Abu-Qatada released - Your Opinions???? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Abu-Qatada released - Your Opinions????

£0.00 @
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2149819/Abu-Qatada-release-will-be-appealed.html Extract "The decision to allow him to return to his home in London where he will receive around £1,000 per mont… Read More
homer_213 Avatar
9y, 5d agoPosted 9 years, 5 days ago
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2149819/Abu-Qatada-release-will-be-appealed.html

Extract

"The decision to allow him to return to his home in London where he will receive around £1,000 per month in state benefits made a mockery of the government's promise to crack down on terror suspects, and embarrassed the Home Office, which had pledged to deport Qatada to Jordan.

He's going to get £1000 a MONTH, on bail, how much more stupid can our Government get???????
homer_213 Avatar
9y, 5d agoPosted 9 years, 5 days ago
Options

All Comments

(39) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
1 Like #1
someone will no doubt complain and poster would no doubt get an infraction
i got one some months ago after me posting about paddington bears 50th birthday and how he came from peru with no passport
yes true and THAT person knows who he is - dont you!!!
so homer - although i would like to comment - i cant - yes we do live in a democracy free speech and all that but.........


and please please please nobody call the racist card - as i am not
#2
wheres my sniper rifle
#3
I know, even our free speech is limited. Im not implying anything with this post, just got me annoyed that he would get more money than me in a month.
#4
yep - typical household here mum dad 2 girls plus host of animals

i work - partner works - morgage - dont get naff all off state - pay full council tax so on and so on - on top of that have had to psy £5 parking in hospital !!!!!

think ill go threaten tescos:giggle::giggle:
#5
£1000 a month isn't really enough to live off though. I'm not saying the guy should get more or anything... But in general £1000 isn't exactly enough to live life without any hassle.
Plus there are loads more prisoners which cost tax payers more then £1000 a month just to keep them adequately accommodated in jail. So in fairness (not talking about a fair punishment for a crime) people shouldn't really be complaining.... Just my thoughts anyway. :thinking:
#6
if he is getting 1000 in his hand hes getting his ren t/morgage paid - water rates council tax - free dinners for kids

my sister has 1 school age son - her husband of 22 years died after working 25 years - she gets a widowed mothers allowance of 125 weekly plus a £49 week private pension - she has to go and work full time + to pay her £450 rent - she cant get any allowances from stte due to poxy ppension she cannot get a council house - she cant afford a morgage - she would like 1000 a month to live on instead of working her socks off to pay the rent

its a disgrace
#7
King of Thieves
£1000 a month isn't really enough to live off though. I'm not saying the guy should get more or anything... But in general £1000 isn't exactly enough to live life without any hassle.
Plus there are loads more prisoners which cost tax payers more then £1000 a month just to keep them adequately accommodated in jail. So in fairness (not talking about a fair punishment for a crime) people shouldn't really be complaining.... Just my thoughts anyway. :thinking:


People shouldn't really be complaining :w00t:
#8
OK. so we are probably in violation of some European directive if we chuck the guy out.

But that doesn't mean to say we have to allow him in. Just that we can't chuck him out.

SO: we arrange accommodation in a nice secure place where he can't get INTO the country - say airside at Heathrow or at some dockyard.

AND we tell him that he is quite at liberty to come and go wherever he wants, only not INTO this country.

We'll even be generous and provide him with transport to his chosen destination, assuming his chosen destination will take him.

It just can't be in the UK.

We're not forcing him out, we're just refusing him entry.
#9
they said there wasnt sufficient evidence to hold him. so fair play.
this is basically just conservatives telling us how if they wer in power they would make everyone smile and dance and it would always be sunny.
altho i agree.... why let a guy who hates britain live here lmao?!
#10
Some_Bloke


SO: we arrange accommodation in a nice secure place where he can't get INTO the country - say airside at Heathrow or at some dockyard.


yeah lets put him next to planes

LOL.
#11
If you ask me we have problems with the east because of guns - if guns were never invented it be a very different world believe me
[mod]#12
King of Thieves
£1000 a month isn't really enough to live off though. I'm not saying the guy should get more or anything... But in general £1000 isn't exactly enough to live life without any hassle.
Plus there are loads more prisoners which cost tax payers more then £1000 a month just to keep them adequately accommodated in jail. So in fairness (not talking about a fair punishment for a crime) people shouldn't really be complaining.... Just my thoughts anyway. :thinking:



£1000 a month is plenty to live off if you dont work.
There are laws which obviously restrict us from deporting but this is obviously a case where someone knows how to get away with what they are doing. It would hurt the country to make a stance and deport this indivivual. As long as he keeps to his bail conditions there isnt much we can do. Although, the condition about not associating with Osama Bin Laden made me chuckle a little.
banned#13
dandoc2;2338588
If you ask me we have problems with the east because of guns - if guns were never invented it be a very different world believe me

I think you'll find its all about oil, not guns.
#14
dandoc2
If you ask me we have problems with the east because of guns - if guns were never invented it be a very different world believe me


Don't just nibble on the barrel Dan.....
banned#15
BTW, the £1000 is in state benefits, not in his hands (has he got two or is this the evil **** that blew one off when trying to make a bomb?). The cost to keep him banged up for 22 hours per day at home is gonna cost a hell of a lot more (2 permanent police guards at least).
#16
csiman
I think you'll find its all about oil, not guns.




They fire plastic pellets nto bullets

Any war started happens because weve exchanged guns for oil or guns for trade - and then they start blowing people up and shooting them

Im not saying its just the west its happens in all colonies
#17
Although not relevant to this thread - Guns aren't a problem - Some of the people who use them are.
banned#18
Imagine how much fertiliser you can get for 1k a month. Not to mention nails.
banned#19
dandoc2;2338645
They fire plastic pellets nto bullets

Any war started happens because weve exchanged guns for oil or guns for trade - and then they start blowing people up and shooting them

Im not saying its just the west its happens in all colonies

no offence but you really need to study a bit more before commentating in this simplistic fashion. It does make you look rather dumb.

So world war 1 & 2 started because guns were exchanged for oil or trade :whistling:
#20
Didnt say in bail conditions about any explosive devices :O, Could quickly pop to B & Q within the hour he gets!
#21
From the link in the OP;


After being freed from HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire he is scheduled to be driven to Acton in West London where he must spend at least 22 hours a day at home, wearing an electronic tag.

Police are expected to maintain a constant presence outside Qatada's home to protect him from vigilante attacks, at an annual cost of tens of thousands of pounds.

The taxpayer will also fund at least £12,000 per year in benefits for Qatada, his wife and five children, even though Qatada was once found to have £170,000 in cash in his possession when he was stopped by police.


:-(
#22
JDeal
Imagine how much fertiliser you can get for 1k a month. Not to mention nails.


So the guy has a big allotment with a fence in need of repair...you've been on the receiving end of enough angry mobs to know not to start speculatin' JD.......
#23
Personally would let him have plane fare and a packed lunch.
#24
Mussstt...Resssist ...Commenting.....Mussst..........:x
3 Likes #25
holly100;2338501
my sister has 1 school age son - her husband of 22 years died after working 25 years - she gets a widowed mothers allowance of 125 weekly plus a £49 week private pension - she has to go and work full time + to pay her £450 rent - she cant get any allowances from stte due to poxy ppension she cannot get a council house - she cant afford a morgage - she would like 1000 a month to live on instead of working her socks off to pay the rent

its a disgrace


So your sister gets £175 per week benefits (£750 per month) for 1 kid - why does it seem so unfair for this chap to get £1000 per month (£225 per week) for 5 kids, seeing as his bail conditions mean he is not allowed to work? Or is £50 for 4 kids+1 wife too much in your eyes?

Seriously, of all the things to complain about, the amount of benefits he is getting really isn't the thing to get worked up about.
1 Like #26
jah128
So your sister gets £175 per week benefits (£750 per month) for 1 kid - why does it seem so unfair for this chap to get £1000 per month (£225 per week) for 5 kids, seeing as his bail conditions mean he is not allowed to work? Or is £50 for 4 kids+1 wife too much in your eyes?

