Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

am I alone in being very heartened that the alquaida operative is not being deported?

362 replies

Heathcliffscathy · 18/05/2010 22:11

because we absolutely should not deport anyone under any circumstance who we know will be tortured.

a victory for justice and human rights today imo.

OP posts:
Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 18/05/2010 23:19

moondog have you got leather chaps on and a bloke in a gimp mask on a leash? what is with the whole macho butch posturing....radio 4 is 'smug central' so therefore the interview with the man wrongly put under a control order must be tosh what???????

OP posts:
mrsruffallo · 18/05/2010 23:19

LOLMoondog- what would you know anyway, being a bit 'fick'

MollieO · 18/05/2010 23:19

sophable do you actually know anyone who has been affected by terrorism? It is very easy to have your approach to HR when you don't. Let me tell you it is a whole different story when your life and that of your family is directly affected. I would like to think I would have humanity to these two but knowing what they would like to do to you and many others in this country I would feel safer if they and their fellow believers were not living within striking distance of my life.

Needanewname · 18/05/2010 23:19

Oh OK so shall we wait til he's blown up a load of people and then deport him, would that be OK?

I don;t agree with torture however letting someone stay in this country when they are a known threat to the people of this country is insane however you look at it. I don;t know what the answer is, but the decision today is ridiculous.

I'm going to leave this discussion now before I get too wound up.

mumblechum · 18/05/2010 23:18

Well then the law is an ass.

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 18/05/2010 23:16

onagar, this isn't a principle, this is our law as it stands! we don't deport where we know there is a risk of torture.

OP posts:
moondog · 18/05/2010 23:16

Radio 4
aka Smug Central

onagar · 18/05/2010 23:15

Sophable, The principle you refer to is a good one, but you seem to have it twisted.

We can't for example just go around beating up terrorists because no matter how we dislike them we have to give them the same rights as us. That part is correct.

BUT.. deporting them to their own country is NOT taking away those rights. It's not a human right to be sheltered by a country you happen to be attacking.

mumblechum · 18/05/2010 23:15

The only reason they didn't get caught with the evidence was because that numpty was photographed leaving No 10 with documents which gave details of the operation so the police had to arrest them before they had planned.

Sophable, I think you are being extremely naive. I have much more respect for Mollie O whose life has been put at risk by the sort of peop0le whose rights you defend

anonandlikeit · 18/05/2010 23:15

Oh radio 4 thats OK then Sophable... the people at the BBC ahve their finger on the pulse they will keep us safe!
The SS processes & quite franky the minimal resources at their disposal does not make for the type of institution that can slap a control order on someone for "showing an interest" or a typo in google

I think you maybe you've watched one too many editions of Sppoks!

mrsruffallo · 18/05/2010 23:15

The court have accepted they are a threat to the country, sophable

MollieO · 18/05/2010 23:14

So let's keep him here so he can have a proper go. Maybe whilst your at it you could ask him what he was on about discussing a 'wedding' that never actually took place or was planned. I agree that it is circumstantial evidence but had the security forces been more viligent there would be many many families in the UK who would not be suffering now.

moondog · 18/05/2010 23:12

Of course it was Ruffallo!
It's all about mean male white neo colonials in suits bullying cowed little brown men who only want to go to the mosque and grow beards.

Thank goodness good old Chakrabart around to sort them out and remind us just how noble the chattering classes are.

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 18/05/2010 23:11

the point is they don't have enough evidence to convict him. if they did he would be in prison. if they could PROVE that he was planning to bomb they could lock him up in prison. they can't. they don't have the evidence.

OP posts:
mrsruffallo · 18/05/2010 23:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

anonandlikeit · 18/05/2010 23:10

again naive Sophable, the security services have to plAy a delicate balancing game... Bring them to trial too early (bearing in mind these suspects have very experienced & the best legal defences money can buy) & risk a not guilty verdict & they return to society with only whatever minimal survelance the SS can provide OR keep them on a Control order, whic offers sligthly more protection to YOU & I.

mrsruffallo · 18/05/2010 23:09

This isn't a miscarriage of justice is it?

noddyholder · 18/05/2010 23:09

Why was he here?

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 18/05/2010 23:09

no, so sorry you're right moondog, lets kill anyone we suspect of terrorism...much better all round.

doh

OP posts:
Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 18/05/2010 23:08

anon if they weren't a blunt (and undemocratic and illiberal) instrument we wouldn't ahve the documented cases of their abuse that we do. the man who was wrongfully kept under one of these that I heard on radio 4 was driven to the brink of suicide. he was innocent.

OP posts:
moondog · 18/05/2010 23:08

'upholding law gives us something to defend against the terrorists.'

What?
What?

How so??
We play more nicely than you?
Jesus, do you think these peopel operate by playground infant school rules?

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 18/05/2010 23:07

so human rights are good except if you're a bad person...okaaay....

OP posts:
Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 18/05/2010 23:06

errr no mrsruffalo, we let him stay because under UK law we do not deport people who we know will be tortured when they land. and upholding law gives us something to defend against the terrorists.

i wasn't making the point that we don't deport him in case we seem racist (wtf?) i was making the point that I recognised that a white middle class woman was a less likely victim of a miscarriage for justice than a young male of colour (no less innocent though).

the point is that control orders are about restraining people against whom you don't have enough proof to convict (sorry for appalling grammar there). that is why they are wrong.

you either have enough evidence or you don't. if you don't by what right do you lock someone under house arrest?

OP posts:
anonandlikeit · 18/05/2010 23:04

You are very naive & ill informed Sophable if you think that a control order or anything similar is the result of a misguided google or a post on MN. on the contrary it follows months & months of evidence gathering, at all times of course giving due regard to their civil rights.

noddyholder · 18/05/2010 23:02

It is very difficult to have any respect for the human rights of someone who has come to this country to specifically plan to cause public carnage.What is wrong with returning him to his on country where they can deal with him Is there any evidence he wiould be tortured or is it an assumption.The HR atgument loses a lot of weight when people start acting in an inhumane way