It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion
Abu Qatada release: Cameron 'fed up'
Likes # 0
Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:20PM
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.
Likes # 0
Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:00AM
I say Send him back.
If he's worried that he won't get a fair trial in Jordan he shouldn't have committed the offences in the first place. He must have known the possible consequences of his actions.
Likes # 0
Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:56AM
"I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. I know what I think about how my country should be run."
Unfortunately there are those of us who care quite a lot about what the rest of the world thinks. The days when Britain could relax, secure in the knowledge that it didn't really need to care about what Johnny foreigner thought are long gone - we have to live and trade in global markets, and relations with other countries are crucial to our survival.
As I said in my opening post, I am known for my advocacy of the rule of law, but that doesn't mean I've surrendered all claim to common-sense. Our national security is of paramount importance, and the man we're discussing is a known threat - he has been classed as a serious threat to our security. In circumstances like that the government of a sovereign state should surely have an overriding power to expel an individual - get him outside our national borders - without having to jump through endless legal hoops.
The cost of keeping this man under surveillance will be staggering, quite apart from the attendant cost of supporting him and his family whilst his lawyers work away at finding new legal barriers to deportation. It's time society said 'enough' to cases like this, and it's time that our government understood that it's perfectly possible to run a rule of law society without buckling under every time someone like Abu Qatada sees our country as a cosy safe haven, a base from which to encourage others to commit acts of terrorism.
Likes # 0
Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:37AM
The time between my last post and this one has been filled by a Skype conversation with a client in Sydney. We talked about this issue, and he said that what he and his colleagues can't understand is why 'you guys just don't get on and sort this problem out once and for all'.
When I mentioned the rule of law aspect he said 'yes, but isn't it about time you realised that terrorists live by violence, and handling them with kid gloves just sends them the message that you're weak?' He went on to say that Australia would never let itself get into the same situation, but he always does that, whatever the problem we're discussing.
The truth is, I find myself in broad agreement with both sides of this argument - the side that says if you have a threat to your society in your midst you rid yourself of it immediately, and the other side that says yes, but only by strict adherence to the rule of law.
The answer, of course, is staring us in the face - we need to modify the law to enable us to take rapid action to deport people who threaten our security, and we need to do it fast. Otherwise we are all going to wake up one morning and find that lots of ordinary citizens have been killed by people who were well-known to our security services, but who couldn't be deported because there was no evidence which would satisfy the current legal requirements. Then we'll start hearing Britain's favourite song about lessons being learnt. I'm suggesting that perhaps it's time we consider ways of locking the stable door before the horse bolts.
Likes # 0
Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:00PM
Can't we just leave him on an uninhabited Hebridian island with no communication whatsoever and leave him to Lord away to his hearts content?
That way he gets to stay in the UK, and we don't get to see or hear him.
Likes # 0
Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:03PM
Well, just think of all that money the lawyers will be making from the tax payer on legal aid for the next fourteen years.
This type of scenario makes UKIP seem even more attractive.
Likes # 0
Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:16PM
I confess to knowing little about the man or what he is alleged to have done.
It does seem ridiculous that we get so tied up in knots over these situations, upholding laws that we have formulated, but I agree with much of what fourm member says.
The state cannot always be trusted and we need safeguards for the individual. Who remembers some terrorist act being used to remove a inconvenient heckler at a party conference?
If the man is so vile, surely there is sufficient evidence to gain a conviction
Likes # 0
Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:28PM
I've never liked the look of him. He badly needs a good army barber for a start. IGMC
Likes # 0
Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:25PM
Of course the rule of law must apply, but the law, in this case, is not fit for purpose and mist be changed.
That is Cameron's job.
Likes # 0
Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:05PM
We had a thread a few weeks back about Qatada's mate Hamza and how we eventually got rid of him. Everybody knows that their like have no place in our society and lawyers are the only winners in these cases with suitcase loads of cash for defending them.
I mentioned in the thread about Hamza that I did not care for Thatcher and her way of governing the country in certain aspects. I did say though that in her day this would not of happened she would of thrown the two of them out and all the rest who stand and abuse our troops in our own city centres. It's just not right, and the problem is the way I see it is this. The British people ( by that I mean the ones born here, not immigrants) need to be led. We are not allowed to voice our opinion anymore, partly because of the way Thatcher changed laws regarding unions and the like, the ordinary Joe in the street has lost his voice. Most people now just put their heads down and keep their opinion to themselves. In my eyes, we have not had a true leader of the country since Thatcher and because of that it is acceptable to just take anything that is thrown at us, because our government allow it The UK population has been taken for a ride for far too long now regarding this Human Rights tripe, mass immigration to improve our economy? and all the rest of the drivel that our governments have trotted out to us over the past 20 odd years.
I agree with Bingalau's statement about nobody looking up to us anymore, we are a laughing stock allowing a never ending stream of numbers of scum to come here with bugger all and be supported by the UK taxpayer, only to have our help thrown back in our face by them. If they ever state something along the lines of supporting terrorist activity on these shores, the burning of the poppy and spitting at our troops and the calling for Sharia law in this country. That in my opinion is enough to send them packing. To hell with all this (edited by FE) about human rights and how they would be persecuted in the country they do not want to go back to.
How these lawyers can sleep at night taking money from defending this scum, knowing full well he supported the 7/7 attack in our own country makes me feel sick. The families of the people who were killed or injured in that attack must feel really proud to have politicians as spineless as we have, allowing these scum to be financially supported at a higher level than any compensation payment they would of received for their losses.
Great Britain.....don't make me laugh.
Reply to this topic
This thread has been locked.