ChatterBank0 min ago
Why do we care what happens to this lowlife?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16923527
I couldn't care less if they hang him by his toe nails in Jordan. So many handwringers whinning on the news today.
I couldn't care less if they hang him by his toe nails in Jordan. So many handwringers whinning on the news today.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by d9f1c7. 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 --
I am sure it would be much easier to deport someone if they had a conviction against them. The biggest mystery in all of this is why he has never faced trial. Why he has never been convicted. Why a jury has never been presented evidence of his alleged wrong doung.
The Mail called him Bin Laden's man in Europe and Naomi24 keeps saying he wants to kill us all. The problem is, in this country we need evidence to back up such statements and there seemingly isn't any.
We are on very friendly terms with Jordan. If there was any real desire to sort this out, we could have done long ago. But the Government (and the last one) need bogeymen and exagerated threats to justify their oppressive surviellance, draconian laws and state meddling in all OUR lives. If he had been got rid of years ago, it would have been much harder to pass emergency terrorism laws.
The Mail called him Bin Laden's man in Europe and Naomi24 keeps saying he wants to kill us all. The problem is, in this country we need evidence to back up such statements and there seemingly isn't any.
We are on very friendly terms with Jordan. If there was any real desire to sort this out, we could have done long ago. But the Government (and the last one) need bogeymen and exagerated threats to justify their oppressive surviellance, draconian laws and state meddling in all OUR lives. If he had been got rid of years ago, it would have been much harder to pass emergency terrorism laws.
Our rulings on Qatada have given the green light for any foreign terrorist to come to Britain for their own safety and to live a life on benefits. We already have numerous terrorists living here plotting to destabilise the West and we can do nothing about it.
Our borders are so insecure they could come at any time and we would be powerless to stop them.
Our borders are so insecure they could come at any time and we would be powerless to stop them.
Gromit, another one misquoting me. Please don’t do it. I haven’t kept saying he wants to kill us all – I said he’d happily see us dead – and he would.
//The Mail called him Bin Laden's man in Europe//. So did a Spanish judge who described him as "al-Qaeda's ambassador to Europe".
//But the Government (and the last one) need bogeymen and exagerated threats to justify their oppressive surviellance, draconian laws and state meddling in all OUR lives.//
What absolute rot! So he’s an innocent scapegoat is he? Of course he is – poor soul!
//The Mail called him Bin Laden's man in Europe//. So did a Spanish judge who described him as "al-Qaeda's ambassador to Europe".
//But the Government (and the last one) need bogeymen and exagerated threats to justify their oppressive surviellance, draconian laws and state meddling in all OUR lives.//
What absolute rot! So he’s an innocent scapegoat is he? Of course he is – poor soul!
"but just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you can disregard it"
People do this constantly in their everyday life. Admittedly not as grave/'important' laws,but it demonstrates that there's something wrong with the principle.
I have to say, I find the 'appeal to law' in this case about as unconvincing as I found it in the Dale Farm debate. Our society would not collapse if the rule of law was violated in this case - it would go on functioning just as it did before. Laws are just pieces of paper if they don't have wider society backing them or carrying them out.
People do this constantly in their everyday life. Admittedly not as grave/'important' laws,but it demonstrates that there's something wrong with the principle.
I have to say, I find the 'appeal to law' in this case about as unconvincing as I found it in the Dale Farm debate. Our society would not collapse if the rule of law was violated in this case - it would go on functioning just as it did before. Laws are just pieces of paper if they don't have wider society backing them or carrying them out.
I don't think really matters whether he's broken the law or not Gromit - we can actually deport anyone or stop them entering the country simply because we don't like them.
That's why we're quite rightly able to stop people like that dutch nazi or the American christian hate preacher (can't remember the names sorry), from coming here and preaching their b0llux. It should be the case that we can get rid of this nasty turd as well. The problem is it's been decided that the only place we can get rid of him to might torture him. I don't think that's our problem to be honest.
That's why we're quite rightly able to stop people like that dutch nazi or the American christian hate preacher (can't remember the names sorry), from coming here and preaching their b0llux. It should be the case that we can get rid of this nasty turd as well. The problem is it's been decided that the only place we can get rid of him to might torture him. I don't think that's our problem to be honest.
Obviously a little late coming to this thread (far too many pages of posts to read) but I'll add my twopennyworth anyway.
Decent moral human beings should care what happens to all human beings (and possible other species also). If we chose not to act correctly towards others then we can not expect them to act correctly to us. Our standards must be high in this regard or what is the point of having standards ?
If an individual sees nothing wrong with torture then naturally they will not see a problem with sending someone in their custody to others who will use torture to construct a case against someone. But if you feel this is not the right way to act then surely you must agree with the European Court and thus this guy can not yet be thrown to those who would use such action. It is a different matter whether one agrees with the European court or not.
No matter what we suspect of the guy, the government's hands are tied. I'm sure it is an ideal time for opposition parties to make mischief, but the fact remains that unless the government adheres to the laws it has previously agrred to, then its credibility nosedives, and there are international consequences. One plays by the book or suffers as a result.
In this country he has been charged with no crime, and yet has been held over 6 years in gaol; which is an unacceptable state of affairs. If a justice system is to mean anything then a charge should be raised in good time or one should not keep someone in detention, apparently indefinitely.
This whole situation needs a concerted effort to ensure he faces legitimate charges and is presented with legitimate evidence, and to do that each authority has to play by the rules it has previously agreed were a good safeguard against injustice, whilst at the same time allowing justice to be meted out as appropriate.
Decent moral human beings should care what happens to all human beings (and possible other species also). If we chose not to act correctly towards others then we can not expect them to act correctly to us. Our standards must be high in this regard or what is the point of having standards ?
