Just now, josephbloggs said:

No surprise.

Indeed, because I have had to deal with your cr@p in the past...... ..............

On 7/7/2025 at 8:57 AM, Briggsy said:

The lawyer will have the longest and most ridiculous list of mitigating circumstances drawn from the sentencing guidelines including childhood trauma, institutionalised racism, police violence and many more.

 

Even before we get to sentencing, their defence lawyer has bizarrely offered that her client (guy in blue) didn't realise that they were police.

 

"Rosemary Fernandes, representing Amaaz, put it to PC Ward that her client was "taken by surprise" at the ticket machine and was “shocked".

 

She said: "It is important you identify yourselves as police officers, isn't it?"

 

PC Ward said: "I don't think we had any time to do that. We didn't have any time for rational discussion with this male as it turned violently quickly."

 

Ms Fernandes said: "I put it to you that the defendant believed he was being attacked from behind and it all happened extremely fast.

 

"It is the defence's case that he punched you in lawful self-defence on the basis that you were an assailant. Do you have any comment on that?"

 

PC Ward said: "I don't know how he felt I was an assailant.

 

"He turned towards me and punched me in the face.

 

"He could see I was a police officer and he could see I was a female as well." ..."

 

Looking at the video, BOTH of these dim bulbs turned and saw these were police officers. The 'guy in blue' carried on kicking and punching AFTER he had decked three police officers.

 

Laughable...

 

Don't you worry your pretty little head @BarraMarra, I don't think that this nonsense will secure the not guilty verdict that you are craving for.

 

4 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Im expecting a light sentance they certainly won't be locked up for fear of upsetting the Muslim locals and them turning on Starmer costing him thousands in votes in future county council elections especially in high Muslim areas in the North of England, bearing in mind most Mayors are Muslim. Don't be surprised if the jury members are warned off either. 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2080296/bloodied-female-police-officer-sobs-manchester-airport-brawl

8 minutes ago, transam said:

Indeed, because I have had to deal with your cr@p in the past...... ..............

 

Now now, there's no need to drag out your mutually shared forum dirty underwear now is there?

Just now, NanLaew said:

 

Now now, there's no need to drag out your mutually shared forum dirty underwear now is there?

You started it, remember............😂

A number of posts have been removed. Discuss the topic, not other posters.

7 hours ago, petermik said:

The mother was the catalyst for the whole incident...as said above...she knew exactly what her sons were capable of and chose to use them to seek retribution....arrogant numpty.

When this started I read a vague report that suggested that this started with words said on the plane. It now seems that it was some sort of trolley rage and the guy said something to the mother. I assume we will find out eventually. I also notice that the mother was in the thick of the attack on the police. Just wondering who does the small child belong to?

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

Even before we get to sentencing, their defence lawyer has bizarrely offered that her client (guy in blue) didn't realise that they were police.

 

"Rosemary Fernandes, representing Amaaz, put it to PC Ward that her client was "taken by surprise" at the ticket machine and was “shocked".

 

She said: "It is important you identify yourselves as police officers, isn't it?"

 

PC Ward said: "I don't think we had any time to do that. We didn't have any time for rational discussion with this male as it turned violently quickly."

 

Ms Fernandes said: "I put it to you that the defendant believed he was being attacked from behind and it all happened extremely fast.

 

"It is the defence's case that he punched you in lawful self-defence on the basis that you were an assailant. Do you have any comment on that?"

 

PC Ward said: "I don't know how he felt I was an assailant.

 

"He turned towards me and punched me in the face.

 

"He could see I was a police officer and he could see I was a female as well." ..."

 

Looking at the video, BOTH of these dim bulbs turned and saw these were police officers. The 'guy in blue' carried on kicking and punching AFTER he had decked three police officers.

 

 

I have to agree, any normal person watches that and thinks what the hell is going on. I would hate to accidentally bump into either of those two if their first response is to throw a punch. The one on blue seems to have an extremely short fuse. MInd you seeing how the Starbucks incident panned out these two really do need their anger management sorted out. Hopefully a long spell in prison will do that.

2 hours ago, Geoff914 said:

When this started I read a vague report that suggested that this started with words said on the plane. It now seems that it was some sort of trolley rage and the guy said something to the mother. I assume we will find out eventually. I also notice that the mother was in the thick of the attack on the police. Just wondering who does the small child belong to?

