UK Mohammed Fahir Amaaz & Muhammad Amaad on Trial over Manchester Airport Clash

[BarraMarra]

3 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

I live in Thailand. I have lots of family in the UK.  You clearly don't know how the justice system works so you fill in the blanks with your own imagined scenarios.

1. It is a complex case with multiple parties involved, needing thorough investigations by Greater Manchester Police (GMP), the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Yes, partly due to the complaints against the police violence, which was rightfully eventually dismissed.

2. Because there were accusations of police brutality that needed to be investigated, and there are racial/political undertones the CPS needed to go through all the evidence to make sure it was completely watertight, legally sound, defensible in court and there was no wriggle room for them to get out of it - surely that's a good thing? Or would you rather they rushed it through, there are holes their lawyers exploit and they get out of it via a loophole or a mistake in evidence collection just to satisfy the braying mob by rushing things?

3. They were charged in December, less than five months after their arrest. That is not unusual for a complex case with multiple agencies and complaints and a vast array of evidence to be examined. It is not a simple open and shut case no matter what you think.

4. They plead not guilty which meant it needs a criminal trial and has to be scheduled in to the criminal justice system which always has a significant backlog of cases. And this is expected to be a 3-4 week trial, no small matter.

All of the above is verifiable, usual, and the way the course of justice goes, especially in a sensitive case such as this. If the evidence is not absolutely nailed down before charges are brought and they get off on a technicality what do you think would happen? Riots on the streets probably, so let them do their jobs.

If they get let off to improve community relations or whatever nonsense term you use then you will have a rightful complaint and I would join you. But please stop imagining scenarios and the imaged reactions to them as it is all in your head.

When were you last in the UK Joseph ?? the Town coucil yesterday in York banned militaty vehicles in an military celebration of the armed forces but they let you march in uniform so as noy to intimidate mioroties showing uk force.

[BarraMarra]

30 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Okey Dokey.

My other post explaining the process and why your beliefs are misguided probably had too many words or facts for you to read. Sorry about that.

Back to your imaginary scenarios that live in your head and not in the criminal justice system.

Thats where you shoot yourself in the foot Joseph we the British don't believe in the system anymore because they cannot be trusted. Head of Yorkshire police told a inspector to drop an investigation into grooming gangs in Rotherham and Bradford and your trying to tell us to trust the Police Joseph ???

 

[faraday]

20 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

Last year there were 230 plus attacks on police offers in the UK. 96% were carried out by white men, usually drunk and disorderly. 

 

More like 50k+

[faraday]

51 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Okey Dokey.

My other post explaining the process and why your beliefs are misguided probably had too many words or facts for you to read. Sorry about that.

Back to your imaginary scenarios that live in your head and not in the criminal justice system.

 

Here you go, Jo Jo...

 

https://bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo

 

 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

I live in Thailand. I have lots of family in the UK.  You clearly don't know how the justice system works so you fill in the blanks with your own imagined scenarios.

1. It is a complex case with multiple parties involved, needing thorough investigations by Greater Manchester Police (GMP), the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Yes, partly due to the complaints against the police violence, which was rightfully eventually dismissed.

2. Because there were accusations of police brutality that needed to be investigated, and there are racial/political undertones the CPS needed to go through all the evidence to make sure it was completely watertight, legally sound, defensible in court and there was no wriggle room for them to get out of it - surely that's a good thing? Or would you rather they rushed it through, there are holes their lawyers exploit and they get out of it via a loophole or a mistake in evidence collection just to satisfy the braying mob by rushing things?

3. They were charged in December, less than five months after their arrest. That is not unusual for a complex case with multiple agencies and complaints and a vast array of evidence to be examined. It is not a simple open and shut case no matter what you think.

4. They plead not guilty which meant it needs a criminal trial and has to be scheduled in to the criminal justice system which always has a significant backlog of cases. And this is expected to be a 3-4 week trial, no small matter.

All of the above is verifiable, usual, and the way the course of justice goes, especially in a sensitive case such as this. If the evidence is not absolutely nailed down before charges are brought and they get off on a technicality what do you think would happen? Riots on the streets probably, so let them do their jobs.

If they get let off to improve community relations or whatever nonsense term you use then you will have a rightful complaint and I would join you. But please stop imagining scenarios and the imaged reactions to them as it is all in your head.

 

Blanks filled with more blanks. If all of the above is verifiable then why didn't you verify it with factual links?

 

Perhaps the threat of an independent prosecution might have interrupted a drawn-out, two-tier process?

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 7/7/2025 at 11:10 AM, JonnyF said:

No, the delay was because the government were hoping this would become yesterday's news and then bury it.

 

They were also expecting Lammy's recommended racist 2 tier sentencing guidelines would be in place before the trial.

Do you have any actual evidence of those claims?

 

Otherwise they're just baseless allegations.

[josephbloggs]

27 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Thats where you shoot yourself in the foot Joseph we the British don't believe in the system anymore because they cannot be trusted. Head of Yorkshire police told a inspector to drop an investigation into grooming gangs in Rotherham and Bradford and your trying to tell us to trust the Police Joseph ???

 

Prosecutions are decided by the CPS, not the police.

[josephbloggs]

34 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

When were you last in the UK Joseph ?? the Town coucil yesterday in York banned militaty vehicles in an military celebration of the armed forces but they let you march in uniform so as noy to intimidate mioroties showing uk force.

No, again that is imagined.

No military vehicles because of several reasons, none of which was offending muslims or minorities.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-forces-day-military-equipment-banned-city-york-labour-b2783453.html

Are you in favour of the military parades and hands on military demonstrations during Children's Day in Thailand? 
 

[josephbloggs]

14 minutes ago, faraday said:

 

Here you go, Jo Jo...

 

https://bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo

 

 

 

Isn't this thread and discussion about the trial of the Manchester airport attackers??

[josephbloggs]

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Blanks filled with more blanks. If all of the above is verifiable then why didn't you verify it with factual links?

 

Perhaps the threat of an independent prosecution might have interrupted a drawn-out, two-tier process?

Ok, I will dig out links of how the criminal justice system works.

Maybe you can dig out links of how this was "buried" in case Muslims got offended and how Farage had anything to do with the case.

[Watawattana]

22 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Prosecutions are decided by the CPS, not the police.

Agree.  But if the police do not provide a file full of compelling evidence to the CPS that persuades the CPS there is a good probability of a successful prosecution then they likely won't prosecute.  Or, perhaps, they won't even know if a crime has been committed if the police don't raise the matter to them.

 

That's my understanding from having an uncle who was a copper and a friend who is a prosecutor.

[Geoff914]

17 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

No, again that is imagined.

No military vehicles because of several reasons, none of which was offending muslims or minorities.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-forces-day-military-equipment-banned-city-york-labour-b2783453.html

Are you in favour of the military parades and hands on military demonstrations during Children's Day in Thailand? 
 

It is Armed Forces Day for God's sake. What the hell has Children's Day in Thailand got to do with it. So you celebrate Armed Forces day but you can't have any vehicles on display. 

[josephbloggs]

14 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

Agree.  But if the police do not provide a file full of compelling evidence to the CPS that persuades the CPS there is a good probability of a successful prosecution then they likely won't prosecute.  Or, perhaps, they won't even know if a crime has been committed if the police don't raise the matter to them.

 

That's my understanding from having an uncle who was a copper and a friend who is a prosecutor.

That is all correct.

And then the CPS has to go through all the evidence supplied and decide if it will stand up in a court of law, be defensible, and stand up to scrutiny before they send it for prosecution.

