| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:41 am Post subject: Alleged 7/7 bomber Khan's widow denied legal aid |
 |
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/27/july-7-bomber-widow
| Quote: | The widow of one of the 7 July 2005 suicide bombers has lost her high court appeal for legal aid to be represented at the inquest into the deaths of 52 people during the attacks.
Hasina Patel, who was married to the mastermind of the al-Qaida-inspired plot, Mohammad Sidique Khan, was refused funding by Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Silber. They said a decision by the lord chancellor to withhold financial assistance could not be described as unreasonable or irrational, as lawyers on her behalf had claimed.
Thomas said the court had been told Patel's position "was that she was interested to understand why her late husband and the other bombers acted as they did". She was seeking "an opportunity to ask questions of witnesses at the inquest which bore on their knowledge and experience of her husband and others," they said.
He added: "Far from providing any information that might assist the wider public interest, she has flatly and unequivocally declined the opportunity to do so.
"Although requested by this court to show how she could help establish why her late husband and the others whom she knew acted to murder fellow citizens, she has provided not an iota of evidence to us which could show how she could bring a wider benefit, let alone a significant benefit, to the inquests or to the understanding of the victims of the bombing."
Dismissing her case, he said there was no reason why the interests of the claimant could not be dealt with by her giving a statement of her late husband's background and that of the others to the coroner's legal team.
|
One criminal lawyer said this is a dangerous step because they can refuse legal aid to people who are not favourable to the Government.
_________________
Currently working on a new website |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | More propaganda.
Kahn [sic]was not almost certainly not the ringleader.
Hasina Patel was not married to Haroon Rashid Aswat or Shehzad Tanweer as far as I know!
And Daniel Obachike has quite smartly pointed out, with reference to the CCTV evidence, that Shehzad Tanweer was the ringleader making the phone calls on 7/7.
Daniel talks about the phone call made by Tanweer to his handler, possibly Haroon Aswat, at Luton station at 35m 40s in here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6453336143085991879 |
Khan and Tanweer met Lindsay at Luton station entrance on 28th June 2005 at 8:10. Both Khan and Tanweer are seen using their mobile phones in the footage. In the 7/7 footage there is no sign of any of the four using phones.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Isn’t this talk about phone calls a little like the CCTV which don’t work when it suits; in that aren’t phone call details all logged for itemised billing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redadare
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 204
Location: France
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seems to me we are missing the point of this thread. IMO, the real nub of this thread is this.
One of the two high court judges said, "...why her late husband and the others whom she knew acted to murder fellow citizens, she has provided not an iota of evidence to us which could show how she could bring a wider benefit, let alone a significant benefit, to the inquests or to the understanding of the victims of the bombing."
Surely a high court judge should know that unless a person has been tried (even if in absentia), they are innocent until proven guilty. This really is one of the most prejudicial statements by a judge and Patel's legal representatives should have jumped on this and had the judge rule himself out and the case re heard. Unless of course, her counsel is part of the gate keeper establishment.
_________________
In the end, it's not the words of your enemies you will remember, but the silence of your friends. Martin Luther King |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Unless of course, her counsel is part of the gate keeper establishment.
|
There all BAR associates to the fake crown establishment and will loose their lucrative jobs (and perhaps more) if they go against it. Makes “legal aid” in any case unjust, apart from a little lip service. And perpetuates the corrupt system, when we should all learn the Law (not their so called law)
(edit)
"they are innocent until proven guilty."
*"...why her late husband and the others whom she knew acted to murder fellow citizens,"
To falsely accuse someone; then the person accusing is guilty of the same crime whether the accused is as yet guilty or not. So if a person (Judge in this case) has truly *said this on no evidence (Not proven) he/she is guilty of the same crime and proven for all to see.
Murder is a capital offence.
*I wonder if he/she they, will retract that statement if they truly said it.
"Owen Bowcott" of the Guardian, if he wroughts folly with it; he is also up to, guilty of the same crime.
Which goes to show how backwards the whole system is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tony Gosling wrote: | Quote: | | Still his analysis of who is using a phone and conjecture of why is apparently sound. |
No, it's not. Both Khan and Tanweer were using mobile phones as they entered the station on 28/6.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | I think Daniel's talking about Tanweer making a mobile phone call when Germaine Lindsay turns up. Before they go in to the station.
|
Look at the CCTV. Khan is also using a mobile phone as they go into the station.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | Yes, but that stage of proceedings is not what Daniel was talking about.
He was talking about Khan apparently 'reporting back' by making a phone call, presumably to his handler, upon the arrival of Lindsay outside Luton station.
I think it was quite an astute observation.
| numeral wrote: | | Look at the CCTV. Khan is also using a mobile phone as they go into the station. |
|
Um, Daniel was taking about Tanweer using a mobile phone outside the entrance to Luton station. This does not happen on 7/7 but on 28/6 when Khan is also seen using a mobile phone. Neither is seen using a phone outside Luton station on 7/7.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | Okay, we're nearly there....
| numeral wrote: | | Look at the CCTV. Khan is also using a mobile phone as they go into the station. |
Yes, but that stage of proceedings is not what Daniel was talking about.
He was talking about Tanweer apparently 'reporting back', by making a phone call, presumably to his handler, upon the arrival of Lindsay outside Luton station on 28th June 2005.
I think it was rather an astute, simple and potentially significant observation of Daniel's. |
Daniel was claiming that Tanweer, rather than Khan, was the "ringleader" because it was he who made a call "apparently reporting back" upon Lindsay's arrival. This does not stand up because Khan was also on the phone.
The MPS might know who was called or was calling but I doubt if they are going to tell us.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | | I think Daniel is talking about the frames before this. Where they are under the footbridge. |
That takes places 11 seconds earlier. It looks like Tanweer puts his left hand in his pocket, takes out his mobile and transfers it to his right hand. Wow.
How does this change anything? Both Khan and Tanweer use mobile phones.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
