Abu Qatada

29 Mar 2013

Quote by GnV
Are you asking me not to post on here anymore star?

Stop being so childish, as that is not the first time you have asked that question. You're just as entitled as me to post on here.
I did not have you down as a soft soul kinda guy. :therethere::therethere:

29 Mar 2013

Well, that's all right then.
Just as long as we know where we stand star.

29 Mar 2013

Quote by GnV
Well, that's all right then.
Just as long as we know where we stand star.

Where's that then?

29 Mar 2013

Quote by flower411

It is truly frightening that an open supporter of a far right political party would write that, with absolutely no qualms whatsover after accusing somebody else of not being sensible.

Far right party? Who is that then? UKIP?

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
Nope no qualms at all about writing that at all.
You got a problem with that then?
The fact that you laugh at UKIP being described as Far Right is strange. Are you somehow ashamed of your extreme right wing views ? Many on here who hold right wing views are not ashamed of them at all, I`m at a loss to know why you react so aggressively when it is mentioned.
The fact that you have stated that you would be happy to act as judge, jury and exicutioner would tend to be indicative of a right wing mentality.
And I`m intrigued by your final question so I`ll answer it honestly ....
Yes.
in fairness flower there can be some very far left supporters in these forums at times wink

29 Mar 2013

Quote by Lizaleanrob
in fairness flower there can be some very far left supporters in these forums at times

They cannot see though Rob that is one of the single biggest reasons this country is in the dire shit that it is in. The Liberal left don't come close to some of the Social workers on here.:notes:

29 Mar 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Well except shooting him in the head I don't know what else we can do

Quote by GnV
So, that is sensible debate then...
I'll leave you to it.

I for one would not be at all unhappy if some trigger happy guy shot him in the head. I bet there would also privately be a few happy people in politics as well as out there in the real world, who would be dancing to their greatest tunes.
I think shooting him would be a very good outcome for the UK's finances and for it's overall safety, it certainly has been where Bin Bag Laden is concerned. Dead equals no more problems..........simples.:bounce:
*attempts to steer the thread back on track*
I don't want him dead or shot in the head and although he perhaps should be sent back from whence he came it isn't through any fault of his own that he hasn't been but rather the fault of the UK and European Parliaments who dream up the laws/guidelines and are then beaten by them.
I don't quite understand as to why they haven't just put him on a plane and flouted the 'law' just as they have in the past with other situations mind.

29 Mar 2013

Quote by Toots
I don't want him dead or shot in the head and although he perhaps should be sent back from whence he came it isn't through any fault of his own that he hasn't been but rather the fault of the UK and European Parliaments who dream up the laws/guidelines and are then beaten by them.

The laws are there to protect US, we can not choose who to protect and not to protect!

Quote by Toots
I don't quite understand as to why they haven't just put him on a plane and flouted the 'law' just as they have in the past with other situations mind.

Name a situation where we flouted the "law"???

29 Mar 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Name a situation where we flouted the "law"???

Operation Maximum Disruption, '1993 EU Single Market establishing the free movement of goods, people, services and capital' ... A few years later The UK Govt via Customs implemented Operation Maximum Disruption which resulted in thousands of UK individuals travelling back into the UK losing their goods due them being seen as smugglers. Eventually some of those 'smugglers' cases made it to the European court where the UK policy and operation were deemed as unlawful....but it didn't stop the Govt carrying on with the policy for a year or so after the ruling, I'd call that flouting the law.

---
Afghan Family deportation - deemed unlawful.

--
The case of the Libyan man re rendtion
The Govt settled without liability being accepted so as to avoid the intelligence agencies activities being brought out in open court.
What of Prisoners rights to vote?

Not sure if they can vote yet or not, doesnt say so here

30 Mar 2013

aaah my apologies I thought you just meant flouting in returning of alledged terrorists.
But just because laws have been flouted by the UK in the past does it mean that we should keep doing it because it suits a particular agenda?

30 Mar 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
aaah my apologies I thought you just meant flouting in returning of alledged terrorists.
But just because laws have been flouted by the UK in the past does it mean that we should keep doing it because it suits a particular agenda?

