We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
 
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Abu Qatada release: Cameron 'fed up'


Forum Editor
Resolved

Likes # 0

There does seem to be something quite ridiculous about a situation in which a man who is - to use our Prime Minister's own words "..has no right to be here, we believe he's a threat to our country," and yet cannot be expelled by us.

We literally cannot put this individual on a plane out of here because someone sitting in a court in Strasbourg decided that he would not get a fair trial in Jordan, where he's wanted.

I'm well-known for championing the rule of law, but there are times when I wonder if we haven't lost sight of the ball, and this is one of them. In 21 days our government must either come up with a valid legal reason for an appeal against the ruling or release Abu Qatada back into the community. It's a cast iron guarantee that his lawyers will challenge every inch of the way.

Perhaps we should send the man to Strasbourg, and let them have the problem.

Like this post
al's left peg

Likes # 0

Forum member, I am not "stirring up hatred" I believe it's a fair and honest viewpoint that I believe I have put forward in my post. Sorry if my post has offended you, that's the way I feel about the situation regarding the ridiculous way these things are handled.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"We are not allowed to voice our opinion anymore, partly because of the way Thatcher changed laws regarding unions and the like,"

I'd appreciate a bit of clarification on how Thatcher's labour relations laws affected the right of free speech.

Like this post
michaelw

Likes # 0

forum member

You crack me up sometimes with the way you cleverly (or not so) distort things that people say.

There is a vast difference between a hate preacher spouting 'death to all infidels' in public whilst enjoying the hospitality of tax payers money in a country that has been governed by laws conceived by EU idiots; and al's left leg becoming a little bit emotional on a small forum.

If you can't see that there is a significant difference then we are forever doomed here to be arguing over silly inconsequential semantics with you.

Like this post
al's left peg

Likes # 0

morddwyd,

There was a change in the way people voiced their opinion after Thatcher left office. She changed the way people behaved in this country from being neighbourly and helping each other, to more of a "I'm alright Jack, you look after yourself" way of life.

I know I am going to get shot down for this view and jumped on but I definately think she changed the British public to more an insular type of way of life. I think her way of taking on the miners and changing laws to basically stop people striking changed the whole behaviour of a massive part of our population.

I don't expect people to agree with me but it all went a bit crazy after she left power. Things like if you saw someone getting attacked in the street, people would intervene. That all changed due to crazy laws about someone going to help because they themselves would be charged by the police, often with far worse consequences than what would be dished out to the original attacker.

What I believe is needed, is a massive dose of common sense. If people like Qatada and his like come over here and spout the drivel they do, they should change the laws to ban it totally. They changed the law to deal with strikes and miners and lots of other things so it should be easy to do. I have mentioned it on here before, and I know others have said similar things, but it's crazy that we as a country are so tolerant to these people. If they hate us, our way of life and culture they should be packed off away from our shores, and where they end up I could not care. If they are allowed to stay, they will grow and the problem will become larger because they will push for more.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

I tend to agree about the significant difference between an emotional post on a web forum and the utterances of a religious fundamentalist who openly supports a policy of the suicide bombing of people in cafes and on the streets.

The two things aren't remotely similar, and an argument based on the premise that they are is doomed to fail.

The simple fact is, most people can see that what has happened with regard to Abu Qatada is a complete fiasco. His presence here constitutes a threat to society, and will continue to do so if/when he is finally released into the community. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a grain of sense that we need to get him out of our country, and back to Jordan to stand trial. We have assurances from that country's government that he will not be subjected to torture.

I fail to see that we should continue to be concerned about this man's personal safety, any more than we are concerned about the safety of anyone who advocates the indiscriminate killing of others on grounds of religious principle.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"She changed the way people behaved in this country from being neighbourly and helping each other, to more of a "I'm alright Jack, you look after yourself" way of life."

Rose tints, I think. That had gone long before Thatcher came to power. you're looking back to MacMillan and Wilson.

" if you saw someone getting attacked in the street, people would intervene."

No they wouldn't, not for a long time before Thatcher.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

" if you saw someone getting attacked in the street, people would intervene."