Seriously, of all the things to complain about, the amount of benefits he is getting really isn't the thing to get worked up about.


Thought I was the only one who had that frame of mind. Glad to see there's someone else out there :thumbsup:.
#27
I agree we should just get a shotgun. Show him what Great Britain's really like. What about sending him to live in really rough areas where he just walks down the road and gets shot? (Like that poor little lad recently). Hopefully in his 2 hours of freedom, he'll get shot and that's it, no more wasted benefits.

Also, people are moaning about his 1K a month benefits because if his wife had anything about her, she wouldn't be supporting a terrorist. I can't comment on the children as they've probably been brain washed by them, and are probably too young, but the 1K a month he'll be getting may well be paying for 5 more terrorists to grow up in this country and bomb it in the future (Yes I know they may not,but if they're brain washed from a young age- there's a higher chance that they will).

And if he's got £170,000 in savings which they found on him- then surely he's not entitled to that much benefits???

Also, can we stop the arguments about guns, at the end of the day- they use bl***y bombs anyway!!!!! lol
#28
jonnyq
A positive image of Britain by getting a shotgun and shooting the person - that would make you a better person

Benefits are never wasted by any other people living in this country right?

You can't comment on the children ... yet you think are brainwashed and they will bomb the country in the future - you admit your own uncertainty and are just making assumptions

The money was likely seized rather than him having £170 000 in savings.

Funny how you attempt to make a serious point but then make a joke about bombs at the end

lol indeed



I'm not trying to make me a better person, at the end of the day he believes that millions of British people should die, so why should I think "Oh brilliant, let's put him in prison and pamper him" for his beliefs??? There are thousands of innocent people killed each year, some by accidently getting in the way of gangs or being the wrong person shot. So why should I think that he should get treated differently to the way he believes we should be treated? He wouldn't think for a second about you being killed, so why should we pu**y foot around him because he apparently has human rights? What about my human rights and the rights to live in a country without fear of being blown up? There's millions of immigrants who move to the UK under the same circumstances, yet when there's a terrorist living here what are we supposed to do? If we try to deport him then they usually go to appeal court and some idiot allows them to stay, so what about us? The innocent people? We're supposed to go around staring at foreign looking people who are innocent and think "are they going to bomb us?" just because maybe their clothing is a bit puffed up, or they have a bag on their backs. It's not fair on us and it's certainly not fair on them. Yes it's not right to quickly assume this but if you think your life may be in jearpody what would you do?? I think they should do something about the terrorists, ok don't kill them, but something that isn't costing billions of pounds to try and keep the public safe. In my honest opinion, if I went on the news and said something about muslims really really horrible things, then I really do believe that I would be killed within a few hours of it being on air. I doubt that muslim people would put up with me saying something like "they all deserve to die because they have different beliefs to me", I might end up turning the whole nation against them and then their lives would be at risk- exactly what this guy is trying to do to us. He's trying to brainwash people into killing us- it's like Hitler and killing all the Jews. The difference with the British is that we're too scared, and we look the other way. If we saw him on the street preaching, we'd more than likely just run off home and talk about the experience to our friends and family, no-one's got the b**ls to do anything about it, and then people would always jump in with the human rights thing. Again, going in a circle- what about our human rights??

I know there are millions of people who waste benefits- just not in the same way-using them to live on whilst lecturing others into harming others who live here. It is literally taking the p**s out of the UK- "I want all non-muslims to die, and I'll take your money at the same time". It'd be like emptying the pockets of your victims before you've killed them and allowing them to keep you and your family clothed and fed.

So the parents thoughts are not going to rub off on the children whatsoever, and they're going to teach their kids "Britain is fantastic- we want to bomb them but you shouldn't"- I really don't think so. Yes parents allow their kids to have a different point of view but when theirs is so extreme I doubt they would allow their children to think otherwise.