 

Having personally passed through the baggage claim at MAN after a plane from the middle east disgorges it's fetid load of humanity, you'll be pleased to know that your allusion to "trolley rage" is extremely prescient.

More footage from the Daily Record 🙁 (previous links seem to have gone dead).

 

Today in court. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ive-never-felt-punch-like-32057873

On 7/10/2025 at 11:28 AM, josephbloggs said:

Now bringing BLM and George Floyd in to things, wow.

 

Yeah, wow indeed. Imagine me bringing BLM into it. Crazy.

 

BLM would never involve themselves in such a case. Oh, wait a minute...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c19ky4z8kjmo

 

 

Also interesting how the BBC was focusing purely on the police retaliation to the officer's being assaulted. 

 

Never would have guessed that would be their line...😄

 

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yeah, wow indeed. Imagine me bringing BLM into it. Crazy.

 

BLM would never involve themselves in such a case. Oh, wait a minute...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c19ky4z8kjmo

 

 

Also interesting how the BBC was focusing purely on the police retaliation to the officer's being assaulted. 

 

Never would have guessed that would be their line...😄

 

 

Everyone was focused on that line at the beginning because the footage of the police violence was the only one anyone had seen and complaints had been lodged so needed to be investigated. It was (rightfully) investigated, and then complaints were (rightfully) dismissed once all the evidence came in. And then the perpetrators were (rightfully) charged and will hopefully (rightfully) do serious jail time.

What's your problem with that? 

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Everyone was focused on that line at the beginning because the footage of the police violence was the only one anyone had seen and complaints had been lodged so needed to be investigated. It was (rightfully) investigated, and then complaints were (rightfully) dismissed once all the evidence came in. And then the perpetrators were (rightfully) charged and will hopefully (rightfully) do serious jail time.

What's your problem with that? 

 

Why do you think that was the only footage that was seen? Why were the 2 initial attacks by Mohammed and Muhammad not shown, but the police response to that violence was?

 

Answers on a postcard... 😄

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Why do you think that was the only footage that was seen? Why were the 2 initial attacks by Mohammed and Muhammad not shown, but the police response to that violence was?

 

Answers on a postcard... 😄

Ah yeah, "MSM conspiracy". Usual dribble. Got it.

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ah yeah, "MSM conspiracy". Usual dribble. Got it.

 

What's your theory why the footage of the violent attacks by Muhammad and Mohammed was not released?

 

They lost the CCTV footage?

 

They didn't notice the initial headbutt in Starbucks or the policewoman getting her nose broken?

 

They sent it to the wrong email address?

 

Let's hear it...

 

 

53 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

What's your theory why the footage of the violent attacks by Muhammad and Mohammed was not released?

 

They lost the CCTV footage?

 

They didn't notice the initial headbutt in Starbucks or the policewoman getting her nose broken?

 

They sent it to the wrong email address?

 

Let's hear it...

 

 

I don't know. It is always the case in breaking news items that we get an initial report that goes out, then as more information is found or comes out then a different bigger picture emerges. Some of this only emerged during the investigation when the police could request CCTV from Starbucks for example. Are you suggesting the BBC had this all along but decided not to show it to protect "the Muslims"?  Are you suggesting the BBC deliberately edited the footage - for what purpose?

What exactly are you saying?


 

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

I don't know. It is always the case in breaking news items that we get an initial report that goes out, then as more information is found or comes out then a different bigger picture emerges. Some of this only emerged during the investigation when the police could request CCTV from Starbucks for example. Are you suggesting the BBC had this all along but decided not to show it to protect "the Muslims"?  Are you suggesting the BBC deliberately edited the footage - for what purpose?

What exactly are you saying?


 

 

It's pretty clear what I am saying.

 

In the case of certain Demographics, the British authorities (and the BBC) have a very clear pattern of releasing only the information that suits their narrative.

 

Whether that be the "Welsh choirboy" (who definitely wasn't a terrorist despite having Ricin and an Al Qaeda manual) who massacred the young children in Southport, or these violent headbutting nose breaking thugs who were "assaulted by police" at Manchester Airport.  

 

Is that clear enough for you?

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It's pretty clear what I am saying.

 

In the case of certain Demographics, the British authorities (and the BBC) have a very clear pattern of releasing only the information that suits their narrative.

 

Whether that be the "Welsh choirboy" (who definitely wasn't a terrorist despite having Ricin and an Al Qaeda manual) who massacred the young children in Southport, or these violent headbutting nose breaking thugs who were "assaulted by police" at Manchester Airport.  

 

Is that clear enough for you?

You didn't answer.

Some of this only emerged during the investigation when the police could request CCTV from Starbucks for example. Are you suggesting the BBC had this all along but decided not to show it to protect "the Muslims"?  Are you suggesting the BBC deliberately edited the footage?

36 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

You didn't answer.

Some of this only emerged during the investigation when the police could request CCTV from Starbucks for example. Are you suggesting the BBC had this all along but decided not to show it to protect "the Muslims"?  Are you suggesting the BBC deliberately edited the footage?

 

Well either the police edited before they sent it to the BBC or the BBC edited it. Either way, my point is correct.

 

The guy broke the policewoman's nose about 20 seconds before the stamping, so there was no "requesting CCTV from Starbucks" or whatever nonsense you are dreaming up. It's on the same video. 

 

The BBC paid the son of a Hamas official to star in a video, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they edited this. But like I said, police or BBC doesn't really matter. The point stands. They have the same agenda.

This is Sidiq Kahn Lord Mayor of London's response to the Attack by the Muslim brothers attack at Manchester Airport. Begs the question Who's side is he On.

 

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

This is Sidiq Kahn Lord Mayor of London's response to the Attack by the Muslim brothers attack at Manchester Airport. Begs the question Who's side is he On.

 

You like using the report button. This should be reported as fake news.

Sadiq Khan is the Mayor of London, not Manchester.

There is absolutely no evidence or record of him commenting on this, let alone calling the police racist, Islamophobic and anti Muslim. None. He never said it.

You have posted a video of a woman talking. I can record a video of me saying Balbo Baggins is real and he also steals food from homeless people. That doesn't make it true. You said "This is Sidiq Kahn Lord Mayor of London's response to the Attack by the Muslim brothers attack at Manchester Airport." yet it isn't is it, there is no link or record of it in the video.

I really worry about people who watch videos like that, accept it, get angry, and share it for more ignorant people to do the same. It is dangerous. I mean just look at the comments in that video calling him a rat (as did she). "Sticks to his own animals". "Cobra Khan, strikes again. This little thing is a snake.". Just ignorant racists, nothing more nothing less.

Please share a link or a report of him saying this or anything even close to it, or retract your lie. You have a real issue with people asking you to back up your claims as per the forum rules. You insult them, go on the attack, get upset about an emoji, then fail to back up your claim. Then you pop up with another one.

Link. Evidence. Supply.

Thats her opinion which she is entitled to say. why dont you ask her where she got the Statement from. I just posted what she said.

2 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

You like using the report button. This should be reported as fake news.

Sadiq Khan is the Mayor of London, not Manchester.

There is absolutely no evidence or record of him commenting on this, let alone calling the police racist, Islamophobic and anti Muslim. None. He never said it.

You have posted a video of a woman talking. I can record a video of me saying Balbo Baggins is real and he also steals food from homeless people. That doesn't make it true. You said "This is Sidiq Kahn Lord Mayor of London's response to the Attack by the Muslim brothers attack at Manchester Airport." yet it isn't is it, there is no link or record of it in the video.

I really worry about people who watch videos like that, accept it, get angry, and share it for more ignorant people to do the same. It is dangerous. I mean just look at the comments in that video calling him a rat (as did she). "Sticks to his own animals". "Cobra Khan, strikes again. This little thing is a snake.". Just ignorant racists, nothing more nothing less.

Please share a link or a report of him saying this or anything even close to it, or retract your lie. You have a real issue with people asking you to back up your claims as per the forum rules. You insult them, go on the attack, get upset about an emoji, then fail to back up your claim. Then you pop up with another one.

Link. Evidence. Supply.

He is a rat..........🤥

This is what the Poor Police woman looked like after being punched in the face by this young thug. For this he should have been locked up then he cried police tortured him in the Police van.

 

4 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

I don't know. It is always the case in breaking news items that we get an initial report that goes out, then as more information is found or comes out then a different bigger picture emerges. Some of this only emerged during the investigation when the police could request CCTV from Starbucks for example. Are you suggesting the BBC had this all along but decided not to show it to protect "the Muslims"?  Are you suggesting the BBC deliberately edited the footage - for what purpose?

What exactly are you saying?


 

The same reason the BBC is now under investigation for misleading the public this was real and not used for Propaganda.

 

28 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

The same reason the BBC is now under investigation for misleading the public this was real and not used for Propaganda.

 

The pictures are all real. Do you deny what is happening in Gaza?

What the BBC did not know was that the boy's father held a minority civilian role in government - deputy minister for agriculture. Not a military role. It was an external production company that made the film and they did not disclose this.

When the BBC was made aware of this they pulled it. Immediately. They did not, as you say, "mislead the public this is real". Nothing was fabricated, it did genuinely show the lives of children living in Gaza. They made mistakes in their vetting and owned up to them. But the content is real.

However, you post a video claiming Sadiq Khan said the police were "Islamophobic, racist, and anti-Islamic" after the Manchester incident. He didn't, and that has been explained to you. Yet you haven't retracted it or apologised for it you weirdly just say "it's an opinion" - then you just do your usual thing of popping up with new random videos. He either said it or he didn't, there is no "opinion" involved. And he didn't say it. If he did there would be quotes and links all over the place, Farage would be shouting it from the rooftops. 

Thankfully the BBC has much higher standards of integrity than you as when they were made aware of the relationship that could create "a risk of undermining trust in the content" they immediately pulled it. Whether that was a knee jerk reaction is up for debate.

Follow the BBC, admit your mistakes, it makes you a better person.

Still leaving the Sadiq Khan lies, slurs, and slander up there?

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Why do you think that was the only footage that was seen? Why were the 2 initial attacks by Mohammed and Muhammad not shown, but the police response to that violence was?

 

Answers on a postcard... 😄

Because there was an agenda of course, just the same as the 5 months to bring charges. And before anybody says it was complicated the same month we had the cross bow murders https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg70vjmv08ro. This was complicated but Kyle Clifford was charged within 2 months, not 5 months. Again the same month Axel Rudakubana was charged within 2 days.

25 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Still leaving the Sadiq Khan lies, slurs, and slander up there?

He is a politician, he can take it. Did we get an apology for the fact that he knows full well what a grooming gang is? Isn't slander verbal, do you mean libel?

44 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

The pictures are all real. Do you deny what is happening in Gaza?

What the BBC did not know was that the boy's father held a minority civilian role in government - deputy minister for agriculture. Not a military role. It was an external production company that made the film and they did not disclose this.

When the BBC was made aware of this they pulled it. Immediately. They did not, as you say, "mislead the public this is real". Nothing was fabricated, it did genuinely show the lives of children living in Gaza. They made mistakes in their vetting and owned up to them. But the content is real.

However, you post a video claiming Sadiq Khan said the police were "Islamophobic, racist, and anti-Islamic" after the Manchester incident. He didn't, and that has been explained to you. Yet you haven't retracted it or apologised for it you weirdly just say "it's an opinion" - then you just do your usual thing of popping up with new random videos. He either said it or he didn't, there is no "opinion" involved. And he didn't say it. If he did there would be quotes and links all over the place, Farage would be shouting it from the rooftops. 

Thankfully the BBC has much higher standards of integrity than you as when they were made aware of the relationship that could create "a risk of undermining trust in the content" they immediately pulled it. Whether that was a knee jerk reaction is up for debate.

Follow the BBC, admit your mistakes, it makes you a better person.

Still leaving the Sadiq Khan lies, slurs, and slander up there?

Fish all you want joe im not playing your game trying to bait me so i get a warning or a ban for breaking the rules but carry on.

1 hour ago, Geoff914 said:

He is a politician, he can take it. 

 

Great, will remember that line.
 

Quote

Did we get an apology for the fact that he knows full well what a grooming gang is?

 

Eh??

 

Quote

Isn't slander verbal, do you mean libel?

It was video, of someone speaking.