drat01 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Seems like the real danger to the country are those who try to convince themselves he presents no threat at all. and who are these "people"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 He obtained asylum back in 1993 using a fake passport Isn't that fraud? Many asylum seekers arrive with missing or fake documentation. It is often a consequence of what they are escaping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 i wonder if your defense of May would have been so vocal if she had been Labour, I think the answer would have been no. A vocal defence? I said that in this case she's done nothing wrong and yet you seem to be trying to blame May for this judgement. Can you explain exactly why it is her fault, please? Wht about the admission that Tory James Brokenshire had investigated the possibility of a pardon for him? How does that fit in with your views? It is consistent with attempts to get him out of the country (the pardon would have been in Jordan). That would have been the best result for the British people so again, what is wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 and who are these "people"? They are THE ENEMY WITHIN. They must be hunted down like dogs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 They are THE ENEMY WITHIN. They must be hunted down with dogs. Fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Many asylum seekers arrive with missing or fake documentation. It is often a consequence of what they are escaping. In this case a history of terrorism.. Peter, do you think that a foreign national openly supporting AL Qaeda and wanted elsewhere on charges of terrorism should be allowed to remain in the UK, where the security services consider him to be a clear danger to the population? If so, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 A vocal defence? I said that in this case she's done nothing wrong and yet you seem to be trying to blame May for this judgement. Can you explain exactly why it is her fault, please? It is consistent with attempts to get him out of the country (the pardon would have been in Jordan). That would have been the best result for the British people so again, what is wrong with that? You really don't read any of the posts do you? I have explained the mistakes she and her department has made. Also as I have said BOTH Labour and Tory Gvmts have failed to deport the guy despite what it appears to be reasonable grounds to do so, if you read the general media. As for the pardon, amazing, you are stating that he is guilty and then are happy for a UK politician to try and negotiate a pardon? Again I wonder if Labour had done this you would have been so accommodating? Again I think I know the answer. Maybe she needs a new diary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 i wonder if your defense of May would have been so vocal if she had been Labour, I think the answer would have been no. you mean like locking him up with no evidence as Peter is suggesting ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Peter, do you think that a foreign national openly supporting AL Qaeda and wanted elsewhere on charges of terrorism should be allowed to remain in the UK, where the security services consider him to be a clear danger to the population? If so, why? If you want a list of "foreign nationals openly supporting Al Qaeda", you might start with the US government members who armed and funded it in the first place. If the security forces have grounds for believing him to be a danger, then they should bring charges, show their evidence, and be prepared to argue their position in court. If they do not wish to abide by the rule of law, then there should be no mechanism for them to lock up him or anyone else for years with no access to legal representation. It's a very basic principle which is supposed to be the cornerstone of a democracy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 You really don't read any of the posts do you? I have explained the mistakes she and her department has made. You pointed out a mix up with dates on a previous appeal which was a mistake, but it didn't have any material affect on this judgement. You haven't made any other points other than stating she made mistakes without actually saying what they were. What were they? Also as I have said BOTH Labour and Tory Gvmts have failed to deport the guy despite what it appears to be reasonable grounds to do so, if you read the general media. Which is down to the courts, not the government(s). As for the pardon, amazing, you are stating that he is guilty and then are happy for a UK politician to try and negotiate a pardon? Again I wonder if Labour had done this you would have been so accommodating? I am not stating he is guilty, the Jordanian legal system is. But yes, I would support any solution that got him out of the UK, by politicians of whichever stripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 you mean like locking him up with no evidence as Peter is suggesting ? Don't get me started on that oaf Blunkett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 you mean like locking him up with no evidence as Peter is suggesting ? Which on the surface looks wrong Tony, but as said evidence that talked about in the media - i.e. what the public has access to - seems to indicate that he has a lot of charges to answer and being locked away was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Get him on a plane and drop him off in the Siberian wilderness. If he makes it back then fair play, he can stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 You pointed out a mix up with dates on a previous appeal which was a mistake, but it didn't have any material affect on this judgement. You haven't made any other points other than stating she made mistakes without actually saying what they were. What were they? Which is down to the courts, not the government(s). I am not stating he is guilty, the Jordanian legal system is. But yes, I would support any solution that got him out of the UK, by politicians of