Abu the terrorist wins his bail hearing.
Discussion
johnfm said:
So, not only can the UK not deport this terrorist, but he will be out on bail !
Heh! How daft.
It might be daft...but dont you have a warm fuzzy feeling inside of being morally right? Think about how much we value the ooman rights of one terrorist over the lives of others! We should get an award for this crap!Heh! How daft.
bobbylondonuk said:
johnfm said:
So, not only can the UK not deport this terrorist, but he will be out on bail !
Heh! How daft.
It might be daft...but dont you have a warm fuzzy feeling inside of being morally right? Think about how much we value the ooman rights of one terrorist over the lives of others! We should get an award for this crap!Heh! How daft.
MX7 said:
The EHCR needs extraditing.
It's probably not a specific fault in the legislation, but the impression that's given off when it's used. What I mean by that, is that the cost and time involved in taking cases to Europe, limits its use as an avenue to those who are well funded (either privately or by the state) and, typically, with time to spare to get a result. These are likely to be highly contentious by their nature and will polarise opinion.
The High Courts and Courts of Appeal will deal with many highly polarising cases every day. Where they say 'no' to something, they are not always the backstop, so if allowed the case rumbles on to the Supreme Court and eventually into Europe, which essentially becomes the backstop for negative publicity when it rules the lower court had acted unlawfully.
You will probably find plenty of decisions in England's higher courts being made, knowing full well their judgement is questionable in law, but allowing them to dodge the political bullet in doing so. They know that it will take guile and money to take a case into Europe to have a decision overturned, and that the ire of the public will fall upon that court rather than themselves if and when it happens.
Sadly the UK government has successively enabled terrorists to operate unfettered in the UK. This decision is simply another demonstration that the government has no interest in UK security.
The government protest their determination but take no effective action.
Disgraceful? Yes.
Appalling? Undoubtedly.
Likely to change? Not a chance.
The government protest their determination but take no effective action.
Disgraceful? Yes.
Appalling? Undoubtedly.
Likely to change? Not a chance.
tom2019 said:
Just in time for him to watch bomb the olympics.
His £500 of taxpayers' money should buy him some fertiliser and a Nissan and Mohammad's your uncle.I'm not in the least surprised, just another example of how the UK is the place to be for terrorists, criminals and assorted foreign scum.
<Devil’s Advocate> The guy has been in prison, on remand for IIRC almost 8 years, plenty of time for the government to sort out a trial / extradition </Devil’s Advocate>
My personal opinion, is that he shouldn’t have been allowed into the UK in the first place and should simply have been bundled onto a return flight / train / ferry back to where his feet last touched solid ground
My personal opinion, is that he shouldn’t have been allowed into the UK in the first place and should simply have been bundled onto a return flight / train / ferry back to where his feet last touched solid ground
Bohally said:
I'm going to hang my neck out here...
In some respects I would rather he was in the UK, and closely monitored, reporting to the police daily/weekly. If he returns back home, how "close" an eye can the UK keep on him?
So should we gather all the world's criminals over here on the grounds we can keep an eye on them better?In some respects I would rather he was in the UK, and closely monitored, reporting to the police daily/weekly. If he returns back home, how "close" an eye can the UK keep on him?
k if they use torture? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff