Al-Qaeda ringleader can stay here......Surprise!!

[10 Pence Short]

Everybody has the right to be fairly treated in law by The State- whatever your nationality or suspected offence. If The State has been unable to prove its case to the required standard then the accused has the same rights as anybody else in that circumstance.

Where this country stinks is the trial by media, misinforming the public and fuelling inappropriate anger.

[mattviatura]

In a shock development, Gareth (WTF?) Peirce is involved.

It's always the same useful idiots.

[Devil2575]

deeps said:

The evidence should be reviewed and their history delved into and analysed until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, then fk them off for good.

So they're guilty we just need to prove it?

You know this how?

Trial by media. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story...

[Sheets Tabuer]

So they can stay here because they will face torture in Pakistan.

The ruling states they can stay and one of the men who has since gone back to Pakistan can return.

Presumably the one can return once he has stopped being tortured, oh wait he's not.

[DWP]

Why send them back? We would lose touch with them, they would then be free to resume their plans. Keep them here and watch them. Makes a lot more sense to me than letting them rejoin their comrades. Anyone who goes near them in this country becomes a suspect, therefore enlarging the knowledge base.

[Odie]

Colin_147 said:

The controversial affair began last April when the Metropolitan Police's then head of counter-terrorism, Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, accidentally revealed details of the investigation.

Mr Quick resigned after he was photographed with clearly visible secret documents outside 10 Downing Street.

This is why, senior police officers fk up another MI5 investigation...

Edited by Odie on Tuesday 18th May 16:24

[Fittster]

Parrot of Doom said:

loafer123 said:

I think we need to build a little village on an uninhabited island in the Hebrides where all of these convicts can live free and fulfilling lives without bothering the rest of us.

They're not convicts though, are they? They're innocent men for whom deportation would likely result in torture or death. As such, they cannot be deported.

How do you know they will be tortured or killed? Deport them to Pakistan and if anything bad happens to them that they can prove in a court of law they can return to the UK.

Seems fair to me.

[loafer123]

Parrot of Doom said:

loafer123 said:

OK - so he hasn't been convicted (bizarre, but that's the facts, as you rightly point out), but otherwise would have been deported.

Does that make my suggestion any less fair? He can stay safe under our protection, but can't harm us...seems fair to me. Practical human rights.

Why is it bizarre that he hasn't been convicted, and why are you assuming that he might harm us?

I guess this....

"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," the judgement said.

It added: "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

...was a bit of a clue.

[JM]

Parrot of Doom said:

loafer123 said:

I think we need to build a little village on an uninhabited island in the Hebrides where all of these convicts can live free and fulfilling lives without bothering the rest of us.

They're not convicts though, are they? They're innocent men for whom deportation would likely result in torture or death. As such, they cannot be deported.

Can we not threaten to torture them here, then they will have to leave.

[deeps]

DWP said:

Why send them back? We would lose touch with them, they would then be free to resume their plans. Keep them here and watch them. Makes a lot more sense to me than letting them rejoin their comrades. Anyone who goes near them in this country becomes a suspect, therefore enlarging the knowledge base.

I know what you mean, but why should we pay for the scum? 24 hour surveillance is expensive (if truly possible at all) plus they're not entirely stupid, they won't be giving their 'friends' away easily. Sending then back is cheap, and they may come into difficulties back home, if you know what I mean. I have zero compassion for actual or potential mass murderers of innocent people, that probably shows.

[Parrot of Doom]

loafer123 said:

Parrot of Doom said:

loafer123 said:

OK - so he hasn't been convicted (bizarre, but that's the facts, as you rightly point out), but otherwise would have been deported.

Does that make my suggestion any less fair? He can stay safe under our protection, but can't harm us...seems fair to me. Practical human rights.

Why is it bizarre that he hasn't been convicted, and why are you assuming that he might harm us?

I guess this....

"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," the judgement said.

It added: "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

...was a bit of a clue.

Oh right, so because MI5 say he's up to no good, that's sufficient evidence to assume his guilt? Well if he truly was up to no good, then the CPS would have prosecuted him. They didn't do that, which means there is insufficient evidence, and therefore these people are innocent.

I bet you wouldn't be happy if your local police chief constable labelled you a child molester, but wouldn't take the matter to court, would you?

[Greedydog]

[/quote]

They didn't do that, which means there is insufficient evidence, and therefore these people are innocent.


