|
Judges block Home Secretary from deporting convicted terrorist
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...terrorist.html
This is totally insane. Who is paying for the court costs and all the benefits him and his family get as 'asylum seekers'? Judges block Home Secretary from deporting convicted terrorist A convicted terrorist banned from Britain for being a risk to national security has been stopped from being deported by the courts. By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent 9:40PM BST 21 May 2011 The Muslim man, who cannot be named, was found guilty of terrorism in Tunisia and has already been extradited once to Italy, where he was accused of being involved in helping to send Islamists to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, ordered that he be kept out of Britain because his presence would not be "conducive to the public good for reasons of national security", adding that there was evidence he had been involved in "extremist radicalisation". However, after he was acquitted in Italy, he returned to Britain and has been allowed to stay by the Court of Appeal while he fights Mrs May's ruling. The court's decision has exposed what experts said was a "loophole" in immigration law which would allow "dangerous" people to stay here. |
More b*llocks from our soft arse country:mad:
|
What a joke this country has become.
|
So the "returned to Britain" after Italy.... I suppose he entered illegally then? and once in has been allowed to stay.... this sounds like a job for Seal Team 6 ;)
|
Clever lawyer exploits legal loophole. Groundbreaking.
|
If there is a loophole, the government, if they ARE serious about terrorism, need to close it..........and apply it retrospectively.
If they can do retrospective laws for motorists and students, why not for terrorists? |
Originally Posted by alcazar
(Post 10053423)
If there is a loophole, the government, if they ARE serious about terrorism, need to close it..........and apply it retrospectively.
If they can do retrospective laws for motorists and students, why not for terrorists? |
Originally Posted by alcazar
(Post 10053423)
If there is a loophole, the government, if they ARE serious about terrorism, need to close it..........and apply it retrospectively.
If they can do retrospective laws for motorists and students, why not for terrorists? |
Originally Posted by JTaylor
(Post 10053455)
They can and they will, that's how it works.
|
You seem to be particularly angry this morning, f1. :p
|
Human rights legislation = criminals charter?
|
Originally Posted by tony de wonderful
(Post 10053541)
Human rights legislation twisted and misused as a criminals charter!
|
About time we had a leader who was genuinely interested in the good of the British people and this country rather than taking the PC view towards foreign criminals.
Wouldn't it be good to have someone with real guts running the show for a change. Les :( |
The British Legal system is a complete Ass that needs a massive shake up....
|
It always starts with the leaders.
Les |
Seems it's the Judges who are out of touch with what the majority of the British public want.
|
You would think so....but the judges can only do what laws enacted by parliament allow them to.
|
I would be disappointed though if the Judges feel that they have officially to work "by numbers" instead of using their common sense when it come to summing up the facts and allocating blame and punishment.
The staue of Justice on the Old Bailey holds a set of scales in one hand which suggests that the facts should be balanced one against another and blame and punishment should be allocated according to how it all pans out. Les |
She's also blindfolded, Les.
|
Originally Posted by JTaylor
(Post 10055489)
She's also blindfolded, Les.
Les |
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 10055500)
And she also holds a sword in the right hand.
Les |
Now we are getting there!
Les ;) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:44 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands