News2 mins ago
Banned From Teaching.......??
61 Answers
https:/
Why isn't he in jail?
Why isn't he in jail?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
//"The panel did not find it plausible that Mr Nur could have mistaken a 13-year-old child for an 18-year-old"//
Have the panel actually seen any 13 year old girls recently? Many (including my own granddaughter) could easily be taken for 18. As has been said he did not break any UK laws although I find his behaviour abhorrent.
Have the panel actually seen any 13 year old girls recently? Many (including my own granddaughter) could easily be taken for 18. As has been said he did not break any UK laws although I find his behaviour abhorrent.
TTT - // the law was changed a few years ago AH so that, for example, those who go abroad to have sex with children, can be prosecuted here. //
If that is so, and if this man is charged, tried, and convicted, he will doubtless go to jail.
The fact that he has not been charged, tried and convicted is the answer to your question as to why he is not in jail.
If that is so, and if this man is charged, tried, and convicted, he will doubtless go to jail.
The fact that he has not been charged, tried and convicted is the answer to your question as to why he is not in jail.
TGT - That law didn't apply when Nur was 'married' to the girl between August 2006 to April 2009.
And strictly speaking he wasn't a 'sex-tourist', he married the girl which seems to have been acceptable in Bangladesh.
I'm glad that he can't teach anymore and suggest that he might be better employed somewhere like Bangladesh, where he obviously prefers their customs.
And strictly speaking he wasn't a 'sex-tourist', he married the girl which seems to have been acceptable in Bangladesh.
I'm glad that he can't teach anymore and suggest that he might be better employed somewhere like Bangladesh, where he obviously prefers their customs.
It's the criminal justice and immigration act 2008, here is a a telegraph report at the time:
https:/
https:/
Wind your neck in, geezer.
I don't think it is 'correct' and haven't said so.
I *have* said that something needs to actually be 'illegal' before someone can be charged with a criminal offence.
All that it says in the reports is that he was married to her until 2009....not that he had sex with her after the 'sex-tourist' law came into effect.
I don't think it is 'correct' and haven't said so.
I *have* said that something needs to actually be 'illegal' before someone can be charged with a criminal offence.
All that it says in the reports is that he was married to her until 2009....not that he had sex with her after the 'sex-tourist' law came into effect.
///Amazing the way some on here will wriggle to defend a muslim Paedophile. Quite disturbing. ///
Perhaps you'll have the cajones to name names?
Because if you are pointing the finger at me, and I suspect you are, I shall be reporting that remark.
Trying to have a rational debate with you about points of law is like trying a push icre-cream uphill....on a warm day....with a stick.
You don't have the monopoly on 'outrage' although you have cornered the market on 'ill-thought out, chest-thumping, knee-jerk blarting', that's true.
Perhaps you'll have the cajones to name names?
Because if you are pointing the finger at me, and I suspect you are, I shall be reporting that remark.
Trying to have a rational debate with you about points of law is like trying a push icre-cream uphill....on a warm day....with a stick.
You don't have the monopoly on 'outrage' although you have cornered the market on 'ill-thought out, chest-thumping, knee-jerk blarting', that's true.