[Geoff914]

5 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Do you live in England Joesph ? i do. Explain to me and the other members why its took so long to bring this trial to Court ? and don't try and give us the old it takes time and a process has to be investigated. " WE" as in all the UK have a two tier police system fact. Are the goverment under Starmer frightened of losing the Muslim vote yes, why are all the rape gangs Muslim Particularly Pakistani there not Indians or Sikh. Are they protected yes. Is the truth hidden from us to prevent Racial tensions in towns and cities between white and Muslim yes.

100% correct. There was no end of internet chat, not just the public, but legal blogs as well saying why was this taking so long. The assaults took place on the 23 July 2024. They were not charged until the 20 Dec 2024, 5 months to bring charges. It must have taken a couple of hours to gather up the cctv footage and the body cam footage. So what took 21 weeks to decide yes a member of the public was violently assaulted, the culprits resisted arrest and violently assaulted the police. Hurty words are investigated, charged, taken to court and banged up in a fraction of that time. That actually takes a bit of detective work to determine who said the hurty words.

[Geoff914]

7 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

They might ( or may not ) hold British Passports.

 

Being born in a stable, does not make you a horse.

 

 

Islam is not a race, never has been and never will be. Therefore the racist trope goes right out the window.

 

Just like having a fear of radical Muslims, does not make someone Islamophobic.

Does anybody know if they have dual nationality?

 

[The Cyclist]

3 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Does anybody know if they have dual nationality?

 

 

I will not fall over with a heart attack, to hear that is indeed the case.

 

 

[josephbloggs]

16 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

100% correct. There was no end of internet chat, not just the public, but legal blogs as well saying why was this taking so long. The assaults took place on the 23 July 2024. They were not charged until the 20 Dec 2024, 5 months to bring charges. It must have taken a couple of hours to gather up the cctv footage and the body cam footage. So what took 21 weeks to decide yes a member of the public was violently assaulted, the culprits resisted arrest and violently assaulted the police. Hurty words are investigated, charged, taken to court and banged up in a fraction of that time. That actually takes a bit of detective work to determine who said the hurty words.

Oooo, we have a legal blog reader! Can you share a link to these legal discussions please?

I'll copy and paste my other reply and then maybe you can tell me which parts of it the legal blog people say is false. Leal blogs, right?

1. It was a complex case with multiple parties involved, needing thorough investigations by Greater Manchester Police (GMP), the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Yes, partly due to the complaints against the police violence, which was rightfully eventually dismissed.

2. Because there were accusations of police brutality that needed to be investigated, and there are racial/political undertones the CPS needed to go through all the evidence to make sure it was completely watertight, legally sound, defensible in court and there was no wriggle room for them to get out of it - surely that's a good thing? Or would you rather they rushed it through, there are holes their lawyers can exploit and they get out of it via a loophole or a mistake in evidence collection just to satisfy the braying mob by rushing things?

3. They were charged in December, less than five months after their arrest. That is not unusual for a complex case with multiple agencies and complaints and a vast array of evidence to be examined. It is not a simple open and shut case no matter what you think.

4. They plead not guilty which meant it needs a criminal trial and has to be scheduled in to the criminal justice system which always has a significant backlog of cases. And this is expected to be a 3-4 week trial, no small matter.

All of the above is verifiable, usual, and the way the course of justice goes, especially in a sensitive case such as this. If the evidence is not absolutely nailed down before charges are brought and they get off on a technicality what do you think would happen? Riots on the streets probably, so let them do their jobs.

What do your legal blogs say exactly?

[The Cyclist]

46 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Maybe you can dig out links of how this was "buried" in case Muslims got offended and how Farage had anything to do with the case.

 

From the well known right wing rag, AKA the Independent

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/reform-uk-nigel-farage-manchester-airport-independent-office-for-police-conduct-greater-manchester-police-b2649014.html

 

If you actually looked, you will find it widely reported in all the UK Media.

[josephbloggs]

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

From the well known right wing rag, AKA the Independent

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/reform-uk-nigel-farage-manchester-airport-independent-office-for-police-conduct-greater-manchester-police-b2649014.html

 

If you actually looked, you will find it widely reported in all the UK Media.

Jeez, how dense can you be? I asked for evidence that Farage had anything to do with the prosecution moving forward. He didn't, it was already moving through the system. You gave a link to him foghorning his mouth off - jumping on a bandwagon, nothing more nothing less.

 

I don't disagree that he jumped on a bandwagon and got some self serving publicity for his fanboys to lap up, I vehemently disagree his spouting had any influence over anything - of course it didn't. But give him his due, he knows when and where to get his foghorn out.

 

[Geoff914]

6 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Why has it took so long to bring this trial to Court ?? . How long does it take to review Camera footage ? why now the trial is underway has there been a ban on reporting the trial in the press ?. I can tell you 100% as I live in the UK if these were white they would have been in Court the next day and taken into custody till a trial date. There would not have been an investigation into police conduct. Like it or not the Police and system will do anything to prevent Muslims demonstrating if there convicted. So its likely they will get a slap the Wrist nothing more.  If we demand a retrial we will be threatened with incitment. A crime punished by jail time so we will be silenced.

21 weeks to charge them with all the evidence that they needed available with in a few hours.

[The Cyclist]

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Jeez, how dense can you be?

 

Is that meant to be insult ? 

 

9 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Because there were accusations of police brutality that needed to be investigated,

 

Once again, as you seem to have difficulty in grasping the concept.

 

The assaults on Abdullah in Starbucks, and the assaults on the Police officers have no relevance to any accusations been leveled against the Police.

 

2 seperate cases.

[Geoff914]

4 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

I live in Thailand. I have lots of family in the UK.  You clearly don't know how the justice system works so you fill in the blanks with your own imagined scenarios.

1. It is a complex case with multiple parties involved, needing thorough investigations by Greater Manchester Police (GMP), the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Yes, partly due to the complaints against the police violence, which was rightfully eventually dismissed.

2. Because there were accusations of police brutality that needed to be investigated, and there are racial/political undertones the CPS needed to go through all the evidence to make sure it was completely watertight, legally sound, defensible in court and there was no wriggle room for them to get out of it - surely that's a good thing? Or would you rather they rushed it through, there are holes their lawyers exploit and they get out of it via a loophole or a mistake in evidence collection just to satisfy the braying mob by rushing things?

3. They were charged in December, less than five months after their arrest. That is not unusual for a complex case with multiple agencies and complaints and a vast array of evidence to be examined. It is not a simple open and shut case no matter what you think.

4. They plead not guilty which meant it needs a criminal trial and has to be scheduled in to the criminal justice system which always has a significant backlog of cases. And this is expected to be a 3-4 week trial, no small matter.

All of the above is verifiable, usual, and the way the course of justice goes, especially in a sensitive case such as this. If the evidence is not absolutely nailed down before charges are brought and they get off on a technicality what do you think would happen? Riots on the streets probably, so let them do their jobs.

If they get let off to improve community relations or whatever nonsense term you use then you will have a rightful complaint and I would join you. But please stop imagining scenarios and the imaged reactions to them as it is all in your head.

Utter BS. Not complex at all. It is all on cctv.

Accusations of police brutality. This all began in Star Bucks long before the police got involved.

It took 21 weeks to bring charges for a very simple assault on a member of the public in Star Bucks.

 

 

[josephbloggs]

2 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Utter BS. Not complex at all. It is all on cctv.

Accusations of police brutality. This all began in Star Bucks long before the police got involved.

It took 21 weeks to bring charges for a very simple assault on a member of the public in Star Bucks.

 

 

Goalposts moving again. All I read on here was "he broke a policewoman's nose". No mention of Starbucks until today.

Anyway, I'll bow out now, I know how the criminal justice system works, especially when three agencies are involved. If you don't want to read it or take it in then that's up to you, discussions are impossible. 

It was all a cover up until Foghorn Farage got involved. And Yaxley-Lennon personally came to the policewoman's aid. I see the light now.

[Geoff914]

18 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Oooo, we have a legal blog reader! Can you share a link to these legal discussions please?