:laughabove::laughabove:
If I was you I would stop digging, as that hole is big enough already.
The point Toots was making has already been proved. The UK seem to flout the laws they deem they want to. So in the case of Quatada those laws could very easily be flouted again. Don't tell me the British Government have a tang of a guilty complex now. :twisted:

30 Mar 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
So in the case of Quatada those laws could very easily be flouted again. Don't tell me the British Government have a tang of a guilty complex now. :twisted:

So Star, since you are so blatantly superior to the trappings and workings of euro-politics, home politics and the justice system of the middle east, why don't they? What have they got to lose by just sending him back?
We used to allow rendition, we don't anymore...
We used to allow capital punishment, we don't anymore...
We can learn from our mistakes, it doesn't mean we have to continue to flout them just because it serves your agenda. Maybe you should do them same and learn from history that not everything we (the UK) have ever done has been right!

30 Mar 2013

"It isn't any fault of his own that he has not been sent back to Jordan"
Who keeps instigating the appeals to stay here and who keeps fighting the UK government in the courts, he does banghead

30 Mar 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
"It isn't any fault of his own that he has not been sent back to Jordan"
Who keeps instigating the appeals to stay here and who keeps fighting the UK government in the courts, he does

where did that quote come from Mids?

30 Mar 2013

From your recent post albeit you didn't say it, but that is where I read it, a bit scary that you quoted what someone had said and answered what they said without reading what they said don't you think wink

Quote by Rogue_Trader
I don't want him dead or shot in the head and although he perhaps should be sent back from whence he came it isn't through any fault of his own that he hasn't been but rather the fault of the UK and European Parliaments who dream up the laws/guidelines and are then beaten by them.

The laws are there to protect US, we can not choose who to protect and not to protect!

Quote by Toots
I don't quite understand as to why they haven't just put him on a plane and flouted the 'law' just as they have in the past with other situations mind.

Name a situation where we flouted the "law"???
And while I am here, "name a situation where we flouted the "law" ???"
I am not going into google and finding tons of information about the crimes of this country but to think we do not break laws morally and legally is a bit naive to say the least.
Centuries of it, allowing Stalin to have Poland after the 2nd world war, supporting Pohl Pott, The British Army in Afghanistan, our invasion of France and Russia, Internment without trial for years in Northern Ireland, a shoot to kill policy for the British Army against unarmed suspects, the bombing of civilian targets during WWII, the bombing of the Monastry at Monte Cassino during WWII, The sale of goods we did not possess to the Argentine Government in 1982, (good for which we were paid but never delievered and never refunded) The active support of press ganging, the invasion of Countries for no other reason than they could not stop us.

30 Mar 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
So Star, since you are so blatantly superior to the trappings and workings of euro-politics, home politics and the justice system of the middle east, why don't they? What have they got to lose by just sending him back?

That is a question that if only I knew the answer too, which I am afraid I don't.

Quote by Rogue_Trader
We can learn from our mistakes, it doesn't mean we have to continue to flout them just because it serves your agenda. Maybe you should do them same and learn from history that not everything we (the UK) have ever done has been right!

My agenda? So the British Government don't have an agenda then? It is crazy where our highest Judges deem him to be a very dangerous individual after they have let him go. loon

I think the vast majority of the people want him out. The rest of your comment makes no sense at all, and thankfully Mids has answered it.

30 Mar 2013

Mids, read the 2 sentences. The one you quoted and the one you said Toots quoted, funnily enough they use different words...this doesn't make them the same sentences...try again.
As it appears again you carefully misinterpret what I have said to suit your own petty twist on the argument. I asked for clarity on flouting of laws by the British government and toots was kind enough to provide them. I don't think I ever said I disagreed with her links, her proof and the conclusion that the government had flouted laws in the past.
In fact I would go as far as to say it's probably clear from what has been said the government will do the same in the future.
And Star if you didn't understand the comment, well that in itself speaks volumes...

31 Mar 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
As it appears again you carefully misinterpret what I have said to suit your own petty twist on the argument.

In response to a post Mids made, then

And Star if you didn't understand the comment, well that in itself speaks volumes...

Did I say that Rogue, or did I say......." That is a question that if only I knew the answer too, which I am afraid I don't ". Or are you talking about something else?

31 Mar 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Mids, read the 2 sentences. The one you quoted and the one you said Toots quoted, funnily enough they use different words...this doesn't make them the same sentences...try again.
As it appears again you carefully misinterpret what I have said to suit your own petty twist on the argument. I asked for clarity on flouting of laws by the British government and toots was kind enough to provide them. I don't think I ever said I disagreed with her links, her proof and the conclusion that the government had flouted laws in the past.
In fact I would go as far as to say it's probably clear from what has been said the government will do the same in the future.
And Star if you didn't understand the comment, well that in itself speaks volumes...

