Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We will never win

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • We will never win

    How on earth can we be expected to win this conflict when the soft arsed bastards in charge come up with rulings like this , where the f##k are they coming from , and no doubt this piece of shite will be on social benefits as well , stop the world an let me off, the UK is a total laughing stock ,how bloody embarrassing and totally devoid of sense , i feel for the security services who i believe have their hands tied by out of touch the old fart human rights brigade , they will be tortured in Pak huh , well they should never have left then .



    The alleged leader of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb targets in north-west England has won his appeal against deportation.

    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.

    Mr Naseer, 23, was one of 10 Pakistani students arrested last April as part of a massive counter-terrorism operation in Liverpool and Manchester.

    Another student, Ahmad Faraz Khan, also 23, won his appeal on similar grounds.

    Lawyers for the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, said they would not be appealing against the ruling, handed down by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

    E-mail evidence

    The security services believed the men were planning to attack within days of their arrest, but neither student was charged.

    A third man, Shoaib Khan, 31, who is already back in Pakistan, was cleared of any involvement in terrorism.

    ANALYSIS
    Dominic Casciani
    By Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent
    This judgement shines a public light on the difference between intelligence assessments and hard evidence - with the tribunal concluding that MI5 was on the right side of the line.

    Its conclusions will be regarded by security and police chiefs as a vindication of their assessment that there was a plot, even though detectives never found a bomb and the men were never charged with an offence.

    Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan will be added to the list of other suspects in similar situations - men who are unwanted by the UK but, simultaneously, cannot be deported because they could be tortured.

    The home secretary's answer for some suspects is to place them under a control order, a form of house arrest that restricts their movements.

    But both of the men in this case say they will fight on to clear their names, and that MI5 simply got it wrong.

    The ruling effectively means that MI5's case against two of the men has been supported by the courts even though neither of them was ever charged with a criminal offence.

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

    In his judgement, Mr Justice Mitting said Mr Naseer was sending e-mails to a contact in Pakistan - and that the recipient was an "al-Qaeda operative".

    The e-mails were said to be at the heart of the plot and culminated in a message sent to Pakistan in April 2009 in which Mr Naseer said he had set a date to marry, something MI5 said was code for an attack date.

    "We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," the judgement said.

    It added: "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

    The judge said Ahmad Faraz Khan had become a "knowing party" to the plan because he had "undergone a radical change in view" between leaving home and studying in the UK.

    But in both cases, Mr Justice Mitting said it was impossible to return the men to Pakistan.

    'Committed Islamists'

    "There is a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained, usually to produce information, a confession or compliance," said the judgement.

    Turning to the three students who have already left the UK, Mr Justice Mitting said Abdul Wahab Khan and Tariq ur Rehman were committed Islamists who knew of Mr Naseer's plan.
    Ahmad Faraz Khan
    Neither Ahmad Faraz Khan nor Abid Naseer were present for the ruling

    The final student, Shoaib Khan, however, won his appeal, with the court saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing against him.

    The controversial affair began last April when the Metropolitan Police's then head of counter-terrorism, Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, accidentally revealed details of the investigation.

    Mr Quick resigned after he was photographed with clearly visible secret documents outside 10 Downing Street.

    Police brought their operation forward and raided a series of locations across Liverpool, Manchester and Lancashire, eventually detaining 11 men.

    Ten of them were students from Pakistan, who were all either close friends or loosely known to each other.

    Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown said at the time that the security services were "dealing with a very big terrorist plot".

    But no explosives were found and all of the men were released without charge after two weeks.

    They were immediately detained again under immigration laws after the then home secretary sought their deportation, saying they were still a threat to national security.
    Last edited by tankie; 18 May 10,, 12:38.

  • #2
    Originally posted by tankie View Post
    How on earth can we be expected to win this conflict when the soft arsed bastards in charge come up with rulings like this , where the f##k are they coming from , and no doubt this piece of shite will be on social benefits as well , stop the world an let me off, the UK is a total laughing stock ,how bloody embarrassing and totally devoid of sense , i feel for the security services who i believe have their hands tied by out of touch the old fart human rights brigade , they will be tortured in Pak huh , well they should never have left then .
    Well on the bright side at least the British can still say that they have a strongly independent judiciary that enforces only the law of that country and nothing else. If the judge was ruling on what the British law actually is then the decision is not wrong, legally. Morally and politically wrong is another question, one that judges should not decide on unless you want England to end-up like the Islamic Republic (Iran) for example where clerical judges make arbitrary decisions and rule on more than just legal issues.

    Maybe moral justice has not prevailed in this case but you can hardly fault your judges for implementing only what the law of your country actually is. That isnt something to consider a "laughing stock". A "laughing stock" would be a country where judges rule contrary to their own laws. Sadly for me, that is Iran under the theocratic dictatorship.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 1980s View Post
      Well on the bright side at least the British can still say that they have a strongly independent judiciary that enforces only the law of that country and nothing else. If the judge was ruling on what the British law actually is then the decision is not wrong, legally. Morally and politically wrong is another question, one that judges should not decide on unless you want England to end-up like the Islamic Republic (Iran) for example where clerical judges make arbitrary decisions and rule on more than just legal issues.

      Maybe moral justice has not prevailed in this case but you can hardly fault your judges for implementing only what the law of your country actually is. That isnt something to consider a "laughing stock". A "laughing stock" would be a country where judges rule contrary to their own laws. Sadly for me, that is Iran under the theocratic dictatorship.
      Siggggggggggggggggh , i understand what you say ,but drastic actions demand drastic solutions , and that IMO means , stop the British stiff upper lip rubbish and do the right thing , get rid , dya think in their country it would be allowed , no way hose A . And it aint the normal judges , it was a special immigration court that upheld the decision , now just who is in charge of them , maybe again , the enemy within , formed by the shite human rights bollocks brigade , deport the soddin lot back to where they support and get to f##k outa my country , and stay away , bomb their own , ####### morons

      Comment


      • #4
        We are governed from 'another place'


        Universal Declaration of Human Rights

        Article 2.

        Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

        Article 6.

        Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

        Article 9.

        No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

        Article 10.

        Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

        Article 11.

        (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
        (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

        Article 14.

        (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
        (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

        Comment

        Working...
        X