Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Terror Mentor Lioving On Benefits And Claiming Human Rights Breach
20 Answers
this is a disgraceful story she should be kicked out of this country now
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gordiescotland1. 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.
from one of the comments
“Islam is not a religion of peace. It’s a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can. Every accommodation of Muslim demands leads to a sense of euphoria and a conviction that Allah is on their side. They see every act of appeasement as an invitation to make fresh demands.”
and dont we know it over here.
all we do to them and most other immigrants now is bend over backwards to accomodate them and their wishes and beliefs.
We have been cowee into a position of submission by them and the leftie liberals to such a degree its virtually impossible to actually say what we feel or what we want.
we only have freedom of speech as long as it agrees with their dogma and their "lets destroy britains white majority at all costs " view.
“Islam is not a religion of peace. It’s a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can. Every accommodation of Muslim demands leads to a sense of euphoria and a conviction that Allah is on their side. They see every act of appeasement as an invitation to make fresh demands.”
and dont we know it over here.
all we do to them and most other immigrants now is bend over backwards to accomodate them and their wishes and beliefs.
We have been cowee into a position of submission by them and the leftie liberals to such a degree its virtually impossible to actually say what we feel or what we want.
we only have freedom of speech as long as it agrees with their dogma and their "lets destroy britains white majority at all costs " view.
-- answer removed --
It was her husband who is the supposed 'terror mentor', he lives in France and he does not get benefits. He has lived separately from her for many years, chiefly because he was in a french prison.
Her 'terrorism conviction' was under the 2000 Act. While travelling, she was pulled at East Midlands Airport. She refused to answer any questions about her husband. She was convicted for that, not talking.
She is allowed to stay here because she is an EU citizen.
Her 'terrorism conviction' was under the 2000 Act. While travelling, she was pulled at East Midlands Airport. She refused to answer any questions about her husband. She was convicted for that, not talking.
She is allowed to stay here because she is an EU citizen.
// Mrs Beghal, a French citizen who lives in the UK, was stopped in January 2011 after arriving at East Midlands Airport on a flight from Paris.
Police officers told her she was being held under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, a power that allows them to hold someone for up to nine hours and question them about whether they are involved in terrorism.
Mrs Beghal's husband is an Algerian man who was convicted and jailed in France on terrorism charges.
Djemal Beghal claims he was tortured and that his conviction is unfair.
The balance struck between individual rights and the public interest in protection against terrorism does not violate the fundamental human rights in question”
Lord Justice GrossLord Justice of Appeal
Following the stop, Mrs Beghal refused to answer police questions without the presence of a solicitor.
She was allowed to speak to a lawyer on the phone before police asked her about her movements. When she refused to answer the questions, she was charged and later convicted of failing to comply with the order.
In her challenge, lawyers argued that the powers under schedule 7 were so widely drawn that they meant that anyone could be stopped without reasonable suspicion.
They said that those questioned at airports under the legislation were denied the right not to answer questions, unlike criminal suspects who were arrested and interviewed in a police station. //
Police officers told her she was being held under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, a power that allows them to hold someone for up to nine hours and question them about whether they are involved in terrorism.
Mrs Beghal's husband is an Algerian man who was convicted and jailed in France on terrorism charges.
Djemal Beghal claims he was tortured and that his conviction is unfair.
The balance struck between individual rights and the public interest in protection against terrorism does not violate the fundamental human rights in question”
Lord Justice GrossLord Justice of Appeal
Following the stop, Mrs Beghal refused to answer police questions without the presence of a solicitor.
She was allowed to speak to a lawyer on the phone before police asked her about her movements. When she refused to answer the questions, she was charged and later convicted of failing to comply with the order.
In her challenge, lawyers argued that the powers under schedule 7 were so widely drawn that they meant that anyone could be stopped without reasonable suspicion.