I have no idea what you are talking about, you asked me to show you where a certain thing I quoted was written, I showed you, I then went on to comment on something you yourself said. Please demonstrate where I have misinterpreted what you said

31 Mar 2013

Quote by flower411

Did I say that Rogue, or did I say......." That is a question that if only I knew the answer too, which I am afraid I don't ". Or are you talking about something else?

Maybe if you were to write in English people would understand what you were saying.
He can't write in English flower, he's from London... Errr well, Kent now.
Well, a London Borough of Kent actually which he won't admit to as he's a snotty countryside dweller now and that don't fit too well with his masters at Farage Towers or the RSPCA who see him as a potential candidate for the Bexley Hunt :lol2:

31 Mar 2013

Go on admit it..........GnV and Flower are one of the same person, in fact they are the same cheeks on the same backside. That's what it is. :notes:

So who is the left cheek then? :rascal:

31 Mar 2013

Quote by GnV
Well, a London Borough of Kent actually which he won't admit to as he's a snotty countryside dweller now and that don't fit too well with his masters at Farage Towers or the RSPCA who see him as a potential candidate for the Bexley Hunt :lol2:

The question is........is Bexley in London?
This happens all round the edge of London. When the former county of London was expanded into Greater London in 1965 and the current London Boroughs were created, the Post Office didn't bother changing the addresses because that would be far too big a job and confuse everyone. Middlesex was abolished completely but there are still thousands of addresses with "Middlesex" in them.
So... for government purposes Bexley is in London. For postal purposes it's in Kent. Bexley still comes under the parish of Kent though.
Does that cover things for you GnV?

31 Mar 2013

Quote by Toots
Well except shooting him in the head I don't know what else we can do

Quote by GnV
So, that is sensible debate then...
I'll leave you to it.

I for one would not be at all unhappy if some trigger happy guy shot him in the head. I bet there would also privately be a few happy people in politics as well as out there in the real world, who would be dancing to their greatest tunes.
I think shooting him would be a very good outcome for the UK's finances and for it's overall safety, it certainly has been where Bin Bag Laden is concerned. Dead equals no more problems..........simples.:bounce:
*attempts to steer the thread back on track*
I don't want him dead or shot in the head and although he perhaps should be sent back from whence he came it isn't through any fault of his own that he hasn't been but rather the fault of the UK and European Parliaments who dream up the laws/guidelines and are then beaten by them.
I don't quite understand as to why they haven't just put him on a plane and flouted the 'law' just as they have in the past with other situations mind.
"Flouting the law" ..."ends justify the means" ... beware .. this is the thin edge of the wedge...
once you go down this route where does it stop?? ...would you be confident that if the govt were to flout the law in this situation that they'd hesitate to flout the law in other circumstances .... ? I don't think they would.
Adhereance to the law is a safer guard for Qatada .. Yes certainly BUT it is also a safeguard for you , me and our friends neighbours work colleagues family and friends
....and if that makes me a "limp wristed liberal" ... guilty as charged!
Jack

31 Mar 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

Well, a London Borough of Kent actually which he won't admit to as he's a snotty countryside dweller now and that don't fit too well with his masters at Farage Towers or the RSPCA who see him as a potential candidate for the Bexley Hunt :lol2:

The question is........is Bexley in London?
This happens all round the edge of London. When the former county of London was expanded into Greater London in 1965 and the current London Boroughs were created, the Post Office didn't bother changing the addresses because that would be far too big a job and confuse everyone. Middlesex was abolished completely but there are still thousands of addresses with "Middlesex" in them.
So... for government purposes Bexley is in London. For postal purposes it's in Kent. Bexley still comes under the parish of Kent though.
Does that cover things for you GnV?
Yes thanks star. It's now very clear.
Bexley is actually the London Borough of Bexley because some twat at the Post Office couldn't be arsed to change the post code.
And, since when has Kent been a parish?
I might be getting a bit senile but last time I was there, it was a county with a County Council.
Not Bexley though. It has its own London Borough Council.... flipa

31 Mar 2013

Quote by GnV

Well, a London Borough of Kent actually which he won't admit to as he's a snotty countryside dweller now and that don't fit too well with his masters at Farage Towers or the RSPCA who see him as a potential candidate for the Bexley Hunt :lol2:

