and another thing......

[Lippytarian]

Having read your posts on this thread all I can say is
“ Thank God you are not in charge of the nations security” Because if you were I am certain that even if Abu Qatada was found with a lorry load of evidence against him you would still defend his right not to be deported

It is not those of us who want him out who are Gullible but you

Jordan is one of the countries we don't deport people to. And with good reason. It shames this country that we would even try, based on promises from Jordan that they will treat him properly I was surprised when the House of Lords was willing to rubber-stamp silly nonsense like that. Fortunately the ECHR was not - that is the last bastion of proper judicial conduct.

To paraphrase, if you don't believe in rights for people you don't like then you don't believe in rights at all.

He has been jailed here for many years. Without a trial. What happened to habeas corpus? If there is evidence against him then prosecute him here. If not then in this country, if there is a single shred of justice left, he remains an innocent man. No matter what the PM or the Home Secretary, or you and the rest of the lynch-mob, might say.

[Lippytarian]

Abu Qatada release from Long Lartin jail sparks furore- Sales of pitch-forks to soar!

The bail conditions are unprecedented and as close to house-arrest as the authorities think they can get away with. What kind of superman is this? He isn't a bomber, a gunman, a terrorist. What are we afraid of? Is the force of his ideology so strong that he will persuade everyone to unleash a tsunami of suicide-bombing across the land if he gets a phone or internet connection? Does he sh1t Jihad?

This whole thing is ludicrous. Pant-wetting spineless nonsense.

[John]

Is the force of his ideology so strong that he will persuade everyone to unleash a tsunami of suicide-bombing across the land if he gets a phone or internet connection? Does he sh1t Jihad?

This whole thing is ludicrous. Pant-wetting spineless nonsense.



I seem to remember that many of the people who were responsible for the Twin Towers and the London bombings were "Ordinary decent kids" according to there friends and families who professed amazement that their friends and relatives could have been involved in such abominations.

Well who do you think taught them to act in that manner? Who taught them that Allah would welcome them to Paradise with 72 virgins each? It obviously was not their friends or family, they were shocked.
Who else could it have been? How about their Imams and preachers in and around the Mosques.
You could not have been unaware of this because I can remember you poo pooing this suggestion when it was mooted several months/years ago.
That is why Qatada and Hamza and their like should be excluded from England.
The teachers are as guilty as the taught. given that many of the taught are naive youngsters the teachers are far more culpable.

[catfish]

That is why Qatada and Hamza and their like should be excluded from England.
The teachers are as guilty as the taught. given that many of the taught are naive youngsters the teachers are far more culpable.

Very true John those people have no place in this country and should be excluded

[Lippytarian]

Is the force of his ideology so strong that he will persuade everyone to unleash a tsunami of suicide-bombing across the land if he gets a phone or internet connection? Does he sh1t Jihad?

This whole thing is ludicrous. Pant-wetting spineless nonsense.



I seem to remember that many of the people who were responsible for the Twin Towers and the London bombings were "Ordinary decent kids" according to there friends and families who professed amazement that their friends and relatives could have been involved in such abominations.

Well who do you think taught them to act in that manner? Who taught them that Allah would welcome them to Paradise with 72 virgins each? It obviously was not their friends or family, they were shocked.
Who else could it have been? How about their Imams and preachers in and around the Mosques.
You could not have been unaware of this because I can remember you poo pooing this suggestion when it was mooted several months/years ago.
That is why Qatada and Hamza and their like should be excluded from England.
The teachers are as guilty as the taught. given that many of the taught are naive youngsters the teachers are far more culpable.

A typical tirade of pure prejuduce and ignorance of the facts.

1. Deportation is not a sanction that we use any more
2. If people commit crimes they are tried, convicted on the facts on their particular case and imprisoned. Not deported!
3. Abu Qatada had been in prison here for 3 years before the London bombings - HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. 
4. Where is the evidence? Either these accusations are scandalous lies, or there is plenty of evidence upon which to prosecute him for conspiracy and incitement. Which is it?

Fuelled by your prejudices you favour guilt by accusation, collective punishment for political dissenters, imprisonment without trial and you join in with any available witch-hunt.

You like to bang on about Habeas Corpus - but not on this thread! You don't believe in it for people you don't like, so you don't really believe in Habeas Corpus at all, do you.

[catfish]

A typical tirade of pure prejuduce and ignorance of the facts.

Deportation is not a sanction that we use any more

Yes thanks to the ECHR  who allow the dregs of foreign countries including articles like him  to stay here

Asylum seeker who left girl, 12, to die after hit-and-run can stay in UK... thanks to the Human Rights Act David Cameron promised her father he'd scrap

If  there were any justice he would have been sent back long ago
Not allowed to remain here among decent people

[Lippytarian]

Yes thanks to the ECHR  who allow the dregs of foreign countries including articles like him  to stay here

Asylum seeker who left girl, 12, to die after hit-and-run can stay in UK... thanks to the Human Rights Act David Cameron promised her father he'd scrap

If  there were any justice he would have been sent back long ago
Not allowed to remain here among decent people

Another tirade of pure prejudice and ignorance of the facts. Just like John's.

1. Deportation is not a sanction that we use any more
2. If people commit crimes they are tried, convicted on the facts on their particular case and imprisoned. Not deported!
3. Aso Mohammed Ibrahim was indeed tried, convicted and imprisoned in this country for his crimes. Justice was in fact done perfectly properly.
4. The judicial decision not to deport him was made at the Upper Tribunal for Immigration and Asylum and that decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The ECHR had nothing whatever to do with this
5. The people here are not "decent", not all of them. 85,000 others were enjoying Her Majesty's hospitality at the same time as Ibrahim.

Cameron's silly lies about repealing the Human Rights Act evaporated once the election was behind us. Because any UK Bill of Rights would be barely distinguishable from the HRA, since there is no real disagreement about what your or my rights should be.

[Lippytarian]

The article I linked to * has some learned opinion from a QC:
Joel Bennathan QC, a leading defence barrister in counter-terrorism cases, said the preacher's case was similar to others where there had been allegations but no prosecution or conviction. He said:"Any 'jihadi' who says anything that could conceivably be seen as encouraging violence tends to get arrested and charged with incitement to murder, racial or religious hatred."It is a fair guess that Abu Qatada has not done or said anything dangerous for years, if ever he did."


* Hey look, the BBC changed the headline from "Abu Qatada release from Long Lartin jail sparks furore" to "Abu Qatada release from Long Lartin jail prompts debate". I didn't know they made revisions like that.

[John]

Deportation is not a sanction that we use any more


We try but ECHR rules won`t allow it

4. The judicial decision not to deport him was made at the Upper Tribunal for Immigration and Asylum and that decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The ECHR had nothing whatever to do with this

Rubbish. The reason that the courts decided against deporting him are ,again, because ECHR rules do not allow it.

Why not be honest and admit it?

[catfish]

Deportation is not a sanction that we use any more 

Since when as the right to deport foreign criminals and other undesirables been removed ?

It as not and regardless of what anyone outside the UK might say we should put our people first and use it

2. If people commit crimes they are tried, convicted on the facts on their particular case and imprisoned. Not deported!
3. Aso Mohammed Ibrahim was indeed tried, convicted and imprisoned in this country for his crimes. Justice was in fact done perfectly properly.
4. The judicial decision not to deport him was made at the Upper Tribunal for Immigration and Asylum and that decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The ECHR had nothing whatever to do with this :J

Whether the ECHR had anything to with this case or not is irrelevant he and His like should have no place here and should be sent back to where he  came from

The people here are not "decent", not all of them.

Inever said they were

Cameron's silly lies about repealing the Human Rights Act evaporated once the election was behind us. Because any UK Bill of Rights would be barely distinguishable from the HRA, since there is no real disagreement about what your or my rights should be.

Even if the only difference from the HRA was to allow us to deport foreign criminals  the UK Bill of Rights would still be far better

[Lippytarian]

Deportation is not a sanction that we use any more


We try but ECHR rules won`t allow it

4. The judicial decision not to deport him was made at the Upper Tribunal for Immigration and Asylum and that decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The ECHR had nothing whatever to do with this

Rubbish. The reason that the courts decided against deporting him are ,again, because ECHR rules do not allow it.

Why not be honest and admit it?

Your loathing for international cooperation and for universal standards of human rights knows no bounds and blinds you to reason. You imagine that the Court of Appeal in its deliberations is trying to second-guess what the ECHR might do. In the context of this thread, the Court of Appeal is considering only UK law, specifically the Human Rights Act 1998, an act of the democratically elected UK Parliament, passed in Westminster, London, England and signed by Her Majesty the Queen.

[Lippytarian]

Since when as the right to deport foreign criminals and other undesirables been removed ?

We no longer deport people as a sanction for committing crime [think "convicts to Australia"] instead we imprison them here. You are confusing deportation with the consideration of people's asylum applications. Abu Qatada applied for asylum here in 1993 and that application was granted in 1994 on the basis that he had been tortured in Jordan and was subject to religious persecution. Nothing that happened subsequently changes those facts.

If an asylum refugee is convicted of some crime, whether quite soon or decades later, they should be treated exactly the same as anyone else under the law. That's what the law is. Or at least what it should be.

Even if the only difference from the HRA was to allow us to deport foreign criminals  the UK Bill of Rights would still be far better

Considering the lies Cameron has told you on reducing immigration, repatriating powers from the EU and all the rest of it, your faith in what he might do in taking away your rights is almost touching if a little child-like.

In the past the UK has maintained higher principles and been at the forefront of promoting and spreading proper standards  of conduct. Churchill was instrumental in setting up the ECHR and we have willingly and properly taken on obligations to treat people properly under a series of international agreements and treaties. Just because the Daily Mail wants all that stripped away and Cameron can win a few easy xenophobic votes by pretending he is going to do it does not mean that it is actually going to happen.

[catfish]

We no longer deport people as a sanction for committing crime

I will rephrase my Question when was the right of this country to deport foreign Criminals removed and by whom was it removed?

[John]

Under the name Omar Mahmoud Othman (عمرمحمودعثمان'Umar Mamūd 'Uthmān), he is under worldwide embargo by the United Nations Security Council Committee 1267 for his affiliation with al-Qaeda.[1][2] Although imprisoned in the UK since 2005, he has not been prosecuted for any criminal or conspiracy offences.[3] He is wanted on terrorism charges in Algeria,[4] the United States, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and his native Jordan.[5]



Half the damn world wants to question the sod and put him on trial and we are giving him asylum and God knows how much in benefits each week.

We should do what the French and Italians do; just deport him and let the ECHR wail and gnash their teath, but there are not very many
cojones in Parliament.

[John]

1. Deportation is not a sanction that we use any more


Rubbish. We are deporting people all the time. Have you not heard the complaint that we do not deport enough?

2. If people commit crimes they are tried, convicted on the facts of their particular case and imprisoned. Not deported!


If immigrants commit crimes they serve their sentence and are then considered for deportation by a judge and many are. But not all, and not enough.

I feel strongly that anyone who plots against, or preaches against, or incites violence against England should lose the priviledge of living in England and returned whence he came, or to anyone else who has convicted him, or wants to try him for crimes of terrorism in their country.