whichever stripe. Bloody hell AWOL take off your Tory blinkers for one minute will you. The judgement is just one part as you well know in this long sorry process. May has handled it poorly, even you say so previously. She made a mistake re dates, shocking really considering what we are dealing with. She was part of the attempt to get a pardon for him (which failed by the way), which again I will ask how can you say that is OK on one hand and then say he is guilty and should be deported. Gvmt - and that is in the general term for Whitehall - has seemingly done a shite job now for many years both Tory and Labour. The current lot are continuing that trend and May continues to fail to deliver what on the surface seems to be a straightforward case. One thing I do note now you are saying is he is not guilty? But you are happy for deportation? .... I really do not understand your logic Get him on a plane and drop him off in the Siberian wilderness. If he makes it back then fair play, he can stay. RyanAir flight to Damascus you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 If you want a list of "foreign nationals openly supporting Al Qaeda", you might start with the US government members who armed and funded it in the first place. Peter that's totally irrelevant to the point at hand though, isn't it? Like Drat's diversionary comment about the EDL and passports. If the security forces have grounds for believing him to be a danger, then they should bring charges, show their evidence, and be prepared to argue their position in court. Yes, if only it was that simple... They can't expose sources or methods of intelligence collection in court without totally compromising future operations. Besides which the alleged offences are in Jordan not the UK (apart from the obvious identity fraud you seem unmoved by)so he should not be a British problem. Jordan is our ally and despite those good relations guarantee after guarantee about his physical and legal treatment has been sought and given. It's getting bloody rude not to send him back. If they do not wish to abide by the rule of law, then there should be no mechanism for them to lock up him or anyone else for years with no access to legal representation. For our own citizens yes, when foreign terror suspects enter the country by criminal means then that sets a precedent for the 'rights' they should subsequently be entitled to, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Which on the surface looks wrong Tony, but as said evidence that talked about in the media - i.e. what the public has access to - seems to indicate that he has a lot of charges to answer and being locked away was correct. I won't disagree with you in that regard ... I "suspect" he is guilty as charged , but I think Peters comment of police state could also come into play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Peter, which is a worrying sign. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Which on the surface looks wrong Tony, but as said evidence that talked about in the media - i.e. what the public has access to - seems to indicate that he has a lot of charges to answer and being locked away was correct. He has no charges to answer in this country, because none have been brought. He therefore cannot refute charges, because none have been brought. He has been prevented from seeing any of the evidence against him. No reasonable person could conclude that he must "really" be guilty and that we should treat him accordingly. ...In February 2001, Abu Qatada was arrested and questioned in connection with a German terror cell. There was insufficient evidence against him, and all charges were dropped...Abu Qatada lived in a legal twilight as Asim Qureshi, of UK-based human rights group CagePrisoners, explained : "He has not been able to see the evidence against him neither has his lawyer. The only person representing him is a special advocate who is not allowed to speak to him or his solicitor. There you have the bizarre situation where someone is representing him who has never met him or his lawyer,"...The Special Immigrations Appeals Commission subsequently rejected an appeal by Abu Qatada to be released from detention without trial...The Special Immigration Appeals Commission revoked his bail, stating he had not broken bail conditions, but might do at some time in the future... Wiki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Bloody hell AWOL take off your Tory blinkers for one minute will you. *rolly eyes* The judgement is just one part as you well know in this long sorry process. May has handled it poorly, even you say so previously. She made a mistake re dates, shocking really considering what we are dealing with. Yes it was shocking to make that mistake I agree, however it was recovered and hasn't had a material affect on this case. Is that so difficult to understand and acknowledge? She was part of the attempt to get a pardon for him (which failed by the way), which again I will ask how can you say that is OK on one hand and then say he is guilty and should be deported. I would like him out of the UK, if that means one more jihadi windbag walking around the Levant it really makes bugger all difference there but it will make the UK safer. Gvmt - and that is in the general term for Whitehall - has seemingly done a shite job now for many years both Tory and Labour. The current lot are continuing that trend and May continues to fail to deliver what on the surface seems to be a straightforward case. I'll say this again in case you missed it: It is the courts decision. One thing I do note now you are saying is he is not guilty? But you are happy for deportation? And you say I don't read post? lolz. I said the Jordanian legal system has found him guilty, I don't have that authority.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Risso agreeing with Peter Drat acknowledging a labour mistake No mention of Prescott for 2 pages I'm worried the Four Horses of the Apocalypse are going to be galloping past my window in the next few minutes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts