| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Hiz Princess
United Kingdom
464 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Sep 2008 : 22:44:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
You have insulted me by asking me to take the place of a criminal in Mile 2. Of all the people in the world why did you choose innocent me?
Im sure Charlie asked the same question. That incidentally was a hypothetical question not an insult there is a difference I think you may find.
quote:
All my arguements are based on facts and common sense.Carnegie and Charles Nortfield knew and understand the legal and judicial environment in the Gambia when they chose to invest and work there. They must have found the justice delivery system free and fair to have invested and worked there for so long. Any explaination otherwise lacks merit.
I still await the source/s of the 'Facts' you have quoted from.
Common sense unfortunately does not stand up in a court of law.
To date, unless I am mistaken the Government has still to provide their version ' of events.
Incidentally I know of a few people that have invested in business in Gambia thinking they understood the 'system' unfortunately and at not only to their costs but also the Economies, they have learned that 'thing's are never what they seem there.' Many people are either attempting now to sell up or counting their losses and leaving a place they believed they were helping.
I have worked for a few years on and off in Gambia and have witnessed numerous occasions when the 'goal posts' are moved to benefit some, more than others.
I find the Judicial system neither free or fair unless of course you have funds to enable it to be that way, yet still I return, my creditability must be in tatters.
|
 |
|
|
Hiz Princess
United Kingdom
464 Posts |
Posted - 08 Sep 2008 : 22:51:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
The way things are going now, this company could possibly be tempted to file a case in the International commercial Arbitration Court, which sits at the Privy Council, along Downing Street, in London, against the Gambia and claim awesome sum of US Dollars payable by the Gambian Taxpayers as was the case in the Almenta saga. What a joke!
This is quite a concern
Like I said its the man on the street that will carry the burden.
How does International Commercial Arbitration Court work is it on similar lines to ACAS? |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 09 Sep 2008 : 00:22:41
|
It is up to you point out what you want answered. What facts exactly are you looking for. You don't want me to quote sources for every sentence i wrote do you?. Like i pointed out earlier the Government's version of events would have unfolded in court as and when demanded if only Charlie and Carnegie had not bolted.
The people at Carnegie must be blind as bats and deaf as planks if they have never heard of "Alimentagate", the extra judiciary arrest and murders, noctonal dissapearance, and deliberate goverment interferance in the judiciary system among others. Things have alway been what they are since the APRC came to power. To tell me Carnegies is oblivious to what is happening in the Gambia is utter nonsense. The fact is that they don't give a hoot about the plight of the Gambian people so long as their pocket continued to be lined with hyper profits from the "loot" of Gambia minerals in cohort with a dictator and his pals. For a Legal fool to come around and tell us that the British government was responsible for the rescue of Charlie is a falacy until such is proven. British nationals have been imprisoned in Mile 2 by the courts of this regime and fed porridge until they bloated. No British Government rescued them by illegally invading the sovereign nation of the Gambia. What is so special about Charlie. The notion that a sovereign nation should be invaded just because its leadership and/or its justice delivery system is found wanting is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. Maybe Jammeh should consider invading Britain because Gambian immigrants are detained in British detention centres for months without access to legal aid.
With all this said i can safely tell you Charlie is one of the luckiest persons in recent times to have gone through the crimal justice system in the Gambia. He had a brilliant advocate in Lawyer Mene and was brought in front of honourable judges who had not hesitated to tell the prosecution to shove it up theirs and stood up for fair and speedy justice. This cannot be said of Fatou Jaw Manneh and so many others who had seen the worst. Who is friggin Charlie to mock our justice system.
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 09 Sep 2008 : 11:46:39
|
Shaka,sensible piece thanks,one little niggling problem:
Maybe Jammeh should consider invading Britain because Gambian immigrants are detained in British detention centres for months without access to legal aid.
