Inadequate British legal system
Reader comment on item: Islamists Threaten Civil War in Great Britain – A Smart Idea?
in response to reader comment: Terrorism? Treason? Botany Bay?

Submitted by Vijay (United Kingdom), Sep 26, 2006 at 05:30

>Submitted by Abu Nudnik, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:24

>"isn't terrorism the use of violence or threats of violence to achieve a politcal aim? If so, why not charge him with terrorism?"

There are lots of checks and balances in the British legal system; the government has to prepare the case against him very carefully. And in a court of law, a jury of 10 has to be unanimouly agree with the government that he is guilty - that means the evidences presented and the arguments made will be have to nothing less than watertight. Usually people like Nidal are already parasites on the country by drawing state benefits through much of their miserable lives. Hence the government will have to be spend unlimited amount of money to pay for his defenses, who will hire best "human rights" lawyers who usually charge the earth. The government will have to bear all those costs, which can run into millions of £££.

At the end of it, on some technicality he may get out. Usually , the government take up prosecuting such people unless the chances are nearly 100% since it costs so much money and effort to put such parasites through the legal system and the prison system. At the end of all this costly proces,s he may get at the maximun 2 years of prison sentence wherein he will be given full religious and other rights. He will gladly serve the prison as a holiday from his usual miserable life; go back and resume his Islamic terrorism where he left before going to prison

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.