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

[NanLaew]

On 7/8/2025 at 9:28 PM, BarraMarra said:

What Evidence do they need takes a few hours to watch all the footage from CCTV and Police Body Cams doesn't take over a year or are you going to dispute this with video evidence.

 

There's probably more smartphone video taken by members of the public than has been shared with or given to the media. It would benefit BOTH parties to make sure that as much of this is acquired, rather than have a prosecution OR DEFENCE undermined by a new video that completely changes the narrative.

 

For example, the cctv video of the initial assault at Starbucks wasn't available on mainstream media immediately after the incident. The kick and stomp clip was released BEFORE the botched arrest that preceded it. Only those two. If there had been your rabid rush to prosecute these two thugs, the "police brutality" brigades would have had a much stronger case.

[NanLaew]

On 7/8/2025 at 9:24 PM, BarraMarra said:

Here you go Joseph. I hope you watch all this video instead of snippets on it. Even the CPS are being looked at hoping to quash this conviction.

 

What a load of totally unsubstantiated rubbish, but thanks for sharing the thoughts of the grandstanding grifter party, regardless of how hopelessly clueless they were back then, and how that really hasn't changed. Note they didn't have the "Starbucks video" either.

 

The clown party of 4 (and 2 suspended).

[Geoff914]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

There's probably more smartphone video taken by members of the public than has been shared with or given to the media. It would benefit BOTH parties to make sure that as much of this is acquired, rather than have a prosecution OR DEFENCE undermined by a new video that completely changes the narrative.

 

For example, the cctv video of the initial assault at Starbucks wasn't available on mainstream media immediately after the incident. The kick and stomp clip was released BEFORE the botched arrest that preceded it. Only those two. If there had been your rabid rush to prosecute these two thugs, the "police brutality" brigades would have had a much stronger case.

Why do you say botched arrest? It was clear neither of them were prepared to go quietly. I suppose when they give their evidence we will be told why they resisted arrest so violently. It is ironic that the police go mob handed to arrest somebody who said some hurty words but send two police women and one police man to arrest two extremely violent thugs.

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

For example, the cctv video of the initial assault at Starbucks wasn't available on mainstream media immediately after the incident. The kick and stomp clip was released BEFORE the botched arrest that preceded it.

 

Yes, the left wing MSM were clearly trying to focus on the "brutal, racist police attacking minorities" angle. They were probably trying to stoke up some kind of comparison to the George Floyd incident. Maybe smoke the BLM leaders out of their luxury mansions, sorry I mean charity headquarters, to stir up some "mostly peaceful" protesting.

 

Only much later did it quietly emerge that they'd headbutted the man in Starbucks in front of his young children and then broken the female police officer's nose. At which point it all went very quiet as they hoped the story would just fade away. Or at least, draw out the "due process" long enough to get the 2 tier sentencing guidelines in place. 

 

Fortunately, Reform had other ideas. 

 

 

[The Cyclist]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

For example, the cctv video of the initial assault at Starbucks wasn't available on mainstream media immediately after the incident. The kick and stomp clip was released BEFORE the botched arrest that preceded it. Only those two. If there had been your rabid rush to prosecute these two thugs, the "police brutality" brigades would have had a much stronger case.

 

What can I say about this ?
 

There was no need or reason whatsoever to release the Starbucks CCTV to the MSM.

 

There was absolutely no need or reason to release the kick and stomp clip to the MSM. Like every cropped video clip, it was an agenda designed to make the Police look like the perpetrators and the knuckledraggers look like the victims.

 

The question that should be asked. Is who released the cropped version of the video. Why did they do it, and are they being persued for posting inaccurate video.

 

The narrative changed rapidly when the second, fuller video was released.

 

Who ordered the witch-hunt to identify who had leaked the 2nd video ? Why did they order it, and why are they still in a job ?

 

The initial assault in Starbucks, caught on CCTV, backed up by a statement from the Starbucks manager, was more than enough grounds for arresting,

 

1. Headbutt knuckledragger

 

2. The mother on incitement to violence.

 

Instead of saying " Fair cop, Guv " they had to act like the knuckledraggers they are, by resisting arrest and getting all fighty - fighty.

[NanLaew]

22 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Why do you say botched arrest? It was clear neither of them were prepared to go quietly. I suppose when they give their evidence we will be told why they resisted arrest so violently. It is ironic that the police go mob handed to arrest somebody who said some hurty words but send two police women and one police man to arrest two extremely violent thugs.

 

The first consideration of the police is for the safety of the general public and grabbing the guy from behind while in close proximity to family and other members of the public tells me they ignored the public safety aspect. This allowed themselves to be "boxed in" and did not factor in that there's was an accomplice in the first assault at Starbucks.

