Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
He'll get the next best thing if found guilty and that's hard labour. I wonder what the Jordanians version of hard labour is?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Abu Qatada-Cheerio
- Thread starter pastafarian
- Start date
He'll get the next best thing if found guilty and that's hard labour. I wonder what the Jordanians version of hard labour is?
You're absolutely right, the reason he stayed so long was nothing to do with fabulously paid human rights lawyers, whose job it is to drag proceedings out for as long as physically possible. It was entirely the fault of those with left-leaning tendencies. That chap next door to me who reads the Guardian and drives a Prius. He's the real villain here. Well done you for getting to the bottom of it all.
The irony of you total lack of understanding is not lost on me. I cannot be bothered to educate you but feel free to seek assistance from an adult near you.
Hungry Joe
SINNEN
Well said Sir. What is really amusing is that this mysterious PC Brigade must be the best organised, best funded, and most influential group in our country if these people are to be believed. Utter tosh.
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
His new home Muwaaqer prison.
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
I have just been to Homebase and found out I cannot buy Epsom Salts because of tw*ts like him
good riddance
good riddance
BensGrandad
New member
Would his family of parasites now have no grounds to stay here so that they could be sent to join him. Can Choudary (sp) now follow?
BensGrandad
New member
One of the leafding lawyers on human rights issues is Cherie Blair whose husband brought in the laws. Visions of them being in bed and she saying leave some loopholes in the law for me to exploit and you will be ok tonight.
I am not holding my breath and I bet they find a reason not to go. No reason not to deport them now though.
Cowfold Seagull
Fan of the 17 bus
This.
stripeyshark
All-Time Best Defence
- Dec 20, 2011
- 2,294
One of the leafding lawyers on human rights issues is Cherie Blair whose husband brought in the laws. Visions of them being in bed and she saying leave some loopholes in the law for me to exploit and you will be ok tonight.
I doubt you're far off.
brightonrock
Dodgy Hamstrings
- Jan 1, 2008
- 2,482
If you were being sarcastic originally, fair enough. But don't flatter yourself that you're somehow intellectually superior by being condescending.
And here's a tip for you, if you're going to be an arrogant prick who can't be bothered to 'educate' me, you might want to spell check first. A spelling mistake whilst being high and mighty about perceived intelligence, tends to make one look like a jumped up, 'uneducated' bellend. Perhaps you could dictate your posts to an adult who could help you with your typing.
The Birdman
New member
nice blue sky!
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
Shame about the toilet in the hole where he's got to use a bucket to remove his exctrement unlike Belmarsh nice high toliet and flush.
Hope his passport.has been revoked and he got told when landing in Jordan.
Oh dear. I find it quite worrying how irrational the public's response to this has been.
For one the actual cost is highly exaggerated at the moment because the government haven't paid the defense lawyers - a tactic I might suggest they have used to try to dissuade them from representing him.
Secondly, the government are well aware of the significant risk of torture. The idea that somehow this deal is a rarity and any kind of assurance is laughable - this deal (almost exactly) has been made before and the Jordanian government have reneged and tortured. If the British government wishes to condemn Qatada to probable torture why not be transparent about it rather than pretending anyone would take the Jordanians for there word?
Aside from how - in my opinion - torture is entirely indefensible as is the lack of a fair trial, there are many other concerns with the Qatada case.
Firstly, do you think it's right that this case has persisted for so long given he's hasn't actually been found guilty in a fair trial? Is that an institutional loophole we should allow to persist. In my opinion, it absolutely is not. Secondly, where do you think it is more likely that Qatada could remain a danger to the UK? In the UK, or in a country which we know is turbulent and where many more of his supporters have much more power and opportunity.
I would not be surprised if he does escape from prison, and then we'd see the smirk wiped off Teresa Mays face.
As an aside, I am absolutely against torture and the death penalty for obvious reasons. Remember not long ago Mandela was deemed a terrorist - by those including our good Prime minister Mr Cameron who campaigned for him to be treated as a terrorist. In no way do I support the actions of Qatada and deem him to be a huge public risk but lets remember those labelled 'terrorist' and 'public enemy' change significantly over time and in my eyes the adverse treatment of such groups should be responsibly limited in order to ensure abuse of the system would *never* be allowed to persist.
My view of the law, institutions and international agreements is that the harm that could possibly be inflicted by the most undesirable leader (for instance, in we Uk lets think - what could the BNP do if by some freak circumstance they were in government) should be limited.
As a closing point, and more specific to the Qatada case - please remember that there is *actually* a substantial *lack* of passable evidence (by that I mean not obtained by torture) and its far from clear those who previously gave the only evidence against him (and did so under torture) would be willing to help prosecute him. So the view that we've sent Qatada back to Jordan, to face a court that we've approved, to inevitably be found guilty in a fair and just way is absolutely untrue.
For one the actual cost is highly exaggerated at the moment because the government haven't paid the defense lawyers - a tactic I might suggest they have used to try to dissuade them from representing him.
Secondly, the government are well aware of the significant risk of torture. The idea that somehow this deal is a rarity and any kind of assurance is laughable - this deal (almost exactly) has been made before and the Jordanian government have reneged and tortured. If the British government wishes to condemn Qatada to probable torture why not be transparent about it rather than pretending anyone would take the Jordanians for there word?
Aside from how - in my opinion - torture is entirely indefensible as is the lack of a fair trial, there are many other concerns with the Qatada case.
Firstly, do you think it's right that this case has persisted for so long given he's hasn't actually been found guilty in a fair trial? Is that an institutional loophole we should allow to persist. In my opinion, it absolutely is not. Secondly, where do you think it is more likely that Qatada could remain a danger to the UK? In the UK, or in a country which we know is turbulent and where many more of his supporters have much more power and opportunity.
I would not be surprised if he does escape from prison, and then we'd see the smirk wiped off Teresa Mays face.
As an aside, I am absolutely against torture and the death penalty for obvious reasons. Remember not long ago Mandela was deemed a terrorist - by those including our good Prime minister Mr Cameron who campaigned for him to be treated as a terrorist. In no way do I support the actions of Qatada and deem him to be a huge public risk but lets remember those labelled 'terrorist' and 'public enemy' change significantly over time and in my eyes the adverse treatment of such groups should be responsibly limited in order to ensure abuse of the system would *never* be allowed to persist.
My view of the law, institutions and international agreements is that the harm that could possibly be inflicted by the most undesirable leader (for instance, in we Uk lets think - what could the BNP do if by some freak circumstance they were in government) should be limited.
As a closing point, and more specific to the Qatada case - please remember that there is *actually* a substantial *lack* of passable evidence (by that I mean not obtained by torture) and its far from clear those who previously gave the only evidence against him (and did so under torture) would be willing to help prosecute him. So the view that we've sent Qatada back to Jordan, to face a court that we've approved, to inevitably be found guilty in a fair and just way is absolutely untrue.
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
I kinda miss him.
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
Telling his followers to murder us.
BensGrandad
New member
Personally I do not care 1 iota whether or not he gets a fair trial and whether or not he is sentenced to death the sooner he is not able to entice people in his ways the better for all of us, whether it be by dearth or incarceration for the rest of his life.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,019
what on earth is the link to epsom salt?
BensGrandad
New member
They can be used in making explosives, I think that I read.