Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Abu Qatada Deportation: Cleric Expected To Be Flown To Jordan Overnight On Military Plane
77 Answers
Going or last minute Appeal?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Orderlimit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.It's a shame jake-the-peg is not around. He'd be rolling out his preposterous argument that it would be far better if we were to keep him here so that we could "keep an eye" on him.
This man has been preaching hatred and taking the UK taxpayer for a ride for long enough. (This, unfortunately, he will continue to do this as there is no chance of his family upping sticks).
What has happened in the UK is that the concept of "an undesirable alien“ is now extinct thanks to pernicious Human Rights legislation. We should be able to determine who is allowed to settle here and who is not without having to lay criminal charges against them. If you have a guest in your house and you don’t like the cut of his jib (or he’s eyeing up your family silver or your daughter) you chuck him out. You don’t have to wait until your spoons disappear along with your daughter’s virginity. You simply throw his belongings out the window and lock the door.
So it should be with this creep. Few people in the UK like him and he most certainly dislikes most of us. So we should not have to wait for him to commit a crime. He’s not wanted here; he has no right to be here. We should not have to justify expelling him.
But that, of course, we entail us regaining absolute control of our borders and we mustn't have that, must we?
This man has been preaching hatred and taking the UK taxpayer for a ride for long enough. (This, unfortunately, he will continue to do this as there is no chance of his family upping sticks).
What has happened in the UK is that the concept of "an undesirable alien“ is now extinct thanks to pernicious Human Rights legislation. We should be able to determine who is allowed to settle here and who is not without having to lay criminal charges against them. If you have a guest in your house and you don’t like the cut of his jib (or he’s eyeing up your family silver or your daughter) you chuck him out. You don’t have to wait until your spoons disappear along with your daughter’s virginity. You simply throw his belongings out the window and lock the door.
So it should be with this creep. Few people in the UK like him and he most certainly dislikes most of us. So we should not have to wait for him to commit a crime. He’s not wanted here; he has no right to be here. We should not have to justify expelling him.
But that, of course, we entail us regaining absolute control of our borders and we mustn't have that, must we?
Why Malta?
They made huge sacrifices in WW2 (so huge that the entire island was awarded the George Medal - the highest civilian award for bravery). The last thing they need is the unplanned arrival of Mr Qatada. Knowing him he will survive his fall and within minutes his "legal advisers" will be on the scene making arangements for him to be granted "special leave to remain". :-)
They made huge sacrifices in WW2 (so huge that the entire island was awarded the George Medal - the highest civilian award for bravery). The last thing they need is the unplanned arrival of Mr Qatada. Knowing him he will survive his fall and within minutes his "legal advisers" will be on the scene making arangements for him to be granted "special leave to remain". :-)
Never understand why we feel bound by European courts in matters like this. It should be for each sovereign state to decide who they want within their borders. It's their own security and people they are defending. If a state thinks a man is preaching hatred or disturbing the peace and good governance of their own territory, that should be final.
Two statements.
‘It [Islam] is a religion and a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society. Because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.’
‘Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.’
Guess which statement got the person who uttered it denied access to the UK.
‘It [Islam] is a religion and a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society. Because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.’
‘Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.’
Guess which statement got the person who uttered it denied access to the UK.
At a guess, the anti-Islam statement was made by an American refused entry because her (or his) presence here would not be conducive to the public good. But Americans understand these things. Just look at the questions you are asked before you are allowed into their country and the whiter than white record and character you have to show .
We were right to refuse her or him. We have enough troublemakers already. And, I suspect, that somewhat academic statement is not representative of what they normally say.
We were right to refuse her or him. We have enough troublemakers already. And, I suspect, that somewhat academic statement is not representative of what they normally say.
FredPuli - Well you guessed that one. Now do you want to have a stab at the one who was allowed into the country and do let us know how his statement was conducive to the public good.
A clue for you, he was allowed here to do a speaking tour after being refused by the Swiss presumably because they thought it would not be conducive to their public good.
A clue for you, he was allowed here to do a speaking tour after being refused by the Swiss presumably because they thought it would not be conducive to their public good.
Do you know Fred. There's more than one of them out there. In fact there's loads of them and all welcome to come here and deliver their message of peace.
To strictly segregated audiences of course.
http:// news.sk y.com/s tory/11 06292/p reacher -who-ba cks-wif e-beati ngs-let -into-u k
To strictly segregated audiences of course.
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.