 

That's possibly due to the report they received about that first assault focused on a "guy in blue", so they went for the "guy in blue." But they did it wrong by not isolating him first and neutralising any intervention. They rather "waded in" or as you prefer "mob handed" and without due caution. The police did not do themselves any favours here.

 

This pair of thugs are as guilty as sin, there's absolutely no doubt about it. However, there's probably one policeman who will bear some responsibility for how it ended but that should not detract from the punishment that will be served on the two thugs. I do not see any "mitigating circumstances" at all.

[NanLaew]

11 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

What can I say about this ?
 

There was no need or reason whatsoever to release the Starbucks CCTV to the MSM.

 

There was absolutely no need or reason to release the kick and stomp clip to the MSM. Like every cropped video clip, it was an agenda designed to make the Police look like the perpetrators and the knuckledraggers look like the victims.

 

The question that should be asked. Is who released the cropped version of the video. Why did they do it, and are they being persued for posting inaccurate video.

 

The narrative changed rapidly when the second, fuller video was released.

 

Who ordered the witch-hunt to identify who had leaked the 2nd video ? Why did they order it, and why are they still in a job ?

 

The initial assault in Starbucks, caught on CCTV, backed up by a statement from the Starbucks manager, was more than enough grounds for arresting,

 

1. Headbutt knuckledragger

 

2. The mother on incitement to violence.

 

Instead of saying " Fair cop, Guv " they had to act like the knuckledraggers they are, by resisting arrest and getting all fighty - fighty.

 

Once again, the delays to the prosecution was to make sure the whole event was correctly and factually reported and for neither party to be blindsided by some else's, previously undisclosed smartphone video.

 

This ensures a thorough investigation and a prosecution that won't be at risk of being tossed out because someone was being less than honest.

 

If you think that the media needs to be investigated for manipulating any video, or the person who gave them (probably sold to them for a few hundred quid) the video, needs to be charged, that's a pretty sad indictment on your take on what makes for a safe society.

[The Cyclist]

29 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Once again, the delays to the prosecution was to make sure the whole event was correctly and factually reported and for neither party to be blindsided by some else's, previously undisclosed smartphone video.

 

I didn't mention delays to the prosecution. Why do you have the ability to read things that are not written ? 

 

Truly, it is a remarkable talent.

 

For the benefit of any doubt, this is what I said

 

51 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

There was no need or reason whatsoever to release the Starbucks CCTV to the MSM.

 

There was absolutely no need or reason to release the kick and stomp clip to the MSM. Like every cropped video clip, it was an agenda designed to make the Police look like the perpetrators and the knuckledraggers look like the victims.

 

32 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

If you think that the media needs to be investigated for manipulating any video, or the person who gave them (probably sold to them for a few hundred quid) the video, needs to be charged, that's a pretty sad indictment on your take on what makes for a safe society.

 

Again, I never mentioned the media being investigated.

 

I said

 

52 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

The question that should be asked. Is who released the cropped version of the video. Why did they do it, and are they being persued for posting inaccurate video.

 

The Police are under no obligation to release any information to the media, they will do so to provide public reassurance or to try and apprehend perpetrators.

 

The main point of that is that, there is no Law that compelled them to release information to the media, but they will do so if they have a reason to do so.

 

Anyway, keep working away at that magnificent talent, of reading things that have not been written.

 

Truly amazing talent, gawd must have gave you it.

[NanLaew]

15 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I didn't mention delays to the prosecution. Why do you have the ability to read things that are not written ? 

 

Truly, it is a remarkable talent.

 

For the benefit of any doubt, this is what I said

 

 

 

Again, I never mentioned the media being investigated.

 

I said

 

 

The Police are under no obligation to release any information to the media, they will do so to provide public reassurance or to try and apprehend perpetrators.

 

The main point of that is that, there is no Law that compelled them to release information to the media, but they will do so if they have a reason to do so.

 

Anyway, keep working away at that magnificent talent, of reading things that have not been written.

 

Truly amazing talent, gawd must have gave you it.

 

You are correct, I apologise. You didn't mention any delays and I misconstrued your opinion on the release of the videos. I confused you with members who hold to the rote conspiracy theories such as two-tier policing, etc..

 

As far as we know, the media weren't given the smartphone video by the police or the authorities. They may have been given (or bought) the first clip from a private individual. That may have already been edited by said individual, or they may have chosen to edit it themselves. The latter is unlikely as I first saw the "stomp/kick" clip on the Telegraph, not the Guardian and later, the same clip was aired on Sky.

