WTF!

#2
Muslim terrorist scum get to stay in the UK..........no surprise there then.
 
#4
Stand by for the usual apologists to leap to their defence, idiot assholes! :x :x
 
#5
exile1 said:
Enemies of the State at war with the State and in Mufti. As in WWII, they should be taken to the tower and shot.
They only did it once and he was a serving soldier, the rest should hang.
 
#6
I was raging about this at lunchtime, one of my more liberal colleagues did make the point that if they stay in this country there's at least a little hope that they will be closely watched. So she's optimistic as well as being a liberal.


Oh, and she's a veggie...
 
#8
Why are arrsers now shocked at these situations?

It's not the first time it's happened after-all unless someone corrects me!
 
#10
Faustic said:
Conservatives refused to appeal against the decision.

As fcuking spineless as New Labour.
You can't appeal against a law that is part of the Yuman Rights Act,what you can do is get rid of this piece of Euro shite legislation,and then kick the piece of dog turd back to Pakistan.

The other thing we all need to remember is,whilst these people are in our country,we will be paying their benefit bill,which makes it even more of a piss take! 8O
 
#11
A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative - but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.

Ahhh! but what if he was threatened with torture or death HERE? Anybody here up for it? Find out where the scrote lives and put the fear of Allah? up him. Would he then run back to the court and ask to be sent home?
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#12
RoofRat said:
Faustic said:
Conservatives refused to appeal against the decision.

As fcuking spineless as New Labour.
You can't appeal against a law that is part of the Yuman Rights Act,what you can do is get rid of this piece of Euro shite legislation,and then kick the piece of dog turd back to Pakistan.

The other thing we all need to remember is,whilst these people are in our country,we will be paying their benefit bill,which makes it even more of a piss take! 8O
You may be interested to know the Human Rights Act is a British law and could be changed at will - at least blame the right people....an appeal could also be made, the problem appears to be they have not been convicted of any crime.

I am wondering why they were not charged with any criminal offence - mechanisms exist for classified evidence to be presented.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#13
shagnasty said:
A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative - but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.

Ahhh! but what if he was threatened with torture or death HERE? Anybody here up for it? Find out where the scrote lives and put the fear of Allah? up him. Would he then run back to the court and ask to be sent home?
But 2 others have been deported:

"Two other men also arrested in the raids lost their deportation appeals. Abdul Wahab Khan, 27, and Tariq Ur Rehman, 38, have already returned to Pakistan".

Methinks there is more to this than meets the eye.....
 
#14
To you Tory voters who hoped for Nirvanah,

Quote.
This is despite a Tory election promise that the Human Rights Act would be abolished.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, said she would not be appealing against the ruling, handed down by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
 
#15
Alsacien said:
shagnasty said:
A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative - but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.

Ahhh! but what if he was threatened with torture or death HERE? Anybody here up for it? Find out where the scrote lives and put the fear of Allah? up him. Would he then run back to the court and ask to be sent home?
But 2 others have been deported:

"Two other men also arrested in the raids lost their deportation appeals. Abdul Wahab Khan, 27, and Tariq Ur Rehman, 38, have already returned to Pakistan".

Methinks there is more to this than meets the eye.....
yes, the MI5 wouldn't give the vital evidence.

secret innit
 

terroratthepicnic

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#16
He could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.

What's the betting him pops back to Pakistan quite regular to see family.
 
#17
shagnasty said:
A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative - but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.

Ahhh! but what if he was threatened with torture or death HERE? Anybody here up for it? Find out where the scrote lives and put the fear of Allah? up him. Would he then run back to the court and ask to be sent home?
I would think he has already become a little less than free. The knowledge that every p1ss, w4nk, cough or scratch will be recorded, analysed and possibly even Facebooked must be sinking into his psyche.

Shame the MPS couldn't have mistaken him for a plumber or a plasterer mind...
 
#19
llech said:
To you Tory voters who hoped for Nirvanah,

Quote.
This is despite a Tory election promise that the Human Rights Act would be abolished.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, said she would not be appealing against the ruling, handed down by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
So, this is the Tories' fault, eh?

Despite the fact that parliament met for the first time after the election today, which would be the first chance to introduce even emergency legislation; (EDIT - and I've just realised that they couldn't even have done that today since the MPs have yet to be sworn in and thus can't legislate...)

Despite the fact that this comes down to various bits of legislation (both British and European) which would require an Act to repeal/outflank;

Despite the fact that the case was ongoing before the arrival of the coalition which could, therefore, do nothing about it;

Despite the fact that any attempt to retropspectively chuck this guy out of the country contrary to the judgement would serve only to make his lawyer even more wealthy and sanctimonious than she already is;

And despite the fact that an appeal would - because of the legislation - almost certainly have to come to the same conclusion unless and until the Pakistani authorities were induced to introduce their version of PACE, which would have to stand up to the scrutiny of the EU, which would have to confirm that it removed the possibility of Pakistani authorities torturing the AQ bloke before the British court could even consider upholding the appeal...

...this is, therefore, the Tories' fault. Yes. Obviously. Let's not permit fact, chronology or the constraints imposed by the legal and legislative processes get in the way of a good old-fashioned anti-Tory rant, eh? Makes some of Ashie's anti-Tory sock-pupettery look credible.
 
#20
Alsacien said:
RoofRat said:
Faustic said:
Conservatives refused to appeal against the decision.

As fcuking spineless as New Labour.
You can't appeal against a law that is part of the Yuman Rights Act,what you can do is get rid of this piece of Euro shite legislation,and then kick the piece of dog turd back to Pakistan.

The other thing we all need to remember is,whilst these people are in our country,we will be paying their benefit bill,which makes it even more of a piss take! 8O
You may be interested to know the Human Rights Act is a British law and could be changed at will - at least blame the right people....an appeal could also be made, the problem appears to be they have not been convicted of any crime.

I am wondering why they were not charged with any criminal offence - mechanisms exist for classified evidence to be presented.
Whilst you are right in that The Human Rights Act 1998 is part of British Law, the European element is also true.

The HRA subsumes the ECHR into British Law and becomes subservient to it, in that it is:

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.
It also acknowledges that The ECHR takes precedence, in that:

Interpretation of Convention rights

(1) A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any—

(a) judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights,

(b) opinion of the Commission given in a report adopted under Article 31 of the Convention,

(c) decision of the Commission in connection with Article 26 or 27(2) of the Convention, or

(d) decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention,

whenever made or given, so far as, in the opinion of the court or tribunal, it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arisen.



Time to bring back that naughty word Rendition?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top