Monday, January 08, 2007
It’s for your own good..
If the reports accurately reflect the judge’s decision it’s an interesting shift in emphasis. Ihab Shoukri’s third bail application on charges of “membership of the the UDA and UFF and professing to belonging to those organisations” has been denied. Previously, in July, Belfast High Court Lord Justice Nicholson had said that “he was concerned that if Shoukri was granted bail he would be a danger to the community and there would be public disorder” when denying the application. This time, seemingly, the reason given was that Shoukri could be killed if he was released. So, we’ll have to wait to see the strength, or lack, of the case presented by the PPS.. not that there’s a pattern at all.. Updated
A little more information from this brief report
A previous bail hearing was told that UDA leaders had discussed murdering Shoukri before deciding to expel him and yesterday’s court heard that police had advised him of two death threats.
“Given those threats to him and the consequent risk to the public we feel very strongly that he should be kept in custody,” said the lawyer.
There are a few other individuals to whom that criteria could also be applied, you know…
Pete Baker @ 05:09 PM
Does the “Night boat to Cairo” still run from Belfast?
Posted by on Jan 08, 2007 @ 08:41 PMno. but they re not checking veiled women at george best airport travelling to cairo,lol
Posted by on Jan 08, 2007 @ 11:00 PMSo if the UDA issue a couple of death threats then the British legal system will withhold a mans liberty just in case someone gets caught in the cross fire?
Why is Johnny Adair allowed to walk the streets, are the Scots not as important as the Egyptian people in the Westland Road?
Posted by on Jan 08, 2007 @ 11:34 PMNat
As I said, there are a few other individuals to whom that criteria could also be applied..
And not all of them would be within loyalism.. nor under threat from loyalists - or by the ‘good UDA’.
Posted by on Jan 08, 2007 @ 11:51 PMThere is no doubt that it is the interests of all that this man remains where he is. Both judges are right, if out he would probably indulge in his previous life style and by so doing bring retribution upon himself. Of course if there hadn’t been the whole political manoeuvring around the UDA he probably would have seen the inside of a prison a lot sooner and many would have been spared his social skills.
Posted by on Jan 09, 2007 @ 03:13 AM