[/quote]

Their guilt or innocence hasn't been established the fact that there isn't enough evidence to proceed with a trial does not make them innocent.

[ln1234]

Greedydog said:

Their guilt or innocence hasn't been established the fact that there isn't enough evidence to proceed with a trial does not make them innocent.

It does by UK law. Innocent till proven guilty, or has that changed?

[Greedydog]

ln1234 said:

Greedydog said:

Their guilt or innocence hasn't been established the fact that there isn't enough evidence to proceed with a trial does not make them innocent.

It does by UK law. Innocent till proven guilty, or has that changed?

As I understand it prior to trial an accused is presumed innocent and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. A statement of fact was made that he was innocent, I'm merely pointing out that fact wasn't established by trial, the correct statement would be "he's presumed innocent."

[5unny]

Isn't it ironic that these chaps can't be sent back because they may be tortured by the Pakistani authorities yet we are quite happy to use the secret torture evidence which agencies like the ISI in Pakistan provides to us.

And what of these men now? We are not able to send them back nor are we able/willing to prosecute them so we're stuck.

Maybe we should just offer them 100 grand each to leave voluntarily. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for their virtual house arrest for the next couple of decades.

Or maybe we can send them to the Maldives

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/868515...

Edited by 5unny on Tuesday 18th May 17:44

Edited by 5unny on Tuesday 18th May 17:48

[Mr_B]

Great, just as Labour have gone, it took a week for the default position to be that gullible UK must accept them into this country - the first Tory fail.
I love the way there are totally innocent and should be treated as such but the nasty suspicious UK people, but as soon as they set foot at home, someone is going to kill these totally innocent people.
Silly me for thinking I elected a government that might serve me and the people of the UK first.

[5unny]

Mr_B said:

Great, just as Labour have gone, it took a week for the default position to be that gullible UK must accept them into this country - the first Tory fail.
I love the way there are totally innocent and should be treated as such but the nasty suspicious UK people, but as soon as they set foot at home, someone is going to kill these totally innocent people.
Silly me for thinking I elected a government that might serve me and the people of the UK first.

This was not a decision made by the Government. In fact the Government (the Home Office) were the ones pushing for his deportation. It was the The Special Immigration Appeals Commission which made the decision.

[dandarez]

Mr_B said:

Great, just as Labour have gone, it took a week for the default position to be that gullible UK must accept them into this country - the first Tory fail.
I love the way there are totally innocent and should be treated as such but the nasty suspicious UK people, but as soon as they set foot at home, someone is going to kill these totally innocent people.
Silly me for thinking I elected a government that might serve me and the people of the UK first.

What did you expect?
Nothing changes, never has done in my 60 years... well, only the faces (and most of those are 'faceless').
The only thing you can be absolutely 100% sure of is that YOU (ie man or woman in the street, Joe Public, the real innocents, getting on with his or her daily grind, is the one who ALWAYS pays (literally!).

The 'honeymoon' period for this shower will end before it's begun.

As for the topic 'why?' will these 'innocent' men be tortured or killed if they are sent back 'home'(!)?

This country lost the plot years ago.

[Tycho]

So if the guy isn't involved at all then why would he be killed when he got back home?

The way I see it is:

He is innocent. Send him back home and he'll be ok as he isn't involved with anything wrong.

He is guilty. Charge him and lock him up.

He is guilty but we can't prove it. Send him home as we must assume he will be ok as he has done nothing wrong.

[Mr_B]

5unny said:

Mr_B said:

Great, just as Labour have gone, it took a week for the default position to be that gullible UK must accept them into this country - the first Tory fail.
I love the way there are totally innocent and should be treated as such but the nasty suspicious UK people, but as soon as they set foot at home, someone is going to kill these totally innocent people.
Silly me for thinking I elected a government that might serve me and the people of the UK first.

This was not a decision made by the Government. In fact the Government (the Home Office) were the ones pushing for his deportation. It was the The Special Immigration Appeals Commission which made the decision.

I'm aware of that, but I didn't vote for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, I voted for a government to get tough and not allow the stupidity that Labour did.
The government have already said they will no appeal the decision, this is why I said it's the first Tory fail.

You could also ask why the UK sells arms and gives aid to Pakistani, but is unable to send back several Pakistani citizens - who are totally innocent, of course )to their own county for fear they will be killed.

Edited by Mr_B on Tuesday 18th May 19:23