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

[Heathcliffscathy]

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.

She aint fighting for me Sophable.
Nor you.
Wait unti one of your nearest abnd dearest is blown to smithereens by someone who hides behind the self righteous skirts of Chakrabarti et al.

Greensleeves, are you unwell tonight?
Since when was someone disagreeing with another a sign of being stupid?
Aren't you all for 'human rights'? In that case, isn't it a human right to be 'fick' as you put it?

you should thank your lucky stars she's out there fighting this corner...there but for the grace go you!

Er no, sophable, unless you believe everyone on this thread is planning an act of terrorism

I really had to laugh at the 'winning hearts and minds' argument- what world are you living in?
This decision has not made the potential terrorists respect us more- the opposite in fact
I think he should have been deported

and it seems that there are a lot of people that think law and democracy are side issues for the smug.

i disagree.

Frankly I really don't care. Maybe they should go and live in the type of society they are keen to implement here. That might have the effect of making them change their views. Instead they have the opportunity to radicalise those around them. Why should I have to put up with that??

There is a difference surely between sending a criminal home to their own country and sending them to a completely different country where you have arranged for them to be tortured.

This is the former and it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm actually a bit shocked that people want to protect the nice Al-Qaeda man. Have any of you got a spare room as I understand that if he isn't deported he will need somewhere to live.

point being mrsruffalo that you could be placed under control order tomorrow for typing the wrong thing on mn, or sending an email that has trigger words in it...clearly if you are brown skinned that is even likelier.

they have done this to innocent people already. what makes you think you're immune?

I respect Shami Chakrabarti's position, and as an instinctive libertarian, welcome a lot that she does.

But when the liberties of two sets of people clash - the liberties of a foreign terrorist versus the liberties of the British populace - you have to make a choice. I choose the British people over foreign terrorists.

Yeah, not really seeing this as a victory for human rights tbh. This person would, presumably, have been more than happy to murder innocent people for his cause. At that point, my consideration for him sort of...vacates.

Sophable how likely is it that your average law abiding citizen would be put under a control order? Pretty damn unlikely. Why don't you ask the new Home Sec how many suspected terrorists are currently being monitored (not control orders). You will be gobsmacked at the answer and at how many terrorist acts are countered by the intelligence services. I don't have the up to date figures but when I did (direct from a meeting with the then Home Sec) it made me feel physically sick. The threat of terrorist action by those born and bred in this country but as anti-British as it is possible to be is a very real and live threat. Why do people want to encourage that is beyond me.

Actually Coolfonz, there is a large element of the security services that prefer that they stay here in the UK where they can at least have an element of control & further evidence gathering.

There is a very good reason why soem evidence is withheld - they don't choose to withohold evidence without first jumping through their own thousand hoops just to allow such a presentation to be made to the courts.

I don't think its dumbsnet at all - I believe the majority of posters here have a much better grasp of reality

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

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.

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?

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

'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?

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.

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

doh

Why was he here?

This isn't a miscarriage of justice is it?

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.

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.

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.