Why nothing for us!!!!

NAS15840 said:

I think the difference there is that McKinnon was "just" hacking, whereas Ahsan was connected with terrorism, that's something that virtually no charity would want to go anywhere near, being seen to support someone allegedly connected with terrorism could quite easily destroy a charity (or any other kind of organisation).

I think...

...but I don't actually know!

It was clearly evident that Gary McKinnon had committed a serious crime, he had admitted it, and he could have been prosecuted and jailed in Britain under the Computer Misuse Act. In contrast, Talha Ahsan only had allegations of terrorism against him, he said he is not guilty, and there was insufficient evidence to convict him of terrorism or soliciting murder in a British court of law.

There were plenty of people out there who strongly believed that the NAS should not have supported Gary McKinnon on the basis that he was clearly guilty of committing a serious crime.

I believe that there were issues of popular opinion at play. Gary McKinnon may be a guilty man but hacking into government computers is a somewhat tolerable action for a geeky individual with AS. In other words, the majority of society views him as a loveable rogue rather than a criminal. Talha Ahsan only has allegations against him without any evidence to convict him of terrorism, but the majority of society thinks that there is no smoke without fire, so had already concluded that he is a dangerous terrorist.

It is a question of ethics. Should a person charged with a terrorism offence be 'abandoned' on the grounds of public opinion but it's acceptable to support a person charged with computer hacking? This is regardless of the amount of evidence against them and whether or not they claim to be innocent or guilty. I have talked to lawyers who represent people charged with terrorism offences and they say it takes a lot of courage and conviction to practise this area of law. Public opinion is rarely on their side and they are targets of harrassment.

I would have been much happier with the NAS if they were honest and upfront about why they were unwilling to support Talha Ahsan rather than just ignoring him and deleting critical posts on this forum.

IMO the NAS is a deceptive, sneaky, dishonest, and potentially corrupt organisation.

NAS15840 said:

I think the difference there is that McKinnon was "just" hacking, whereas Ahsan was connected with terrorism, that's something that virtually no charity would want to go anywhere near, being seen to support someone allegedly connected with terrorism could quite easily destroy a charity (or any other kind of organisation).

I think...

...but I don't actually know!

It was clearly evident that Gary McKinnon had committed a serious crime, he had admitted it, and he could have been prosecuted and jailed in Britain under the Computer Misuse Act. In contrast, Talha Ahsan only had allegations of terrorism against him, he said he is not guilty, and there was insufficient evidence to convict him of terrorism or soliciting murder in a British court of law.

There were plenty of people out there who strongly believed that the NAS should not have supported Gary McKinnon on the basis that he was clearly guilty of committing a serious crime.

I believe that there were issues of popular opinion at play. Gary McKinnon may be a guilty man but hacking into government computers is a somewhat tolerable action for a geeky individual with AS. In other words, the majority of society views him as a loveable rogue rather than a criminal. Talha Ahsan only has allegations against him without any evidence to convict him of terrorism, but the majority of society thinks that there is no smoke without fire, so had already concluded that he is a dangerous terrorist.

It is a question of ethics. Should a person charged with a terrorism offence be 'abandoned' on the grounds of public opinion but it's acceptable to support a person charged with computer hacking? This is regardless of the amount of evidence against them and whether or not they claim to be innocent or guilty. I have talked to lawyers who represent people charged with terrorism offences and they say it takes a lot of courage and conviction to practise this area of law. Public opinion is rarely on their side and they are targets of harrassment.

I would have been much happier with the NAS if they were honest and upfront about why they were unwilling to support Talha Ahsan rather than just ignoring him and deleting critical posts on this forum.

IMO the NAS is a deceptive, sneaky, dishonest, and potentially corrupt organisation.