Really? In the caring sharing politically correct atmosphere that exists in UK today I find this hard to believe,should such a person be white and middle class then I would believe that,but a Gambian in the UK not being given everything possible No.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Hiz Princess
United Kingdom
464 Posts |
Posted - 09 Sep 2008 : 22:40:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
It is up to you point out what you want answered. What facts exactly are you looking for. You don't want me to quote sources for every sentence i wrote do you?.
I can only assume from that response that you may have none and your statements are based on your opinion. Which of course we are all entitled to express.
Though I do find it unfair that you condemn anything anyone else says even with supporting documentation while you have offered none.
quote:
The people at Carnegie must be blind as bats and deaf as planks if they have never heard of "Alimentagate", the extra judiciary arrest and murders, noctonal dissapearance, and deliberate goverment interferance in the judiciary system among others. Things have alway been what they are since the APRC came to power. To tell me Carnegies is oblivious to what is happening in the Gambia is utter nonsense. The fact is that they don't give a hoot about the plight of the Gambian people so long as their pocket continued to be lined with hyper profits from the "loot" of Gambia minerals in cohort with a dictator and his pals.
I cannot speak on behalf of Carnegie or any other large invester on what they did or did not know about "Alimentagate" or any other corruption I wouldn't be that bold.
My comments were of small business, bars ,lodgings etc. I have no doubt any investor invests in order to gain a return isnt that the point? But I agree not all do it, just to take take take many give back a little something to the local econmey but this is not the issue.
quote:
For a Legal fool to come around and tell us that the British government was responsible for the rescue of Charlie is a falacy until such is proven. British nationals have been imprisoned in Mile 2 by the courts of this regime and fed porridge until they bloated. No British Government rescued them by illegally invading the sovereign nation of the Gambia. What is so special about Charlie. The notion that a sovereign nation should be invaded just because its leadership and/or its justice delivery system is found wanting is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. Maybe Jammeh should consider invading Britain because Gambian immigrants are detained in British detention centres for months without access to legal aid.
With all this said i can safely tell you Charlie is one of the luckiest persons in recent times to have gone through the crimal justice system in the Gambia. He had a brilliant advocate in Lawyer Mene and was brought in front of honourable judges who had not hesitated to tell the prosecution to shove it up theirs and stood up for fair and speedy justice. This cannot be said of Fatou Jaw Manneh and so many others who had seen the worst. Who is friggin Charlie to mock our justice system.
As the rest of this tirade is not directed at me forgive me for not responding i'll leave that to the poster it is aimed at. |
|
|
|
Hiz Princess
United Kingdom
464 Posts |
Posted - 09 Sep 2008 : 22:55:42
|
You and me both Toubab
Are undocumented migrants entitled at any time to free legal aid from a jurist or lawyer?
Undocumented migrants have access to legal aid, and also to numerous advice agencies usually free of charge. However, since April 2001 it has been a criminal offence for an advisor to provide immigration advice or services unless their organization is either registered with the OISC (Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner), or exempted by the OISC.
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 09 Sep 2008 : 23:05:12
|
| Toubab you will be surprise that there are hundreds of failed assylum seekers and those who are deemed to be eligible for deportation, have been languishing in British detention centres for months and even years without recourse to legal aid and it is getting worse now as all detainees who are qualified for legal aid are only elligible for five hours of legal services only, nothing more. What can you possibly benefit from five hours of legal aid |
Edited by - shaka on 09 Sep 2008 23:27:21 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 10 Sep 2008 : 01:00:22
|
OFF TOPIC BUT I WILL RESPOND.
SHaka, if what you say is a fact,I find it very surprising and did not know of this.The only thing I knew is that persons who are deemed not to be able to live in the UK (I will call them that for the sake of clarity) and are eligable for deportation would be deported,BUT because many of these people do not give verifable information as to which is their "home" country are not deported.
Those people who give correct information have to be accepted by their home country sometimes the home country refuses, sometimes because the home country would Kill them on their return,what is the poor UK (the land of gold paved streets) to do? send them back to their death ? not fair really,send them where? if they do not give verifiable information .
