Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Electrical wires, falling over the road!! :eek: :eek:

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

So you favour deporting UK citizens who are suspected of crimes. Which ones? All crimes, or only some of them? All the suspects, or only some of them?

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

She said "terrorists and their families", how specific do you want it?

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Don't get me started on what I would do with Jimmy Saville. Dirty Evil B....... Now it is 9 year old boys, and ?:demon::angry_smile::angry_smile: Mortuary! absolutely disgusting.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

How do you know who is a terrorist and who isn't? Or is "hate speech" enough to condemn you as a terrorist? You are getting rather PC, aren't you?

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

What would you do?

Personally, I would lock him up.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

cut his hands and ***** off. It is disgusting he got away with it for so long, and many more creeps are being exposed.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

If you want those sort of punishments, you'll have to go an live in one of those crazy theocracies of the Middle East.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

These 'hate speeches' encourage terrorism so yes, I would count making them as a form of terrorism. Why should we keep people in the UK, feed clothe and house them at the cost of our taxes when they want to destroy the system which allows free speach and equality.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Because "they" are British citizens?

However undesirable they may be.

Terrorism won't go away because we ship our citizens around the globe at the behest of other powers.

Who else would you ship out? BNP members? Would Arthur Scargill have been deported? The Greenham Common women? Anyone who stands up at Speakers' Corner and mouths off against the government?

Where do you start, and where do you stop? Who decides who goes and who stays? Who decides which "requests" for extradition will be honoured and which will not? Which countries are acceptable destinations and which are not?

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

We have been talking about a specific case!

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Indeed.

But you can't make law around a specific case.

That undermines everything a legal system in a fair, free and democratic country is there to uphold.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

We have an extradition treaty with numerous countries of which the USA is only one example - Having agreed an extradition treaty, the terms of that treaty and the offences covered you can't then renege on that agreement because you think the conditions they are being held in are too harsh or indeed for any other reason. If you disagree in principle with extradition, that's fine and is your view but what you can't do is pick and choose whom, for what and when extradition treaties can be envoked so as to comply with your particular views.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Indeed you cannot pick and choose. No argument there.

It might lead one to examine the extradition treaty more closely. As far as I know, nothing prevents a country from demanding change to treaties. Part of the problem seems to be that not much proof of "offences" is required.

http://rt.com/news/extradition-america-mckinnon-uk-029/

It isn't about this one bloke, it's about sovereignty really, despite those pesky waterboarding questions.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

If they are British citizens and the country provides sufficient evidence to commit them for trial then yes they should be extradited. If they are british citizens by naturalisation and they advocate/support terrorism then their British citizenship should be withdrawn and they should be sent back to their country of origin, if they are British by birth and advocate/support terrorism they should be tried for sedition or treason and if found guilty suffer the consequences.
Anyone who encourages others to kill or maim is committing a crime. The Greenham common women were not advocating violence as far as I recall and there is no problem with people who protest within the law.