ChatterBank0 min ago
appeals
The "alledged" terrorists from Pakistan have now all appealed against deportation, if we thought a trial too expensive as there would not have been enough evidence to convict them, what the hell is this going to cost the tax-payer? it may take months to hear their appeal, they are to be held in a detention centre until then, if they are innocent, is this legal?
Why can't they just be told they must return to Pakistan, if they do need to travel here, that, their documents should be in order, and lastly, they must have been under surveillance for quite some time,,,,why?
Why can't they just be told they must return to Pakistan, if they do need to travel here, that, their documents should be in order, and lastly, they must have been under surveillance for quite some time,,,,why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Joy11. 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.
One of the main reasons that these latest arrests ended with no charges is because the law in this country does not allow �intercept� evidence to be presented to court. It is clear that the authorities had some reason to round up the latest group (I don�t think too many people believe they were simply chosen at random) but with the exception of �conspiracy� charges (notoriously difficult to prove) there is no possibility in the UK of a successful prosecution for what people might do. We have to wait until they do it.
No evidence of any wrongdoing was found, and the CPS did not even seek to extend the period of detention of the group to the maximum allowed under terrorist laws.
They now face deportation �on the grounds of national security�. The standard of proof required to succeed with this is much lower but the group will exercise their right to numerous appeals, probably up to and including the European courts. This will not take months, it will take years and will cost the taxpayer enormous sums of money. During the first part of this period they will be detained (on the basis that they are not in custody and are free to leave at any time, provided they leave the country). This will almost certainly face an appeal and will equally almost certainly be successful. They will then be released to go about their business (whatever that might be) for the foreseeable future.
Unless the UK alters its laws and immigration procedures (and, more importantly, decides who is to be allowed to judge issues arising from them) we will have to continue to allow people whom the authorities judge to be a risk to live here.
No evidence of any wrongdoing was found, and the CPS did not even seek to extend the period of detention of the group to the maximum allowed under terrorist laws.
They now face deportation �on the grounds of national security�. The standard of proof required to succeed with this is much lower but the group will exercise their right to numerous appeals, probably up to and including the European courts. This will not take months, it will take years and will cost the taxpayer enormous sums of money. During the first part of this period they will be detained (on the basis that they are not in custody and are free to leave at any time, provided they leave the country). This will almost certainly face an appeal and will equally almost certainly be successful. They will then be released to go about their business (whatever that might be) for the foreseeable future.
Unless the UK alters its laws and immigration procedures (and, more importantly, decides who is to be allowed to judge issues arising from them) we will have to continue to allow people whom the authorities judge to be a risk to live here.
The arrest were sparked by a lapse of Security by Bob Quick, but how the events have subsequently unfolded is now a familiar story.
High profile arrests, the media tipped off, stories circulate of the targets, and then it all turns out to be baseless and the people are released without charge. People mumble about no smoke without fire etc even though no evidence is found.
This case is very similar to the plot to bomb Old Trafford which was scary and shocking, and also completely false.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/may/02/ukn ews
However, planting fears that nightclubs, football grounds and shopping centres are bomb targets are useful when they want to introduce more intrusive laws to snoop on us all.
High profile arrests, the media tipped off, stories circulate of the targets, and then it all turns out to be baseless and the people are released without charge. People mumble about no smoke without fire etc even though no evidence is found.
This case is very similar to the plot to bomb Old Trafford which was scary and shocking, and also completely false.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/may/02/ukn ews
However, planting fears that nightclubs, football grounds and shopping centres are bomb targets are useful when they want to introduce more intrusive laws to snoop on us all.
I dont understand. They are not British or European so what right do they have to be here? If we dont want someone why should we even have to give an excuse, especially in the case of those without papers.
Just what exactly are they appealing against? Are they claiming asylum?
This country really has gone to the dogs.
Just what exactly are they appealing against? Are they claiming asylum?
This country really has gone to the dogs.
youngmafbog
One is a British Citizen. The other 11 are rather concerned that they have been branded as terrorists, not had chance to clear their name, and then may find themselves deported and handed to the torturers in the Pakistan.
The British Government colluded in the torture in Pakistan of Binyam Mohamed, so their fears might not be wrong.