People still intervene. It's a myth, this idea that we cross the street, rather than help people in trouble. Two of my brothers are Police officers (one is retired now, to be strictly accurate), and they both tell the same story - ordinary citizens will often endanger themselves to help a complete stranger in trouble. of course there are those who pass by on the other side, but that has always been the case.

Looking back and seeing a golden era when we didn't lock our doors, and every summer was a scorcher is all very well, but it's a fantasy - there have been times when in real terms there was more crime on our streets, and ordinary people had far less of a voice than they do now.

Like this post
al's left peg

Likes # 0

I am going to have to agree to disagree with you morddwyd. I cant really remember Wilson or Macmillan so can't comment on that, but the Thatcher era is well remembered for greed. Yuppies and the like, buy your own council house be better than the bloke next door and all of that.

All in all I believe she left a legacy of spitefulness, that's my opinion and I think it has got worse over the years since she left office, but she started it.

I still stand by what I originally said though, and I am in no way a Conservative party member or supporter. She would not of allowed the country to go down this route. She would of made a statement and banned all of the Qatada's and Hamza's like and thrown them out and would of dealt with the consequences of European law in her way.

I feel Forum Member is playing a bit of devils advocate here but I would like to ask what do you believe that Qatada and his like bring to our society? What in your opinion do the British public gain from having his like in our country? What is his value to society? You see, I just don't get it, and I honestly don't get people who defend him. In all honesty, I find them as abhorrent as the man himself.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

**'His presence here constitutes a threat to society' Says who?**

Says the Prime Minister and the British security services - presumably they know more about the man than you or I.

"Quite simply, if your government is not concerned about this man's safety you can have no certainty that it is concerned about yours."

That's a ridiculous statement. It's ridiculous because I haven't said that it's acceptable under islamic law for people to kill the wives and childran of those who don't accept Islam as the one true faith. This man has said that.

I haven't been described as 'the head of the Mujahedeen in Britain' by a Spanish judge. This man has.

I didn't do a disappearing act on the eve of the introduction of a new law enabling the authorities to hold foreign terrorism suspects without charge or trial. This man did.

Police have never found an envelope in my house addressed "For the mujahideen in Chechnya", and containing £805. They found such an envelope in this man's house.

A former head of counter-terrorism at Scotland Yard hasn't described me as "very dangerous, a man with significant influence, significantly well networked in Europe and the Middle East with very extreme views and prepared to promulgate those views and influence the views of others and their conduct."

He described this man in those terms.

To suggest that I can't be sure that my government will be less likely to concern itself about my safety if it isn't concerned about his is to invite ridicule. I suggest that you get a proper sense of perspective on this.

"Absent that I will not abandon my entire moral code to support calls for him to be sent to Jordan if well informed people say that is in breach of UK law."

Nobody has suggested that you should - that's an wildly over dramatic view of my proposal. What I'm saying, and what you appear to be completely ignoring is that the law is urgently in need of revision.

We can talk about the reliability of intelligence services until the cows come home, but that doesn't alter the fact that we quite obviously have terrorists in Mainland Britain, and they are quite obviously using the law as it stands to avoid deportation. The result is that we continue to engage in a ridiculous dance with judges in courts who - quite rightly - interpret the law as it is currently drawn.

Sooner or later many of us may pay a terrible price for our slavish devotion to what you refer to as your 'entire moral code'. My moral code tells me that it's wrong to allow such people in our midst with free rein to plot and scheme to slaughter non-believers , and I venture a guess that I'm not alone. I'll back my moral code against yours any day.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"'His presence here constitutes a threat to society' Says who?

Says the Prime Minister and the British security services - presumably they know more about the man than you or I."

In which case they should have evidence.

Let them produce it and prosecute.

Under British law we have the right to face our accusers in open court.

Though that right can be suspended under certain strictly controlled circumstances, it can only be done by the judiciary, not the legislature

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Netflix to introduce price increase: New subcribers to start with

IDG UK Sites

Apple financial results: iPhones, iPads & Macs sales for Apple's Q2 2014, plus shares to split

IDG UK Sites

Twitter - not news

IDG UK Sites

See Moo Studios' new animated advert for Blue Moon beer