Anyone for a Hijack?

[Colin Brett]

It now seems it's OK to hijack a plane using firearms, endanger everyone on board, hold the plane and passengers hostage for 70 hours and get away with it. Was legal aid available as well?

 

What does all this mean?

 

More Hijacking?

 

It's illegal to have firearms without a FAC, 5 years minimum in prison for you or me. Somehow it doesn't seem right. Are these people serving any sort of sentence?

 

Your comments or answers please

 

Colin

[Ken L]

Both their release from prison and yesterdays decision to allow them to reside in Great Britain are completely insane.

[Guest tigger]

It now seems it's OK to hijack a plane using firearms, endanger everyone on board, hold the plane and passengers hostage for 70 hours and get away with it. Was legal aid available as well?

 

What does all this mean?

 

More Hijacking?

 

It's illegal to have firearms without a FAC, 5 years minimum in prison for you or me. Somehow it doesn't seem right. Are these people serving any sort of sentence?

 

Your comments or answers please

 

Colin

 

 

"OH but those poor Hijackers they must be so traumatised , lets take them in give them a house, fully furnished, a nice new car and a phone. Also tell them to bring ALL their Wives over, and they musn't forget to bring all their cousins and distant family over as well as they can have free houses , cars etc too."

 

Doesn't surprise me Colin. Typical PC crap.

The way things are going there's going to be a massive civil war in this country caused by the PC Ars**oles.

[Brian Carragher]

Is the law an ass

 

It would seem after yesterdays judgement that it most certainly is

 

However after reading the judges summing up and his words on the subject it would seem that his hands were tied by an awful wording of the law that was neither clear or deep enough to deter similar occurences from happening again.

 

If such a happening was to occur tomorrow then the same outcome would prevail and my understanding of the judges summing up was that he was saying the law as draughted is simply not good enough and needs re-addressing to reflect todays world and human behaviour.

 

The fault of yesterdays judgement lies not with the judge or the judiciary but with the law makers who compilied such a weak and swiss cheese law in the first place

[Alan Hammond]

The really galling thing is that at the same time that this judement is coming out there is the other one concerning the bloke who hacked into the Pentagon computers. The fact that he actualy did no harm, did not cause any distress to any body, did not threaten anybody with violence is English and could have been tried in this country for the offences he committed has not stopped him being put forward for extradition to the good old USA. Once there he will face a charge that virtualy guarantees that he has no legal or human rights whatsoever and will at the very least face a jail sentence that is out of all proportion to to the offence committed.

This is just the sort of hairbrained thing that causes racial hatred. Unfortunately our politicians and judges are either to thick or two blinkered to see it.

[GlennB]

Of the original conviction + appeal :

'Appeal judges quashed the convictions in May 2003 but insisted that their decision was "not a charter for future hijackers". They said a mistake in directing the jury was the only reason the men's appeal had succeeded'

i.e. monumental f#ck up, and released on a technicality. So, cock-up or not, nobody's saying that armed hijacking is justified by them doing it to seek asylum.

But as f#ckups go, it's an absolute cracker.