Ah yeah, well um, um, um, I knew he was being sarcastic all along m'lud.

Honest...

Say new more Jim, under the Terrorism Act 2006, Shiney has no right in law to know the evidence against him.

Quick, ship him out to Guantanamo before they close it, that'll rid him of his fag habit!

I couldn't possibly comment.

If only the liberals would argue that it's more relevant to count the cost of keeping this creature alive, fed, watered and warm.

Maybe they should have let the Americans have him, I hear there is an available suite at Guantamo Bay...

Oooh that's spooky OxfordSteve and Shiny both had Guantanamo Bay on their minds at that same time...

I think you'll find he's now under a (slightly less illegal) control order, and under house arrest, so I doubt we are feeding him any more.

Liberals are so shyte aren't they, insisting that the state can't bang people up without any actual evidence that has been proven in court.
They should be allowed to just lock 'em up and throw away the key on a whim. Fortunately, that appears to be what Ken Clarke is planning.

I can't believe how much sleep I'm going to lose when we can lock up those advocating terrorism against their host natio.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yeah you're right, there is absolutely no chance that he and his extended family are living off the state.

I mean, a hard working fellow like that will obviously have time for a 9 to 5 in between hate speeches, and lest we forget numerous prayers during the day.

Or possibly counting the £170,000 in cash police found at his home address...

What if the majority change their opinion of you? It has to have due process. The state cannot have the power to wilfully dispose of people it finds awkward. Regardless of whether the public view his as bad or not. If he then the systems in place will deal with him.

Now whether I think those systems are suitable is another mater.



Exactly as I said earlier.

Not often we agree OS

Thereby hangs a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening here. If ONE individual's rights in law are not protected, NONE of our rights in law are protected.

i am advocating deporting a man who supports murder and terrorist activities, do you seriously want a bloke like this in our country, do you put his 'civil rights' before the safety of decent people, lets remember this guy activily encourages and promotes terrorist activity, the aim of which is ultimately to blow up innocent people, i'm sorry but lets be real here and get this lunatic out of our country

Sedicivalvole, i am not suggesting that we rid our country of those who express an opionion which is seen as outwith the social norm, but i am suggesting that we get rid of those who incite and encourage murder and terrorist activity

it is not a fundamental misunderstanding at all, it's a desire to rid the country of foreign lunatics who want to disrupt and cause chaos in our society through ultimately wanting to murder people, i won't apologise for that desire at all, by deporting lunatics like this no decent individual's rights are affected at all, so i'm afraid that statement you made is just not true

You seem to have missed the "on what evidence" bit. Sorry to be an old stick-in-the-mud, but if we had sufficient evidence to convict him, then convict him we would.

According to an article I read this evening, the advice given by the security services when he arrived was that he was "All talk", and did Not a constitute a threat.

So, to charge him now would tell us one of two things. Either back then the security forces were useless then, OR they are making it all up now. Or both.

Any way, if it comes to court, MI5/6/Bodie & Doyle will look pretty stupid.
Which is why it wont come to court, and why the govt is so keen to ship him out to Jordan (the country I assume, not the big-jugged bint).

So your desire to act without evidence and bypass all of our laws does not equate to a fundamental misunderstanding that the rule and protection of law must apply to everyone individually before it can be said to apply to us all collectively? Perhaps the prefix "funda" was superfluous.

this guy is not even a British national, he is just hiding out here, taking all he can get from the system for him and his family

quite frankly its saps like you with your namby pamby approach to things that make this country an easy target for lunatics

Guys like me??

Well clearly I am a threat to the state and should be locked up for these thought crimes.

i was responding to azzura's comment, not yours

I just happen to think that our system works when it is applied and that it has to be applied to all equally to make it work. If there exists evidence lawfully obtained that the man has committed crimes he can be prosecuted here for them, if the Jordanians have evidence lawfully obtained and give the appropriate binding legal assurances that they will not use evidence unlawfully obtained, he can be prosecuted there. It is very simple.

Frankly, I consider the ill educated xenophobic rantings of people who wish to ignore or destroy the well founded legal protections that all in our society should enjoy simply to satisfy prejudice , a far,far greater threat to our society than any potential or actual terrorist.

Thanks for the early morning belly laugh though, "namby pamby sap" is so far turned around from the usual descriptions of my actions as to make a refreshing change.

The eventual outcome of your thinking Doug is well illustrated in the film "V for Vendetta".

Ross

why don't you invite this guy round for tea at yours, as he's clearly just a poor misunderstood individual and you clearly don't mind supporting the 'human rights' of those who would seek to undermine and destroy our way of life, those who support and sponsor terrorist organisations

you will probably just dismiss that as another rant from an ill educated xenophobe

although if you consider the rantings from myself and the like as being more of a threat to our society than an 'actual terrorist' then it just reiterates my early opinion of your attitude

Nobody is saying he's a nice person, but you can't apply right based on who's nice or who you think deserves them. Rights have to apply to everybody or else they are useless.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that anyone in this thread supports, likes or approves of Abu Qatada. The only point being made is that in order to convict him (or anyone) of an offence, you have to establish their guilt through a process of law. Without ensuring that this process is thorough, just and objective, there is nothing to stop others (you, perhaps, or me or my dear old Mum) from being punished for something that they are only guilty of because someone reckons they are.

Seriously, you have made a lot of allegations about this bloke, but how much evidence have you actually seen that wasn't filtered by the editor of a newspaper or TV newsroom, written by someone unaccountable on a website or told you down the pub by a mate? I'm not saying for a moment that he doesn't hold or express views we find repugnant and unacceptable, but in grown-up world, we are responsible for all our actions and meting out superhero fiery "justice" is something we need to leave behind when we're 14.

Tell us what it was like though wont you Steve...

Oh i don't know about that, he does drive a yellow car is suspiciously friendly with Homodan

And Marco...

That is the thing that most alarms me. We have spent hundreds of years fighting and pushing for what we have now.

Then for the last 50 years we have had a semblance of a fair society. Now people who have grown up in or around that period either ignore or forget, the warnings of history as to how things were and could so easily be again.

We must protect what prior generations have fought so hard to achieve. It still bends the mind that human rights are not enshrined in this country and could be legally removed.

Protected in a well constructed bill of rights perhaps. Weren't we promised one by this government when they slithered into office?

Given the amount of good it seems to be doing the home of extraordinary rendition, 'enhanced' interrogation techniques and TLD censoring I am, on this occasion, not sure we're missing out on that much.