Government loses Abu Qatada appeal

[Skashion]

I lived through the Pinochet times so am well aware of the controversy over that whole debacle, so stop trying to be a clever arse.
I'm talking about Abu Qatada. What was he accused of, in particular. And why shouldn't we want to get rid if successive Governments thought the same.

Fair enough. I shan't talk to you then. I assure you, I have zero desire to talk to you anyway.

 

[mackenzie]

I lived through the Pinochet times so am well aware of the controversy over that whole debacle, so stop trying to be a clever arse.
I'm talking about Abu Qatada. What was he accused of, in particular. And why shouldn't we want to get rid if successive Governments thought the same.

Fair enough. I shan't talk to you then. I assure you, I have zero desire to talk to you anyway.

Sees arse alert!!!
Bloody hell, was only asking a question.

 

[Aphex]

I lived through the Pinochet times so am well aware of the controversy over that whole debacle, so stop trying to be a clever arse.
I'm talking about Abu Qatada. What was he accused of, in particular. And why shouldn't we want to get rid if successive Governments thought the same.

Fair enough. I shan't talk to you then. I assure you, I have zero desire to talk to you anyway.

You really are a dick aren't you. It was a simple question was it not?

 

[Skashion]

Sees arse alert!!!
Bloody hell, was only asking a question.

If you'd been following. We have no idea what he was accused of because of how secretive our terrorism laws are. The Home Secretary goes to a judge and presents evidence, and a judge rules. Abu Qatada never had a day in court and for three years never even got to see the evidence presented against him. So, that's why we don't know.

So if the tories and Labour believe something, it must be right now?

We don't get on. I've never had any sort of interesting conversation with you where I've learnt from you or I feel like you've learnt from me. I just don't see a point in talking to you. It's a waste of time. Indeed, the fact that you think we should all agree when Labour and the tories agree just affirms my point. When Labour and tories agree, I'm usually of the opinion that whatever they've agreed on is the exact opposite of what we ought to do.<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:34 pm --<br /><br />

You really are a dick aren't you. It was a simple question was it not?

No, it wasn't, because we don't know.

 

[Aphex]

You know what your problem is Skashion? You are a robot. Any argument completely based in fact when all fact in relation to politics is not the full fact defeats the purpose, does it not?

Go out, get drunk. Smoke a joint. You might like it.

 

[paphos-mcfc]

Well, now he's gone. I'm upset that he won't be preaching hate here again as we need it. Forums and facebook will be so boring now that he's gone. I'm sure he had a nice holiday in the UK and will return soon. Meanwhile, he'll be in a prison in Amman having his toe nails and pubes pulled out.

What do I think? There is money involved in his departure. Big money (another cost from the UK taxpayer BTW)

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

. When Labour and tories agree, I'm usually of the opinion that whatever they've agreed on is the exact opposite of what we ought to do.

Exactly. They agreed on Pinochet as well. Milosevic died in his cell in the middle of ICC proceedings against him whilst Augusto got go back to Chile to die and receive a military funeral.

 

[mackenzie]

Sees arse alert!!!
Bloody hell, was only asking a question.

If you'd been following. We have no idea what he was accused of because of how secretive our terrorism laws are. The Home Secretary goes to a judge and presents evidence, and a judge rules. Abu Qatada never had a day in court and for three years never even got to see the evidence presented against him. So, that's why we don't know.

So if the tories and Labour believe something, it must be right now?

We don't get on. I've never had any sort of interesting conversation with you where I've learnt from you or I feel like you've learnt from me. I just don't see a point in talking to you. It's a waste of time. Indeed, the fact that you think we should all agree when Labour and the tories agree just affirms my point. When Labour and tories agree, I'm usually of the opinion that whatever they've agreed on is the exact opposite of what we ought to do.

-- Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:34 pm --

You really are a dick aren't you. It was a simple question was it not?

No, it wasn't, because we don't know.

So, in other words, you are better placed to judge this than those in the know. And you base that on your opinion that when those who are probably more in the know are not to your liking and it reflects the 'intellectual' paranoia summary that usually follows, that it must be wrong. If everyone who you don't trust is agreeing then it must be wrong? As in those who know more about it than you?!

As for the rest, agreed.
Any man that argues about abortion from purely an intellectual standpoint can do one for me.

 

[Skashion]

So, in other words, you are better placed to judge this than those in the know. And you base that on your opinion that when those who are probably more in the know are not to your liking and it reflects the 'intellectual' paranoia summary that usually follows, that it must be wrong. If everyone who you don't trust is agreeing then it must be wrong? As in those who know more about it than you?!

As for the rest, agreed.
Any man that argues about abortion from purely an intellectual standpoint can do one for me.

I know they don't have enough evidence to convict him of a crime, which is why he wasn't. That's how this country is supposed to work. You go to open court, present your evidence, and a jury decides. They know they didn't have the evidence to get a successful conviction so we can surmise from that, that it wasn't there.

I'm more than happy never to talk to you again. I don't value your opinions. You don't value you mine.

 

[mackenzie]

So, in other words, you are better placed to judge this than those in the know. And you base that on your opinion that when those who are probably more in the know are not to your liking and it reflects the 'intellectual' paranoia summary that usually follows, that it must be wrong. If everyone who you don't trust is agreeing then it must be wrong? As in those who know more about it than you?!

As for the rest, agreed.
Any man that argues about abortion from purely an intellectual standpoint can do one for me.

I know they don't have enough evidence to convict him of a crime, which is why he wasn't. That's how this country is supposed to work. You go to open court, present your evidence, and a jury decides. They know they didn't have the evidence to get a successful conviction so we can surmise from that, that it wasn't there.

I'm more than happy never to talk to you again. I don't value your opinions. You don't value you mine.

So you don't know then.

Thanks.