Abu Qatada, £5Million a year to look after him? WTF? Options

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Has this Country got no balls anymore? Chuck him out and sod Europe. What are they going to do - Throw us out? And if they did - Who cares?

I'm fed up with this nonsense. I expect old Shami Chakrabati will be on QT on Thursday defending the decision. She can go to!

[John C]

How can an undesirable alien get so much when I tried to sign on I got sweet fa.

[Dodgys smarter b...]

How can an undesirable alien get so much when I tried to sign on I got sweet fa.

Little, if any of that will actually go to him, will it? Most of it will go to Serco, who are the company charged with the surveillance duties. Serco gave over one million quid to the Governing parties and for that they are being rewarded. Personally, if he is as dangerous as they make out then I want him under surveillance 24 hrs a day, wherever he is on the planet, don't you?

Has this Country got no balls anymore? Chuck him out and sod Europe. What are they going to do - Throw us out? And if they did - Who cares?

You seem confused between the European Court of Human Rights, (which is not an E.U. institution) and the European Union itself.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Little, if any of that will actually go to him, will it? Most of it will go to Serco, who are the company charged with the surveillance duties. Serco gave over one million quid to the Governing parties and for that they are being rewarded. Personally, if he is as dangerous as they make out then I want him under surveillance 24 hrs a day, wherever he is on the planet, don't you?

You seem confused between the European Court of Human Rights, (which is not an E.U. institution) and the European Union itself.

In answer to your first point. He does not have to be 'under surveillance' if he is in prison and not roaming the streets of London (when not under his curfew). I don't care about this man's 'human rights'. He gave them up when he started spewing his filth about blowing up innocent people.

As for you 2nd point - I'm not confused. Whats the difference between an EU 'Institution' and the EU itself? It's all run by shadowy grey suits in Brussell's.

[dannyboy]

In answer to your first point. He does not have to be 'under surveillance' if he is in prison and not roaming the streets of London (when not under his curfew). I don't care about this man's 'human rights'. He gave them up when he started spewing his filth about blowing up innocent people.

As for you 2nd point - I'm not confused. Whats the difference between an EU 'Institution' and the EU itself? It's all run by shadowy grey suits in Brussell's.

Crikey, shadowy grey suits on one side & terrorists on the other. Time to call Jason Bourne.....

[Dodgys smarter b...]

I'm not confused. Whats the difference between an EU 'Institution' and the EU itself? It's all run by shadowy grey suits in Brussell's.

Really? Not confused?

Ok then let's see, "It's all run by shadowy grey suits in Brussell's". The European Court of Human Rights is of course in Strasbourg. (Not Brussells - although I suspect you mean Brussels.) It was set up in 1949, with the U.K. pretty much as the guiding light, and indeed it was us who complied the list of what 'Human Rights' are. The Court is NOT part of the European Union. Never has been.

It might also be worth pointing out that it wasn't the ECHR who heard the case or released him it was a UK Court. The estimated one million pounds it cost will not go to him, but to all the lawyers lucky enough to get on this particular gravy train.

Still as long as you're not confused.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Really? Not confused?

Ok then let's see, "It's all run by shadowy grey suits in Brussell's". The European Court of Human Rights is of course in Strasbourg. (Not Brussells - although I suspect you mean Brussels.) It was set up in 1949, with the U/K pretty much as the guiding light, and it was us who complied what 'Human Rights' are. The Court is NOT part of the European Union. Never has been.

It might also be worth pointing out that it wasn't the ECHU who heard the case or released him it was a UK Court. The estimated one million pounds it cost will not go to him, but to all the lawyers lucky enough to get on this particular gravy train.

Still as long as you're not confused.

Yawn. Go and join your friend Shami.

[Dodgys smarter b...]

Oh dear, unable to justify your rant then?

[Rusty Bullet]

Yawn. Go and join your friend Shami.

Dear T D H

He's nailed you sunshine.

Go back to hating.

[FactFile]

Really? Not confused?

Ok then let's see, "It's all run by shadowy grey suits in Brussell's". The European Court of Human Rights is of course in Strasbourg. (Not Brussells - although I suspect you mean Brussels.) It was set up in 1949, with the U.K. pretty much as the guiding light, and indeed it was us who complied the list of what 'Human Rights' are. The Court is NOT part of the European Union. Never has been.

It might also be worth pointing out that it wasn't the ECHR who heard the case or released him it was a UK Court. The estimated one million pounds it cost will not go to him, but to all the lawyers lucky enough to get on this particular gravy train.

Still as long as you're not confused.

Well said.

Isn't it funny how some people get on here giving it 'the big I am' yet when it's pointed out to them how wrong (confused) they are, all they can do is behave childishly, and slink away without so much as even an attempt to justify their bitterness.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Its quite amusing

I'd bet more people think like me than you yet you both come over all superior.

'Go back to hating'???

[JeffG]

'Go back to hating'???

That was hilarious.

I know: why don't we have an "I love Abu Qatada" day, to make up?

How that defence lawyer can sleep at night for taking the case, I don't know.

[On the edge]

Differences between the EU and the European Courts accepted, isn't it rather odd that our European members never ever give or get asked for views or opinions? What do these people actually get paid for?

Yet another reason to avoid anything other than first past the post, with anything else, you just get sinecures for political has beens. For instance, Come on lads, lets hear what you have to say?

[Rusty Bullet]

How that defence lawyer can sleep at night for taking the case, I don't know.

On pillowcase stuffed with our money.

I'd bet more people think like me than you yet you both come over all superior.

Wow. You mean 'I'd bet more people are as confused as me', or are you saying that the majority are always superior in what they think? That's interesting.

The big question here, 'the Elephant in the room' if you will, is why has he never been tried in the English Courts? That would involve M.I.5 and a fair amount of egg-on-face.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

On pillowcase stuffed with our money.



Wow. You mean 'I'd bet more people are as confused as me', or are you saying that the majority are always superior in what they think? That's interesting.

The big question here, 'the Elephant in the room' if you will, is why has he never been tried in the English Courts? That would involve M.I.5 and a fair amount of egg-on-face.

Why do you think you represent the majority? Arrogance personified.

[dannyboy]

Why do you think you represent the majority? Arrogance personified.

Why do you?

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Why do you?

Because I am. Fact.

[Rusty Bullet]

Why do you think you represent the majority? Arrogance personified.

And where does it say that? Where have I said I represent the majority? What are you talking about?

You have done nothing but show your confusion, not answer any questions put to you and now make things up since you first posted here.

I spy Troll.

[x2lls]

Has this Country got no balls anymore? Chuck him out and sod Europe. What are they going to do - Throw us out? And if they did - Who cares?

I'm fed up with this nonsense. I expect old Shami Chakrabati will be on QT on Thursday defending the decision. She can go to!

If our government started to ignore the law, then where would we be in a short time?

The answer is to CHANGE the law, but even that would have it's own problems.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

If our government started to ignore the law, then where would we be in a short time?

The answer is to CHANGE the law, but even that would have it's own problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...to-Britain.html

Does not seem to bother the French

http://sim.law.uu.nl/sim/caselaw/Hof.nsf/1...ec?OpenDocument

Deos not seem to bother the Italians

Why should we bother?