By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 18:38 - Dec 28 by Oxford_Blue
The article says that the attraction was the Tories taking a firm stand against radical Islam.
In other words, the fascist, aggressive religious cult that commits terrorist atrocities and spawns ISIS.
What is wrong with taking a firm stand against that type of group?
Because it depends what that stance involves.
If it is painting all Muslims in that light, reporting on court cases where there is an embargo against the press in order to paint Muslims generally as paedophiles, banning general Muslim practices such as wearing headscarves, etc, etc, there are problems.
If it is simply enabling the counter-terrorism forces to act against and prevent terror, of course no problem.
However, Britain First have a history of the former and not the latter. They seem to be happy to align themselves with the Conservative government for some reason. Does that not concern you?
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 18:38 - Dec 28 by Oxford_Blue
The article says that the attraction was the Tories taking a firm stand against radical Islam.
In other words, the fascist, aggressive religious cult that commits terrorist atrocities and spawns ISIS.
What is wrong with taking a firm stand against that type of group?
If the Tories wanted to take a firm stand against radical Islam and the root causes of ISIS, then they should stop selling weapons to the Saudis. But they won't. Much easier to attack Muslim Brits.
footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Equally, the Labour Party also has a racism issue.
Not that that cancels out your point, but it is interesting that you’re quick to tell everybody about a Tory incident, but won’t address issues elsewhere.
“Our slick new attacking side is being outpassed and outmaneuvered by Ipswich” - West Ham Forum
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 18:51 - Dec 28 by mos
Equally, the Labour Party also has a racism issue.
Not that that cancels out your point, but it is interesting that you’re quick to tell everybody about a Tory incident, but won’t address issues elsewhere.
I think the way TWTD works is someone posts a damning report on the Tories and then someone googles a damning report on Labour
And then vice versa
repeat to fade
“Hello, I'm your MP. Actually I'm not. I'm your candidate. Gosh.”
Boris Johnson canvassing in Henley, 2005.
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 18:51 - Dec 28 by mos
Equally, the Labour Party also has a racism issue.
Not that that cancels out your point, but it is interesting that you’re quick to tell everybody about a Tory incident, but won’t address issues elsewhere.
I addressed issues in the Labour party, they’re under investigation. The Tories dropped theirs.
Why is it some on here seem to think BUT LABOUR is the reply to everything? The Tories have had these issues at a larger scale for years, yet the press tell you what to think. If Labour had 5k folk from an extremist right wing party sign up the Sun and Mail would have a front page field day.
Wake up, stop apologising and enabling racism to corrode our democracy before it’s too late.
Obviously a mistake not a deliberate course of action, but happened on their watch.
Not to mention chappy who did the London Bridge attack last month was released early under Tory rule via a sentencing law change the Tories pushed through in 2013. But let’s not let the truth get in the way, I still see people somehow claiming it’s Labour’s fault. We could be still under Tory rule in 2050 and we’d still have idiots on FB talking about how the Labour government of 40 years ago caused this mess because they happened to be in power during a global banking crash that was egged on by the path Thatcher laid out.
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 19:09 - Dec 28 by monytowbray
Not to mention chappy who did the London Bridge attack last month was released early under Tory rule via a sentencing law change the Tories pushed through in 2013. But let’s not let the truth get in the way, I still see people somehow claiming it’s Labour’s fault. We could be still under Tory rule in 2050 and we’d still have idiots on FB talking about how the Labour government of 40 years ago caused this mess because they happened to be in power during a global banking crash that was egged on by the path Thatcher laid out.
I don't think your first sentence is true. Could you provide evidence for this?
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 19:06 - Dec 28 by monytowbray
I addressed issues in the Labour party, they’re under investigation. The Tories dropped theirs.
Why is it some on here seem to think BUT LABOUR is the reply to everything? The Tories have had these issues at a larger scale for years, yet the press tell you what to think. If Labour had 5k folk from an extremist right wing party sign up the Sun and Mail would have a front page field day.
Wake up, stop apologising and enabling racism to corrode our democracy before it’s too late.
‘But Labour’ wasn’t my argument.
My argument is about your narrow approach to tackling a wider issue.
As for your last sentence; there’s no need to be dramatic.
“Our slick new attacking side is being outpassed and outmaneuvered by Ipswich” - West Ham Forum
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 19:32 - Dec 28 by mos
‘But Labour’ wasn’t my argument.
My argument is about your narrow approach to tackling a wider issue.
As for your last sentence; there’s no need to be dramatic.
Do you think Johnson and his party have a problem with racism and Islamophobia?
Why does the Labour party potentially having one excuse it?
How is pointing out the problem above taking a "narrow approach to tackling a wider issue"?
There are many posters on here who constantly excuse this Government on racism and Islamophobia and one of their tacks is simply "but Corbyn".
If Corbyn were currently Prime Minister and GB was posting about anti-Semitism, would anyone be excusing it by saying "ah but it's a wider issue and Johnson is a racist Islamophobe"? Why are there different rules to judge the Government by?
Removing the Guardian bias from the article and noting the facts, it appears that Labour turned an EPP sentence into an automatic release sentence in 2008, the type that Khan received on appeal in 2013, and the Conservatives reverted that law in 2015, presumably immediately after they took full power as the article does not say coalition. So I would conclude Labour take some blame, although the coalition failed to revert their decision.
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 19:42 - Dec 28 by Trequartista
Removing the Guardian bias from the article and noting the facts, it appears that Labour turned an EPP sentence into an automatic release sentence in 2008, the type that Khan received on appeal in 2013, and the Conservatives reverted that law in 2015, presumably immediately after they took full power as the article does not say coalition. So I would conclude Labour take some blame, although the coalition failed to revert their decision.
[Post edited 28 Dec 2019 19:42]
He was convicted in 2012 and released by a parole board in 2018.
There was no impact of the 2008 laws on this case. The laws that Labour introduced would have seen him serve half of his original sentence without parole (i.e. he would still have been in prison until next year) with the option for a parole board oversight on top of that.
Which means Johnson's claim that the law of 2008 enabled his release before 2020 is a complete lie.
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 19:47 - Dec 28 by Nthsuffolkblue
He was convicted in 2012 and released by a parole board in 2018.
There was no impact of the 2008 laws on this case. The laws that Labour introduced would have seen him serve half of his original sentence without parole (i.e. he would still have been in prison until next year) with the option for a parole board oversight on top of that.
Which means Johnson's claim that the law of 2008 enabled his release before 2020 is a complete lie.
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 19:49 - Dec 28 by Trequartista
Read it again.
"Khan was originally sentenced in February 2012. Like the other Stoke plotters, he pleaded guilty. The trial judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, weighed up whether to give Khan a fixed, determinate sentence, which under the prevailing rules would have meant he was eligible for release halfway during his prison term, or an indeterminate imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence, which would have meant his release would be subject to a parole board review. He concluded that Khan and two others posed a sufficiently long-term risk to the public to hand down an indeterminate sentence. “In my judgment,” Wilkie concluded, Khan and the other two Stoke plotters were “more serious jihadis than the others. They were working to a long-term agenda”."
So, under the terms of the 2008 law he was sentenced to 16 years with release only by parole.
"Khan and the other Stoke plotters successfully appealed against their indeterminate sentences in a case that concluded in March 2013. The court of appeal, chaired by Lord Justice Leveson, concluded that there was no suggestion that Khan or the other two “would be in a position to activate, operate or participate” any terror training facility in Pakistan, and formed the view that in any event, their terror plans were largely related to overseas. The court decided to impose fixed sentences instead. In Khan’s case this new sentence was a fixed term of 16 years, extended by a further five on licence. That meant he would automatically be allowed out after eight years, without the involvement of the parole board."
Or, as the other article sums it up:
"Khan was classed as never to be released unless deemed no longer a threat, but the condition was later lifted and he was freed on licence in December 2018."
Glad the Tories don’t have a racism issue on 19:59 - Dec 28 by Nthsuffolkblue
"Khan was originally sentenced in February 2012. Like the other Stoke plotters, he pleaded guilty. The trial judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, weighed up whether to give Khan a fixed, determinate sentence, which under the prevailing rules would have meant he was eligible for release halfway during his prison term, or an indeterminate imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence, which would have meant his release would be subject to a parole board review. He concluded that Khan and two others posed a sufficiently long-term risk to the public to hand down an indeterminate sentence. “In my judgment,” Wilkie concluded, Khan and the other two Stoke plotters were “more serious jihadis than the others. They were working to a long-term agenda”."
So, under the terms of the 2008 law he was sentenced to 16 years with release only by parole.
"Khan and the other Stoke plotters successfully appealed against their indeterminate sentences in a case that concluded in March 2013. The court of appeal, chaired by Lord Justice Leveson, concluded that there was no suggestion that Khan or the other two “would be in a position to activate, operate or participate” any terror training facility in Pakistan, and formed the view that in any event, their terror plans were largely related to overseas. The court decided to impose fixed sentences instead. In Khan’s case this new sentence was a fixed term of 16 years, extended by a further five on licence. That meant he would automatically be allowed out after eight years, without the involvement of the parole board."
Or, as the other article sums it up:
"Khan was classed as never to be released unless deemed no longer a threat, but the condition was later lifted and he was freed on licence in December 2018."
So you've now established that the 2012 conviction was quashed and replaced by the 2013 conviction.
Now if you read the bit you didn't copy and paste, it will tell you he received an EPP in 2013, which had automatic release, thanks to a law change in 2008.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