Upon landing somewhere and be refused entry at that place.Big problem, what do you do let these poor unfortunates in to be looked after by those already in the UK? I am sure their children are educated and everyone is given medical care,and a bed and food.
Big problem for government who given the circumstances feed clothe and look after these unfortunates in conditions that are far superior from the place that is their "home" country.
The UK Government would love to deport the lot and solve the problem but because of the reasons outlined cannot,give them all legal aid?,to grind though the courts and appeal after appeal legal letters to this department and that department who is going to pay the lawyers fees? those detained of course not.
Ah......... yes the taxpayers that's OK then, perhaps Gordon Brown should introduce another tax on the British people the legal aid deportation appeals tax. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 10 Sep 2008 13:26:58 |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11824 Posts |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 10 Sep 2008 : 18:05:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
Shaka,sensible piece thanks,one little niggling problem:
Maybe Jammeh should consider invading Britain because Gambian immigrants are detained in British detention centres for months without access to legal aid.
Really? In the caring sharing politically correct atmosphere that exists in UK today I find this hard to believe,should such a person be white and middle class then I would believe that,but a Gambian in the UK not being given everything possible No.
Regardless of what you may think of the UK, their Justice System is the envy of the whole world. Free, fair, independent, robust, resourceful, deligent, you name them.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 10 Sep 2008 : 18:19:40
|
Not everybody living in the UK has a right to access Legal aid. As per most visa conditions, the Home Office does make it clear that holders do not have recourse to Public Funds. Given that Legal aid comes from the public purse, this automatically disqualifies certain catagory of immigrants [except in exceptional cases where the Home Secretary may exercise discretion to weiver the restriction] as such immigrants must have satisfied the relevant authorities that they have sufficient funds to support themselves while in the country, prior to their entry into the UK.
Even British citizens are not always given access to Legal aid. You have to meet certain requirements, and if you are engaged in meaningful employment, your chances of getting it is quite slim if not non-existent.
Beside, Legal aid is purely an administrative matter managed by a government Department, not the courts. So how it is managed cannot be used as a yardstick to assess the independence and fairness of the British Judiciary. That would simply be ludicrous.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 10 Sep 2008 18:41:28 |
|
|
|
Hiz Princess
United Kingdom
464 Posts |
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2008 : 01:29:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Not everybody living in the UK has a right to access Legal aid. As per most visa conditions, the Home Office does make it clear that holders do not have recourse to Public Funds. Given that Legal aid comes from the public purse, this automatically disqualifies certain catagory of immigrants [except in exceptional cases where the Home Secretary may exercise discretion to weiver the restriction] as such immigrants must have satisfied the relevant authorities that they have sufficient funds to support themselves while in the country, prior to their entry into the UK.
Even British citizens are not always given access to Legal aid. You have to meet certain requirements, and if you are engaged in meaningful employment, your chances of getting it is quite slim if not non-existent.
Beside, Legal aid is purely an administrative matter managed by a government Department, not the courts. So how it is managed cannot be used as a yardstick to assess the independence and fairness of the British Judiciary. That would simply be ludicrous.
Thanks
That makes this legal aid matter much clearer for me,thank you,I suppose lawyers could offer their services for free to help these unfortunates,or would that be unethical and a breach of legal dogma?even if good free legal advice was available there would be no one to pay the court fees which are very expensive,so you couldn't get a court hearing anyway,dispite the court system being the envy of the world.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 11 Sep 2008 01:39:18 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2008 : 01:34:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Momodou
He is now wanted:
http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/2008/9/10/carniegie-minerals-boss-wanted
It seems strange that a Judge or magistrate has not apparantly issued a warrant for his arrest,only, a report in a newspaper that a government department has issued a press release saying he is wanted. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2008 : 12:11:26
|
| In the U.S. the right to counsel (right to an attorney) is protected by the 6th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. However, this right to a government appointed consel at no charge to the defendant is often restricted to capital cases only. Immigration cases are often not capital cases, so while the right to counsel is still applicable, there may be no right to government appointed counsel... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
