ChatterBank0 min ago
Another threat to Britain allowed to stay here.
23 Answers
http://www.dailymail....transport-London.html
Yet another of the worlds trash allowed to sponge off the nation he plotted against.
When are these judges going to think about victim's human rights?
They say they cannot deport him because he could face ‘inhumane treatment or punishment’.
What about his intended victims and now any future victims,was he or would he be bothered about their ‘inhumane treatment'?
Yet another of the worlds trash allowed to sponge off the nation he plotted against.
When are these judges going to think about victim's human rights?
They say they cannot deport him because he could face ‘inhumane treatment or punishment’.
What about his intended victims and now any future victims,was he or would he be bothered about their ‘inhumane treatment'?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy-hughes
What has ex president Bush got to do with our war on terrorism, and why we can't get rid of those convicted of terrorist actions in Britain?.
He should be sent back to his own country even if he will face danger, which he most likely won't.
All those Australian or Canadian wives of British husbands who we hear are sent back to where they came from, simply because their visas etc have run out, what about their right to enjoy a family life etc, etc?
Why don't the 'Human Right' laws work in favour for them?
What has ex president Bush got to do with our war on terrorism, and why we can't get rid of those convicted of terrorist actions in Britain?.
He should be sent back to his own country even if he will face danger, which he most likely won't.
All those Australian or Canadian wives of British husbands who we hear are sent back to where they came from, simply because their visas etc have run out, what about their right to enjoy a family life etc, etc?
Why don't the 'Human Right' laws work in favour for them?
AOG - Ex (Thank the lord!) President Bush was, as far as I am aware, the first to use this ludicrous term as a blanket catch-all for his facist military interventionism which experience has shown serves nothing except undertakers.
It sounds great, and meaningful, and gung-ho, and patriotic, and it means ... nothing at all.
We can't get rid of convicted terrorists because they are supported by European Human Rights legislation.
The Australian and Canadian wives of British husbands are sent back because they are not suppoted by Human Rights legislation.
Why don't the Human Rights laws work in favour of them? I have absolutely no idea.
It sounds great, and meaningful, and gung-ho, and patriotic, and it means ... nothing at all.
We can't get rid of convicted terrorists because they are supported by European Human Rights legislation.
The Australian and Canadian wives of British husbands are sent back because they are not suppoted by Human Rights legislation.
Why don't the Human Rights laws work in favour of them? I have absolutely no idea.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.