The trial

of these scumbags started yesterday but i haven't heard much about it.

link

Well they are still selecting the jury, so the trial hasn't started yet, but I am sure that when it does, it will be all over the news channels and newspapers

why is it taking so long to select a jury?

Basil

The jury has now been sworn in, and the trial begins this very afternoon LINK

well let's hope, that now it will be all over the TV and Papers

Todays Telegraph

Two brothers headbutted a stranger in a Starbucks before assaulting police officers at Manchester Airport, a jury has heard.
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and Muhammad Amaad, 26, allegedly used a “high level of violence” after police were called to respond to an earlier incident at the cafe in Terminal 2 on July 23 last year.
Opening the prosecution case on Friday, Paul Greaney KC, said officers who were already in the airport later traced them at the terminal’s car park payment area.
Three officers, Pc Zachary Marsden and emergency worker Pc Ellie Cook – both armed – and Pc Lydia Ward, unarmed, approached the defendants, he said. They were then attacked.
‘Not a complicated case’
Mr Greaney told jurors the prosecution’s position was “not a complicated case”.
He said: “The events you are concerned with were captured by CCTV cameras and, in relation to the events in the payment area on the body-worn cameras of police officers as well.
“So you will not have to depend only on the recollections of witnesses. You will also be able to see with your own eyes what happened.
“The two defendants assert, as we understand it, that at all stages they were acting in lawful self-defence or in defence of the other.
“Our prediction is that you will readily conclude that the defendants were not acting in lawful self-defence and that their conduct was unlawful.”
‘Entirely unlawful’
Mr Greaney said the defendants had travelled to the airport with their young nephew to collect their mother who was due to arrive back on a flight from Qatar at Terminal 2.
Jurors were then shown the CCTV footage from the incident at Starbucks, lasting around one minute and 50 seconds, before it was replayed for a second time.
The footage showed defendants walking past the shop until their mother sees the man she had the disagreement with and points him out to her sons.
Her youngest son then appears to confront a man named Abdulkareem Ismaeil, who was on the same flight as the defendants’ mother. He was travelling with his wife and three young children.

The prosecutor said, “it is clear that on the flight and/or shortly after it landed, something happened between the defendants’ mother and Abdulkareem Ismaeil that made the defendants’ mother unhappy.
“At just after 8.20pm, the defendants’ mother spotted Abdulkareem Ismaeil and pointed him out to her sons. The footage shows Mr Ismaeil backed against the counter of the Starbucks with Amaaz close to him.
“During that confrontation, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz delivered a headbutt to the face of Abdulkareem Ismaeil and punched him, then attempted to deliver other blows, all in front of a number of children.
Mr Greaney told jurors the violence was entirely unlawful and delivered out of “anger” and not in self-defence.
The prosecutor said Mr Ismaeil is not a witness so the jury will not hear from him.
He was visiting the UK with his family and just wanted to get on with his holiday and declined to give a statement to police.
Mr Greaney added: “However, the absence of evidence from him makes it no less easy to conclude that the first defendant behaved unlawfully in Starbucks.”
‘High level of violence’
Jurors were then played CCTV footage from when the three uniformed police officers entered the car park pay station at 8.28pm.
Mr Greaney said: “The officers attempted to move Mohammed Fahir Amaaz away from a payment machine in order to arrest him, but he resisted, and his brother Muhammad Amaad intervened.
“Both defendants assaulted Pc Marsden. In the moments that followed, the first defendant also assaulted Pc Cook and then Pc Ward too, breaking her nose. The defendants used a high level of violence.
“He [Amaaz] was still holding Pc Marsden round the neck as he fell, dragging the officer to the floor with him. At that point, Pc Marsden was able to roll away and get to his feet.
“The first defendant [Amaaz] then raised and moved his head towards Pc Marsden who, it seems, in response kicked him to the face and then brought his foot down towards the top of his head in what looks like a stamping motion.
“We recognise those actions look rather shocking in the cold light of day, but we suggest they need to be judged in the context of the very serious level of threat posed by the defendants to an officer, who was concerned that his firearm might be taken from him at an airport.”
‘Offensively, not defensively’
Mr Amaaz is alleged to have assaulted Pc Marsden and Pc Ward, causing them actual bodily harm.
He is also accused of the assault of Pc Cook and the earlier assault of Abdulkareem Ismaeil at Starbucks.
Amaad, 26, is alleged to have assaulted Pc Marsden, causing actual bodily harm.
Both men, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, deny the allegations.
Mr Greaney said: “In any event, those actions all occurred after the violence of the defendants.
“The position of the prosecution is that they are logically irrelevant to the lawfulness of the conduct of Mohammed Fahir Amaaz and Muhammad Amaad as charged in the indictment.
“What you have seen is the two defendants acting offensively, not defensively. The position of the prosecution is that their apparent defence of self-defence is false.”
The trial continues.

Thank you Gaffer

mails reporting on it as well, don't know if there owt on TV

It's on the BBC website too.

Basil

The trial is being held at Liverpool Crown Court, so why don't you go and see if you can sit in the public gallery and watch the trial

It's just been reported on telly.
As per gaffer's article, the prosecuting barrister, Paul Greaney KC says it's “not a complicated case”.
I agree. All the evidence is there to see. So, if it's not a complicated case, why is it going to last three weeks?

because lawyers and solicitors are leeches and bleed the system as much as they can,

Better be ready for protest and riots if they are convicted.....They will kick off grand style....Personally give them 10yrs each...

Comment Deleated

Fight

Ive never seen this footage before.
Thanks for posting it, gaffer.

The poor policewoman was clearly traumatised and certainly did not deserve or expect that kind of viscious assault, especially when you are only doing your job.

I hope they throw the book at them with a long sentence.

Never mind the uniform they should be jailed for hitting women Very brave men but it is probably norm in their culture.Can they be deported

Expect better of you @tomplum. That's the sort of thing I would expect from Walshy, not someone as reasonable as you

i agree with plummy, vets and dentists are the same

Tom, I've said it for years The Lawyers and Barristers who get people off from crimes they did. Due to some technicalities, are as bad, if not worse, than the original perpetrators. How do they sleep at night???
Can you imagine how you would feel if some Scumbag, robbed and assaulted, your old Grandma in her home. and Got off with it Because of some made up mental health problem.. Which obviously, their lawyer has been told them what to say,

Ron, many years ago I put your scenario to a lawyer who was a non executive director for the company I was with.
He said that in our legal system everyone is entitled to a defence. If that person is obviously guilty the lawyers task is to ensure a fair trial and make sure the prosecution proves the case beyond all reasonable doubt. At the end of the trial the lawyer may propose a plea deal or to try for a lesser sentence.

WNwanderer, Thanks for seeing myself as a reasonable person but. That is my opinion of law trained people, They feed off peoples tragedy's and make a big meal of it, This is a clear cut case of, violent people causing chaos in an airport and when police stopped them, They are claiming to be innocent bystanders and The lawyers and solicitors are making a great deal of money from it, It seems most agree with me,

@TomPlum

Most are wrong. Look into what criminal solicitors and barristers get, and it's nowhere near what you think. As a lot of it is funded by legal aid, it's set rates.

No doubt the rags will publish how they've been paid £xxx,xxx without explaining in that how 20% of it is VAT and goes back to the gov, how many hours are spent on the case (because despite what public opinion is, without competent representation the scumbags may cry mistrial and get away with it), as well as loads of other things you wouldn't even consider.

If you use Twitter or X as it's called, have a read through the Secret Barrister account, he gives a good breakdown of the true costs etc.

The real money in law is everywhere but in criminal law .

Wnwanderer , I base my opinion on personal experience, I once did a job for a married couple who bought a old barn in Parbold and converted it into a very posh house, I did the plumbing for them and, They were very nice to begin with, He is a lawyer and she is a solicitor and they agreed my estimate and paid a, ' down payment' to cement the deal, Getting the rest of the money became a nightmare, Not just for me but ALL of the contractors had to beg for payments, They nit picked and demanded work redone to their liking and beyond what was agreed and My final payment only just covered my time and materials, They are 'Orrible people,

That's an awful thing to happen, Tom, and it happens so often. It happens to my company as well. The more well off people are, the more likely they are to hold on to their purse strings. Poorer people on the other hand can't wait to get their invoices as they don't want to be in debt for fear of being sued.

A friend of mine once took her bosses (solicitors) to an Industrial Tribunal. It's a very long story so I won't bore you with it, but I went with her and stood with her on the Plaintiff's side. Her bosses got a (then) Queen's Counsellor to act for them. Obviously didn't trust themselves so hired the big guns. I was guiding my friend the best way I could as she was extremely nervous when he mentioned a particular thing and I wrote "FRIVOLOUS VEXATION" in big red letters on a pad, which the QC saw. At recess, he asked me who I was. I just said of Mrs S ..... and he tried to discuss the case with me, but I clammed up and he went to lunch.