If an individual sees nothing wrong with torture then naturally they will not see a problem with sending someone in their custody to others who will use torture to construct a case against someone. But if you feel this is not the right way to act then surely you must agree with the European Court and thus this guy can not yet be thrown to those who would use such action. It is a different matter whether one agrees with the European court or not.
No matter what we suspect of the guy, the government's hands are tied. I'm sure it is an ideal time for opposition parties to make mischief, but the fact remains that unless the government adheres to the laws it has previously agrred to, then its credibility nosedives, and there are international consequences. One plays by the book or suffers as a result.
In this country he has been charged with no crime, and yet has been held over 6 years in gaol; which is an unacceptable state of affairs. If a justice system is to mean anything then a charge should be raised in good time or one should not keep someone in detention, apparently indefinitely.
This whole situation needs a concerted effort to ensure he faces legitimate charges and is presented with legitimate evidence, and to do that each authority has to play by the rules it has previously agreed were a good safeguard against injustice, whilst at the same time allowing justice to be meted out as appropriate.
" The problem is it's been decided that the only place we can get rid of him to might torture him. I don't think that's our problem to be honest."
but that would set a precedence for all innocent victims of torture and violence throughout the world seeking safe haven from human rights attrocities in a democratic free country.
http://www.liberty-hu...-to-torture/index.php
but that would set a precedence for all innocent victims of torture and violence throughout the world seeking safe haven from human rights attrocities in a democratic free country.
http://www.liberty-hu...-to-torture/index.php
-- answer removed --
/// This so called cleric is not a terrorist or bomber. He hasn't killed anyone, and as far as we know, does not have blood on his hands. He just uses words. He makes speeches promoting his religion and denouncing more or less everyone else.///
"He just uses words" and so did William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) during WW2, and look what happened to him? We hanged him.
It is ironic that he also was in possession of a British passport, of which he wasn't entitled to.
There were no suggestions by any 'hand wringers' in those days, of us being brought down to his level, because the majority (if not all) of us had been personally affected by the trauma of a world war.
Perhaps that is the difference today, these 'hand-wringers' are not personally affected by these potential terrorists (YET), so everything in the garden is rosy (SO FAR)?
"He just uses words" and so did William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) during WW2, and look what happened to him? We hanged him.
It is ironic that he also was in possession of a British passport, of which he wasn't entitled to.
There were no suggestions by any 'hand wringers' in those days, of us being brought down to his level, because the majority (if not all) of us had been personally affected by the trauma of a world war.
Perhaps that is the difference today, these 'hand-wringers' are not personally affected by these potential terrorists (YET), so everything in the garden is rosy (SO FAR)?
Those of us who have enjoyed looking down our noses, or from the moral high-ground, at the antics of US of A whenever we have seen details of 'extreme rendition', Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, water-boarding, et al and tutted at the way that they have circumnavigated international law will have to surrender our notions of moral superiority if we do not exhaust ALL legal avenues before disposing of this odious individual.
NOX
/// I agree some laws are very bad Naomi, but just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you can disregard it, change it by all means, but not disregard it.///
Problem is this is not British Law but law from Strasbourg, which in this particular case even our own Government are in disagreement with.
/// I agree some laws are very bad Naomi, but just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you can disregard it, change it by all means, but not disregard it.///
Problem is this is not British Law but law from Strasbourg, which in this particular case even our own Government are in disagreement with.
"Perhaps that is the difference today, these 'hand-wringers' are not personally affected by these potential terrorists (YET), so everything in the garden is rosy (SO FAR)?"
those words could be deemed threateneing. could one suggest deporting you back to your ancestral homeland in scandinavia or africa?
those words could be deemed threateneing. could one suggest deporting you back to your ancestral homeland in scandinavia or africa?
Gromit
/// But the Government (and the last one) need bogeymen and exagerated threats to justify their oppressive surviellance, draconian laws and state meddling in all OUR lives. If he had been got rid of years ago, it would have been much harder to pass emergency terrorism laws. ///
I have often suspected you of being anti-British, but this latest posting of yours confirms it.
You disagree with (in your own words) "exagerated threats to justify their oppressive surviellance, draconian laws and state meddling in all OUR lives".
Please don't say "OUR" lives, because I am certain most of us are grateful that our Governments take terrorism seriously, and we are pleased that they have passed 'emergency terrorism laws' surely it is for the protection of us all, even including you Gromit.
/// But the Government (and the last one) need bogeymen and exagerated threats to justify their oppressive surviellance, draconian laws and state meddling in all OUR lives. If he had been got rid of years ago, it would have been much harder to pass emergency terrorism laws. ///
I have often suspected you of being anti-British, but this latest posting of yours confirms it.
You disagree with (in your own words) "exagerated threats to justify their oppressive surviellance, draconian laws and state meddling in all OUR lives".
Please don't say "OUR" lives, because I am certain most of us are grateful that our Governments take terrorism seriously, and we are pleased that they have passed 'emergency terrorism laws' surely it is for the protection of us all, even including you Gromit.
A few posts back dave50 posted.
/// Would all these people defending the system be spouting the same opinions if it had been a member of the EDL who been preaching racist views? I think not! ///
I think dave50 has something there, I wonder why they get all uptight about some spouting so called 'racist' views, yet on the other hand are prepared to defend this individual?
Answers please.
/// Would all these people defending the system be spouting the same opinions if it had been a member of the EDL who been preaching racist views? I think not! ///
I think dave50 has something there, I wonder why they get all uptight about some spouting so called 'racist' views, yet on the other hand are prepared to defend this individual?
Answers please.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Body & Soul36 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News39 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.