They said that those questioned at airports under the legislation were denied the right not to answer questions, unlike criminal suspects who were arrested and interviewed in a police station. //
"The balance struck between individual rights and the public interest in protection against terrorism does not violate the fundamental human rights in question”
aaah good ole oooman rights, never let that get in the way of the security and protection of the majority.
always better to put the majority at risk rather than risk upsetting an individual....it would be laughable if it werent so serious...
aaah good ole oooman rights, never let that get in the way of the security and protection of the majority.
always better to put the majority at risk rather than risk upsetting an individual....it would be laughable if it werent so serious...
The claim is that she is possibly involved given that her husband is a convicted terrorist.
I do not agree that refusing to help police investigate terrorism and assaulting an officer should both be grounds for immediate deportation. Sounds rather harsh to me.
It is an unfortunate situation, but I think, until further evidence is produced, one that seems blown out of proportion to sell newspapers.
I do not agree that refusing to help police investigate terrorism and assaulting an officer should both be grounds for immediate deportation. Sounds rather harsh to me.
It is an unfortunate situation, but I think, until further evidence is produced, one that seems blown out of proportion to sell newspapers.
Just spotted another lie/mistake in the Express link.
She was charged with wilfully obstructing a search, assaulting a constable and wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.
The first two charges were eventually dismissed in December 2011 after the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and Mrs Beghal pleaded guilty to the third charge.
In the Express link, they say
// She refused and was later convicted of failing to comply with a duty to answer questions, obstructing a search and assaulting a police officer. //
She was charged with wilfully obstructing a search, assaulting a constable and wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.
The first two charges were eventually dismissed in December 2011 after the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and Mrs Beghal pleaded guilty to the third charge.
In the Express link, they say
// She refused and was later convicted of failing to comply with a duty to answer questions, obstructing a search and assaulting a police officer. //
"We have elected MEPs who have voted on everything the EEC//EU have since 1973. "
All very laudable. The difficulty is (leaving aside the fact that MEPs have no powers to formulate or propose legislation and have only very limited rights of amendment) is that the UK has less than 10% of the MEPs. This means that legislation can be (and often is) passed which is not in the best interests of the UK. It is similar to the situation that the Scots moan about where their MPs are often outvoted by those from the rest of the UK. The difference, however, is that Scotland is not an independent sovereign state whose legislature shoud reign supreme whereas the UK is.
All very laudable. The difficulty is (leaving aside the fact that MEPs have no powers to formulate or propose legislation and have only very limited rights of amendment) is that the UK has less than 10% of the MEPs. This means that legislation can be (and often is) passed which is not in the best interests of the UK. It is similar to the situation that the Scots moan about where their MPs are often outvoted by those from the rest of the UK. The difference, however, is that Scotland is not an independent sovereign state whose legislature shoud reign supreme whereas the UK is.
Those of the member states, baz. Their Parliaments do not reign supreme as they should do and the forum that does (the EU Commision and Parliament) produces legislation that trumps that passed by Westminster. This means that effectively the UK (with just 10% of the votes in the EU Parliament) has no control over the laws governing its electorate. To assert that it is all hunky-dory because we have 72 MEPs who have the vote on legislation that is thrust under their noses is utter nonsense.
No they certainly do not, Gromit. Furthermore they do not materialise courtesy of MEPs. All legislation is proposed by the European Commission. The MEPs may form committees to discuss whether or not to approve the legislation (which in reality is their only choice) but propose it they do not.
This ream of bilge tells you all about MEPs:
http://
Whereas this tells you all about the European Commission:
uk.ask.com/wiki/European_Commission?qsrc=3044&lang=en
If you have the mind to wade through it you will see that MEPs have no power to initiate legislation and that is vested in the Commission only. And in any case even if they had, the same 10% argument still applies.
This ream of bilge tells you all about MEPs:
http://
Whereas this tells you all about the European Commission:
uk.ask.com/wiki/European_Commission?qsrc=3044&lang=en
If you have the mind to wade through it you will see that MEPs have no power to initiate legislation and that is vested in the Commission only. And in any case even if they had, the same 10% argument still applies.
1 to 20 of 20
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.