Yes I'm sure the £170,000 would be seized now, but before why wasn't it checked out? Where did he get the money from? Surely if he had £170,000 on him, then he'd have had more money that he'd spent??? We don't know what benefits he was claiming, but that £12,000 a year he's been claiming for however long could have been put to other uses- the NHS, into schooling, there are millions of ways that money could have been spent. Like all the charities in the UK that desperately need funding, yet the public donate because the government don't give them any money.

I was making a joke because other people were arguing about guns which doesn't seem to be the problem. Just because I was talking seriously doesn't mean I can't make a joke too.

As you seem so stuck on pointing out all the flaws in my post, please do tell me what you think should happen to him? Do you believe in pampering the terrorists? Putting him in jail for life using the tax off your earnings to keep him in there- safe from others as he'd be put in a seperate wing. He might be put in solitary confinement and only allowed out of his cell one hour a day, he's clothed, he's fed, he's clean, he's got a bed to sleep on, he'd probably have books to read, things to occupy himself with. Maybe even a television (I really don't know much about how it works, just what I've read). What about those people who live on the streets who genuinely don't want to be there? A lot of them haven't done anything wrong, what about a nice warm bed for them? Food, hot water, books to read?? This is why people don't think he should be jailed and think he should be executed. I'd rather the tax I pay go towards helping dying people in hospitals and children in schools rather than funding him to keep him safe. Lets face it, we wouldn't be kept safe as he's already been spreading the word and there's thousands of others who are ready to do his dirty work and blow us up. It'd be like chinese whispers- One starts it, and they get put away one by one, but they've already passed the message onto others so they go around bombing others. If there's something put in place that would scare them, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to bomb others.
banned#29
midjet666;2342568
I'm not trying to make me a better person, at the end of the day he believes that millions of British people should die, so why should I think "Oh brilliant, let's put him in prison and pamper him" for his beliefs??? There are thousands of innocent people killed each year, some by accidently getting in the way of gangs or being the wrong person shot. So why should I think that he should get treated differently to the way he believes we should be treated? He wouldn't th..............they've already passed the message onto others so they go around bombing others. If there's something put in place that would scare them, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to bomb others.

Hands up anyone who read that monologue? ;-)
#30
csiman
Hands up anyone who read that monologue? ;-)


Lol cheeky bu***r lol :p
banned#31
midjet666;2343691
Lol cheeky bu***r lol :p

A bit of bedtime reading perhaps ;-):-D
#32
[COLOR="Blue"]I'm not gonna react to the emotional approach of 'he wouldn't care if he killed you or your family' - in the same manner others do.

Human rights - I was waiting for someone to bring this up - he does have human rights, you, and others, may not like that fact.

Your human rights apply to the state and how they treat you - not individuals (eg. right to fair trial). You don't state what specific human rights are supposedly being offended and you have not been in contact with the person in any way - I don't understand what you are trying to say - it is again, an emotional response.
[/COLOR]

A lot of people are talking from an emotional approach as it is emotional. It's emotional if there's a threat to your family and friends lives. His family is more than likely emotional at the moment because there's a threat to his well-being.

The human rights I was talking about is this-
"Article 2: Right to Life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. "
- We are entitled to be alive basically. We shouldn't be deprived of our life because we aren't the same religion as him. If he is convicted to death in court then obviously he has lost his Human Right to his life. (If that makes sense?! I know what I mean)

"Article 14: Prohibition on Discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. "
-So basically, he does have a right to religion etc, but we have a right to ours too. Just because we have different views from him, it doesn't mean he has the right to kill us.

"Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of expression. Before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, the right to freedom of expression was a negative one: you were free to express yourself, unless the law otherwise prevented you from doing so. With the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English and Welsh domestic law, the right to freedom of expression is now expressly guaranteed.

However, the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 is not absolute. Interferences with the right to freedom of expression may be permitted if they are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary in a democratic society, that is, satisfy a pressing social need. The legitimate purposes for which freedom of expression can be limited are:


National security, territorial integrity or public safety.
The prevention of disorder or crime.
The protection of health or morals.
The protection of the reputation or rights of others.
The prevention of the disclosure of information received in confidence.
For maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."


Basically it's the national security and public safety bit here. I'm going out so I'll reply to the rest later :thumbsup: Also, the human rights I was looking for, I can't find the specific thing but I'll find it later!!
1 Like #33
whoa, thats longer than one of my essays for college
#34
matt3454
whoa, thats longer than one of my essays for college


Mine were longer, but not quite as colourful.
#35
[COLOR="Blue"]
You are entitled to be alive - but you are not at risk from being killed by the guy personally - he is not depriving you of your life. You can only bring a claim against the state and public authorities.

Even though he is being held he still has rights (such as not being tortured).

If he was sentenced to death - then his right to life has gone[/COLOR]


We aren't at risk from him, but he's brainwashing others into doing his dirty work!!!!! I can't believe you are sticking up for him and his human rights when he believes that innocent people should die. Everyone thinks that Hitler and the holocaust is really bad (quite rightly so too) but this is a modern day version, and he is a modern day Hitler, yet people are trying to defend him!! So what do you think he's actually guilty of doing? Just talking people into killing others? If it wasn't for him, I don't think 90% of the people brainwashed would have gone on to kill others. He's using his religion in vain- using it as a mask to make younger and more impressionable muslims follow suit. Also, because he's an older muslim male- younger muslim men and women will look upto him (they have to look to men for their guidance- found that out on big brother last night) so they will follow what he's saying.


"Article 14: Prohibition on Discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. "[COLOR="Blue"]


Again - this would not apply to two people - if a public authority does this, that is a different story
[/COLOR]


I don't understand your statement, it would not apply to two people? So you're saying that because he's not authority he has the right to discriminate against others? If that's what you're saying, then surely I have the right to discriminate against the majority of my neighbours because they're asian/pakistani and are muslims and sikhs? They aren't my religion, so shall I start telling others to kill them? Obviously I'm not killing anyone personally, so I'd still have my human rights and be allowed to safety etc just like him? I don't get it, if I did that- in my opinion, I'd be hunted down and killed within the first hour of me spouting off!!!!! So why should we treat him any differently to how he would treat us?

"Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of expression. Before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, the right to freedom of expression was a negative one: you were free to express yourself, unless the law otherwise prevented you from doing so. With the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English and Welsh domestic law, the right to freedom of expression is now expressly guaranteed.

National security, territorial integrity or public safety.
The prevention of disorder or crime.
The protection of health or morals.
The protection of the reputation or rights of others.
The prevention of the disclosure of information received in confidence.
For maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

Basically it's the national security and public safety bit here. I'm going out so I'll reply to the rest later :[COLOR="Blue"]

Criminals can have their freedom restrained if they are a danger to others

You may find this useful - http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/human-rights-act/index.shtml
The approach of the government is another issue - which can be discussed on a different thread[/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]

The thing is, He IS a danger to others. He is teaching/brainwashing others to kill people. He is telling people to kill. If the extremists wanted to be famed in their little group, they would go on his orders and everyone would then look upto them for following his orders. Especially now he's hit the news. It'd be like those following orders from Osama Bin laden, they'd do it more for the fame of it, kinda like a marytr? So he is putting others at risk- he just has to say the "maguc word" to his wife or his children and then she passes the message on, and there we go- London's bombed! So yes, I do think people are at risk from him.
#36
Right, after reading more about Abu Qatada, this is the information I have found out-

"He travelled to the UK in 1993 on a forged UAE passport, and requested asylum on grounds of religious persecution. He was granted asylum the following year"

"he is under worldwide embargo by the United Nations Security Council Committee 1267[1] for his affiliation with al-Qaeda. He is wanted on terrorism charges in Algeria[2], the United States, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and his native Jordan[3]."

"One of Abu Qatada's books, Islamic Movements and Contemporary Alliances, argues essentially for no affiliation whatsoever between Muslim and non-Muslim countries."

