motorcycles with ‘paparazzi’ photographers on them, cars and pedestrians all over the place (even in the early hours). Too many potential witnesses, too many observers.
So no I don’t buy into Mohammed Fayed’s conspiracy theory, and no I don’t think Prince Philip did it either.
Sorry but you can’t mention black holes on these boards as this could be taken to be racist. Please edit your post.