I'll copy and paste my other reply and then maybe you can tell me which parts of it the legal blog people say is false. Leal blogs, right?

1. It was a complex case with multiple parties involved, needing thorough investigations by Greater Manchester Police (GMP), the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Yes, partly due to the complaints against the police violence, which was rightfully eventually dismissed.

2. Because there were accusations of police brutality that needed to be investigated, and there are racial/political undertones the CPS needed to go through all the evidence to make sure it was completely watertight, legally sound, defensible in court and there was no wriggle room for them to get out of it - surely that's a good thing? Or would you rather they rushed it through, there are holes their lawyers can exploit and they get out of it via a loophole or a mistake in evidence collection just to satisfy the braying mob by rushing things?

3. They were charged in December, less than five months after their arrest. That is not unusual for a complex case with multiple agencies and complaints and a vast array of evidence to be examined. It is not a simple open and shut case no matter what you think.

4. They plead not guilty which meant it needs a criminal trial and has to be scheduled in to the criminal justice system which always has a significant backlog of cases. And this is expected to be a 3-4 week trial, no small matter.

All of the above is verifiable, usual, and the way the course of justice goes, especially in a sensitive case such as this. If the evidence is not absolutely nailed down before charges are brought and they get off on a technicality what do you think would happen? Riots on the streets probably, so let them do their jobs.

What do your legal blogs say exactly?

You will already have to my response. There is absolutely nothing complex about the assault of a member of the public in Star Bucks then resisting arrest. At an airport so oozing with cctv.

"If the evidence is not absolutely nailed down before charges are brought and they get off on a technicality what do you think would happen? Riots on the streets probably, so let them do their jobs." Well if they got off on a technicality of the first assault then no doubt we will all know where we stand.

[josephbloggs]

2 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

You will already have to my response. There is absolutely nothing complex about the assault of a member of the public in Star Bucks then resisting arrest. At an airport so oozing with cctv.

"If the evidence is not absolutely nailed down before charges are brought and they get off on a technicality what do you think would happen? Riots on the streets probably, so let them do their jobs." Well if they got off on a technicality of the first assault then no doubt we will all know where we stand.

So no link to the legal blogs then?

[The Cyclist]

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Goalposts moving again. All I read on here was "he broke a policewoman's nose". No mention of Starbucks until today.

 

Which just confirms that you know absolutely nothing about the case.

 

But here you are, swinging away like a saturday night drunk.

[Geoff914]

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Goalposts moving again. All I read on here was "he broke a policewoman's nose". No mention of Starbucks until today.

Anyway, I'll bow out now, I know how the criminal justice system works, especially when three agencies are involved. If you don't want to read it or take it in then that's up to you, discussions are impossible. 

It was all a cover up until Foghorn Farage got involved. And Yaxley-Lennon personally came to the policewoman's aid. I see the light now.

Star Bucks was mentioned on Friday at the opening session of the court, not today. Exactly, why has it taken until now for the first assault to come to light. They went to arrest the two violent thugs in the car part because of the previous assault.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Ok, I will dig out links of how the criminal justice system works.

Maybe you can dig out links of how this was "buried" in case Muslims got offended and how Farage had anything to do with the case.

 

Did I say "buried"? 

 

As far as I saw it then, Farage and Reform (or any other party) have the right to action a private prosecution, especially (as they wrote iin their letter to the Home Secretary) as follows: “We have genuine reason to be concerned that in fact, the CPS is awaiting for the IOPC to find some fault with the police officers, which will then give them a reason not to progress charges against the assailants. This is totally unacceptable.”

[faraday]

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Isn't this thread and discussion about the trial of the Manchester airport attackers??

Oh Jo Jo..you do seem mixed up.🤔

 

Do really need to tell you why I posted that?

 

[Geoff914]

7 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

So no link to the legal blogs then?

This guy had done a number of videos on this case. 

I don't propose to do all of your dirty work for you.