"Dozens of writings and a few audio recordings of Abu Qatada are stored on the Tawhed website, which is al-Qaeda's online library, run by the organization of Abu Qatada's fellow Jordanian Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (who is the chief cleric of al-Qaeda in Iraq"

"The Middle East Media Research Institute claimed that, in 1997, Abu Qatada called upon Muslims to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers"

"While free in the UK Abu Qatada was the editor-in-chief of GIA's Al-Ansar magazine, and contributed fatwas to that magazine authorizing the indiscriminate mass murder of random Algerians. (Mustafa Setmariam Nasar was an editor and contributor at the same time, when he too was in England with political refugee status"

"Nineteen audio cassettes of Abu Qatada's sermons were found in the apartment of Mohamed Atta when it was searched after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he led"

The only positive thing I found about him was-
"BBC journalist Alan Johnston was kidnapped, in Gaza by Muslim extremists on March 13, 2007.[14][15][16] Johnston's captors, the infamous Doghmush clan who headed the Army of Islam (Gaza Strip),a terrorist group, demanded the release of dozens of captives, including Abu Qatada.

Abu Qatada offered to help negotiate Johnston's release."

"While living off state benefits said to total £1,000 a month - including £70 a week for that bad back - he was convicted in his absence of a series of crimes in his native Jordan.

These included terror attacks in 1998, and plotting to plant bombs in what would have been a terrorist spectacular to mark the Millennium"

"He called on British Muslims to martyr themselves in a holy war on oppression, and was arrested by anti-terrorism police in February 2001 in connection with plans by a cell in Frankfurt to bomb the Strasbourg Christmas market.

He was found to have £170,000 cash in his possession, including £805 in an envelope marked "For the mujahedin in Chechnya"."


Anyway- back to this-

I knew this would happen - I did not stick up for him or his views and you know it - please do not twist my views like that or suggest I am supporting him

The law is set up to deal with inciting hatred so it's not like people are sitting back

Again the Hitler argument is an easy one to do - as I've explained before, there are differences between then and now

I did not talk about brainwashing and - irrespective of what big brother said - there is a wider issue and we are switching between that and this specific story. There is a problem with people being influenced but I thought this discussion was just about him.


You have key members and their links, young people, the impact of key events like 9/11, history and political aspect, legislation introduced and so on. It is linked but it is simplistic to make a general statement, each section needs to be understood and not bundled together. For example, young people being susceptible to others and their messages cannot be attributed to just one particular thing - it is not as straight forward as that.

The law is set up, and it usually protects the criminal rather than the victims. Please show me where terrorists who have been proved guilty, have actually been punished for their crimes in the UK? I haven't seen any. The only time I saw a criminal sentenced correctly for his crime was Saddam Hussein. If they believe us non-muslims should die, then why should we allow them to live with such hatred towards others and who are getting others to do their dirty work, and spread the hate so there's like an evil army?

The thing with big brother I was saying that I found out that Muslims believe that men are to be looked up to, and used to guide others, so he will be looked up to by muslim womens and probably the younger muslims- as it's their religion to do so. I know the majority of westernised muslims will think the same as us- that there's no part for him in the UK, but there's some who want to be a martyr.

The Hitler argument- what differences are there? There's more ways today to "spread the hatred", there's more money being pumped into these things, there's been more psychological experiments conducted and out in the open to read about brainwashing so it'd be an easier technique, there are muslims all around the world in virtually every country, and it's one of the fastest growing religions. Hitler managed to brain wash millions in his own country, but there was still loads against him. If Abu Qatada suceeded- we'd be f****d to put it blunt. There are so many muslims everywhere and there's so many thousands that are becoming radical and going abroad to terrorist bootcamps to learn more, so how are we going to win the war against terrorism if we just put him in jail?

It's completely sending out the wrong message. You want to/have killed lots of people because their beliefs are difference, we'll put you in prison which is cushy. Like I said on my other posts, a lot of homeless people would love to have a bed for the night!! The reason why I'm mentioning them is because a lot of them haven't done any crimes like he has, and they're being punished in a way because the goverment will pump money into the prison system, and there's not many places with beds available.

I can't just have an argument about Abu Qatada without bringing other aspects into it. You do it yourself-

"I did not say he has the right to discriminate - if you have an issue with your neighbour because of their actions - you will not be able to go the European Court of Human Rights. You can only do that with a public authority. An example is the school girl who wanted to wear an item because she is a Sikh - she wanted to go down the human rights route."


Also, what I'd like to know is how you know so much about this-

"People are not at a risk from him directly - maybe as a result of him being detained, it may have some impact but we don't know for sure. But I believe the media are playing it up - I highly doubt he alone could have such a big effect by just being in the news.

I doubt he can get any messages out now and we cannot comment on his wife or children and their involvement.

There is not a central hub like people may believe - there are some groups which are offshoots and not linked at all. We have always been at risk, to use a cliche, it is history repeating like with the IRA."

How do you know there's not a central hub like people believe? Have you been there and seen it? How do you know people are not at risk from him directly? Do you personally know him and what he's capable of? You believe the media are playing it up, they do play a lot of things up, but the majority of people would be sitting back with their mouths shut about it otherwise. This is a very serious thing, and there's so many people spouting on about his human rights. He doesn't have any if he wants to kill innocent people!!!!!!

You can also say "he's innocent until proven guilty". He's wanted in loads of countries for God's sake, how the hell does that look like it's all a mistake? Ooops, we seem to have your identity mistaken for someone else? I don't think so!!!! You're sticking up for a terrorist and saying he does have human rights and he shouldn't be killed for his crimes etc etc. He's so willing to teach others to kill us, so I really don't understand your view of "it's ok, just keep him locked away, he probably won't speak to anyone and probably won't pass on messages". Don't be so b****y stupid!!!! He's already broken loads of laws- inciting hatred at sermons, coming in on a fake passport, he's on the run from loads of different countries police forces- he's come to the UK as we're the only idiots stupid enough to keep him here safe!! And it's thanks to people who agree with you that he has "human rights".
#37
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/prisoninformation/howaprisonoperates/ Have a look at this virtual tour of a london prison. If you click on Housing Block/Accommodation then click on images, you will see a prison cell. It's more than likely for petty crimes, I'm honestly not sure, it may house murderers, paedophiles, thieves, terrorists- I don't know. All I know is that it's a london prison. So a criminal can commit a crime, and still end up in a nice environment-the people around you aren't very nice, but then you pay taxes etc on the outside for the same privilege. And you're more at risk outside too...
suspended#38
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/prisoninformation/howaprisonoperates Have a look at this virtual tour of a london prison. If you click on Housing Block/Accommodation then click on images, you will see a prison cell. It's more than likely for petty crimes, I'm honestly not sure, it may house murderers, paedophiles, thieves, terrorists- I don't know. All I know is that it's a london prison. So a criminal can commit a crime, and still end up in a nice environment-the people around you aren't very nice, but then you pay taxes etc on the outside for the same privilege. And you're more at risk outside too...

[COLOR="Sienna"]This is just gonna spark up another argument and I would rather not get into that - I don't think there is much more I can add without repeating myself [/COLOR]
#39
Our government is a mess. Why are we letting these people into our country in the first place.. Would they welcome us into their countries and pamper us as such ?

If people are coming to the UK then they must speak fluent English and be educated. Its what they can do for our country not what we can do for them ! And if they do not like our lifestyle then get the **** out of our country..

If i was to go to Afghanistan i would not expect to take my lifestyle with me. Here we have a man who hates the UK and just wants to kill innocent people.. What can he do for us in the UK ? He will receive benefits despite it being discovered that he had over £170000 in his possession.. Seems we treat prisoners and terrorists better than our innocent citizens.

Here is the interesting quote from that article:
"The taxpayer will also fund at least £12,000 per year in benefits for Qatada, his wife and five children, even though Qatada was once found to have £170,000 in cash in his possession when he was stopped by police."

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!