Bail ! Be Very Sure that it is given Deservedly !

[dave000fishing]

Bail ! Be Very Sure that it is given Deservedly !

So many years have passed since I have posted but in light of recent events I feel that I need to. The Madman that took Hostages etc should have not been out with the rest of us to start with if the Bail Laws were observed in the way that ordinary people would believe that they would be.

Firstly, In relation to the Martin Place Seige Nutter, This man orcherstrated sending vile messages to our War Widows ! ( In my opinion this sort of thing should be treated as Treason  with Life in Gaol as the penalty)

He has also been involved in Accessory to Murder and Multiple Sexual Abuse Allegations .

As I see it Magistrates thought better that he was out with US than inside where he obviously belonged. (Live with that to those that let him  out with us )

I firmly believe that this person was a Radical and not representative of normal peaceloving Muslims that are living with us and I am pleased to see the efforts that the Muslim Community has made to disassociate from this Lunatic and his beliefs and to be involved in the Vigils at Martin Place since the Seige.

It would be so easy for us to lash out at other Innocents because of a Madman but in the end that is not the right thing to do.

Like Everyone I am concerned about the radicallisation of some young Muslims but Hope / Want that the majority  sway the minority to intergrate and not listen to overseas propoganda.

We lost Two Heros, Thank God we lost no more !

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@aps1080 wrote:

channy

We all wish that but the huggie fluffies do gooder lefties wouldn't allow it.

He has his "human rights: you know, bugger everyone he offends or hurts as long as "his" "human rights" are looked after.

---

Was an attempt actually made to deport him and that attempt thwarted by "dogooders?  If it was, then you may have a point, if it wasn't  then your comment is nothing but a load of myopic rabble rousing.

I see his lawyers and the magistrate who released him on bail have received death threats - would you consider it a fair comment  if it were suggested that  it is people like you who have encouraged that?

[monman12]

D0F: "My reason for coming back to post this Topic was that I think after the events at Martin Place and other atrocities that have been committed by people that should have not been walking our streets when they committed their crimes that the laws need to be tightened and someone like that Ratbag does not roam free to do whatever he wants.

If enough noise is made by Us the laws will change."

D0F read the posts and research (sorry) the topic.  You have written in an earlier post:      "If the Bail Laws were observed"      

They were, according to the "presumption in favour of bail", by ordinary NSW magistrates, and basically are:  "Under the current law, decisions about bail are made based on the offence a person has been charged with – not the risk they pose to the community."

D0F:  "If enough noise is made by Us the laws will change."  Again  research (sorry)  because the NSW Bail Act is about to change as I mentioned earlier:

However, new laws (proposed in 2012) will  come into effect on January 28, 2015; they include a revised test under which an accused person who is assessed as an "unacceptable risk" will be refused bail.

For serious offences, the onus will be on the accused to "show cause" why their detention in custody is not justified."

Thus new laws will finally take effect that might prevent a repeat of a  tragic incident like this,  it is a pity that the wheels of justice apropos amendments to NSW Bail Act were so tardy

nɥºɾ

[aps1080]

gse

No to second point.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@aps1080 wrote:

gse

No to second point.

---

Then why do you think it is fair comment to blame people like me (do gooders as you like to call us) for the fact that he was not deported.

[aps1080]

The no was in relation to the death threats. You don't warn people before you kill them, it's just people venting off.

Re post above, because that is what you lot do, tie up courts with appeal after appeal. It took the UK govt something like 9 damn years to get rid of one bloke because of the never ending appeals - which the EU has a lot to answer for.

[***super_nova***]

---

@aps1080 wrote:

Super

Why ?

Because these people are a danger to society.

He was charged, flaky or not, he was charged.

---

He was charged to be an accessory after the fact;  you do not know what it was that he was actually charged for.  It is easy to see in hind sight that he was a threat, but from the paperwork the judge saw when processing the bail application there was nothing to suggest that.  And people are charged and some are found innocent, some are convicted of lesser charge. 

If your best mate came to you for help because he killed somebody, what would you do?  Because absolutely anything except immediately reporting him, makes you immediately "accessory after the fact". 

I am not saying that Man Haron Monis was not guilty, actually it is very likely he was guilty of the murder itself, and who knows what else he was guilty of, but the judge gets file; in that file there is an info supplied by both parties, the judge can ask few questions and determines on the basis of the evidence supplied, and within the law if bail is warranted. 

[aps1080]

He was actually charged with before and after.

He had also been charged earlier with intimidation of his ex wife.

This year charge with the assaults of women.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@aps1080 wrote:

The no was in relation to the death threats. You don't warn people before you kill them, it's just people venting off.

Re post above, because that is what you lot do, tie up courts with appeal after appeal. It took the UK govt something like 9 damn years to get rid of one bloke because of the never ending appeals - which the EU has a lot to answer for.

---

Aps, if  you read through the posts I have made on this and other threads, you will realise that I don't indulge in empty rhetoric, be it fluffie huggie or jingoistic. I deal in specifics, and the specifics of this argument have nothing to do with who may or may not have been responsible for what may or may not have happened in an English courtroom.

@Channy’s mum wrote: Bail is probably a hard one because of innocent until proven guilty, however after the letters his baggies should have been packed for him and a one way ticket supplied.

Aps 1080 wrote: We all wish that but the huggie fluffies do gooder lefties wouldn't allow it.

He has his "human rights: you know, bugger everyone he offends or hurts as long as "his" "human rights" are looked after.

Now as far as I can see there are only two possible scenarios implied in your post:

1) An attempt was made to deport him but it was thwarted by fluffie huggie do-gooder lefties or

2) If an attempt had been made,  it is a foregone conclusion that it would have failed for the same reason.

Scenario 1) is demonstrably false. There was no attempt to deport him. the only attempt ever made to get him out of the country was an extradition request by the Iranian Government, which failed on legal grounds because Australia does not have an extradition agreement with Iran.

Scenario 2) is equally untrue as there is no such thing as a foregone conclusion on matters which are before a cour - that is why we have a legal systemt.

If you want to argue the (irrelevant) English case then you might like to consider that, whatever the feeling of the fluffie huggie brigad,e the case was argued , by lawyers, in a courtroom and decided on points of law.

You may of course believe that a Muslim charged with a serious offence should not be entitled to legal representation but unless or until the law - both here and in England - is changed to reflect your wishes, it is pointless to blame 'do gooders' for legal arguments put forward  by lawyers to defend their clients.

[aps1080]

Gse

The problem stems from places like the EU where you have unelected people passing laws that the ZuK then has to stick to, they cant even extradite dangerous convicted terrorists, th Eu jumps in blocking this, hindering that because they have to cross check everything to do with human rights.

The uk cant even determine who stays and who goes.

People just go round and round in the courts of the world.


Maggie T had the right method. They cant go to court if they are dead, although they made one mistake
And he still lives in the uk.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Make your mind up, Aps first it was here, then it was the UK now it's the EU. Every country has it's own courts, lawyers and legal system, it's not all one big global conspiracy by socialists to subvert the cause of justice.