The question is........is Bexley in London?
This happens all round the edge of London. When the former county of London was expanded into Greater London in 1965 and the current London Boroughs were created, the Post Office didn't bother changing the addresses because that would be far too big a job and confuse everyone. Middlesex was abolished completely but there are still thousands of addresses with "Middlesex" in them.
So... for government purposes Bexley is in London. For postal purposes it's in Kent. Bexley still comes under the parish of Kent though.
Does that cover things for you GnV?
Yes thanks star. It's now very clear.
Bexley is actually the London Borough of Bexley because some twat at the Post Office couldn't be arsed to change the post code.
And, since when has Kent been a parish?
I might be getting a bit senile but last time I was there, it was a county with a County Council.
Not Bexley though. It has its own London Borough Council.... flipa

Guys, does it matter, wherever it is, whatever it is, it is all just part of the wonderfull EU and the EU state of the United Kingdom lol

1 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Guys, does it matter, wherever it is, whatever it is, it is all just part of the wonderfull EU and the EU state of the United Kingdom

Of course it matters Mids. All things change over time as that is the natural evolution of things, but some things never change. They may change in name but history shows us many things.

It used to be a very small village, and was and still is part of a Parish. Yes things and times have changed, but not on the history books. wink

1 Apr 2013

Not sure what you actually mean, I understand History is important, it is good to learn from our past and to understand the what's, why's and where's but are you saying we should ignore history, because it used to be a parish it is wrong for it to now be part of a city ? wasn't London a small fishing port once ?
I was born in Barrow in Furness Lancashire, a town of great history, a town where Britains first Nuclear Submarine was built and where many great ships and submarines have been built since, I have my Red Rose tattooed on my forearm below the word LANCASHIRE, but times changed and Barrow is now in the County of Cumbria, I remember my heritage and am proud to be from Lancashire but accept that if I return I return to Cumbria.
Isn't being part of the bigger picture, the City of London what being part of the EU is all about ? it is a Parish in a City in the United Kingdom a member state of the European Community lol

What it is now is history, perhaps this will show it to be a good thing or a bad thing and another thing we can learn from in the future.

1 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
What it is now is history, perhaps this will show it to be a good thing or a bad thing and another thing we can learn from in the future.

A very important point Mids and one I was trying to stress earlier that people were seeking to overlook to suit their own agendas.
Just because we eff'd up in the past doesn't mean we should carry on doing it!!

1 Apr 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
What it is now is history, perhaps this will show it to be a good thing or a bad thing and another thing we can learn from in the future.

A very important point Mids and one I was trying to stress earlier that people were seeking to overlook to suit their own agendas.
Just because we eff'd up in the past doesn't mean we should carry on doing it!!
But isn't that the wole point of English law Rogue... Precedent!

1 Apr 2013

Quote by GnV
What it is now is history, perhaps this will show it to be a good thing or a bad thing and another thing we can learn from in the future.

A very important point Mids and one I was trying to stress earlier that people were seeking to overlook to suit their own agendas.
Just because we eff'd up in the past doesn't mean we should carry on doing it!!
But isn't that the wole point of English law Rogue... Precedent!
Only when no law exists is to use precedent but even then common sense comes in to play as does serving the greater good, i.e. in the public interest.
What has happened with this case though is that we have not proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that evidence secured under torture will not be used when trying this despicable person.
We know what we have to do to get it, but for some reason we keep getting it wrong!
This has been a very expensive and embarrassing lesson in how not to repatriate someone.

25 Apr 2013

So here we are yet again, with this mans legal team running rings around the British Government and their expensive clever lawyers.
So now Cameron the buffoon is looking at a " temporary withdrawal " from the European Convention of Human Rights to enable the deportation of Abu Qatada.
There is no way that the Lib Dems will go along with that so has Cameron got to go it alone in getting this man out of the UK? As Yvette Cooper said yesterday, no matter what assurances Jordon give the powers that be have made their minds up that Qatada will not get a fair trial so will never give the go ahead for his deportation to stand trial.
So the options get more ludicrous by the week. Is, or has Cameron got the guts to defy Europe? Has he got the guts to remove the UK allbeit temporarily from the Human Rights act so we can then deport him? Has the UK lost it's rights to govern this country from our democratically elected Government? Will this man ever be kicked out of the UK?
The laws are there and must be abided by says the British Government, but surely the law could be changed? People are talking about putting him to trial in the UK, but I would not want the British taxpayer to foot the bill for that, and then if he was to be found guilty, serve even more time in a British jail at the taxpayers expense.
I always was under the impression that this Government stated it was going to look at the Human Rights Act, and remove the bits that stopped this Government from doing the right thing, from a security point of view at least, to protect the security of the British people?
Has Cameron and May got enough support in Parliament to implement any changes to the law? Will Qatada still be here next year, still mocking us, and the British taxpayer still picking up the tab for this vile man?