One is a British Citizen. The other 11 are rather concerned that they have been branded as terrorists, not had chance to clear their name, and then may find themselves deported and handed to the torturers in the Pakistan.
The British Government colluded in the torture in Pakistan of Binyam Mohamed, so their fears might not be wrong.
There is no such thing as �automatic� deportation from the UK. Even those who have been properly convicted of the most serious crimes are allowed to stay after their sentence is served.
At the heart of this lies our Human Rights legislation. As I said in one of my postings only yesterday, the 1998 Human Rights Act (based on the European Convention on Human Rights � the ECHR) is deliberately vaguely drafted. It has thus been interpreted that it is illegal for the UK to deport a person to any country on the most flimsy grounds.
As an example, we have the case of Learco Chindamo, the son of an Italian gangster and Filipino mother. In 1995 at the age of 15 he stabbed headmaster Philip Lawrence to death. He was sentenced to a minimum of 12 years without parole, and upon release was to have been deported. However, he appealed and in August 2007 the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that he could not be expelled. They based this on two grounds. Firstly that as a citizen of the EU he had the right to settle in any EU country of his choice but secondly, they said that even if that had not been the case, deportation would have led to a breach of his rights under Article 8 (the right to a private family life) of the ECHR.
The Home Office said it would appeal the decision, but it did not (it had no grounds). I believe Chindamo was released from prison last year and the last I heard was living in London, enjoying police protection as there had been threats to his life. (Mr Lawrence�s widow suffered harassment, threats and burglary, coincidentally when Chindamo�s parole hearing was imminent, but was not afforded such courtesies).
If we cannot expel him, we have no chance of expelling innocent students, and it is dishonest of the government to suggest that we have.
At the heart of this lies our Human Rights legislation. As I said in one of my postings only yesterday, the 1998 Human Rights Act (based on the European Convention on Human Rights � the ECHR) is deliberately vaguely drafted. It has thus been interpreted that it is illegal for the UK to deport a person to any country on the most flimsy grounds.
As an example, we have the case of Learco Chindamo, the son of an Italian gangster and Filipino mother. In 1995 at the age of 15 he stabbed headmaster Philip Lawrence to death. He was sentenced to a minimum of 12 years without parole, and upon release was to have been deported. However, he appealed and in August 2007 the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that he could not be expelled. They based this on two grounds. Firstly that as a citizen of the EU he had the right to settle in any EU country of his choice but secondly, they said that even if that had not been the case, deportation would have led to a breach of his rights under Article 8 (the right to a private family life) of the ECHR.
The Home Office said it would appeal the decision, but it did not (it had no grounds). I believe Chindamo was released from prison last year and the last I heard was living in London, enjoying police protection as there had been threats to his life. (Mr Lawrence�s widow suffered harassment, threats and burglary, coincidentally when Chindamo�s parole hearing was imminent, but was not afforded such courtesies).
If we cannot expel him, we have no chance of expelling innocent students, and it is dishonest of the government to suggest that we have.
That is not the issue that the government needs to address, joy.
We need to forget what the situation was a hundred years ago (as far as the �Commonwealth� is concerned) and what it was sixty years ago (as far as the ECHR is concerned) and instead concentrate on how it is now.
We need to regain control of who is and is not allowed to remain here. At present we do not have such control and will not have whilst we retain the 1998 Act, whilst we remain signatories to the ECHR and whilst we remain members of the EU (unless there are drastic changes to the rules relating to membership, in particular freedom of movement).
Since none of these things are likely to alter the government should come clean and say that we have no control over who lives here and who does not, regardless of what they have done or might do.
To suggest anything otherwise is dishonest.
We need to forget what the situation was a hundred years ago (as far as the �Commonwealth� is concerned) and what it was sixty years ago (as far as the ECHR is concerned) and instead concentrate on how it is now.
We need to regain control of who is and is not allowed to remain here. At present we do not have such control and will not have whilst we retain the 1998 Act, whilst we remain signatories to the ECHR and whilst we remain members of the EU (unless there are drastic changes to the rules relating to membership, in particular freedom of movement).
Since none of these things are likely to alter the government should come clean and say that we have no control over who lives here and who does not, regardless of what they have done or might do.
