| Welcome to Edl The Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| July 7th are "apparent bombers" now.; Unbelievable. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 25 2010, 09:59 PM (145 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2010, 09:59 PM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
Just when you think this country can't get anymore grovelling.... Disgust of families of July 7 victims as hearing refers to killers as 'apparent bombers' By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 6:51 PM on 25th February 2010 Lady Justice Hallett Lady Justice Hallett: The coroner is presiding over the hearing, where lawyers referred to the suicide attackers as 'apparent bombers' Families of the innocent victims of the July 7 attacks made an emotional courtroom outburst today after a lawyer called the men who killed their loved ones 'apparent bombers'. Dozens of bereaved relatives attended a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice to discuss how the inquests of those who died in the 2005 London bombings should proceed. But several took offence at the way counsel to the inquest, Hugo Keith QC, referred to the four men who carried out the suicide attacks. Ernest Adams, 72, stood up in the hearing to protest at the phrase he used, 'apparent bombers'. His son James, 32, a mortgage broker from Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, was one of 26 people killed by Jermaine Lindsay, 19, between King's Cross and Russell Square. Mr Adams told the court: 'For more than four-and-a-half years, the whole world has known that four sick and evil men killed 52 lovely innocent people. 'And yet now lawyers are talking and writing about "apparent bombers". 'Your inquest is not going to be about 52 apparent deaths, it will be about 52 real deaths caused by four real bombers. 'I find it very upsetting and insulting to use the word "apparent". 'Is there some way around this - perhaps to use their surnames, but not "apparent bombers".' Families of two of the attackers were represented at today's hearing, and Mr Adams questioned whether their lawyers had asked for the phrase to be used. 'Has this change come about because the legal representatives of the four bombers have approached you and your staff about this?' he asked the coroner. Hazel Webb, whose daughter Laura, 29, from Islington, north London, was one of six people killed by plot mastermind Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, at Edgware Road, agreed with Mr Adams. '"Apparent bombers" just does not rest easily with me,' she told the hearing. Tavistock Square, The number 30 double-decker bus in Tavistock Square, which was destroyed by a terrorist bomb, on July 7 when 52 people were killed Mr Keith apologised for causing distress to the families, saying: 'I must balance that which may seem to be obvious with not wishing to pre-judge the issues.' The coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, said her team would try to come up with another phrase that would not cause upset. 'We have all very much noted that point, and are sorry for any distress caused by use of that expression,' she said. The coroner will decide whether the inquests need to be held at all, and if so how broad their scope should be, at a further three-day hearing from April 26 to 28. She must also rule on whether to split the inquests for the 52 innocent victims of the attacks and the inquests for the four bombers, or to hold them all together. Mr Keith acknowledged that this was a very sensitive issue. He told the hearing: 'We are acutely aware that this raises terrible issues for the bereaved families. 'In particular it is our understanding that some of the bereaved families have expressed anguish already at the prospect of the inquests of the deaths of their relatives being joint with the inquests of the apparent bombers.' Imran Khan, representing the families of Khan and fellow bomber Hasib Hussain, 18, said he recognised the anxiety of the victims' relatives. He promised: 'Whatever involvement my clients have in these proceedings, we will try our utmost to ensure that it is done with sensitivity and with deference to the wishes of the bereaved families.' It is understood that none of the families of the bombers have applied for legal aid for representation at the inquests. If they go ahead, the inquests will take place in a courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London, probably starting in October. There will also be an annexe where the public and the media can watch the hearings via videolink. Mr Keith said another two private rooms with videolink facilities would be provided in separate locations near the court, one for the families of the victims and the other for the relatives of the bombers. Metropolitan Police officers are preparing detailed reports on each of the four scenes of the attacks - at Aldgate, Edgware Road and King's Cross on the London Underground, and above ground at Tavistock Square, where Hussain detonated his device onboard the number 30 bus. These will be sent to the bereaved families and some survivors of the bombings before the April hearing, although they will have to sign a confidentiality clause promising not to pass on the documents. Lady Justice Hallett noted that the drafts of the reports she had seen were 'extraordinarily distressing'. Other issues for the coroner to rule on include whether she should sit with a jury, and who should be counted as "interested persons" entitled to be represented at the inquests. The bereaved relatives are automatically classed as interested persons, but some survivors believe they should also have the status. Patrick O'Connor QC, who is representing five families of victims and 15 survivors, urged the coroner to include those injured in the attacks among the interested persons. He said: 'The deceased cannot assist with evidence. The survivors can, in the most potent and impressive way. 'So their contribution - tragically, because of the deaths of the deceased - can be of very very great assistance to you.' It is understood that all the bereaved families are likely to be eligible for legal aid for representation at the inquests. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253803/Disgust-families-July-7-victims-hearing-refers-killers-apparent-bombers.html#ixzz0gaEKXfMb |
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2010, 10:03 PM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
this is purely a procedural matter. they cannot call them 'the bombers' until the inquest is over and the verdict has been reached. its not intended to be disrespectful to the victims nor show leniency towards the attackers, its just the wording that must be used in the courts while there is a trial. its the same as calling an alleged murderer 'the accused' until he is found guilty, even if its obvious that he did it. |
|
|
| tomz | Feb 25 2010, 10:32 PM Post #3 |
|
Member
|
Which ever way you look at it, it makes you ashamed of being part of a country that puts ISLAMIC MURDERING SCUMBAG BOMBERS rights before the victims. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2010, 10:36 PM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
Its got nothing to do with putting thier rights firs, its purely a matter of procedure. we cannot allow a court to declare guilt before the trial is over. that would put us in the same box as the illegal sharia courts who only meet to deal out punishments, not justice. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2010, 10:39 PM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
Its not what people want to hear unfortunately - but the above post is true. Certain things I have come across - its 100% nailed on what has happened and who is responsible - but we can`t say until you get the guilty verdict. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2010, 11:04 PM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
These bombers are dead, they have no rights in law, they can't sue or complain so why pussy foot round, call a spade a spade, for god's sake ? This isn't a court of law either, it is an inquest on some of the victims of the bombers, it is not the bombers' inquests. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2010, 11:09 PM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
I understand what you say, and I know my feelings are the same as almost everyone on here. Just pointing out how the law states things. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2010, 11:40 PM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
@MJ999
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 26 2010, 01:56 AM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
I can't remember them calling that dickhead who set his foot on fire the "Apparent Shoe Bomber" before the trial. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 26 2010, 02:01 AM Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
aye, the apparent statement is the norm in these cases as mentioned by others already. |
|
|
| RDG | Feb 26 2010, 07:34 AM Post #11 |
Kafir
|
I think the term "alleged" came about in the 50,s/60,s when a guy was tried for murder at the Old Baily. From the time of his arrest and during the trial he was refered to as the killer/murderer by the press. He was found not guilty and sued the lot for thousands. |
![]() |
|
| agamemnon | Feb 26 2010, 08:29 AM Post #12 |
Member
|
apparently these wankers blew themselves up in london and apparently they killed loads of people and apparently they left messages telling us they did. apparently the governent and the courts are tossers |
![]() |
|
| Templar999 | Feb 26 2010, 09:29 AM Post #13 |
|
Member
|
MY DEAR LORD, HELP US WE PRAY. NOT UNTO US LORD. NOT UNTO US LORD. BUT TO YOUR NAME GIVE THE GLORY. 999 |
![]() |
|
| Kaizer | Feb 26 2010, 09:29 AM Post #14 |
|
Member
|
Legal terminology can seem strange and silly but is there for a purpose, process. However the whole question of the 7/7 bombing remains unresolved, and I would think the legal ppl will be careful of what they say because they know the whole issue is questionable. This guy: http://www.the4thbomb.com/ was there, he was on the bus and just missed being hurt but saw first hand what happened, as you'd expect his story doesn't match the official story. This is another situation where it seems "greater powers" were at play. I'm sure you'll agree it seems all to cosy that not long after 9/11 the UK gets its own "British" version, complete with images intended to provoke us. There is proof that the 4 muslims boys weren't where our Govt claim, once you start to look, the event seems to have been stage managed by our Govt. The real crime here is, citizens died (murdered), we were lied to and deceived not only by our Govt but by our media too. |
|
My cows are a reminder of the destruction by the UK Govt/DEFRA of our long standing dairy farming industry. So please all members, think before you reply, if you only have silly schoolboy answers, leave it to the others who can answer in a civil way. (copied from Admin Ali) - let's try and put brains back into Britain. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 26 2010, 09:40 AM Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
That's understandable. These bombers can't sue anyone, though, they are now in hell where they belong. Under the law people can call them what they like. The article states that the bereaved asked if it was a request of the bombers' families that the murderers were to be adrressed as, "apparent." There wasn't a reply. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 26 2010, 01:53 PM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
Four apparent bombers indulging in anti islamic activities.Thats what they now call muslims terrorists=people who indulge in anti islamic activities. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · EDL Chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
1:15 AM Jul 11
|
Feliz Navidad (Gold) created by Sarah & Delirium of the ZNR






999
1:15 AM Jul 11