Guess what? My friend won her case, with my help against two solicitors and a Queen's Counsellor, but that was a long time ago now.

Sorry to have gone off track, but everyone has the right to Counsel, even though the evidence shows there is no mitigation, which is the case in this trial, but without fair trials, the country would run into absolute chaos.

A young solicitor once told me that everyone in this country, and whatever wrong they have done, everyone is 'entitled' to 'representation' and folk tend to call solicitors rotten, that is until they get into trouble, and then they find that the only friend they have is their solicitor.

Tom

But surely you cannot tar every solicitor/lawyer with the same brush, just because you had a bad experience with two of them, and what is the difference between a lawyer and a solicitor

In the building trade, we all talk to each other and, We all have had similar experiences, The worse people to work for are,
Asians and money people, One of Wigans most richest has put many tradesmen out of business and I won't mention his name but, You support him slaps because you watch is team,,,,He's ruthless,,,,

I think reporting restrictions have been put in place on the Manchester Airport assault case. Not a scorrick of information is available for this week's proceedings.
The case has been removed from the listings!

"Court adjourned to Thursday morning", apparently.

Not trying to correct thee Tonker but, I thought the word was 'Scorrup'

Not trying to correct thee either, Tom. But tha'd best Click Here, Laaaaike!

@TomPlum

By that logic, all plumbers are dodgy because of the one who fitted my outside tap

I know that's not the case though, because you did a job for me once, but not an outside tap

WNwanderer, Then you have me at a disadvantage So I'll end my case here as, a reasonable ,none dodgy plumber with tendencies to be untrusting to lawyers , solicitors and Asians,,

amir khan

Not surprised in the lease that Amir Khan is supporting the bothers as he is not a very nice person himself and not well liked by many people in his home town of Bolton which includes pupils who went to the same school as him who considered him to be arrogant.

The same Amir Khan who among his many misdeeds, knocked down a elderly pedestrian while driving at 40mph in Bolton Town Centre and was caught doing 125mph on the M62 at Rochdale

Evidently, he is showing himself to be one of nasty element of muslims who for some reason have a chip on their shoulders about anything to do with our country which includes be not law abiding and not obeying our laws, rules and regulations!

‘Judge addresses the jury on the defendants' 'good character' The judge addresses the jury on the defendants' 'good character', that they have no previous convictions’

Can see where this is heading

There's 'good character' and there's 'previous good character'. They certainly didn't show good character when they were whacking those three bobbies and assaulting that member of the public in Starbucks.
I should imagine there are numerous convicted prisoners who have had previous good character and no previous convictions who are currently serving lengthy sentences for assaulting other members of the public, let alone three police officers. Even Dr Shipman was described as "a very nice man" by some of his patients!

Is the jury 'OUT' ?

Today, the judge has warned the press and the public that any opinions/comments/remarks made about the trial on social media will result in prosecution.

PS: the jury were sent out at 3.02pm.

PPS: his exact words .........

Judge Neil Flewitt KC warned that any 'irresponsible or inaccurate' reporting or comment on social media risked court action.

He said: "There has been a lot written and said about this case both in the mainstream media and on social media. Many of the comments on social media have been inaccurate and, at times, offensive. Some of them undoubtedly amount to contempt of court.
We have now reached an important stage in this trial as it is likely that, later today, the jury will begin its deliberations. It is, for that reason, essential that any reporting of, or commentary on this case is responsible and accurate. Any irresponsible or inaccurate reporting or commentary, particularly if it is intended to influence the jury, may amount to a contempt of court. Any person found guilty of contempt of court is liable to punishment by way of a fine or up to two years' imprisonment."

GUILTY .......

.... on three counts. They're considering a re-trial on one count.

No verdict has been reached on the charges relating to the male police officer.

Actually, when you watch the videos, that policeman did something he should be prosecuted for and if I was that solicitor of theirs I'd pick up on it straight away. When that lad was lying on the floor and his mum knelt at the side of him, the police officer jabbed her in the face with his taser causing her to have bruising and grazing to her face. That was unlawful. He too should be prosecuted for that.

