FREEDOM!!!! [2]

Mrs Figg wrote:''I assume by terrorist you mean Abu Qatada. Personally I'm glad as a country we respect human rights''.

its attitudes of that nature that allow hate filled arrogant wankers to ride the system, laugh in our faces and plan the next car bombing spree, god preserve us from political correct do gooders.

That's rubbish and you know it.

IslamAgainstExtremism.com

Abu Qatada - A Misguided, Bloodthirsty Takfiri

''This individual has a hand in much of the blood that has been shed in the Islamic world - and the Islamic world alone. This individual beautifies his actions in the name of the religion, however he does not do that openly. It is done by indirect means''

''He went to the Afghani jihad but only caught its back end and with the ideology of takfir on his table cloth, he sought refuge in London where he found shade, a refuge and place to speak openly. He managed to obtain political asylum, and thus having found his lost haven began in earnest with his tragedies''

''It is extremely unfortunate that Britain accommodated him and his likes, preparing for them a repose from which to spread their poison of takfir into the Muslim lands. Indeed, it was from Britain that he mobilised his pashas in the Muslim lands to perform takfir and bombings. In addition to Abu Qatada we have the likes of Muhammad al-Mis'aree, Sa'd al-Faqih and other dissidents whose extremist methodologies are not unknown to the well-informed.''

''Qatada has wreaked more havoc and caused more bloodshed in the Muslim lands, such as Algeria and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere than in the West in its entirety. For he has been taken as a spiritual guide and a political leader to the ignorant fools in the Muslim lands, who are like-minded in their thirst for blood. Unfortunately, the likes of Abu Qatada use highly emotive political issues such as Palestine in order to whip up support and bolster loyalty to themselves - using that to insidiously promote their own barbaric ideologies and tendencies''.

''His fatwa permitting the killing of women and children in Algeria''

and you support this mans human rights over those of innocents? at home and abroad. thats astounding naivety.

OOOOOH! This looks like a fun one! I wish I had time to play!

{{{{Petty, that quite enough fertilizer in the vegetable patch, thank you! }}}

hiya Dave. we have been looking after your veggies while you were away.

Mrs Figg wrote: IslamAgainstExtremism.com

Abu Qatada - A Misguided, Bloodthirsty Takfiri

''This individual has a hand in much of the blood that has been shed in the Islamic world - and the Islamic world alone. This individual beautifies his actions in the name of the religion, however he does not do that openly. It is done by indirect means''

''He went to the Afghani jihad but only caught its back end and with the ideology of takfir on his table cloth, he sought refuge in London where he found shade, a refuge and place to speak openly. He managed to obtain political asylum, and thus having found his lost haven began in earnest with his tragedies''

''It is extremely unfortunate that Britain accommodated him and his likes, preparing for them a repose from which to spread their poison of takfir into the Muslim lands. Indeed, it was from Britain that he mobilised his pashas in the Muslim lands to perform takfir and bombings. In addition to Abu Qatada we have the likes of Muhammad al-Mis'aree, Sa'd al-Faqih and other dissidents whose extremist methodologies are not unknown to the well-informed.''

You know very well that Britain doesn't accommodate people like him and that he is only here because of the complexities surrounding him. You can't just use one example and say the way Britain deals with suspected terrorists is wrong.

but britain does accommodate him. and probably gives him benefits and a nice comfy house to live in. poor thing he really needs his rights respected. He is not suspected of terrorism either. its pretty clear he is up to his armpits in blood. personally I would send him back on the next plane and hope someone meets him at the airport with a 'little friend failing that take him behind the shed and finish the job properly.

oh okay lets send every suspected terrorist back to corrupt regimes who will use evidence gained by torture to send them to death even if they were innocent because of this one guy

personally im glad you have no power on such things

But maybe it would surprise you that only 0.27 of the popuation can't speak English. -Ally

This is true Ally, but you have to be careful with seeing what you want in statistics.
Thats across the entire UK population- it says nothing about areas where migration is at much higher rates than other.
In the same report is says -

'In London, over a fifth of people gave something other than English as their main language, but in the North East, it was just 2.8 per cent.'

A fith in London- and I would bet that if you looked closer at London you would find the majority of that 5% is in small areas.
Now if you grew up there- and it was 80-90% your ethnic makeup and your culture. And now its 80% smeone elses and you now stand out, from your skin colour to your clothing, you no longer have the security the human animal needs in its home. It brings old impulses about the stranger, and the dangers inherent in not knowing how another person might react or what they might believe in.

The problem here is not peoples natural reaction to such a change, but that such a change was willfully encouraged by the last Labour government, with little to no attempts at integration into communities. No forward planning in spreading immigrants out over a large population area to avoid suden radical change to neighbourhoods.
No real help for those who dont have english as a first language either or who may feel alienated in a new culture.
The problem with immigration in England it seems to me is not the imigrants, and its not the locals, its the lack of anything resembling a plan of how to handle it, or anything like foresight at the obvious problems that have been building for at least a decade now.
And now its got this far, where its affecting real government policy in a knee jerk negative way, which is never been a good way to make laws.

He is not suspected of terrorism either.- Mrs Figg

The bit I dont understand is if he is as guilty as they say, and if the evidence is so solid, why dont we try him here in our courts and sentence him? Why do we have to send him to a regime we know routinely uses torture to interogate prisoners just to have him tried?

CC12 35 wrote:oh okay lets send every suspected terrorist back to corrupt regimes who will use evidence gained by torture to send them to death even if they were innocent because of this one guy

suspected is good enough for me. no smoke without fire.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:He is not suspected of terrorism either.- Mrs Figg

The bit I dont understand is if he is as guilty as they say, and if the evidence is so solid, why dont we try him here in our courts and sentence him? Why do we have to send him to a regime we know routinely uses torture to interogate prisoners just to have him tried?

because his crimes were probably not on our soil but in Algeria and places outside our jurisdiction.

Ken Clarke added: “No one says he has committed a crime, and he has not been charged with anything which is difficult to make a case for his deportation.
We will see what happens. I am not going to comment on a case which is still otherwise going through.
This was a British judge who gave him bail. The newspapers that bash the European Court of Human Rights bash the European Court of Human Rights all the time. Actually the judgement they are objecting to was by a British judge.”- Telegraph

Far as I can tell the only crimes he is supsecte dof were committed in Jordan-and the reason we cant sn dhim there is the trial would not be fair under European law as the evidence against him was obtained under torture.
Now I'm not saying he is a nice guy, or that he might not have blood on his hands/hook! but the reasons for why we cant just send him to Jordan are more complicated than they first seem.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But maybe it would surprise you that only 0.27 of the popuation can't speak English. -Ally

This is true Ally, but you have to be careful with seeing what you want in statistics.
Thats across the entire UK population- it says nothing about areas where migration is at much higher rates than other.
In the same report is says -

'In London, over a fifth of people gave something other than English as their main language, but in the North East, it was just 2.8 per cent.'

A fith in London- and I would bet that if you looked closer at London you would find the majority of that 5% is in small areas.
Now if you grew up there- and it was 80-90% your ethnic makeup and your culture. And now its 80% smeone elses and you now stand out, from your skin colour to your clothing, you no longer have the security the human animal needs in its home. It brings old impulses about the stranger, and the dangers inherent in not knowing how another person might react or what they might believe in.

so?

just because english isn't their first language doesn't mean they can't speak english dimwit

from the same report:

Of the people who don't speak English as their main language, however, the proportion who don't speak English at all remains relatively stable.

the majority of immigrants intergrate into our societies well it is not the problem some people would make it out to be

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ken Clarke added: “No one says he has committed a crime, and he has not been charged with anything which is difficult to make a case for his deportation.
We will see what happens. I am not going to comment on a case which is still otherwise going through.
This was a British judge who gave him bail. The newspapers that bash the European Court of Human Rights bash the European Court of Human Rights all the time. Actually the judgement they are objecting to was by a British judge.”- Telegraph

Far as I can tell the only crimes he is supsecte dof were committed in Jordan-and the reason we cant sn dhim there is the trial would not be fair under European law as the evidence against him was obtained under torture.
Now I'm not saying he is a nice guy, or that he might not have blood on his hands/hook! but the reasons for why we cant just send him to Jordan are more complicated than they first seem.

that's what i said

Mrs Figg wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:He is not suspected of terrorism either.- Mrs Figg

The bit I dont understand is if he is as guilty as they say, and if the evidence is so solid, why dont we try him here in our courts and sentence him? Why do we have to send him to a regime we know routinely uses torture to interogate prisoners just to have him tried?

because his crimes were probably not on our soil but in Algeria and places outside our jurisdiction.

oh okay i forgot that's how the international community works my bad

the majority of immigrants intergrate into our societies well it is not the problem some people would make it out to be- CC

As Ive said, I dont see this problem in my everyday life, but its clearly been a growing problem in England that is now getting to the heart of government. So there must be a problem of some nature to have got it this far.

The growing problem DOES NOT EXIST.

just because english isn't their first language doesn't mean they can't speak english dimwit- CC

That wasnt the point- those who dont speak it as a first language are likely to be immigrants- the number of those are condensed greater in parts of London and other areas dotted around England than anywhere else.
So whilst overall the numbers are low as a percent of the whole population, they can be more than 50% in small localised areas where large nimber sof immigrant s are housed compared to the rest of the country. Giving rise to the impression that its more widespread than it is and that a community and culture is being superseded by an invading one.


If the growing problem doesnt exisy how has the situation gone from 10 years ago- no UKIP and the BNP viewed as a joke- to 5 years ago BNP wining councillors, begining appearence of UKIP- now-UKIP contesting local council seats and sending the ruling party into an ever further right wing reactionary approach to immigration and Europe, because they believe the electorate has shifted right on it and that is where the votes will be copme next election.

the point was in responce to mrs figg with her emotive language about immigrants shutting themselves away without knowing how to even speak english

nearly all immigrants can be speak english. already explained how segregated immigrants are actually diverse places, move on

neither party has any MPS. wasn't an issue two years ago then

okay.

Doesnt matter they dont have MP's- they are affecting legislation being passed- they are driving the Westmnister Parliament further to the right of centre.
It is having an effect right now.

influencing one half of one party not actual legislation

and the fact that UKIP have no policies on anything other than immigration makes it pretty hard for them to influence anything

The Tories will pass their anti europe bill. They will continue to push for tighter and tighter control on what immigrants get and how they are treated when they arrvie. The Tory revolt may even be enough to split the colation and give us a Tory minority government for the next two years. And it will all get worse most of all on new immigrants.


They dont need to have other policies- imigration and europe are enough to push the electorate right. Politicians survive on votes- if they think the votes are to the right they will go right. And there are plenty in the Tory party long since fed up with Daves cuddling a polar bear, cyling to work, talking about gay marriage hug a hoodie agenda, and that would love to push politics more to the right. And UKIP has given them the perfect excuse.

anti-europe bill = unrelvent to debate

The Tories have been pushing for more controlled immigration before the rise of the UKIP, more to do with actually knowing who is coming into the country than fixing actual social problems (because there are very few REAL ONES)

UKIP have no electorate support = they have no power

/thread

#kindofsolvedthescotishquestion2
#maybe not maybe it's time to move on tho