9 2 mins 11 yrs

WikiLeaks: Guantánamo Bay terrorists radicalised in London to attack Western targets

Wonder what you make of the news that Abu Qatada, a radical Muslim cleric once described as “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”, will be released on bail within days after the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was forced to heed the ruling from Strasbourg that he could not be deported to Jordan because of the risk that evidence obtained using torture could be used against him.

A senior immigration judge said yesterday that Qatada could be released despite even his own defence team suggesting that he posed a “grave risk” to Britain’s national security. Attorney General Dominic Grieve said the Government was bound by the rule of law “as much as anybody else”.

Remarkable! Here we have an individual whose own defence team agrees represents a “grave risk” to the safety of British people being released on bail (though the bail terms are quite strict) and in 3 months he may be completely free to do as he wishes.

Why? The supremacy of the European Court over British law. The primary function of any Government is to protect its people. Our continued subservience to the European political project denies that and raises the fundamental question WHY do we have bother having a Government if it cannot act to protect the British people?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. Our politicians continue to show contempt for the British people and defy their responsibilities to protect us. If their balls were as big as their egos, this guy would be out the door today, winging his way to Jordan.
    As it is our leaders will bleat on about the “rule of law” and the need to obey Strasbourg’s edicts.
    Funny, though. That same commitment to obey the laws didn’t extend to the rules on MP’s expenses…

  2. The (silly) Supreme Court in London has said there’s no need to take any notice of the ECHR in this matter. The politicians and the secretive and sinister Special Immigration Appeals Commission, in effect, are disobeying the Supreme Court, in that case.

  3. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom only has jusrisprudent legitimacey in English law, Northern Ireland law and Scottish civil law matters Pete.

    David is correct when he states that an Euro Court ruling has supremacy over British domestic law, (especially when viewed in conjunction with th HR Act 1988), If what you do say is true it’s going to be interesting to see how the Supreme Court in London can square this circle.

  4. I understand that the PM can overrule any legislation doemstic or European by enacting a policy under an ‘Order in Council’ approved by the Privy council and signed into assent by the Queen. He could order the immediate deportation of this individual by this method citing grounds of immediate national security obligations. It would be perfectly legal. Only an Act of Parliament could undo the order and I doubt if either house would attempt it.

  5. Right on, Troll.

    But this Mooslime turd shouldn’t be associated with “animals”. That gives “animals” a bad reputation.

    Having said that, it’s really the Brits and their Euroweenie pals who should be condemned. Condemned for licking the butts of such scum in the name of Political Correctness and “human rights”.

    As long as the Liberals are steering the ship it’ll end up like the Titanic……rusting 12,000 feet down!

Comments are closed.