From what I understand about the affair, the brother's mother started the trouble with another passenger on the plane and carried it on in the airport building by inciting her sons to attack the other passenger which led to the police getting involved and then they in turn being attacked by the brothers.

OC, a police officer is not allowed to assault bystanders.

Anyroadup, "Mr Amaaz was remanded in custody to be sentenced at a later date, while Mr Amaad was freed on bail".

Result!

I know!

shocking

According to form, two of the three police officers are likely to be dismissed for their actions leading up to and during the arrests of the two brothers.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) are soon to release their finding from an investigation into their alleged misconduct.

Laaaaike!

If they are dismissed do you think it is just to pacify the woke brigade?

can anyone on wiganworld explain or define what
woke or the woke brigade means ,
suspect there will be many different answers

No. It's being done to keep within the rule of law.
The lad shouldn't have behaved as he did. He's clearly a vicious bugger who needs to be tought a lesson. That said, the policeman involved was no angel either and two wrongs don't make a right.
The IPCC have been onto the complaint since it all happened last year. I think it was started by the lad's lawyer after the policeman kicked him in the face as he lay on the floor, helpless. Then there's the arrest that wasn't carried out according to the police code of conduct. Then there's the policeman jabbing the lads' mother in the face with his taser gun.
The policeman's behaviour was as bad as the lad's. both should ba prosecuted. In my opinion, laaaaike!

And if they were Chinese, then it would be "two wongs don't make a wight"

"You owe me for call"!

Tonker wrote:
"The policeman's behaviour was as bad as the lad's. both should ba prosecuted. In my opinion, laaaaike!"

And quite right too. The actions of one in particular was appalling, and above and beyond reasonable force. He was a bully, and not the way a Police Officer should conduct himself, regardless of provocation.

He got carried away, thinking he was the Sweeney, got the word to go!

And that's why I'm so glad our Police don't carry firearms. Imagine what he might have done had he been armed. With a temper like his, he would probably have shot the guy.

He WAS armed!

With what, Tonker? A firearm?

With what, Tonker? A firearm?

Your posts are like buses, Mollie. Nothing for ages then two come at the same time!

Actually, he was armed with a Glock 9mm.

I wish somebody could tell me what's going wrong. It's getting worse and worse.

Why was he carrying a Glock 9 mm? I didn't think they were issued to Police that weren't in the Special Branch or other AFOs in hostage situations etc.

Armed response have them. A mate of mine worked at Manchester Airport and he carried a sig carbine.
They're well tooled-up at airports.

That's understandable I suppose with terrorist threats these days. I didn't know Airport Police were AFOs and weapons trained, which I thought were trained to use appropriate use of force. I like learning new things.

Posted by: mollie m (9204) View mollie m's page

I wish somebody could tell me what's going wrong. It's getting worse and worse.

My guess is that your internet is slow and you are pressing the send button again before your post has posted. Hence a double post. Just a thought.

mollie m

The police at our airports are armed and rightly so for our protection in case of any terrorist attack, but should be so well trained not to attack members of the public and show restraint if provoked by some of the members of the public.

And if they are armed with a Glock 9 mm or whatever weapon, all well and good for our seecurity as we are now living in a more violent world.!

First Mate: I thought that at first, so I make a point of pressing just the once, but it doesn't seem to make much difference. Maybe I'm just clicking POST MESSAGE then clicking onto something else too quickly. It's very annoying whatever it is.

Owd Codger: I agree with all you've said, but I just never realised they were armed with firearms - TASERs yes - guns, no, I didn't know that. That Police Officer didn't show restraint with that lad though, and he should have, despite what was happening. They have to go through rigorous testing, including psychological assessment to be come an Authorised Firearms Officer, but he failed the tests on that day.

Hope this doesn't come out as a double doozy again.

Flamin' heck!

mollie m

re. your comment about the police should not be armed.

Try telling that to the families of the two unarmed police women who were shot dead in Tameside a while ago, the unamed police officer who was shot dead outside the Houses of Parliament and all the other unarmed police officers shot dead in the line of duty.

The days of Dixon of Dock Green have gone for ever, but still some still cling to the policing of that time even though most other countries now have armed police because of the increasing levels of violent crime!

Policeman - "Hello, Hello, Hello, What's all this then"?

Burglar - "It's a fair cop"!

Why is sentencing taking so long?

The guilty one is supposed to be back in Liverpool crown court for a bail hearing next Tuesday, 26th.