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

Human Rights are great in theory, but when it really comes down to practice, would you prefer the information about terror attacks to be obtained from one person (via torture, not always physical) that could then save hundreds from attack? What if one of those to be saved was a member of your family, especially your child? How would you feel about protecting the rights of the terrorist then?

There are I think good and sufficient reasons why all the evidence isn't given in public for these things and there are things that we don't need to know. I cannot think of any other European country that would keep these people on their soil (apart from Holland perhaps); so I don't know why the UK is keeping them. The Europeans are far more pragmatic than we are about such situations.

vesela - I agree the. Problem is not solved by compromising on Human rights. It is solved by fixing the evidence gap.

They may have formally applied for asylum, but the reason they're not being sent back is because they're terrorist suspects and would be likely to be tortured as such. (Apparently there is evidence that they wouldn't be, but it's closed-session evidence so can't be used).

I believe they're guilty. But we need to be able to put them on proper trial, and for that, we need to be able to use intercept evidence, like practically everywhere else seems to. Re. the arguments that the use of intercept evidence compromises the work of the security services - plenty of ways to work around it have been devised. Other countries manage. How long it will take the new government to get the law changed, I don't know.

expat - I think they are now asylum seekers (conceptually if not legally) as the reason for them staying in this country is persecution if they are sent back.

Fembear - that's a metric shit ton of Afghanistans you are proposing there. How do you suggest we assist the oppressed while we are busy building utopia?

In fact I'll retype the whole thing.

Fem, this person was not an asylum seeker.

I've worked with asylum seekers since I was 15. This person was not one of them.

Ufembear equals fembear obv. Stoopid phone.

UFembear - that's a metric shot ton of Afghanistans you are proposing there. How do you suggest we assist the oppressed while we are busy building utopia?

Tiger - I don't think they have manipulated anything. The rules are just being applied. It has highlighted a gap in the different evidence that is open to the courts and the tribunals - which needs to be addressed. But not by deporting someone to be tortured.

I applaud the postings that Edam has made. We have no moral or legal responsibility for these people.

I think asylum laws as they stand are stupid. If someone is in fear of their life because of State terrorism / torture / whatever then the solution is not to ship them off to a foreign country. The solution is to remove the oppressor Government. How ridiculous to 'punish' the victim (by turning his life upside down and removing him from family & friends) instead of the perpetrator. The UN would do far more for human rights if they did this; much better than individual countries pissing about with individual cases.

First of all, I never expressed an opinion one way or another.

Secondly, why on EARTH did you go holiday in a place you so obviously hold in contempt?

Do you think everyone there is indicative of policies like that? We're all the same, eh, and Brits who express opinions contrary to yours are just as bad?

Honestly, give others the same understanding and flexibility you expect or just get nowhere!

It's like all those election threads and slagging off and Tory/Labour fights. Oh, so productive. This is the here and now. This is what we have. What are we going to do?

But it's downright stupid to discount opinions just because they don't agree, IME.

It alienates people and gets everyone nowhere because people don't like feeling invalidated and patronised.

sorry, mistaken; thought I remembered from press at the time that Nasser was the one arrested at LJMU. But it was a different student, just googled it.

Thank you so much for comparing those who disagree with you to war criminals like George Bush!

That seals it.

BTW - Nasser was a computing student at LJMU, not a fake college. So he's one of those here legally it seems.

Tiggy, how would you justify changing the burden of proof in cases where someone is suspected of being a terrorist, but not other cases which could lead to loss of life or serious harm? Is one kind of death more serious than another kind of death?

complimentary - it winds me up that people think human rights can be dispensed with.

I wondered how long it would be before someone slung the DM insult!

oooj - yes but I feel the law should be changed to allow for times like these. We may not have enough evidence to convict them, but we have enough evidence to feel sure in all probability that they meant us harm of the worst sort, and they broke rules and lied (that is not contested). Our laws on civil liberties are too easily manipulated.

'I don't see how the way they got into the country is relevant.'

If you worked in immigration and knew the changes that are afoot with regards to this, especially Tier 4, Tier 5 and Tier 1 visas, you would.