A Straw Poll: Do You Care What Happens

[bazwillrun]

to Qatada once he is out of our country

a simple yes or no

[TWR]

The London Marathon is next week! will you be there amongst the peaceful innocent crowd just like those innocent crowds in Boston.

[jim360]

I'm not sure I get your point.

[jackthehat]

You wouldn't be the first one with the problem when it comes to TWRs comments....

[Sharingan]

TWR- there isn't any evidence to suggest the Boston Marathon attack was anything to do with any terror cell and not the work of a lone crazy person.

[New Judge]

The fact that he has not committed any offence in the UK (apart from presenting himself on arrival using a forged passport) is hardly the point, jack.

As I said in response to another question, the problem is that he has a “right” to be here. That is the root cause of all this. Apart from the ridiculous exception of EU countries I don't have the "right" to settle in any other country. I must gain permission and in most cases that permission can be withdrawn if I misbehave even though I may not have been convicted of any criminal offence. Nobody other than citizens of the UK should have the right to settle here. It should be a privilege which can be granted and withdrawn as the UK government sees fit. Whatever is said about this man I think it is widely accepted that his presence here is not in the public interest. It should not require proof to the criminal level to determine whether or not he is wanted here. When somebody gains access to your house illegally (as Qatada did in entering the UK) you should not have to prove criminal matters against them to have them thrown out.

[Jan1957]

No

[Baldric]

Not a great deal, No!

[jim360]

If someone gained access to your house illegally because they were running from a lynch mob, would you still throw them out regardless?

I'm not saying he is running from a lynch mob exactly, but in those circumstances I'd want to make sure I didn't throw him outside without knowing what would happen after the people outside caught him. Hence why there is a due process to ensure that we don't throw deport people without understand what faces them afterwards.

Besides which, in 1994 he was granted asylum, making his stay in this country now legal until he is deported.

I do not like this man. I do not like his views. I do not like what he stands for. But I do want his human rights to be respected.

[Orderlimit]

My understanding Jim, is that the courts are satisfied that Qatar is not at risk of a violation of Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).

[Titehead]

no

[jim360]

Well, something must be up. Apparently he himself may not be at risk of torture, but the case against him uses it, hence Article 6 (right to fair trial) is being invoked.

The whole thing is a legal mess and I can't make head or tail of it. But my main objection is against all who want to harm another human being. Be it Qatada, or those who want him to suffer.

[knockavacca]

no

[Orderlimit]

Yea, the Article 6 seems the current issue, i.e, admissibility of co-defendant evidence in the two terrorism conspiracy cases and whether that information will be used or not in 'any' trial against him.

In my opinion (on the info available to the public), he should be deported to face trial for these most serious allegations and for matters of domestic protection.

[paddywak]

No

[tonyav]

No.

[DTCwordfan]

No

The best Thatch story I have seen is her passing upstairs and St Peter saying, "Margaret, we don't have your suite ready yet. So, we are going to send you back to Earth and put you in the UK Parliament again - for four months as Prime Minister."

Within two days, Qatada was back in Amman.

[bazwillrun]

@Zeuhl

it was kept simple for your benefit and you proved my point with a roughly 56 word diatribe

so what part of yes or no didnt you understand then !?

Not at all suprised by the regular do gooder handwringers who are happier for us to be seen to be upstanding and fair etc etc, in their books that takes priority of place over the security of UK citizens, and as usual cant stick to the point they want to debate semantics, technical points etc etc.

anyway seems to be an overwhelming no , most people dont care what happens to him.

at least on here most people are more concerned about the security of UK citizens rather than the rights of this illegal who we can but hope will shortly get a one way ticket out of here.

[ChillDoubt]

Not one iota.

[Zeuhl]

/so what part of yes or no didnt you understand then !? /

I understood it all

But ignored it (as did most other posters) as I thought you would benefit from a rational explanation

If you ask your teacher next time you're at your English as a Second Language class I think you'll find that 'diatribe' means:

'a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism'

so it's not a very accurate description for you to use in this case, however top marks Baz for trying to extend your vocabulary

[jim360]

There's arguably more threat to our security if we DO deport him since that's what was threatened in, for example, 2012.

Security shouldn't mean sacrificing the rule of law. And finally stop using do-gooder as in insult, it's not. "Oh, you're just so NICE!"