To suggest anything otherwise is dishonest.
We in Great Britain either have the greatest democracy of all the world or we have the most abused system of all? Which is it?
Gromit:
"The British Government colluded in the torture in Pakistan of Binyam Mohamed."
I was not aware that this allegation by Mr Mohamed and his legal team, paid for by the British taxpayer, had been decided in a recognised Court of Law? Have I missed something?
Gromit:
"The British Government colluded in the torture in Pakistan of Binyam Mohamed."
I was not aware that this allegation by Mr Mohamed and his legal team, paid for by the British taxpayer, had been decided in a recognised Court of Law? Have I missed something?
paraffin
The British Government are embarrassed by Binyam Mohamed allegations and are resisting calls for them to be investigated fully.
The Shadow Justice Secretary, Dominic Grieve, called for a judicial inquiry into the allegations and for the matter to be referred to the police. Shami Chakrabarti, director of campaign group Liberty said: "These are more than allegations - these are pieces of a puzzle that are being put together. It makes an immediate criminal investigation absolutely inescapable."
On 12 March 2009 in an op-ed piece in The Guardian, Timothy Garton Ash called for Mohamed's claims of torture and MI5 collusion to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, saying that any other decision "will inevitably be interpreted as a political cover-up."
The claims are unproven because the Government are unwilling to reveal if they are true or not.
The British Government are embarrassed by Binyam Mohamed allegations and are resisting calls for them to be investigated fully.
The Shadow Justice Secretary, Dominic Grieve, called for a judicial inquiry into the allegations and for the matter to be referred to the police. Shami Chakrabarti, director of campaign group Liberty said: "These are more than allegations - these are pieces of a puzzle that are being put together. It makes an immediate criminal investigation absolutely inescapable."
On 12 March 2009 in an op-ed piece in The Guardian, Timothy Garton Ash called for Mohamed's claims of torture and MI5 collusion to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, saying that any other decision "will inevitably be interpreted as a political cover-up."
The claims are unproven because the Government are unwilling to reveal if they are true or not.
Did I hear right? Gordon Brown was in Pakistan this week and the president gave him the snub for treating these students as guilty when unproven. Brown's defensive reply was that we are an hospitable nation and to prove it we have 1,000,000 Pakistan students studying in Britain.
How many of these have slipped the security net I wonder.
How many of these have slipped the security net I wonder.
Gromit:
Surely you can do better than a lame "The claims are unproven because the Government are unwilling to reveal if they are true or not."
That means, therefore, that if the Government turns round and "reveals": "These allegations are totally untrue and without foundation."................you'd accept their word? Because that's exactly what you've said.
S'pose it'd save further totally unnecessary burden on the British taxpayer and would then mean that Mr Mohamed could be returned to his homeland of Ethiopia? I'm sure that the hard-pressed British taxpayer would gladly pay his one way ticket home.
Surely you can do better than a lame "The claims are unproven because the Government are unwilling to reveal if they are true or not."
That means, therefore, that if the Government turns round and "reveals": "These allegations are totally untrue and without foundation."................you'd accept their word? Because that's exactly what you've said.
S'pose it'd save further totally unnecessary burden on the British taxpayer and would then mean that Mr Mohamed could be returned to his homeland of Ethiopia? I'm sure that the hard-pressed British taxpayer would gladly pay his one way ticket home.
According to this report there are over 2000 bogus colleges in the UK. If the student numbers reached 500 each this would achieve approx 1m. Your figure of 42,000 spread amongst these colleges would only be 21 students over a 4 year period. And that is only the illegal colleges.
Bogus" colleges have enabled migrants from around the world to come to Britain by claiming that they are students on further education courses, or learning English. The absence of automatic interviews for every applicant for a visa has allowed bogus students, in turn, to escape proper scrutiny by British officials who issue the travel document overseas. There are up to 2,000 such "bogus" institutions in the UK, according to the Home Office
Bogus" colleges have enabled migrants from around the world to come to Britain by claiming that they are students on further education courses, or learning English. The absence of automatic interviews for every applicant for a visa has allowed bogus students, in turn, to escape proper scrutiny by British officials who issue the travel document overseas. There are up to 2,000 such "bogus" institutions in the UK, according to the Home Office