 

What witch hunt BTW?

[The Cyclist]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

What witch hunt BTW?

 

The 1st video came from a mobile phone.

 

The 2nd video, was probably released by a Police Officer to counter the narrative being portrayed in the 1st video.

 

Quote

The police watchdog is to investigate whether someone working for the police released footage to the media of an incident at Manchester Airport.

 

Quote

Further footage emerged days later which showed the lead-up to the incident.

It showed two female police officers were struck to the ground before a man was incapacitated with a taser.

 

And as a surprise to absolutely no-one

 

Quote

Mr Anwar spoke of the family’s unhappiness at the release of the new footage and questioned how it had come into the public domain.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-09-06/police-watchdog-to-investigate-release-of-manchester-airport-incident-footage

 

Not a single word about the 1st video ( I wonder why 😀😀 ) and not happy with the 2nd video, as it completely destroyed the narrative portrayed in the 1st video.

[NanLaew]

3 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

The 1st video came from a mobile phone.

 

The 2nd video, was probably released by a Police Officer to counter the narrative being portrayed in the 1st video.

 

 

 

And as a surprise to absolutely no-one

 

 

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-09-06/police-watchdog-to-investigate-release-of-manchester-airport-incident-footage

 

Not a single word about the 1st video ( I wonder why 😀😀 ) and not happy with the 2nd video, as it completely destroyed the narrative portrayed in the 1st video.

 

Thanks.

 

The 2nd video, of the arrest attempt, appears to be from airport cctv? It is logical to assume a fellow police officer, without authorization, and angered by the narrative being created solely on the 1st video, released it. Since that footage would probably have already be part of the GMP evidence chain, there's maybe contempt of court here? It also could have been an airport security worker acting in "the public's best interest" that maybe released it?

 

The third "Starbucks" cctv video would normally have made this an open and shut case but the 2nd video, despite revealing the fuller picture of what went wrong and and who did wrong, unfortunately opened this can of worms.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

 

The first consideration of the police is for the safety of the general public and grabbing the guy from behind while in close proximity to family and other members of the public tells me they ignored the public safety aspect. This allowed themselves to be "boxed in" and did not factor in that there's was an accomplice in the first assault at Starbucks.

 

That's possibly due to the report they received about that first assault focused on a "guy in blue", so they went for the "guy in blue." But they did it wrong by not isolating him first and neutralising any intervention. They rather "waded in" or as you prefer "mob handed" and without due caution. The police did not do themselves any favours here.

 

This pair of thugs are as guilty as sin, there's absolutely no doubt about it. However, there's probably one policeman who will bear some responsibility for how it ended but that should not detract from the punishment that will be served on the two thugs. I do not see any "mitigating circumstances" at all.

The first consideration of the police is for the safety of the general public and grabbing the guy from behind while in close proximity to family and other members of the public tells me they ignored the public safety aspect. This allowed themselves to be "boxed in" and did not factor in that there's was an accomplice in the first assault at Starbucks.

 

Absolute nonsense. He was apprehended safely, the police didn't realize he would go crazy and break a police women's nose before the put him down hard.

 

 

 

 

 

[petermik]

I was out last night with friends from Rochdale and apparently both brothers are members of a Boxing Club in the area....their solemn and smartly dressed appearance is a long way from what is their norm....

My regret is that this didn`t happen in the US as the brothers might not be here to tell their side of the story....

Thugs pure and simple and for guys on here to try and defend their actions is disgraceful....

[NanLaew]

32 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The first consideration of the police is for the safety of the general public and grabbing the guy from behind while in close proximity to family and other members of the public tells me they ignored the public safety aspect. This allowed themselves to be "boxed in" and did not factor in that there's was an accomplice in the first assault at Starbucks.

 

Absolute nonsense. He was apprehended safely, the police didn't realize he would go crazy and break a police women's nose before the put him down hard.

 

 

We've already seen that video many times.

 

If he was "apprehended safely" how come three police officers required hospitalisation? How come a taser was needed?

 

The fact, as you state it, that the police "didn't realise" he would kick off is proof that their initial attempt to arrest was performed very poorly and allowed things to kick off. He could have pulled a knife, or even a gun. The arresting officers had no clue as to what they were getting into but behaved like they did.

 

Do you honestly think that everyone just puts their hands up and goes peaceably whenever a policeman lays hands on them? These police apparently thought so... or maybe they momentarily forgot their basic training and ignored the safety of the general public. Maybe that's because they're trained as "airport anti-terrorist" police and not the "Saturday night after the pubs are out" police?

[NanLaew]

12 minutes ago, petermik said:

I was out last night with friends from Rochdale and apparently both brothers are members of a Boxing Club in the area....their solemn and smartly dressed appearance is a long way from what is their norm....

My regret is that this didn`t happen in the US as the brothers might not be here to tell their side of the story....

Thugs pure and simple and for guys on here to try and defend their actions is disgraceful....

 

I thought as much when I saw how quickly the "guy in blue" danced around, decking three police officers in about 8 seconds.

 

Who on here is defending their actions?

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

We've already seen that video many times.

 

If he was "apprehended safely" how come three police officers required hospitalisation? How come a taser was needed?

 

The fact, as you state it, that the police "didn't realise" he would kick off is proof that their initial attempt to arrest was performed very poorly and allowed things to kick off. He could have pulled a knife, or even a gun. The arresting officers had no clue as to what they were getting into but behaved like they did.

 

Do you honestly think that everyone just puts their hands up and goes peaceably whenever a policeman lays hands on them? These police apparently thought so... or maybe they momentarily forgot their basic training and ignored the safety of the general public. Maybe that's because they're trained as "airport anti-terrorist" police and not the "Saturday night after the pubs are out" police?

Of course he was apprehended safely. The police cannot go in hard every time they arrest someone. This was an extreme incident and they reacted appropriately, enough of your excuses and victim blaming the police. 

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Of course he was apprehended safely. The police cannot go in hard every time they arrest someone. This was an extreme incident and they reacted appropriately, enough of your excuses and victim blaming the police. 

 

WATCH the video.

 

They DID go in hard.

 

They totally failed to SAFELY apprehend ANYONE.

 

I have no experience as a police officer, but coming from two generations of UK law enforcement, I am certainly not about "victim blaming the police."

 

Those pair of hoodlums need locking up, and the sooner, the better.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

WATCH the video.

 

They DID go in hard.

 

They totally failed to SAFELY apprehend ANYONE.

 

I have no experience as a police officer, but coming from two generations of UK law enforcement, I am certainly not about "victim blaming the police."

 

Those pair of hoodlums need locking up, and the sooner, the better.

I watched the video and they used reasonable force at all times, adapting to the situation as necessary, as stated in court by the police, their conduct was professional.

 

You are just making things up now

 

As for those pair of hoodlums, of course they need locking up but without any need to blame the police.

[The Cyclist]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

The 2nd video, of the arrest attempt, appears to be from airport cctv? It is logical to assume a fellow police officer, without authorization,

 

No, it is not logical to assume

 

It could have been an airport worker that released it to the media, who had seen the whole incident and was peed off about the  narrative / agenda of 1st video.

[The Cyclist]

13 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

They DID go in hard.

 

If you think that was going in hard.

 

We live and experienced different Worlds.

[NanLaew]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I watched the video and they used reasonable force at all times, adapting to the situation as necessary, as stated in court by the police, their conduct was professional.

 

They only had about 3 or 4 seconds of "reasonable force" where they correctly body-slammed the "guy in blue" but they didn't realize his brother was going to start punching and kicking. They weren't prepared. It was a botched arrest from the get go.

 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You are just making things up now

 

It's my opinion that you are "making things up" by claiming that anyone here was "apprehended safely".

 

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

As for those pair of hoodlums, of course they need locking up without any need to blame the police.

 

Agreed on the fate of these thugs but please, try and tell me where I have blamed the police for causing the actions of these thugs

[Bkk Brian]

18 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

They only had about 3 or 4 seconds of "reasonable force" where they correctly body-slammed the "guy in blue" but they didn't realize his brother was going to start punching and kicking. They weren't prepared. It was a botched arrest from the get go.

 

 

It's my opinion that you are "making things up" by claiming that anyone here was "apprehended safely".

 

 

Agreed on the fate of these thugs but please, try and tell me where I have blamed the police for causing the actions of these thugs

 please, try and tell me where I have blamed the police for causing the actions of these thugs

 

Now read your post again,

 

18 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

They only had about 3 or 4 seconds of "reasonable force" where they correctly body-slammed the "guy in blue" but they didn't realize his brother was going to start punching and kicking. They weren't prepared. It was a botched arrest from the get go.

 

 

[NanLaew]

16 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

No, it is not logical to assume

 

It could have been an airport worker that released it to the media, who had seen the whole incident and was peed off about the  narrative / agenda of 1st video.

 

That's fundamentally what I said, either an airport security worker or any airport worker with access to airport cctv. Maybe even a friend of the disaffected policeman and/or the angry airport staff? The variations are endless, so any thorough investigation witch hunt would take time.

 

The end result is the same, the supposition that a policeman didn't like the media narrative after the first clip, or someone not involved with law enforcement didn't like the media narrative after the first clip.

 

As you pointed out earlier, the GMP are investigating the leak which, if it was going to be used as evidence in the prosecution, could be considered to be inadmissible by any defence lawyer, but that's for the judge to decide.

[The Cyclist]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

That's fundamentally what I said, either an airport security worker or any airport worker with access to airport cctv. Maybe even a friend of the disaffected policeman and/or the angry airport staff? The variations are endless, so any thorough investigation witch hunt would take time.

 

The question I posed, was, why was there a witch-hunt at all ?
 

After all, the truth should out, and be what is sought, ( you might know these words ) without " Fear or Favour "

 

And why would the Police get antsy about a video debunking another video that tried to paint the Police in a bad light.

 

I could give you the answer, you probably will not like it.

 

[josephbloggs]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes, the left wing MSM were clearly trying to focus on the "brutal, racist police attacking minorities" angle. They were probably trying to stoke up some kind of comparison to the George Floyd incident. Maybe smoke the BLM leaders out of their luxury mansions, sorry I mean charity headquarters, to stir up some "mostly peaceful" protesting.

 

Only much later did it quietly emerge that they'd headbutted the man in Starbucks in front of his young children and then broken the female police officer's nose. At which point it all went very quiet as they hoped the story would just fade away. Or at least, draw out the "due process" long enough to get the 2 tier sentencing guidelines in place. 

 

Fortunately, Reform had other ideas. 

 

 

Nigel Farage's wet dream.

I can't believe that any grown man can believe what you say or worship a proven grifter so sycophantically and unquestionably. It really makes anything you write immediately dismissible. It is quite amusing though. Now bringing BLM and George Floyd in to things, wow.

Jeez.

[NanLaew]

9 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

And why would the Police get antsy about a video debunking another video that tried to paint the Police in a bad light.

 

As I suggested earlier, if that favourable second video that undeniably gives a fuller picture of how it played out was already 'sealed' in the evidence chain for use in court, it's airing on open media may render it worthless.

 

It won't get the thugs off the hook, and I don't want them to get off the hook one little bit, but we have seen before, once charges have been laid, how someone acting in what they believe to be in the public's interest, can work against what they claim to be doing.

 

9 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

I could give you the answer, you probably will not like it.

 

Try me, what have you got to lose?

[josephbloggs]

1 hour ago, petermik said:

I was out last night with friends from Rochdale and apparently both brothers are members of a Boxing Club in the area....their solemn and smartly dressed appearance is a long way from what is their norm....

My regret is that this didn`t happen in the US as the brothers might not be here to tell their side of the story....

Thugs pure and simple and for guys on here to try and defend their actions is disgraceful....

Name one single person in this entire thread who has defended the attackers. Post one single quote where anybody has supported or defended them. You can't, because nobody has.

Why do you feel the need to make things up?

[Bkk Brian]

The defense team of these scum also doing their best to blame the police for this incident.

 

"Imran Khan KC, defending Amaaz, cross-examined PC Marsden about his tactics and whether the injury was directly related to his actions."

 

Officer denies he 'lost control' attempting to arrest brothers at Manchester Airport, court hears

https://news.sky.com/story/officer-denies-he-lost-control-attempting-to-arrest-brothers-at-manchester-airport-court-hears-13394673

[The Cyclist]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

As I suggested earlier, if that favourable second video that undeniably gives a fuller picture of how it played out was already 'sealed' in the evidence chain for use in court, it's airing on open media may render it worthless.

 

Speculation on your part.

 

We have no idea at what point it became sealed in evidence. Or who donated it to the Media.

 

The point I am making. Is why would the Police be chasing down whoever leaked, when it made 2 things absolutely clear

 

1. The first video was a hatchet job on the Police

 

2 . The Second video debunked the 1st video and actually paints the Police in a good light.

 

It makes no sense, to anyone with a brain to go chasing the person that leaked it.

 

Unless of course, there really is an establishment effort to keep all things Muslim related to wrongdoing out of the Media and the public eye.

[NanLaew]

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Nigel Farage's wet dream.

I can't believe that any grown man can believe what you say or worship a proven grifter so sycophantically and unquestionably. It really makes anything you write immediately dismissible. It is quite amusing though. Now bringing BLM and George Floyd in to things, wow.

Jeez.

 

Have you also noticed that they are quick to admonish those that they disagree with by making comments like, "I never mentioned race, so why have you brought it up?"

 

But when they do...

 

Of course, they are also first to crow long and loud, "I'm not racist" and "Some of my best friends are [insert race. ethnicity and/or colour here]"