Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It is a bit half truths Ridgely.


If someone is a terrorist, ie we catch them doing something against the law, we will lock them up, either from a prevention of terrorism law or for something else (explosions, murder, sabotage etc).


If ty're a foreign national we'd like to be in a position to deport them either during or after their sentence, but if it's deemed likely that their country of origin will torture or kill them then we won't. We'll either try to find someone who'll take them or we'll do some sort of unsatisfactory half way house like a control order.


Recently we've done things like giving them to dodgy countries who promised nicely not to harm them, I'd be interested to know if they've been good to their word.


Mind you we've also recently turned a blind eye or have even colluded with sending people without charge to countries who specifically will circumvent due process for robust interrogation techniques (ie shove them in dank cells without anyone knowing their whereabouts and torture them). It's called rendition and something of a low point in this countries recent chequered past.


I'm sure you fully support human rights and back this country's (usual) stand on thinking torture and extrajudicial (or even judicial) execution as bad things?

Ridgley I think the way it works is that if you are convicted of a terrorist offence in this country you go to jail. Upon your release, you are deported. You are not, however, deported if your country of origin is likely to subject you to torture, or your life is genuinely at risk. This is true of all deportees, not just those convicted of terrorist offences.


Gamu was staying here on a valid visa that has since expired. Since the request to extend the visa was turned down, she has to leave voluntarily or be deported. At the moment Zimbabwe is not automatically considered a jurisdiction that would torture or kill returning citizens so there is on the face of it no reason for her to be given a special dispensation to stay. All immigrants on time restricted visas are treated this way.


So I think you aren't really comparing like with like, as it were. Terrorists don't get to stay for no reason, and people on expired visas don't get chucked out automatically. It turns on some quite strict rules about how likely the person is to be treated badly if they return, and how badly. It honestly isn't that easy a test to pass either - plenty of kurds were sent back to Iraq under the old regime when they were, in real life, highly likely to be treated badly, but the UK Border Agency thought otherwise.


Not sure if that helps?


{just seen that I cross posted with Mockney saying just about the same thing really}

we did cross post a bit LB, but you very rightly pointed out that we have often sent people to countries where they were in all likelihood going to suffer or die, Iraq being a good example as are a whole raft of rather troubled African countries, with Gamu's own Zimbabwe being something of a case in point.

She doesn't strike me as being particularly political mid you, but there have been examples.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If Simon Cowell was gay he would have found a way

> to cash in on it by now.


What do you mean, gay? Max Clifford has let it be known that Cowell pays him handsomely to fend-off the thousands of kiss-and-tell wannabes who were bedded by Cowell back in the day.


Uh, hang on - oh, I see.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • On what basis do you object to the economy spend numbers in the report and describe it as "extremely unlikely"? Is that objection based on data or is it vibes-based? Where does this estimate of "50-100 vehicles" come from? The objectors:supporters ratio doesn't speak volumes. Planning applications of this sort always receive objections from various curtain twitches and NIMBYs. It doesn't mean those objections are well-founded or sensible. The planning officers and councillors need to consider the issue objectively, not just count the letters. It's not a public vote. Saying the building is "out of character" is meaningless out of context. It's an unusual building on an unusual infill site. It's not supposed to be a model for future development across Dulwich as a whole.  We are in the middle of a housing crisis. London desperately needs more housing units. This is an opportunity to get a whole bunch of them on a small, unloved industrial site on top of a transit hub. Not building it because people like the Dulwich Society complains it's "visible" is crazy.
    • Not if someone wheels over it with a pram or a heavy footed person steps on it and it hasn't been tied up or is tied but explodes everywhere. Yuk! Agree we definitely need dog poo bins back again, particularly near Peckham Rye park, along Crystal Palace Road, and by Goose Green.
    • I would also like to thank James Barber for his full outline. Given what seem to be clear mistakes in interpretation of the plans by Southwark Council planning officers, there seems to have been a lack of due diligence. 
    • Many charity shops still take and sell CDs! Many people buy them! Locally, both the Mind shop and the Vision shop sell CDs. Possibly others who I've forgotten.  If memory serves, the Oxfam shop in Herne Hill does as well, though it sells them at a higher price than most charity shops. My partner is constantly looking through charity shop CDs, and delighted when he finds music he likes! Please don't bin them!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...