Sounds like he's one of these solicitors in the Muslim community who they run to when one of them either have a race or terrorism issue. The thing that stuck out to me is his one man page dedicated to him. Reminds of a few US lawyers we know about on the farms...Avenatti, Zaid, Landau...idk, just seems fishy to me.Oh joy. He also is linked to CAGE, formerly Cageprisoners, which was a group that purported to be calling for the release of British citizens from Guantanamo but was actually a bunch of Islamist apologists who glommed on to Guantanamo to try and get asspats from useful idiots and the regressive left. (Daily reminder that people who have their human rights infringed aren't automatically saints.) That referred to Mohammed "Jihadi John" Emwazi as a "beautiful young man."
Akunjee was featured in the Law Society Gazette recently here. What's the betting the women whose release he "negotiated" from al-Qaeda was facilitated by him knowing a guy who knows a guy who knows the guys with guns out on the ground in Syria.
It gets better. According to the Telegraph, in 2015, when he started representing Shamima Begum and her two daft mates:Sounds like he's one of these solicitors in the Muslim community who they run to when one of them either have a race or terrorism issue. The thing that stuck out to me is his one man page dedicated to him. Reminds of a few US lawyers we know about on the farms...Avenatti, Zaid, Landau...idk, just seems fishy to me.
However, Mr Akunjee has previously said that no Muslim should co-operate with anti-terror police, arguing that Prevent, the Government’s counter-terror policy, is “straightforward, paid-for spying on the community”.
Appearing before the home affairs select committee yesterday, Mr Akunjee gave a less hardline view of the Prevent programme, telling MPs “some of the organisations that feed into Prevent are not good enough”.
As Mohammed Akunjee, he claimed in an article carried on the Cage website that the security services “created” Michael Adebolajo, the killer of Lee Rigby, as a terrorist “by making his life so difficult”.
The argument closely echoes that made by Cage in the case of Mohammed Emwazi, the Isil murderer known as “Jihadi John”.
Mr Akunjee shared a platform with Cage at an event in January, arguing that the UK had created a “Jekyll and Hyde, two-tier legal system” which was a “breeding-ground for fascism”.
In a recent video on the extremist “Salafi Media” YouTube channel, he denied that those who call for the death of British soldiers should be defined as extremist because “I think it is actually a soldier’s job to die”.
He claimed, falsely, that even a shop assistant who “sold a terrorist a toothbrush in Boots” would be guilty of aiding terrorism under the terror laws.
On his Facebook page he attacked Muslims who prayed for the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, and has denied that any mosque or university Islamic society promotes extremism.
He also represented Abu Nusaybah, a close friend of Adebolajo, who was sentenced to three years for terrorist offences in 2013.
Nusaybah and Adebolajo were members of the now-banned extremist group al-Muhajiroun, formerly led by Anjem Choudary and linked to about a fifth of all UK terrorism convictions.
After reading that, there is no doubt he has shady connections. He's like the Muslim Zaid, a mouthpiece to spout rubbish whilst the barrister represents his client in court.It gets better. According to the Telegraph, in 2015, when he started representing Shamima Begum and her two daft mates:
You're projecting so hard that you could work in a cinema. You're the one advocating for repeated prosecution of someone based on their political ideology. The Crown took their shot at Tommy and they fucked it, hard - they don't get to keep trying him over and over again until they get the results they want.I really love how backwards this statement is. You do realize you are literally saying 'I believe in due process and the court of law - but only when it's prosecuting people I consider guilty', right?
The British government has, for decades, ignored crimes and suppressed evidence based on their religion and a fear of being accused of racism. The law must be applied to all equally, and failure to pursue and prosecute these child traffickers is an abdication of duty on the part of the Crown. They have rejected their duty, and with it, their claims to any moral bulwark regarding justice.You cannot disregard the impartiality of law just because you personally find the way it is being implemented distasteful. If you do so, then you are not only sabotaging your own cause, you are giving ammunition to the people you consider the enemy.
You don't even have your own thoughts, so trying to read mine is just embarrassing. I actually value freedom, enough to accept its costs, including free speech.I mean seriously, think about this for a second. If this were a case about an immigration advocate who encouraged race riots against white people being retried on the same grounds, you would be crowing in delight about how great it is that justice is being done and how this is finally clear proof that such individuals can't just get away with things thanks to clever legal wrangling. The basic facts would be no different, it would just be from a position you were naturally inclined to support instead of oppose.
I just want justice systems to be just, not motivated by racism.I'm sorry, but law doesn't work like that. There is no in-between. You want to overthrow the legal system and set up something you consider better?
My issue is with the cowards you call prosecutors and justices, who ignored for decades their own citizens they swore to protect and serve being raped, kidnapped and murdered. For political reasons they abdicated their moral duty to the People, the Crown, and Justice - and now, when their misdeeds are being shown to the world they seek to further cement their reservations in Hell by violating the accords of justice yet again to silence their critics.Otherwise, if you believe in justice, then you have to be equal. If you want to abolish conditions that enable Tommy or anyone like him prosecuted repeatedly, then you are tacitly accepting that other people you personally view as deserving imprisonment will get off because of the lack of those conditions.
It's already been objectively shown in this thread that isn't the case, so you're just arguing from a point that has already been proven false. I'm not going to engage in a quote war with you, I'm just deeply amused you found my response so triggering it prompted an anti-government screed. ~You're projecting so hard that you could work in a cinema. You're the one advocating for repeated prosecution of someone based on their political ideology. The Crown took their shot at Tommy and they fucked it, hard - they don't get to keep trying him over and over again until they get the results they want.
I don't have a problem with government in general, even your backwards monarchy, but I do take an issue with people within that government abdicating their duty and abusing power. Funny how for the decades of coverup they didn't have a single tool to stop the exploitation of children but the moment some half-sped starts embarrassing them they suddenly find an endless array of tools to silence and imprison him. Weird, no?It's already been objectively shown in this thread that isn't the case, so you're just arguing from a point that has already been proven false. I'm not going to engage in a quote war with you, I'm just deeply amused you found my response so triggering it prompted an anti-government screed.
Their politicians did the same thing with the Brexit referendum. They didn't like the results they got the first time, so now they're calling for a second referendum and, failing that, are working hard to screw the UK as hard as possible if the plebs actually insist on leaving the EU. Why shouldn't the courts get a turn on the same merry-go-round?>Acquittal infuriates the court and they try you again, repeating until they get the results they want
That's such an absurd concept to begin with -- the notion that "causing anxiety" to a convicted criminal is somehow a criminal act. Fuck that noise. They should be feeling anxiety. They're convicted. They're facing sentencing. Might as well hold the court in contempt too, since I'm sure that caused anxiety in the pedos as well.They changed the reason for the contempt charge from prejudicing a trial (which was overturned because the jury had already reached a guilty verdict when he was arrested for filming the pedo's) to causing anxiety to the Muslim pedo's by filming and naming them as they entered the courts for sentencing.
Haha, the I am objectively right and it's been proven claim. Never seen it come close to working, but at least you're sticking with the playbook.It's already been objectively shown in this thread that isn't the case, so you're just arguing from a point that has already been proven false. I'm not going to engage in a quote war with you, I'm just deeply amused you found my response so triggering it prompted an anti-government screed. ~
I would say at least one poster had the express goal of turning this thread into screeching. It only takes one person to repeatedly shit nonsense into a thread...More than half of this thread is screeching between five people.
I love this website.
Who in the name of bloody hell is this specimen? And what's all that old bollox about a toilet brush and sending demons after him? Is this something to do with this fatwa about the need to seek protection from God against the devils of the toilet?
What a fucking setup.There was also no mention of a reporting restriction on the TV screens inside the court, which show details of which cases are sitting, or on the door of the courtroom.
Robinson's barrister Richard Furlong says that it was only after his client was arrested that the reporting restriction was added to the list.
"The staff administration process had failed," says Ms Dunderdale