Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » international politics » “alledgedly”????


Khalid Ahmed, 27, is in a Scottish hospital with burns suffered after allegedly crashing a Jeep Cherokee into the Glasgow airport a day after police found two unexploded car bombs in central London.”The prognosis is not good and he is not likely to survive,” a member of the medical team that treated him at the Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow said on condition of anonymity because details about patients’ condition are not to be made public.”He has third-degree burns over most of his torso and limbs. It is beyond repair and because he has lost so much skin he is now vulnerable to infection and won’t be able to fight (CNN)

“alledgedly” ??? Oh come on, some one in CNN’s copy writing section has to be joking right? Well one thing that is pleasing for anyone with a sense of justice is that Ahmed is not likely to survive.But I do give thanks to modern medicine for giving him a chance, to suffer greatly before he dies.

Cheers 😉


  1. Ollie says:

    How does wishing death and suffering on this man make you any different to the jihadists you condemn?

    Your crowing bloodlust is profoundly disturbing.

  2. Iain says:

    I thought that you would never come back Olivia, after you last sortie here. 😉
    But to answer your question, I celebrate the poetic justice that this man who sought to cause so much death to so many innocents is instead suffering a slow and horrible death. He and his ilk are in love with death the killing, for the sake a o reward in paradise but I just want to see justice in this world for the makers atrocities like 9/11 and any other terrorist outrage you care to name.

  3. Ollie aka Liv aka Elf says:


    yes, that pretty much answers my question.

    I really don’t understand why you keep calling me “Olivia”. I told you that isn’t my name. And I asked you to call me by the name I post with.

    Why do you persist? Is it a bully thing ?

  4. Mark L. says:

    I’ve said it before but I’m with Ollie. Laughing and dancing because someone burns to death doesn’t further an argument, but it does reveal something about your own character. ‘An eye for an eye and the whole world ends up blind’, said Ghandi. Sage advice, I think.

    The word “allegedly” is used for two reasons: to reinforce the precept of innocent-until-proven-guilty, and to legally protect media outlets (who are expected to be more responsible and substantive than country bloggers).

  5. Iain says:

    The trouble with citing Gandhi in the context of the current threat of Jihadist Terrorism is that he was facing the British, who have a long history of being prepared to seek a negotiated solution to conflicts and are amenable to appeals to their better nature. But the enemy that we face is far less amenable to such appeals.
    Perhaps I should take your claims of a legal background a little more seriously . But in this case the presumption of innocence is purely academic; he was both caught in the act and his villainy was recorded and broadcast around the world.
    When it comes to justice the reality is that I am just saying what many people actually think but are to afraid to admit. So don’t get all high and mighty and claim that my position on this proves what an evil person I am.

  6. Iain says:

    I will address you as I please. And as you are well aware of that after your last time here I don’t think that you should complain that much. Your comments are moderated anyway so don’t expect any further whining about such things to be allowed or I may well remember that I said that you needed to have a valid email address to comment further…

  7. Mark L. says:

    Iain, the presumption of innocence is not just some abstract piece of coffee-shop banter; it is a core principle of our legal system. No matter how overwhelming the evidence, all those charged with a crime are entitled to it, and rightly so. Sure, in this case it looks irrefutable. It also looked that way for the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.

    As for Ghandi’s quote, it is a timeless principle, not a policy statement; it applies to all conflicts and all contexts. When two sides began killing each other, each time claiming retaliation, it’s never going to end unless one is prepared to solve the problem through other means.

  8. MK says:

    “…he is not likely to survive…” excellant, at least one of these scumbags will get what’s richly deserved.

  9. Iain says:

    I am well aware of the legal principles involved here. But surely you have to acknowledge that in the case of this chap it is very much a moot point.
    Your comparison with both the Guilford four and the Birmingham six does not really hold up either because unlike both of those cases this chap was caught very much red handed with a smoking petrol can, where as both the Guilford four and the Birmingham six were arrested very much after the fact.

  10. Mark L. says:

    Yes, it looks almost certain that he’s guilty. I’m not harping about this because I think this guy might be innocent – but because the next accused criminal may well be. Due process applies to all, otherwise it wouldn’t be fair and equal.

    And the Guildford and Birmingham ‘terrorists’ all signed confessions, later shown to be extracted by duress. Just about everyone had written them off as guilty too, regardless of their being apprehended after the fact.

  11. Elijah says:

    Ollie, wishing death on someone for rejecting the Enlightenment is rather different for wishing death on someone because they’ve accepted it, wouldn’t you say?

  12. Madd McColl says:

    It’s horrible Iain that you clearly wish death, pain etc.. on this man for, let’s face it, your pleasure and what you call ‘justice’.

    How do we promote, what I believe, are our superior ideals and standards when we’ve people like yourself baying for bloody painfull retribution every time something like this occurs?

    I’m against capital punishment, and despite what some wishy washy conservatives have to say on the issue that means that I’m against ALL cases of it. Not because it doesn’t work, because it’s immoral. Our society now realises that these primitive instincts you’re so clearly proud to display shouldn’t guide our judgements.

    Are you condoning ‘an eye for an eye’? How about ‘a rape for a rape’, or a ‘you killed my mother we’ll kill yours’? Aren’t we beyond this tripe?

  13. Iain says:

    I respect your principled position on capital punishment even though I disagree with it. My position is not however based on any notion of simple retribution as is suggested by the last part of your comment. I have enunciated my position in my blog on several occasions but to reiterate there are some crimes for which even a life time behind bars is manifestly inadequate. But I also think that an even higher standard of proof than we currently expect in a criminal trial (which is beyond reasonable doubt) should be expected for a capital case.
    But ultimately when it comes down to Jihadists who have such an absolutist position that is beyond compromise it makes good sense to excise their cancer from humanity. Now I would love it if this were possible by the application of reason and accommodation but in the absence of that the only way that we can neutralise their threat is to kill them.

  14. Ollie says:

    You still don’t get it, do you?

    It’s not about the fact that you support death for these people. It’s about your ghoulish celebration of their pain and suffering. It’s about you glibly joking about their death. It’s about you filling you blog with tripe that indicates that you are happy to watch someone die painfully.

    There is something fundamentally disturbing about it and it goes well beyond mere support for capital punishment in certain cases.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: