Fatty Fatty Toad Boy Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Thought this was quite amusing from The Independent How goat-rustling claims led to pair's jailing A Dorset farmer's suspicions about a group of Muslim men looking at his goats became part of former Home Secretary David Blunkett's case for using emergency powers to detain two asylum-seekers. The farmer's fears that the men intended to steal the animals for ritual sacrifice were relayed to M15, where officers concluded that they were holding a clandestine meeting to elect a terrorist leader. This became part of the case against two Algerians, known only as G and H, who were imprisoned without trial under emergency anti-terrorism powers rushed through Parliament after 11 September. But now court papers seen by The Independent show that this intelligence had been rubbished by the tribunal that reviews the grounds for detaining foreign terror suspects. The Special Immigration Appeal Commission accepted that the police report may have only shown that the men were enjoying a male-bonding holiday. The judges concluded: "It is most unfortunate that a combination of a poor police report and a failure to look properly into the available information led to a mistaken attempt to paint a picture of a gathering to elect an emir or leader of a group." Since his arrest three years ago, G, disabled with polio since childhood, has suffered severe mental illness. After hearing medical evidence, the judges agreed to allow him to live at his home address. H, 32, came to this country in in 1993. He has been arrested and released without charge on four occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Perhaps they had some other kind of ritual in mind! Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzbomb Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 grrrr - it really does beggar belief, does it not? and paradoxically, they are talking about releasing 4 prisoners from the UK who have been detained in Guantanomo bay for the last three years - again charged with nothing and without trial...the british govt. has been naggin and naggin at the US to release these apparrently innocent men for ages - and now they have gone and set up this new prison in England to detain foreign (unlikely) suspects in exactly the same way... this policy is actually illegal and contravenes Human Rights Laws.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 grrrr - it really does beggar belief, does it not? and paradoxically, they are talking about releasing 4 prisoners from the UK who have been detained in Guantanomo bay for the last three years - again charged with nothing and without trial...the british govt. has been naggin and naggin at the US to release these apparrently innocent men for ages - and now they have gone and set up this new prison in England to detain foreign (unlikely) suspects in exactly the same way... this policy is actually illegal and contravenes Human Rights Laws.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fine – not a problem. Not for a moment. Not British? Been up to no good or strongly suspected to have been? SLING ‘EM STRAIGHT OUT. Straight back to their country of origin or to their destination of choice – always assuming they can find somewhere that will take ‘em. I fail to see why we should have to pay to keep scum that we don’t or can’t trust much less want. Get rid. Pure and simple. As for the Gitmo inmates, it should be remembered that in the vast majority of cases the inmates were taken under that a very few years ago would have resulted in them being rightly shot on site or shot as spies or fifth columnists. The ONE mistake regarding Gitmo was in the US believing that they might get Intel from them of a greater value than the propaganda loss of keeping those scum alive. War is nasty and inhuman. This war was not started by the West nor even yet by the US. Unless the West is willing to get down and get dirty as much as the other side we will loose. If the other side have rules of engagement and they adhere to them, then so should we, If the other side adhere to the Hague and the Geneva conventions, then so should we. But they don’t and so neither should we. International human rights? The islamic world don't even sign up to the same rules on human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzbomb Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 grrrr - it really does beggar belief, does it not? and paradoxically, they are talking about releasing 4 prisoners from the UK who have been detained in Guantanomo bay for the last three years - again charged with nothing and without trial...the british govt. has been naggin and naggin at the US to release these apparrently innocent men for ages - and now they have gone and set up this new prison in England to detain foreign (unlikely) suspects in exactly the same way... this policy is actually illegal and contravenes Human Rights Laws.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fine – not a problem. Not for a moment. Not British? Been up to no good or strongly suspected to have been? SLING ‘EM STRAIGHT OUT. Straight back to their country of origin or to their destination of choice – always assuming they can find somewhere that will take ‘em. I fail to see why we should have to pay to keep scum that we don’t or can’t trust much less want. Get rid. Pure and simple. As for the Gitmo inmates, it should be remembered that in the vast majority of cases the inmates were taken under that a very few years ago would have resulted in them being rightly shot on site or shot as spies or fifth columnists. The ONE mistake regarding Gitmo was in the US believing that they might get Intel from them of a greater value than the propaganda loss of keeping those scum alive. War is nasty and inhuman. This war was not started by the West nor even yet by the US. Unless the West is willing to get down and get dirty as much as the other side we will loose. If the other side have rules of engagement and they adhere to them, then so should we, If the other side adhere to the Hague and the Geneva conventions, then so should we. But they don’t and so neither should we. International human rights? The islamic world don't even sign up to the same rules on human rights. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ha Ha - such a great sense of irony.... or are you just absolutely fu%££%kin MAD!!!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 So you are for the arbitrary round up and interment of people based on their religion..maybe they should wear a star and have a bar code tatooed on their skin and then you will feel right at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 So you are for the arbitrary round up and interment of people based on their religion..maybe they should wear a star and have a bar code tatooed on their skin and then you will feel right at home. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read what I wrote and not what you would like to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 So you are for the arbitrary round up and interment of people based on their religion..maybe they should wear a star and have a bar code tatooed on their skin and then you will feel right at home. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read what I wrote and not what you would like to read. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I dont understand that...are you saying that you exercised some form of self-censorship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Ha Ha - such a great sense of irony.... or are you just absolutely fu%££%kin MAD!!!!? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There's always option #3 --- that I might just have a valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I dont understand that...are you saying that you exercised some form of self-censorship <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, that I was referring to non-British people who have given good indication that they are up to no good. Religion doesn’t come into it. This is about undesirable aliens, foreign. i.e. non-British people who have made themselves personae non gratae by their actions or suspected actions or affiliations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Oh phew that makes it all right then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 People who seem rather too uncritical of a dangerous foreign government, for example ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Oh phew that makes it all right then <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Well no-one can accuse you of not putting your views forward now can they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Oh phew that makes it all right then <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yes <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So in your opinion, the end justifies the means on the basis that you are doing what you believe to be right? Even to the extent of following the same actions of those parties that you seek to denegrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.