Muslims, even those who are guilty of some of the most horrendous crimes or who have been convicted of terror plots, are adept at falsely claiming victim-hood and convincing foolish judges that they’ve been hard done by. Such a case recently came before the European Court of Human Rights when one of the Muslim plotters who had been involved in a plan to attack the London underground a few weeks after the 7/7 attacks in 2005, was awarded legal fees because the police had failed to follow correct procedure.
This particular savage who is a British citizen but who originates from the Islamic hell-hole of Somalia had along with his compatriots challenged aspects of their cases at the ECHR. According to a report in the Daily Mail, the Islamic savage in question, Ismail Abdurahman, was awarded £13,600 of British taxpayers money to cover his legal fees, although thankfully this savage’s attempt to quash his conviction or claim compensation was not successful. As is usual policy for this blog the original text is in italics whereas this blog’s comments are in plain text.
The Daily Mail said:
European judges have ordered Britain to pay thousands of pounds to a terrorist who helped the failed July 21 bombers because his human rights were breached.
Ministers were ordered to hand Ismail Abdurahman £13,600 of taxpayers’ money for his legal fees after the Islamist convict successfully argued he had been denied the right to a fair trial.
In a ruling which risked provoking outrage, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a statement the extremist provided as a witness, rather than a suspect, was used against him in court.
It comes as a surprise following a series of unsuccessful legal challenges by the plotters behind the failed attacks on the London Underground in 2005 – a fortnight after 52 were murdered by suicide bombers on July 7.
Abdurahman, a British citizen, was charged with assisting one of the bombers and of failing to disclose information about the attack. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, later reduced to eight on appeal. He hid would-be bomber Hussain Osman for three days after his plan to repeat the carnage of the 7/7 bombings failed.
He was initially treated as a witness, and so quizzed without a lawyer. However, when the terrorist began to incriminate himself, police delayed allowing him access to legal advice and failed to tell him of his right to silence.
He argued this violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the right to a fair trial. Yesterday he was awarded £13,600 after judges voted by 11 to six that his rights had been violated.
Yes the police may have cut a few corners here and that must be recognised. But, on the other hand, we have a seriously dangerous savage here, one who was quite happy to shelter someone who was dead-set on murdering for Allah. I can understand why the police let this savage keep talking himself into a hole before letting him get access to a lawyer.
The Somali Savage Ismail Abdurahman who is now £13,600 better off and it’s we who are paying.
The Daily Mail continued:
In its judgment, the ECHR’s Grand Chamber said: ‘The court was not convinced that the [UK] government had demonstrated compelling reasons for restricting his access to legal advice and failing to inform him of his right to remain silent.
The court may not have been convinced but if this geezer was singing like the proverbial canary and assisting in the prosecution of the other savages involved in this plot then that looks to me like a compelling reason for not giving him immediate access to a lawyer
‘It was significant that there was no basis in domestic law for the police to choose not to caution Mr Abdurahman at the point at which he had started to incriminate himself.’
It seems in this case that the police’s desire and need to gain more evidence of the activities of the plotters may have influenced the decision to not caution in a timely way.
However, the court ruled that the terrorist had not been wrongly convicted and dismissed his claim for compensation.
Good. That’s some good news at least.
Three other men jailed over the failed plot to blow up the London transport network lost an attempt to have their convictions overturned at the ECHR.
Strange, isn’t it, how there always seems to be oodles of money and battalions of lawyers ready to jump up and work for these murderous savages?
Somali nationals Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar – who each tried to detonate bombs – claimed their convictions were unfair because statements they gave when denied access to lawyers were used in their trial.
But judges dismissed their claims by a majority of 15 votes to two.
At least the courts have seen sense on this one at least.
In 2012, Abdurahman won an appeal to stay in Britain on human rights grounds despite Home Office chiefs and anti- terror officers wanting to return him to his native Somalia.
This is a prime indication of how the HRA and the HR convention has gone badly wrong. Individuals should of course be protected from the arbitary oppression of the state, but surely it is extremely unreasonable to deny Britain the right to deport this Somali savage even though he has been proven to be a danger to the rest of us.
This whole case stinks of Islamic ‘lawfare’ where criminal and seditious Muslims backed up by well funded legal teams and by leftist and Islamic activists, play the western legal system for all it’s worth. These savages know that they can keep using the legal system to keep attacking the police and other security organs who are trying to deal with Islamic terror.
We can draw some consolation that this particular savage has at least served some time in prison even though it will appear to many to be not nearly enough time. But, we should be righteously angry that not only will this savage will be free to walk our streets again but legally we cannot get rid of him and will probably be funding him to sit on his arse for the rest of his life.
Link
Original Daily Mail story on the Somalian savage who is playing the lawfare game at the ECHR
@”In 2012, Abdurahman won an appeal to stay in Britain on human rights grounds despite Home Office chiefs and anti- terror officers wanting to return him to his native Somalia.”
Neither should happen, he should be locked up for life in some cheaper country. Offshoring lifers saves us money and gives poor people in the third world jobs. It is a policy which is good for everyone
(apart from the lifers’ family, but nothing is perfect).